in the year ahead at 4 p.m. and at seven p.m., live from lansing, michigan where governor gretchen whitmer is giving her state of the state address. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.we are funded by these television companies and more including wow!. >> fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. we have speed, reliability value and choice. it all starts with great internet. >> wow! support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on today plus "washington journal," the center for new american security talks about the u.s. response to the growing tensions between u.s.

and ukraine and what means for the future of nato and a look at the biden administration's energy agenda. >> how students get admitted to colleges and universities is undergoing a significant change latest will go completely online by 2024. who gets admitted and what standards are applied may also see substantive change of the supreme court will take up two cases in the coming year on the role of race in college admissions. good morning, it is wednesday, january 26, 2022. welcome to washington journal. we will ask you about college admissions, in particular, the s.a.t..

should colleges drop the s.a.t. requirement for admissions? if you are a high school or college student, alignment -- or parent about student, the line to call is (202) 748-8000. educators, (202) 748-8001. and for all others, that line, (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. on facebook, we will also look for your post on twitter and instagram. we will get to your calls and comments momentarily. we will start with the first one that happened on monday, the supreme court. this is the associated press headline on that story, justices challenge race in college admissions. the conservative-dominated supreme court decided to hear a challenge that the consideration of race and adding affirmative action to major cases on abortion, guns, religion, and

covid-19 already on the agenda. the courts said it would take of lawsuits and the university of north carolina, a state school, discriminate against asian american applicants. a decision against the schools could mean the end of affirmative action in college admissions. that announcement by the court on monday. here is a story about the sats which was announced yesterday as part of evolution in where those standardized tests are going. the s.a.t. is going digital. the exam will be online only and shorter as colleges ditch standardized test. we are joined next by eric, a senior writer at the chronicle of higher education to talk about, in particular, the s.a.t. change in the significant stories in college admissions. good morning, welcome to washington journal. >> let's talk about the change in the s.a.t. first. what has prompted the change in the standardized test by the college order?

guest: within the nerdy admissions circles that i report on, this change has been expected for some time. many other popular standardized tests widely taken all over the world have already gone digital or at least have a digital option. it was just a matter of time before it was going to be announced that the s.a.t. would put down their number two pencils permanently. this was expected. i do think the pandemic hastened the change on behalf of the college ward to go digital in the near future. host: we have had 2020 and 2021 for those students taking those sat exams and other exams. how was that handled during those years of the pandemic? guest: one thing worth noting is the advanced placement exams, which are also run by the college board which runs the

s.a.t., they went digital during the early months of the pandemic , the spring of 2020. that was kind of a next bag. students took those digital exams at home because that was the only place to take them. that went well for many, but not others. the digital s.a.t. will be taken in schools. otherwise, what we are looking at is the college board, i think the most generous way to look at this is trying to provide more ease-of-use and better options for the digital age. many students even today have lacked access or easy access to in person test a testing centers where you sit down and bubble in your answer on the answer sheets. host: with the change in the s.a.t., students will still have to go to a center, right? this won't be a test you take at home. what about a student who doesn't

have a tablet or something that they regularly use for their school work for example? guest: that is a great question, and the answer seems to be that if a student doesn't have his or her own laptop and it does not have access to a device provided by their schools, many students in this country probably not have access to a laptop if they didn't own one already. the college board said yesterday that they would in such cases provide a device for students to take a test. how exactly that would work and how all those devices would be shipped to all of the high schools in the country remains tbd. host: the you see a time potentially when the standardized tests for most universities would be phased out? if so, what are the methods by which universities and schools are assessing students for acceptance? guest: two years into the

pandemic, we've seen just of responses out west. to california, you have the university of california which has gone test blind, or as many people say, test. the admissions folks in most institutions won't even look at it. california state, the largest in the country, is poised to go. they will be making those decisions in the years to come. the short answer is that many colleges have gone without testing for years if not decades, and the bulk of what they are looking at has always

been and remains what courses did you take in high school, what was the rigor of them, and what grades did you get? host: in terms of admissions to universities, the supreme court decision to take up those cases, the headline from one of your pieces, the chronicle of higher education, the supreme court has upheld cases again and again, will this one be different? harvard university and the university of north carolina. what is at stake for both of those schools are other schools that may be affected by the court decision? guest: there is something at stake here for all colleges and universities. in a nutshell, can admission busters add those to institutions or consider to continue race as one of many factors in their individualized,

holistic reviews of applicants? can they even look at that at all? that is the bottom line of what is at stake. whether the practice can continue or whether it would be banned essentially. >> that what has been around a while. was the court asked to consider that earlier? how far did that get before the court decided to take it up? guest: that went through two rounds. harvard won in federal court and on appeal and then the supreme court, then that case was appealed to the supreme court. the unc case was filed on the same day as that one and it took a little bit slower routes. the plaintiffs asked the supreme court to combine the cases which was their ultimate goal, to have these cases considered at the same time and that is what the court decided this week to

actually do. host: eric is a senior writer with the chronicle of higher education. you can follow is reporting online and he is also one twitter. really appreciate the update on both of those issues this morning. host: guest: thank you for adding me. host: our opening question, should colleges drop the s.a.t. requirements for admission? you can send us comments by text or by tweet. here are the lines. if you are a college student dora high school student or a parent, (202) 748-8000. educators, (202) 748-80010. all others, (202) 748-8002. eric said the word drop your pencils, which those of us who have taken it, standardized test know that phrase. here is the headline from the washington post.

drop your pencils, the s.a.t. is going digital. ditching paper test booklets and answer sheets. much shorter, shrinking from three hours to two. those changes and others announced by the college on tuesday will take effect at international test sites next year and domestic sites by spring of 2024. there are no plans to under the digital test to students at home. the third major overhaul in the past 20 years comes amid mounting challenges, unprecedented in modern times. the tests help uncover and confirm academic potential. critics say that they are biased and pose an unnecessary hurdle in the application process. disruptions to testing schedules and other aspects of education the public health crisis to see

was right. the abolishing objective standards he tweets, not hard to understand. the fat's weed out the ones who do homework and make the grade. dropping sat scores to get into college would continue the buying of a diploma. talk about dumbing down of america. in this one says the usa has a student loan crisis looming, democrats should solve it by giving some tax cuts who pay loans for giving $10,000 is owed that allowing those who make mistakes put a student loan on bankruptcy, the same way that a risky investor can walk away and start over after a mistake and one more from derek who says on the supreme court cases we talked about,'the supreme courts

sole purpose is to maintain white supremacy, he said. the question this morning, should the college instructors require the sats? let's hear first from marylin in san francisco. caller: good morning. i appreciate the question today and i just want to say i do think that the sats should go away and all standardized tests that have been required for college admissions. i think i am a good example of why they are really not held. i went to a good high school and then i was not able to afford the college prep that they required in order to get a good score on either of those tests, so i ended up then going to a pretty good university, i ended up at a very prestigious public university and did very well. host: did you find you met other

people who had similar experience to yours in terms of your performance on the sats, or inability? caller: no, because i ended up going to a very prestigious university with very rich kids who had parents who paid for them to get craft and tutors for the sats. it is just a moneymaking scam and to me, it just another intrusion, unnecessary intrusion of corporate america into what somebody becomes in this country because there is no need to have a corporation called the college board or something, where you have to pay for the test, you have to pay for the prep, you have to pay for books, you have to pay for a tutor. for what? to prove you are smart? like the guy said you just interviewed, the kind of courses you take, which i did take mostly ap courses, and the fact that you do well in them in high school should show that you have

the academic skills to do well in college. host: what did you wind up getting a degree in? caller: political science. host: thanks for calling in this morning. (202) 748-8000 alive for students and parents. (202) 748-8001 for educators. for all others, (202) 748-8002. should colleges drop the s.a.t. requirement? that is the opening question for you this morning. sat math scores mirror and maintain racial inequities, they say. in 1926, they write that the s.a.t. was created to give talented students regardless of income a chance to compete for college admission scholarships. nearly 100 years later it often excludes the low income students it was created to help. although the original exam was primarily aimed at economic diversity, part of the stated modern mission is to help increase racial diversity, two. black and hispanic or latino

students routinely score lower on the math section of the s.a.t.. a likely result of generations of exclusionary housing, education and economic i'll see which too often means that rather than reducing existing wage scraps -- gaps, it reinforces them. we investigate sat scores by using the college course publicly available data for high school graduates with a particular focus on the math section. in this analysis building on their earlier work from 2017, showing that there is a race gap in sat scores, highlighting any of the and hindering upward mobility. also in california on the others' line, let's hear from robert, good morning. caller: yes, the whole point of the sats is to determine readiness for university-level college abilities. i don't know why everything is now based on race.

there is nothing racial about the sats. the sats basically determine if you are ready to go to college. there are so many kids who are admitted to college to fail and do not graduate because they are getting in their and they have to be given remedial classes in math and english because they are not prepared, because their haskell diploma is worthless. so having standards in the s.a.t. is a good thing for all students. host: before we go to ellicott city, we will show you the headlines from the los angeles times on california. the cal state is poised to drop sat admission requirements as a chance to support scrapping the tests. california state university. largest university system in the nation is poised to drop the sat and act as an admission requirement, a move that would follow the university of california elimination of the exams and further shake of the standardized testing landscape

as hundreds of campuses across the nation shift away from assessments. ellicott city, maryland, good morning. caller: sure. i just want to say i agree with getting rid of the sat test. i am an academic and i teach in the social sciences. i think students come to the university who have scored high and what it does is it gives them an unfair advantage to get all the scholarships and all the resources, but then their heart is not in it or they prepped for the test, but not for the academic life that college will require and then they flunk out. and the other thing, i have seen students who didn't do well on the s.a.t. or could not take it or whatever, but they come in with a certain level of grid and they turn out to be the star

student. i just really think the test should be done away with. host: the previous caller mentioned remedial courses that students are often required to take in universities and colleges. do you find that to be the case? caller: absolutely. i agree with the previous caller. this is about someone making money off of people's aspirations. just get rid of the test. thank you for taking my call. host: this is from jason riley, opinion piece in the wall street journal this morning. a chance to remove race from college admissions, they headlined the opinion piece. he writes that talking about the supreme court cases, the plaintiffs in the cases against harvard and unc are hoping that the supreme court will finally stop kicking the can on racial

preferences which is essentially what it has been doing since the 1978 decision when the work had numerical quotas but said that race would be one of several factors in college admissions. nevertheless, it has become a major factor even while school admissions officers pretend otherwise, and they will continue down this road into the court decides that the constitution and the civil rights act of 1964 mean what they say: that discrimination on the basis of race is illegal. that is the opinion of jason riley, a wall street journal this morning. the line for educators, -- for students and parents is (202) 748-8000. for educators, (202) 748-8001. for all others, (202) 748-8002. here is how those tests are used according to the associated press. the research across the country about 80% of bachelor degree-operating institutions do not require test scores.

nearly 1400 of those, they say, of those extending that policy through fall of 2023 admission cycles, a lot a lot of that do of course to some of the change in the covid-19 pandemic. the numbers here in terms of who took the test, the class of 2020, 2.2 million students took the test. before that, 2021, 1.5 million students. that would have been in the spring of 2020 and that last group, the class of 2020. sat scores by race, and this is a combination of the math and the expanded writing and verbal, so the two sections. 1114 average for white students ,933 for black. this, 978. asian, 1223. robert, go ahead.

caller: i would like to give my little take on this s.a.t. because when i graduated from high school in d.c. in '83 and i went to a college in another state, the s.a.t. is taken on the east coast and the act is taken on the west coast. i had already been accepted, but what i found out, these are placement exams. so they know exactly where to place you when you enter into the college. i had already been accepted into the college, but they said he took the sat, but we don't know where to place him. so it is not exactly an entrance exam, it is a placement exam. at the time, they said we don't

know where to place you because the next chance is in august. the next test is in october. i am sitting here in new mexico tried to find a place to live and i have got to go to school because i am registered and they said we will let you know. you have got to take the act because we don't know exactly where to place you. so is not exactly an entrance exam. i had already been accepted by three or four different colleges already. by that time, they said we don't know where to place you. and so it is not an entrance exam, but a placement exam. host: right. caller: i could've taken a maybe 300 level course. host: where did you wind up going to school eventually? caller: university of new mexico albuquerque. host: and were you happy with your choice? caller: very much so. but at that time, like you said,

it was not just an inconvenience for me, but inconvenient for the school. matter of fact, i did take the sat in the wintertime. it was by the time the summer time came that they said you were accepted, but they never said anything about the act. so they didn't know exactly where to place me, so they had to put me at the bottom of the ladder. host: so the bottom line of the question, do you think that schools should drop the s.a.t. as a requirement? caller: i don't know about entrance, but as far as placement goes. they won't know what your qualifications are. they are going to review that. it is kind of a tough call.

as long as you have graduated, that is your entrance, your college. a lot of students, they come out at different levels. host: welcoming your calls on our morning questions. should the s.a.t. be dropped as an entrance for ironman? (202) 748-8000 -- entrance requirement? (202) 748-8000 for students, (202) 748-8001 for educators, and for all others, (202) 748-8002. also this morning, boris johnson is in the house of commons. he is facing a lot of pressure from the opposing party and others on parties regularly held during covid at number 10 downing street. here is a live look on the floor of the house of commons. >> the idea of a new national recovery using fines paid by the water companies so we can clean

the other rivers up properly once and for all. >> mr. speaker, i had a memorable swing myself at 5:00 in the morning. it tasted like nectar. i understand the problems he raises, it is very important that our beautiful rivers should be clean as well and we will be visiting the area with or without and i know that we are urging the welsh government. host: just to remind you, that is going on live now as we do every wednesday that they are in the house of commons, the prime minister's questions on c-span2. you can all of -- also follow on the c-span now app and we will be air the prime minister's questions at 9:00 eastern here on c-span more of your calls and

comment on our opening question, should the s.a.t. be dropped as a college admission airmen? this is becky usa today. s.a.t. is -- this is back to usa today. admissions exams will be online only and shorter. put down your pencils and grab your laptops, the s.a.t., one of the nations most commonly used entrance exams is going digital. the college board, the organization that administers the s.a.t., psat and other standardized test announced the change tuesday. the shift to online exams won't happen until 2024 for american students. international students will start testing virtually in 2023. they write that for decades, the s.a.t. or its competitor, the act, was required to apply to traditional colleges. the test ubiquity has faded in recent years as more colleges have ditched the exams as a prerequisite admissions. the test-optional movement

started before the pandemic but coronavirus shutdowns spurred even more universities to pause or drop testing requirements. according to the national center for fair and open testing, a nonprofit critical of the s.a.t., 80% of roughly 2304-year colleges are not requiring the exam for haskell students. tennessee, let's hear from an educator on the educators line wayne, good morning. caller: my name is wayne. we home-educated four children and they took tests to go into college and i think test are in equalizer because if rich people can prep their children to take the test, they have enough money to overcome financial obstacles and get more children into college. and there is no way that their

money is going to be an impediment to having more rich children in college than poor children. we were very fortunate, all our children got scholarships in undergraduate degrees for all four of them were very inexpensive. host: how much was the sat score a factor in each of your children's'ability to land a scholarship? caller: well, universities use a lot of different things, but yes, they did take the s.a.t.-act which they had done a lot better than i did when i took it. very good. they went to a local university that really wanted students that were in a self-directed school system, where their own initiative, they learned early that they have work to get down

and it is up to them to do it without a teacher sitting right over them two nurses that got to bsn and one that got an advanced degree. they are all very successful now. but it was a big factor. and i think it should remain a factor. i think that the advantages that people with money have, no matter what color you are not going to go away because of standard testing. i think he argument that standardized testing is a sub argument of " are there any standards today?" not only in college admissions, but we have behavior standards? do we have the standards that are character standards? if you want to be judged by character, you have to have standards in order to judge

that. we don't want to do that anymore. host: would you be in favor of, and some nations have this, a national standard? nations like japan, south korea and others have a national standard in terms of the entrances into higher education. with you be in favor of a national standard that has to apply to students, regardless of what high school they come from? caller: well, from a competitive standpoint, china, in order to get any advanced education at all, you have to go through rigorous testing. it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. the parents have the burden of educating their children, making sure that the standards that are set by the government are met by the children. the people that are successful in education today, the children that are successful have parents

that are interested in their education and that interest does not solely come from teachers. they read to their children when they are small. library books, math. they really have a handle on reading before they get to school. and that starts very young. if parents aren't involved, all children fail. host: john, next up, on the parent line. westminster, maryland, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my comment is the sat score, all the standardized tests should be dropped because they don't really measure how well you are succeeding, they only measure how well you can take the sat or the act. so you have to take prep courses, you have to study, you have to buy materials, and the

course itself, you have to pay for. you really are studying to take the test. and the test is not a measure of academic success, it is just a measure of how well you can take a standardized test. i remember going through this myself in the 2000's. the proctor is given the exam and you have this clock right in front of you the whole time keeping you under rusher here. i could take it well enough to get into college but i felt like many other students color did not have the tools to prepare and succeed. host: you point out the preparation needed if you undertake repairing for the test, studying just for the test, what in your mind would be other methods by which universities, colleges should assess a student's potential for

success at that university? caller: if you are able to graduate high school. if you have a problem with heisel standards across the country, maybe i would support the idea of a national standard. as you can tell by my accent, i am from the caribbean. everybody to graduate high school take a national test. host: where in the caribbean are you from? caller: i am from haiti. in 11th and 12th grade, both of those grades, you have to take a national exam administered by a national proctor. the universities know if you graduate high school, then you're are ready for college. but the point is everybody has the same chance. everybody doesn't have to spend money. there is not a barrier to advancement in terms of canonic's.

everybody goes to school, you study. here in america, everybody studies, make the standards very rare. it doesn't mean i have to spend money. it doesn't have out -- any bearing on how much i had my bank account. host: we are going to hear from another parent. emily calling from virginia, go ahead. caller: i heard the end of the previous caller and i completely agree. i am in loudoun county and a lot of people here spend hundreds of dollars per hour for test prep, take the test multiple times, and i don't see how that is a fair playing field. host: to take a test, a tutorial was hundreds of dollars brower for the act or the sat. caller: is not uncommon here for

people to pay -- we do more typically sat here, which some people, depending on schools, do take the sat. i mean, the act. but it is not uncommon here for people to spend hundreds of dollars per hour several sessions to prepare for the test. test points go up a lot by having these tutors that know how to teach kids how to play the game. host: do you know parents would say i would love to do that, but i can't afford it? caller: of course. even here, you have parents who are doing that. originally i thought maybe they could have it by school or by region, i'm sure we are looking at the schools, we don't have a lot of free and reduced lunch,

but even very wealthy schools, you still have a percentage of population who are still on free and reduced lunch, who are not in a position to pay that kind of money. to answer the question, i do think having it as an option where people who are doing really well and want to include that as an option, i think that is fine. but i think making the requirement, i don't see that it is a fair metric to measure, you know, whatever they are trying to measure with it because so many people are going about it so differently. host: thanks for calling, emily. reaction on social media, a

student who would object to it being dropped. the sat standard, that is. sue from new jersey said sat scores should not be the ultimate standard measure a capacity to learn. too much pressure on test-takers. schools need to look at the whole picture, not one little piece of it. the purpose of education is to educate, not just take money. and aptitude testing should remain as a way to assess a person's strength and weaknesses read it is important to educators and employers in placing someone effectively. this is an opinion piece from politico magazine. the headline, why colleges should ditch the sat permanently. she writes that abolishing sats for college admissions expand the applicant pipeline, brings more racial, ethnic and economic diversity to campuses, and

raises the aspirations of students residing on the tough side of american inequality. institutions typically claim in their mission statements to be educating future citizens leaders who contribute to society, but standardized tests are not good indicators of such behavior. she writes that they reaffirm existing wealth and structural advantages. schools should be encouraging rather than excluding students who face barriers. on our educators line, kevin is in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for letting me on the program. first of all, i think from the arguments that you have made previously, the argument is very good against this particular test. i also would put in a plug for students that most students feel

that they are over-tested proficiency tests that cover the same types of things. and colleges can have access to those instant wiring yet another test. but i think most of all because i am an ap teacher, there is a big difference in ap tests and sat tests. sat tests measure kids who are bright, but don't necessarily have a good work ethic. they do well and the college knows that they have both the work ethic and the intelligence, and so that is why i would favor these types of tests. i know several colleges like burton have abolished it. host: which advanced placement du teach? caller: i taught four ap courses. they are all social studies ap courses like geography, history,

those types of courses. host: in general, have you had feedback from your students that do go on to college that that course and that exam was held preparing them for college? caller: yes, the ap is pretty standard. i haven't found too many people who objected because they are basically college courses, and the smartest kids in the world can't pass the ap test unless they study. the kids who have done well on the sat test usually do pretty well. host: thanks for your input. bob is up next in irvine, california. caller: thank you. this is just another example of the dumbing down of america. ok? we want to go digital, why? because it is easier to change the scores and cheat on the test . but if you have an actual, physical paper ballot -- test

sheet, you have to actually go by that. the chinese and the russians, they are laughing at americans. i know for a fact that our friends in south korea and japan, it is so much tougher to take those tests and the quality of what they are doing is higher than what we are. we are just continuing dumbing it down. why? we are going to be taken over by marxist communists, that is all that is if you want to be in america, you have got to toughen up to your test. study, move ahead. host: bob in california talked about the online test, implying it may be easier to cheat. there is a piece in the washington post that says -- that talks about this. they write about the computer-based testing that will

enable the college board to beef up security. officials said there will be less -- less risk of stolen test booklets and much more variation in questions for individual students. testing will continue to be proctored at secure sites, but digital sat is not envisioned as an at-home test. in seneca, south carolina, our student line, no ahead. caller: thanks for having me. i think that this is kind of like a ninja loan for an education. we are no longer checking the credentials of anyone who wants to get an education. i think that the results with federally-backed loans, there could be a lot more people taking out loans. with the training and practice

responsibilities, i heard some people were saying that that is generally on the parents and i believe that more responsibility needs to be put on public schools to be training students for the sat and doing more practice sat exams. and you know, also with the digitalization of the test, i think that this poses as an opportunity to actually reduce the amount of standardized tests that the students are having to take. host: what has been your experience with the sat or standardized tests in terms of college admissions? are you a student now in high school, or college? caller: i currently attend clemson university. i had to take my entrance -- so, i took my sat and submitted all that and i took mine on paper, took the long test of the

traditional way, submitted all that information. then i also had to take online exams that were proctored by a live person who is actively watching. i don't think there's going to be a huge risk of cheating here. host: how big a factor do you think your sat score was in getting you admitted to clemson? caller: i don't think it was the most significant factor. i think they might have been looking at grades more, but i do think that it played a major role in the decision and how they choose who will succeed in their programs. host: appreciate your call. mary, new york, next up. caller: i am calling because i don't think the sat should be eliminated, mainly for two reasons. i am aware that wealthier families have their kids tutored, but i think the admissions officers are pretty sophisticated. they have been doing it for a

while. when your kid applies, most of them are looking for scholarships. the admissions offices know the family income. if someone gets a really high score from some poor place the same as someone near d.c., the admissions officers will understand that the kid from the midwest is just as smart as the kid from maryland or wherever. and i also think that -- i'm not quite sure how to explain my point, but for instance, my father did not take the sats, and he is a very bright man, but he never got to know how bright he was because he never got to take the test. he went through state school, whereas i got to take the sat and the achievement test and i went to harvard and graduated from there.

and i got to go because of my sats. a bunch of people get straight a's. i think there needs to be a further process that will help admissions offices distinguish who is really good. host: appreciate the call. this piece, a professor of english at city college of chicago. he is in favor -- against getting rid of the sat. the headline, keep the sat and the act. he writes that such totally irrational or irresponsible pushes in the name of helping minority students are leaving americans to unprepared for college, hindering minority students finishing education, sending the wrong message about what american institutions are learning value, destroying fun of the belief that hard work and personal accountability and further putting american national and international interest at risk.

you can find that at inside higher ed. whether they should drop the sat as an admissions were armored? the lines are for students and parents. (202) 748-8000. for educators, (202) 748-8001. and for all others, (202) 748-8002. donald is in washington. parent line, go-ahead. caller: good morning everyone out in america. i would probably definitely agree with a few of them, what sounded like responsible parents. if we start knocking off tests or requirements, i think we all know where that goes. i personally watched that, they

started doing that in high schools where kids, if they don't get left behind, that is exactly what happens, they get left hind because they are not hired to do anything. their parents are not required to be parents. so i think it falls back on the parents. i'm tired of hearing about race. i'm tired of hearing about all that. the only thing that i think it would allow is cheating and people that have lots and lots of cash to buy their kids' ways in. everyone doesn't remember about a year and a half ago, the hollywood elite in berkeley and whatnot got caught paying for their kids that were out screwing around, not doing their stuff? host: i don't know if you heard the parent from virginia, loudoun county public schools, talking about the cost of the preparation, hundreds of dollars per hour for a tutor. how do we make those courses

more affordable, more accessible to people who don't have that kind of money to get their kids prepped for those exams? caller: i think that all falls back with that word, preparation. you have to prepare. you can't just expect to pay your rent on rent day instead of working. you have to get ready for school. you can't just say billy had this that or the other, susie had this that or the other that other kids didn't have. we've just got to cut all stuff across the board. it is not going to turn out well. i don't know if you guys are paying attention to a lot of the stuff coming out of the colleges right now, you can be book smart, that ain't going to get you everywhere in the world. that will not keep food on your plate. i just think it comes back to the parents, and i'm just so sick and tired of hearing about

certain different things, especially race, because we are all on an equal playing field here unless you are stacked with cash. host: we have been talking about the change in the sat and whether colleges and universities should drop the ironman. we also talked about the two supreme court cases that will come up in the next term for the court on college admissions standards. here is another issue on college campuses are written about this morning in the washington times. college students grow uneasy about free speech. u.s. college students place a higher value on first amendment principles but feel increasingly uneasy for different ideological reasons about free speech on campus according to a survey released tuesday. more than half of students responded 59% of the poll that's a college campuses should let them be exposed to all types of speech even if they find it offensive or biased. republicans, 71%.

white, 65% were more likely to agree with that statement then independenta, democrats, black and hispanic students who said they feel unsafe under the first amendment. the director of learning and impact at the nonprofit said the paul reflects a trend since 2016 of college students feeling insecure about campus free speech for racial and political reasons. back to calls. otis is in detroit. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am here in detroit, and what i want to say as a parent that even myself who has four, almost five college degrees as a senior citizen now, that the act-sat really didn't reflect on

my ability. and my children, i was able to send them to universities, kid colleges and take the prep. it was hundreds of dollars my wife and i had to spend to prepare them. their kids were taking the sat in the ninth grade. the higher the test score as you go on, the higher score they keep. in our neighborhood, kids who couldn't afford an educator or handicap. some families couldn't even raise money to even pay for these. host: how soon did you have

those kids taking the act test, otis? caller: in the ninth grade. we had some kids going to the university of michigan and other students on full ride scholarships they were good students in classes, but the act was sending them to some state schools. another thing, stop comparing us to china and japan because that education system is a whole lot different and they don't have this multiracial, all the divided ethnic people in their country. they focus on the chinese and the japanese. we are not, and the blacks especially have disadvantages since the war two. no education, the baby boom, didn't understand from the parents as first generation.

and generation x, the cost of education got sky high. i was blessed to have all three of my children on full ride scholarships just because my wife and i hired this, and we are black. it cost a lot of money, we had to stay in a little small house that we've still got 46 years later to spend our money on them, education and other things instead of buying big homes and new cars, but we sent them to kitty college -- kidde college every summer. marilyn, monica. caller: good morning. i am against the sats. i took them myself, i don't think i had a fair shot with my parents didn't know anything about the sat prep.

i did have access to test free and reduced lunch, so that is how i was able to take it. i don't even know what my scores were, to be honest, because i kind of had no guidance going into college. i was able to go to college later as an adult on my own and i never had to take the sat. i did totally fine. i don't think it had any bearing on my performance in school. and i also wanted to touch on one of the callers who said that admissions boards are likely looking at income and correlating sat scores to potential incomes of if admissions boards were not able to notice a doctored photo of a different head on a different body for a rower or a tennis player, are they looking at each person's income? no. that is a totally different process. that is not something that is at the top of your education -- application saying what your income is and what you're able

to afford in terms of whether or not you should have the merit to be accepted. host: monica, thanks for the call this morning. a comment on twitter, like so many other institutions in this country, admissions tests are simply another mechanism for corporations to extract profits in order to allow americans to move onto a desired phase of life. drop it. timothy is an educator in arlington, virginia. caller: good morning. i say yes and no. we don't really have to get rid of the sats. we have rigorous curriculums. if they don't want to take the sat, we can track students into other curriculums such as the ib program, which is like a global

type of form of education that indicates that students would have to basically take different subject matters that will rate them on a global level and compare them to other students around the world. the international bark laureate -- baccelaureate program. we can start tracking them by other programs when they are very young. you have different sectors in society in which students are tracked at a very young age. as young as four or five years old, they start tracking students in curriculum programs.

host: you may have put your finger on something: how do we do a better job of that, of identifying across all levels and types and kids of different income levels, those kids who are showing potential and track those kids in addition to other kids, to boosting their ability? caller: the problem with the school system, it is like a maze. you have to have layers of knowledge to navigate the students to a very complicated system of stratification's. economic, social, so forth and so on. if you don't have that knowledge, it is almost like you are blind going through this particular maze, this particular system.

host: thanks for your opinion this morning. we will go to alan in south carolina. good morning. my point is that i don't think they should change the sat or get rid of it. i graduated from appalachia state university in the 80's. i think it should be more life skill questions. when you are a freshman, nothing on the sat really prepares you. those english questions don't really prepare you for a classroom, time management, most freshmen take too many classes and you get behind in the beginning. maybe they should change the questions up on the sat. i don't think it is economic. i am a blackthink that is the i. i don't think race is the issue.

i think it is the questions. host: some good points. more ahead here on "washington journal." up next, we turn our attention to the mounting tensions between russia and the u.s. over ukraine and the future of nato, with andrea kendall-taylor. she is a former senior intelligence official who focuses on russia and ukraine and his head of the transatlantic security program at the center for a new american security. later, a roundtable on president biden's energy agenda with christy goldfuss with the center for american progress and nick loris of c3 solutions. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a wealth management expert discusses his book, there is no free lunch, in

which he argues that the u.s. free enterprise system is being threatened by socialists and progressives. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, political scientist barbara walter with her book, how civil wars start and how to stop them, which examines the warning signs that often precede civil war and asks the question, could another one happened in the u.s.? she is interviewed by stephen heideman. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today get to the latest from the nation's capital -- gets you the latest from the nation's capital. the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how

issues of the day developed over years. our series talking with features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. 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. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by andrea kendall-taylor, the transit lennix security program director at the center for a new american security. she had from 2015 to 2018 served as national deputy intelligence officer for russia and eurasia at the national intelligence council and also spent five years as the senior analyst on that part of the world for the central intelligence agency. andrea kendall-taylor, thank you for being here on "washington journal" this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: based on your experience and career, what has been your

observation, how surprised were you by vladimir putin's moves toward ukraine over the has couple of years and certainly what is happening now? guest: i think the one thing we have learned since 2014 is that we should no longer be surprised by putin and his moves. in 2014, it was certainly a surprise when he moved into crimea and eastern ukraine. you think back from most of the 90's and the early to thousands -- early to thousands -- 2000s, nobody was really thinking about russia. it was a political backwater in the aftermath of the cold war. again in 2015, i think we had kind of a sense that there was no way putin would insert forces into syria. it was the first time they deployed forces outside the former soviet space.

we now have a pattern in which we are surprised by what putin is willing to do, the expense and risk he is willing to take in order to accomplish his objectives. here we are again, 2022, and i think this time around, it is maybe a little less surprising. we saw back in april, putin amassed troops on ukraine's border and in many ways that was a dress rehearsal for what we are seeing today. i will say after following putin for many years of my career, i think this is the biggest risk putin has taken, yet. host: given what you think vladimir putin's endgame is in this, what is he trying to get done? guest: that is the fundamental question. i think only putin knows exactly what it is he wants to accomplish, and that is what has made it so hard for the united states and europe to figure out how to respond to what putin has

been doing. he likes to keep his adversaries off balance, and so that is kind of where we are. i think he has two brought exemptive's. -- broad objectives. first is to keep ukraine in russia's orbit. putin is thinking about his legacy. he wants to be the russian leader who has returned russia to greatness. in order to do that, he needs to reassert his influence over ukraine and for him it is externally personal. over his 22 years in power, he has tried repeatedly and failed, to increase russian influence in ukraine. i think he is looking to take care of that unfinished business. at the same time, i think it is also more about -- i think it is also about more than ukraine. this is about putin wanting to revisit the end of the cold war. he wants to rewrite the rules of the european security architecture and he really wants

to mitigate u.s. influence in eastern europe, and i think this -- i think he thinks this is his time to push these objectives. host: that is what i was going to ask you next, about his recent moves of -- of assisting because asked on and what's more, russia troops are now in belarus. the washington post showing the locations of those military sites, and they report that the russian troops and the belarusian troops will conduct joint exercises february 10 through the 20th. guest: that's right. if you look at the map, they are basically around -- ukraine. because they have illegally annexed crimea, they are also present in the south and there would likely be a south flank to this operation if they should go in as well.

as you noticed, they have now moved forces into belarus which was a real game changer in signaling the trajectory of this. they continued those exercises this week and they will continue through february 20. russia has forces on all three sides of ukraine. they have mounted significant numbers, significant capabilities, such that they could launch a significant land invasion, should they want to, and they would have the opportunity to encircle kiev to extract maximum concessions from k of -- from kiev and the west. host: first of all, the announcement earlier this week of the 8500 troops put on higher alert, what is the meaning of that? guest: i think it signals a shift in how the administration

is thinking about approaching this conflict. so far we have really wanted to -- we were focused on articulate in the cost for putin for going in and wanting to preserve double medic space, to see if we could avert a crisis diplomatically. to me, this suggests they anticipate that conflict has become more likely and we are slowly starting to move into a posture of preparedness, i would describe it. these forces have not yet deployed. they are just at high readiness. the point is that we could very quickly respond to an outbreak of conflict. those forces would be intended to shore up our eastern flank, to reassure allies in places like poland and romania that share borders with ukraine, to basically give military firewalls such that if fighting breaks out, it does not spill over or cause other implications

for nato member states. getting back to the intention of that, i think it shifts the signal in the way the administration is thinking about it and it signals we are moving toward trying to get ready and prepared because i think the ultimate goal becomes to ensure that this conflict remains contained to ukraine. host: let me ask about the most obvious to the medic efforts, those high-level talks between secretary of state antony blinken and the foreign minister of russia. it appears that not much has happened on that front. are we missing something? guest: i think that's fair. we are at a stalemate. russia issued their list of demands -- actually it was two lists of demands. there are three priorities as the article he did them is number one, no ukraine and nato, no more nato support for ukraine

and other countries within the former soviet union, like georgia, and they basically want to have nato return to its posture in 1997. that is what they said are there three priorities. the united states said they are not willing to close the door to nato for ukraine. they've been very clear about some issues that they don't want to talk about. on the other hand, there is a whole list of topics that this administration has said they will engage russia on, and that has to do with stability mechanisms, transparency measures, where we have exercises in the size of those exercises. the administration to their credit, did not dismiss out of hand, putin's claims but took them seriously, found things in those demands they believed to also be in the u.s. interest and russia's interest, but that is

not the conversation russia wants to have. so we are at the stalemate where russia is sticking to its three priorities, the united states is saying we want to have a conversation about arms control and risk reduction measures and that is where we are, with this stalemate at the moment. host: missing from those negotiations is the ukrainian president. why are they not part of the conversation? guest: it is a very good question but i will say that this administration has done an excellent job, in coordinating with ukraine as well as our nato allies. they have basically taken up what you could call a mantra of nothing about you without you. nothing about ukraine without ukraine. there has been a constant line of communication. secretary blinken has been to ukraine several times. senior officials from several different agencies have been in contact with their ukrainian

counterparts. they are doing their best to ensure that no matter what we do vis-a-vis vladimir putin, we maintain unity and cohesion of the alliance. not least because that signals to putin that he is facing a united front, with ukraine, the united states and all of our nato allies and partners. host: our guest, andrea kendall-taylor, is a former intelligence official with the central intelligence agency, an expert in russia and eurasia. she currently serves as the transatlantic security program director at the center for a new american security. what is your organization about? guest: we are a think tank in washington, d.c., that is dedicated to informing and generating new ideas for national security and foreign policy. it is a research institution, trying to improve and enhance u.s. foreign-policy policy and

national security policy. host: we are focusing on the mounting conflict between russia and ukraine. we welcome your calls and comments for our guests -- for our guest at (202)-748-8000. that is the line for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. for independents and all others, (202)-748-8002. you can send a text as well, (202)-748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. we talked about the 80 -- 8500 troops put on alert but there are already tens of thousands of u.s. troops in bases across europe. in addition to that, what other military supplies, weapons, and technology is the administration providing ukraine? guest: that has been a key pillar of washington's approach to this conflict. it has been very much about on the one hand, articulate and the cost that president putin would face, should he escalate in ukraine.

sanctions, export controls and other economic measures that would raise the cost to putin. the other key pillar of the strategy has been content -- has been to continue to supply ukraine with military aid, to help ukraine defend itself against russian aggression. we heard the administration say they have given more military aid to ukraine this year then since 2014 -- than since 2014. we've seen pictures of munitions, antitank missiles, other things that will help ukraine defend itself. the goal is to signal very strong u.s. resolve to support ukraine, and to raise the cost to putin of any kind of military activity. ukrainians deserve a right to defend themselves, so the united states has said it will continue to provide that defensive aid in order to help them do that. host: let's go to our calls and hear from jerry in virginia,

republican line. caller: yes, good morning. russia has 130,000 troops ready to invade ukraine. we are sending equipment and troops to protect the borders in that area. the united states has already been invaded by over 2 million foreign troops over the past 12 months, and chemical weapons, thousands of pounds of chemical weapons. nobody knows what those people have got. they are not searched or tested for anything. whatever going to do to protect our own border -- what are we going to do to protect our own border? guest: i would say just a clarify, the situation in ukraine, we have put our troops on high alert, but president biden has been very clear that the united states will not put forces into ukraine.

we are not going to be putting u.s. soldiers in direct contact or combat with russian forces. but what we are looking to do is strengthen the eastern flank, to make good on our commitment to our nato allies and partners, and that is important for a whole host of reasons. we need to put in place does military firewalls to ensure that conflict doesn't spill over out of ukraine, and ways that would affect nato members. it is important to remember -- it is important to continue to re-assure our allies, and it is also important to signal to putin that we have the resolve, so that he doesn't think twice about taking this conflict any further and threatening nato members. there is one more important audience and that is xi jinping in china who will be watching closely to see if the united

states has the ability to marshal a coalition to respond forcefully and to change the security environment. for all those reasons, it is important that the united states does redeploy troops, at least along with our nato allies and partners, to really shore up and strengthen that eastern flank. host: every news report seems to say 100,000 troops, russia has 100,000 troops. russia certainly isn't sending out press releases on how many troops it has surrounding ukraine. how do we ascertain those troop numbers? guest: it is based on a lot of satellite imagery. a remarkable change from years past is the extent to which a lot of that satellite imagery is now available in open source. there are a lot of people in our intelligence community with additional assets that can ascertain where troops are, what types of equipment ukraine --

russia is positioning. it is based primarily on that satellite imagery, that helps us see and gives us visibility into what is happening at the border. host: let's say there is not an invasion and everything settles down to a state where there is no invasion in some sort of resolution happens. do you think many of those troops will remain permanent on ukraine's border? guest: that is a good question. what we saw in april, when russia did increase its force on ukraine's border, they subsequently withdrew many of those troops, but it is the case that many forces remained in place. i do think that we have seen a real significant upping of russia's military posture in the region, that allows putin to dial up and down the tension as he likes. i think he set a new floor for what we should expect of

russia's military posture in the region. that said, they would not be deployed in the same way that they are now. those forces i think have a shelf life. president putin can't sustain the posture that he has now, without degrading the readiness of those forces. he can't keep this posture up indefinitely because it is so taxing on the russian military, but your point is a good one, but i think they really have militarized that region in a way that set a new floor for give -- new floor that gives putin this remarkable ability to escalate or de-escalate as he so chooses. host: in maryland, our next caller is sarah. caller: i had a quick question. in terms of russian aggression or the history of russian aggression, when it comes to crimea, did russia invade

crimea? i'm hearing conflicting information. or was there a vote? i'm curious about what is true. guest: that is an excellent question. what happened is in 2014 there were major protests in ukraine that led the president at the time to flee. at that point, russia was extremely concerned that ukraine was drifting away and would make a decisive move toward integrating with the west, the european union, the ties with nato were deepening. putin putin made a choice to send military forces, called a little green men because they didn't have the insignia. it was very much a covid hybrid operation. part of the reason they were able to do that operation in that way is because russia historically has maintained a military base in crimea. that made it really easy for

russia to mask what they were doing. they did send in these little green men. they did take crimea by force, but then what putin did was they took this to a referendum, and they gave the people of crimea a choice, of whether to stay with ukraine or to be part of russia. there are a lot of ethnic russians in crimea, given historical ties but the critical part of this is that was not a free and fair election. so what happened is given the russian influence and the forces that were present, we don't recognize that election as legitimate, and it should not be considered that way. that is a mix of both of what you said. they did come in and take it by force. they put it to a referendum but it was not a free and fair referendum. obviously ukraine does not recommend -- does not recognize crimea.

the united states and most of the world does not recognize it that way because ultimately it was taken by force. host: an russia considers crimea part of russia now. guest: that is correct. host: let's hear from james in virginia, republican line. caller: i am just confused. during the h. bush presidency, we worked hard to get along with putin. then we had three years of russia collusion making putin look like the bad guy. you say he's been in power so long, but merkel from germany just got out of power and she only served three elite three years less than putin. she probably would have run another term if she had more popularity, but we continuously make putin to be this bad guy. correct me if i'm wrong, he hasn't gone into ukraine yet, has he? if he hasn't gone in, why can't

he be up on the border? it's his sovereign country. we are truly making more of this than it is. he came out during the russian collusion thing and said they had nothing to do with it. host: ok, andrea kendall-taylor. guest: it is a great question but i see that differently. the most important thing is to return to our conversation we just had about crimea, and recognize that russia has already invaded ukraine. they already seized a part of an independent country. they took crimea by force, and then backed an insurgency in eastern ukraine. there are still russian backed forces that are present in parts of eastern ukraine, in a region. russia has already sought to alter a country's borders by force. that is really what is at issue here. since world war ii, it is a

long-standing principle that countries can't change borders with guns and by force. we've already seen that in 2014. it already happened. here again, i think we are on the precipice. president putin being willing to mobilize his let terry to change borders by force. he is basically asserting that ukraine doesn't have a sovereign choice about the international organizations that it chooses, that ukraine does not have a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy. that is what the united states is pushing back on, that we believe in this idea that countries have a right to choose their own foreign policy direction, and that putin does not have a veto. we don't believe in this idea that fear is an influence and that somehow putin has a veto. to that merkel point, putin does

not -- yes there are elections in russia but the playing field is so skewed that it is not possible putin could lose an election. if you like the last couple of years, the rise in the level of repression, the number of assassinations and attempts against his opposition, russia has really become a much harsher authoritarian system, and one that is trying to rewrite the rules by using force, and that is what the united states and its allies are looking to push back against. host: on germany, is nato's position at all weakened by germany's reluctance or hesitancy to enforce sanctions against russia, perhaps considering some of their reliance on russia for the gas that heats their homes and powers their factories? guest: i would say no. if you just take a step back, i think there have been really

remarkable degrees of unity and cohesion among the 30 members of nato and partner countries. of course there were going to be bumps and bruises in the road and there have been questions about how far germany is willing to go, but that is to be expected. if you think back where we were in october, when the united states started warning about unusual russian military activity on ukraine's border, we didn't have a common picture. since then, we have built that common picture and we have coordinated with allies on how to respond to a whole spectrum of russian activities -- actions in ukraine. i would offer to say that i think that has caused putin to hesitate. when he raised the stakes in ukraine and threatened ukraine, think he was gambling on a united states distracted by our own troubles, a united states

that wants to be focused on china, and i think he was betting that in the wake of the drawdown in afghanistan, that the transatlantic alliance would strain and yet here we are. i think there has been remarkable unity within the alliance. host: our next caller from new jersey, democrats line. caller: i was wondering, the cia used to do a lot of intelligence work on this stuff and they could be useful in some areas. that's it. host: i didn't catch all of that question. andrea kendall-taylor, did you catch it? guest: was your question just what happened to the cia? host: i think he hung up. we will move on to fill in brooklyn park, -- move on to phil in brooklyn park, independent line. caller: i've lived in both countries.

i'm well aware of the situation. i lived in ukraine and russia. i've even been in both breakaway regions of ukraine. i think the biggest problem is, there is no one to diffuse the situation. we have to realize that both countries have over 10,000 nuclear weapons, and you have three leaders with different perceptions of the same situation. you have vladimir putin, sitting as the next coming of joseph stalin. you have the ukrainian president who before he became president was a comedian, and then you have biden, the american president that is seen as being weak. i think the danger is there is

no one to diffuse the situation, and i just think it is totally crazy that the u.s. government gives the ukrainians $200 million worth of arms. you can't tell the russian government where to place their troops within their own border. host: we will get a response from our guest. guest: you raised an excellent point about being in a security spiral, and where when we do something that we perceive as defensive, russia views that as offense of and we are caught in that spiral and i think the other key dynamic is that there were a lot of questions about whether or not putin has backed himself into a corner, and if there is any offramp at this stage that would be good enough such that putin would not look

weak mystically. -- look weak domestically. i think the biden administration has done a remarkable job with its commitment to diplomacy. they have had a commitment to pursuing the diplomatic path as long as possible. they have clearly stated -- also as i said before, to their credit, when the russians issued their list of ultimatums, the united states did not dismiss that list out of hand but rather looked through that list, to see what about russia's security concerns the united states would be willing to discuss. being very clear about red lines about those things we won't discuss, that there is a whole host of things that we have put on the table that would be in america's and russia's mutual interest to discuss. the size and location of exercises, missile deployment, other reductive measures. the conversation would make us

both better off and address long-standing challenges in the european security architecture. but that is not the conversation that putin seems to want to have, and he seems to have a much more maximalist objective. we have tried extremely hard to diffuse the situation and pursue diplomacy but ultimately, there are certain things that -- principles that we are not willing to compromise on, and in that case i think we have presented putin with a very stark choice, to have this negotiation on arms control and other risk reduction measures, or we are going to implement economic sanctions, rethink our forced posture in europe. -- our force posture in europe. i think the choice for putin is clear but ultimately it is up for him. host: the new york times headline last week, when will the u.s. stop lying to itself about global politics?

in ukraine, the highest for your were should be preventing war and ensuring that ukraine remains a free society. a deal that tacitly acknowledges russia's veto over ukraine's military alliances is worth swallowing in order to achieve that, since in practice russia already wields that veto. it is far better than a full-scale russian invasion which would expose the limits of america's commitment to ukraine and turn the entire country into a battlefield. what do you think of that view? guest: i think it is the piece about the tacit agreement that ukraine won't join nato that is problematic. that is not what putin is after. president biden has already made clear that given where ukraine is on some key democracy indicators and where they are in their military modernization, it'll membership is on the horizon -- nato membership is on the horizon. i think putin wants a formal

agreement, and that is just something the united states is unwilling to do because it compromises that core principle about sovereignty and a country's right to choose. it is not just the united states but within all of them members of the nato alliance, that is not the direction our allies want to go because of the importance of upholding that principle. i don't think some sort of tacit agreement is going to satisfy what putin is after. it is also about nato and that is a key piece of this but for putin, it is also about keeping ukraine in russia's orbit. even if we were to make some sort of agreement like that, at think we should not -- we should not be under any illusion that russia's attacks on crane and ukrainian democracy would subside. i don't think that is what putin is after. it might be part of it but he

wants a formal guarantee, and i also think he wants autonomy for regions in the east, that would give russia a permanent veto over ukraine's foreign policy, and that is really what is at stake. host: our next call is richard in new york. caller: i just want to say brian lamb is a patriot for having c-span and andrea -- i think that is the objective. i think the way the u.s. left afghanistan gave them a green light, to russia and the chinese , and i think with climate change, ukraine, china and russia -- host: a couple issues. guest: your point on afghanistan is an important one. that might help explain some of the timing for putin's actions.

from putin's, i think that is part of the -- from putin's perspective, i think that is part of the calculus, especially the impact that the u.s. drawdown in afghanistan had on the transatlantic alliance. that was difficult and it strains in the relationship -- and it put strains in the relationship. i think putin was judging the alliance would not be united enough to stand against russian aggression. there are other things that i think helps plane the timing. president zelensky came into power and i think putin thought he could deal with president zelensky and that he would be willing to implement part of the minsk agreement that would give russia that autonomy in the east. the afghanistan piece is part of this broader calculus. it is remarkable to see, however, that with putin's aggression, he is bringing about outcomes that he has said he

wanted to avoid. this has been a tremendous catalyst of alliance unity. in the wake of afghanistan, the alliance was kind of searching, it was strained, the european union was wanting to assert a larger role over european security and by taking these actions, it has been a huge catalyst and has reenergized nato to refocus on that core mission, so putin's actions are eliciting the exact opposite outcome, i think, it runs very counter to russia's strategic objectives. host: for further reading on this, our guest has a piece in the current foreign affairs, the myth of russian decline, why moscow will be a persistent power. a couple more calls. we will go to carl in missouri, democrats line. caller: hello. i'm 78 years old, a veteran.

please don't cut me off. it might stop world war iii. kennedy kicked khrushchev out of cuba, because they brought their allies to close to america. it is perfectly reasonable, even though i am not a gorbachev fan, but i will tell you something. he's got a right to say -- nato has pushed them to the russian border, so close. this man has a reasonable fear in his mind, of the cold war still going on. this lady we are talking to is a smart woman but she wasn't even born in most of the cold war. i'm not putting her down, she is a sweet lady but we don't want world war iii. we don't want ukraine in nato. we don't want georgia in nato.

we want to mind our own business. we want to respect putin because he has legitimate fears. 20 million russians died in world war ii. listen to the guy. let's not try and put nato in ukraine. let's stop the bs. we are going to have world war iii. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: i hear your concerns, and i think my response is to take one step back and think about why nato expanded in the first place. it is in large part because of russia's aggression. many countries have wanted to join a defensive alliance because of russian aggression. that is first and foremost, something that we need to remember. second, i think it is important to think about the principles that we are looking to uphold. if we allow a country to change borders by the use of force, we

stand the risk that russia keeps pushing beyond that. if he gets away with this and the united states and our allies do not respond to that -- and we are not talking about finding a conflict, we are civilly saying that we will impose costs. we will equip the ukrainians to help defend themselves from russian aggression, and we will implement sanctions and other economic measures because it is not acceptable for a country to change a border by force. we are not looking to get into direct conflict, but we will reinforce the eastern flank, we will reassure our allies, we will signal resolve in order to support and enhance the credibility of nato, which is a defensive alliance, and i think again, it's about russia that there is also another power in the pacific with xi jinping.

he is also watching very carefully, how the united states can marshal a coalition to respond, and if we don't do it here, i'm not saying china is going to go in and look to take taiwan, but it is an informative signal of america's willingness to defend the rules and to marshal a coalition to respond to that type of revisionist behavior. host: our next caller in syracuse, new york, republican line. caller: let me first say, kudos to c-span. it is pretty clear you heard some of the recent complaints about the call system, and it's obvious you have really done a big job recently from this call. for your guest, she said that the u.s. doesn't believe or doesn't think this recent

election in ukraine was free and fair. just to give us a baseline, so we know where she is coming from, do you think that the 2020 election in the united states was free and fair election? host: we will leave that. guest: what i was referring to in ukraine was back in 2014-2015 with the illegal annexation of crimea. we were talking about that referendum. that is where we saw a russia deploy significant resources to ensure that election was tilted in one direction. i'm going to leave it there. i think it doesn't have as much to do with our election here. i will keep it focused on ukraine. host: andrea kendall-taylor, heads the transatlantic security program at the center for a new american security. we appreciate you being on with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: next up on the program, we

have some time until 9:00 for you to call in, and open forum, a chance to weigh in on politics and political and public policy issues in the news that you are following. the lines are the same. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents and others, (202)-748-8002. start calling and we will get to your calls momentarily. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 19 624 civil rights act, the 19 624 presidential campaign, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded.

>> certainly johnson's secretaries new, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> yes sir? >> i want a report on the number of people assigned to kennedy on the way he -- on the day he died. if my numbers are not less, i want them less. if i can go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcasts -- app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is open forum on "washington journal."

your chance to weigh in on issues. (202)-748-8000 is the line for democrats. it is (202)-748-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for all others. we are exciting to hear from the secretary of state at 10:00 eastern, hoping to take you there live with his comments on the mounting tensions between ukraine and russia. 10:00 eastern here on c-span. other stories this morning. the wall street journal headline, deaths highest in nearly a year. covid-19 deaths in the united states have reached the highest levels since early last year, a clip sing daily averages from the recent delta fueled search after the newer omicron variant spread wildly through the country and caused record shattering case counts. the newly reported covid-19 debts reached 2191 -- reached

2191 a day. data from johns hopkins university shows. while emerging evidence shows omicron is less likely to kill people, because of the variant spreading with unmatched speed, the avalanche of cases can overwhelm and emit getting factors. quote, you can have a disease that is for any particular person less deadly, but if it is more infectious and reaches more people, then you are more likely to have a lot of deaths. the chief of mortality statistics at the national center for health statistics, part of the cdc. political news this morning. announced yesterday in a tweet from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi running for her 19th term, making the announcement yesterday by video and on twitter. in that tweet yesterday, she says well we have made progress, much more needs to be done to improve people's lives. this election is crucial.

nothing less is at stake than our democracy, but we don't agonize, we organize. she says i am running for reelection to deliver for the people and defend democracy. let's go to calls. next from sheila, in new york city. go ahead. caller: i would like to comment on this last gal i saw on the russia-ukraine matter. she is totally -- host: mute your volume, and then go ahead with your comment. you are hearing yourself as feedback. caller: sure. in any event, just to pick up. the gal i just saw was really obsolete -- really obfuscating the facts. i saw on rt tv in 2014, there was no invasion of crimea. they were all russian nationals.

there was a referendum. i never saw such a turnout. when the results came in, which were 99% in favor of returning to russia, they picked russia forever in the first place, i never saw -- it was like the fourth of july. i think you need to have a balanced approach. i think if you could get someone on from the foreign ministry of russia, to get another point of view on these things, i think it would be helpful. i know that is a lie whatever she said. we just don't recognize referendums that they don't go our way. that's all i have to say. i think a more balanced -- someone from the russian ministry, someone who can get that point of view. host: thank you for the input. lewis in oklahoma on the republican line. caller: i have a question. i am a vietnam veteran.

is this situation with ukraine and russia going to be another vietnam? i sure hope not. i would appreciate any comments. host: a story about the conflict in ukraine. this is the headline from the new york times. u.s. seeks other sources of gas and oil in case russia cuts supply. the buy demonstration announced on tuesday it was working with gas and crude oil suppliers for the middle east, north africa and asia to bolster supplies to europe in the coming weeks, in an effort to blunt the threat that russia could cut off fuel shipments in the escalating conflict over ukraine. they write that european allies have been cautious in public about how far they would go in placing severe sanctions on moscow if it invades ukraine. germany has been especially wary and has a shuttered many of its nuclear plants, increasing its dependence on natural gas. imports to generate electricity. many european officials have

said they suspect president vladimir putin of russia instigate of the current crisis in the depths of winter for a reason, calculate he has more leverage if he can threaten to turn off russian fuel sales to europe. in california, this is al on the democrats line. caller: i have -- i am asking -- what i notice about putin all these years. he's been very crafty with his movements and so forth. why is it i don't see these people in the united states who realize that if you would look at the personality and so forth, it remind me of what happened in world war ii when hitler's came into power. he had his goals of expanding. yes the russians lost over 20 million people, but is there any understanding why he does this? all he has to do is join nato andy solves the prop -- and he solves the problem.

host: our next caller, karen on the independent line from kentucky. caller: i just wanted to say i wish people would stop watching the opinion shows that call themselves news, and just pay attention to the facts and look at our secure websites on how people voted and whatnot. authoritarianism is going to be happening in the u.s. very soon if it hasn't already, with corporate america running everything, and it's both parties. you just have to know who to trust. host: when it comes to news and such, who do you trust? caller: well, you guys. you are about it. i just find that i have to rely on myself to look at the secure websites. i don't go to either party

because when the primary, i look up each candidate, no matter what and see what they've done because that is the only thing we can tell us what they've done, not what the -- the only thing we can count on is what they've done, not what they say. host: we appreciate the call. a couple headlines in the united states. usa today, putin won't stop with ukraine. i want to read this other headline as well. this one says $1 billion aimed at healing harm from interstates, talking about money from the infrastructure law that was passed. they write that kendra london grew up in the blackboard neighborhood of houston -- blackboard neighborhood of houston -- blac neighborhood -- black ward neighborhood of houston. -- a situation london calls very painful. quote, it seems to be racial tradition in my community.

the texas department of transportation did this before, she said. london's 83-year-old grandmother remembers how construction of i-10 damage the fifth ward during the 1960's. black and latino neighborhoods across the united states were destroyed to make way for the interstate highway system. businesses were shuttered, places of worship were closed and according to an estimate by the former transitory secretary anthony foxx. president biden's infrastructure investment and jobs act includes $1 billion to reconnect minority neighborhoods. experts and advocates told usa today more resources are needed, despite the historic investment. it is open forum, and we go next to patrick in maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. what i wanted to do was emphasize the young man earlier in the program that was talking

about the s.a.t., and that essentially the should be a national standard. -- there should be a national standard. i totally agree with that. this is where the s.a.t. becomes a problem, because there is a national standard. in baltimore, there is a school where the average graduate graduated with a 1 point average, which is absolutely unheard of. when i was listening to a commentator talking about it is the parents' fault, i'm sorry, i think our educators and teachers need to be more accountable, our schools need to be more accountable. there is a national standard across the board in all communities and all racial societies. this is where the disparity comes from.

with the s.a.t., i think the issue still exists. i still think it should exist because i do believe that what it will do is emphasize exactly just how well the students are doing at each individual school, and they should be emphasized that this particular school graduates this particular student with an average of this particular sat score, to really kind of center that the teachers need to buck up, the teachers need to teach, the teachers need to make sure that their students, whether they go to college or not, are prepared for society when they graduate. host: to lester in minnesota, republican line. caller: yeah. host: we are here. would you mind muting your volume on your television? then go ahead. caller: i'm calling on the

ukraine thing. i watched canadian news here the other night, and they went into these areas where all the fighting is at, and they talked to people, and the people there, they want normalcy. they want their life back, their houses, their farms, everything is all shot to pieces. have we sent anybody there to see what is going on? i haven't seen that. they had a pole that they could go back to russia and they voted yes. if you go and see what has gone on, you will agree with them. that's it. host: here is a story from the hill on the situation in ukraine. the headline is russia holds military exercises, sends more forces to belarus. russia deployed more forces to belarus on monday in preparation

for joint military exercises, set to be carried out next month as tensions between it and nato continue to flare, due to the buildup of soldiers along the ukrainian border. this is john calling from new jersey, on the independent line. caller: good morning everyone. on the russian situation, it reminds me so much of our own situation going into iraq. what a mistake that was. i felt it was a mistake at the beginning. russia going into that country is very similar to us going into iraq. we were bogged down in iraq, they will be bogged down there. we were bogged down in afghanistan and so was russia. i think putin has learned from that. he's not going to enter that country. he's making some kind of threat, but trying to do it for a land grab.

that is what he's after. that situation, russia is going to get the worst of that. they are going to put themselves in a situation in they invade, that the russian people will eventually kick putin out over. when they start seeing russian soldiers coming back in body bags, putin's days will be numbered in russia. let is the point i want to make -- that is the point i wanted to make. your previous guest that you just had on refused to say that the 2020 election was not stolen. i think every guest that comes on should be asked the question, do you think the 2020 election was stolen? every guest. make them come out with it. host: i think she was trying to keep it germane to the

conversation we were having. that was her option to be able to do. guest: i disagree. i think she intentionally did not answer that question. host: ok, we will go to clarence in wisconsin, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to appeal the all -- all the independent listeners out there. i'm a 79-year-old veteran, 1961-1965. in 1947, congress passed the 27th amendment, limiting the president to two terms. they said too much power for too long as a threat to our freedom. it's time to limit congress for the same reason. please, every independent voter out there, think about this. it's time. i just heard the lady is running for the 19th time. our framers did not want everyone to make a career out of this. they just wanted you to get in

there and do a little help. will thank you very much. please vote out all incumbents this election. host: let's go to harold in florida, on the republican line. caller: we see all the things that biden and the democrats are doing to supposedly clean up elections when in reality, everything they are doing is to confirm the democrats winning elections through subterfuge. the reason america has to be alert about this is because they are doing it for a reason. biden has taken bribes from our enemies. you name an enemy country, russia, china, everyone that is an enemy, they've taken millions from. china loves giving the family $31 million. don't tell me he is not scared to death of the publicans coming to power and wanting to investigate this. to think that we areto say thiso

is like, it's asking people for ids. you have to look at the election and see what the facts are now. it's unbelievable what they discovered in arizona, georgia and other states. host: still more and here on washington journal, we will turn our attention to president biden's energy agenda. we are joined by experts on both sides of the aisle, christy goldfuss from the center for american progress and nick loris from c3 solutions. >> sunday, february sixth on in-depth, georgetown university law professor sheryll cashin will discuss her books.

join in with your calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets for cheryl cassian live sunday, february 6 on book tv, on c-span two. ♪ >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span two. ♪ c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital.

every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works, while we use audio from our immense archive to look at how the issues of the day developed over years, and our occasional series, talking with, features conversations with historians about their lives and work. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile lab, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪

>> washington journal continues. host: we are going to spend much of the next hour talking about the biden administration energy agenda. we have christy goldfuss, with the center for american progress, senior vice president for energy and environment. she also served in the obama white house as the white house counsel quality managing director during the obama administration. also joining us is nick loris, with c3 solutions, there pup -- their public policy vice president. good morning. guest: good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have a question for you, the goals set by the biden administration, we will go to nick first, they plan to get

to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and that zero emissions by 2050. how much progress to think the administration has made on its goal? guest: i think some. there has been some positive development that will probably have longer term payoffs, for instance, there have been about $60 billion plus allocated to the department of energy through the bipartisan infrastructure bill that will have longer-term payoff for clean energy technologies like hydrogen and energy storage and direct air capture, in terms of meeting those near-term goals, there have been some setbacks in terms of the inability to pass the build back better act. obviously, regulations are going to take time to be passed and implemented, but that's the important question here. not the targets themselves, but how you get there. there's a much more pragmatic way to get to those targets,

open access to investment and innovation and to reduce the regulatory roadblocks so we can get those clean energy technologies deployed in a manner that is sensible with those targets, that takes input from communities to make sure that private property rights are heard, but part of the problem we are running into is this environmental activism that slows the deployment of clean energy technologies that we never thought competitive, but the problem is, they are having a difficult time getting out and built and delivered to the consumers that need affordable, reliable energy. host: christy goldfuss on the goals set by the biden administration. they have not been able to pass climate change in the build back better act. is this going to have to happen in order to make those goals? guest: it's certainly a big piece of it. the big back better bill -- build back better bill,

discussing it in 2022, will be a framework that includes a strong investment in renewable energy. as nick just mentioned, that is the backbone of reaching any of these climate goals, how much clean energy can we get onto the grid and how quickly. that's a key piece, but we also know there are multiple regulatory tools and we will need every tool in the toolbox to reach these goals. not only do we need the investment in build back better to incentivize the right type of energy getting onto the grid, but we also need to make sure that the regulatory framework is in place to support that. they have already put in stronger rules for methane. they updated clean energy and energy efficiency rules, so there are a lot of steps they need to take his first year. it's been pretty promising --

they've got the largest offshore wind sale ever in the history of the united states. we need to make a lot of progress, and that some low hanging fruit for the administration. they rolled back 75% of the deregulatory actions that the trump administration took, and the money in the bipartisan infrastructure bill is incredibly important for laying the foundation for the deployment of all the renewable energy, so cleaning up the grid, the hydrogen hubs that nick just mentioned, and making sure we have the transmission available to make progress. now, while permitting is a key piece of getting all of this built, you need to have the investments in the technologies to get them built as well. really, permitting is one piece that requires local, state and federal cooperation, and will be a key part, i think, of the job that mitch landrieu has ahead of him in implement and the bipartisan bill -- in

implementing the bipartisan bill to make sure they're built in the right place. host: let me ask you about the clean electricity goal by 2035, a couple years away from that. this is the information from the energy as of 2020 -- as we are getting 20% by renewables, electrical power, 20% by nuclear, 19% by coal and natural gas. most of the country is 40%. guest: i think it will be challenging. you have some states like california that are decommissioning their nuclear power plants, even though you have former obama energy secretary's urging them not to. not being able to maintain the clean electricity that is already on the grid is going to be challenging to meet those future targets.

part of the problem with the way that build back better is orchestrated right now, it continues down the path of subsidizing technologies that shouldn't need subsidies. it's extension of the wind production tax credit and the solar investment tax credit, and those subsidies have been around for a long time. i think a better path forward would be to get rid of those subsidies, get rid of fossil fuel subsidies and transition to a more technology news role tax credit for these technologies based on the abatement cost of reducing co2 emissions, so you have a level playing field for all these innovative technologies that the private sector is investing in. that way, we can let the private sector invest in that path forward, and it will be a much more efficient and cost-effective way to meet these targets, even with something like that. i think it would be a challenge moving forward, given the availability, accessibility, and affordability of clean, natural

gas. host: christy, is it necessary to have subsidies in place for the energy industry to survive? guest: not to survive. wind and solar costs have come down dramatically over the last decade, but they need to leapfrog and deployment where they need to go. as nick put in there, we have been subsidizing fossil fuels since 1939 at the earliest and it is $20 billion a year going to the fossil fuel industry. to say to get rid of all subsidies and he how the market goes, that is not going to get us to these goals. it is going to put us on the scale. we just witnessed wildfires in colorado at the end of december. we have members of congress who came back from their winter recess saying they had conversations at the dinner table with their younger, 20-year-old nieces, nephews,

grandchildren, who are not talking about -- talking about not having children because they do not think we will have a livable planet. so to remove all barriers for technology is incorrect. we are in a place right now where we are looking at year after year after year of more extreme storms. more than 40% of americans have experienced that in the last year alone. yes, we need to invest in the solutions that are going to solve this problem, and that means investing in renewables, wind, solar, and the tax credits work. we have seen it for decades. we need to double down on the solutions that work. host: our topic is the biden administration energy addenda. our guests are christy goldfuss from center for american progress and nick loris from c3 solutions. we welcome your calls. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text, (202) 748-8003, just send us your name and where you are texting from. in particular, when it comes to energy in particular, what is your mission and how is your organization funded? christy goldfuss? guest: we are funded through a combination of philanthropic dollars and individual donations. all of our information is available on our website for details about where we are funded from. my particular program, the department of energy and environments, is entirely focused on how we have a livable, clean, safe environment for everyone in the united states. what are the solutions when it comes to energy, cleaning up toxic pollution, addressing environmental injustice, to make sure we have the sustainable planet we need in the future.

we wake up every single day and work as long as our bodies allow us to do every single day. host: and nick loris, c3 solutions? guest: we are funded the same way. see -- c3 stands for conservative climate change, we believe climate change is a problem and we need to address it. part of the priority is to expand economic freedom, both in the united dates and around the world. we need more energy innovation, natural climate solutions, and be adaptive and resilient to climate change not just in the united states, but around the world. a lot of our future growth will come from developing it countries like india and china. the best way to have them meet their clean energy targets and emissions reductions and for

global decarbonization to happen, you have to get costs down and be able to deploy technologies. we think expanding economic freedom through private innovation and a number of other practical solutions, we can get there. host: how do you define energy dependence? how will the u.s. become energy independent? guest: in a lot of respects, we already are. we are the world's largest oil and gas producer. we have a lot of energy choice. we import some energy from canada, some oil from the rest of the world because oil is not created equally, so it makes sense for us to import some of the heavier crude oils for gulf coast refineries and ship out light crude oil. i think it's about having that energy choice and not being dependent on one sole country. you look at europe, who is

largely dependent on russia for their natural gas, that is a different situation. they are beholden to russia, beholden to putin. the solution is more energy choice from increased renewables, nuclear power, and one that will fight natural gas coming from the united states. the diversity and choice gives us independence so we are not beholden to one country. host: christy goldfuss, you worked in the obama administration. how do you think things changed from an energy standpoint during the trump administration. secondly, how different is the biden approach to clean energy compared to the obama administration? guest: it's safe to say, it was a complete 180 from coming out of the obama administration, where the government was really focused on targets, which at that time was reducing emissions

80% by mid century, by 2050. that was before the u.s. put out the special report on 1.5 degrees that dramatically changed the policy landscape. during the trump administration, it was definitely heartbreaking for those of us who felt like we had made so much historic progress working with president biden towards achieving those climate goals and laying a foundation for the economic transition that is necessary to reach those goals. without the trump administration would do everything they possibly can to put as many permits out there, and to really do everything they could to prop up the oil and gas industry while also putting totally artificial barriers, increased permitting -- increased environmental -- you never saw the trump administration support permitting in the case of renewables, they just wanted to slow down progress.

we are back to it administration -- an administration that is looking to make progress on these goals, but the policy landscape has dramatically changed since the obama administration. at that point, there were several policy tools that people thought could get us all the way to those goals. there was a ton of focus on a carbon tax or a tracing program or market tools that could do all the heavy lifting. what changed in 2018 is what changed around the biden administration's approach to reaching the goal, we are looking at every single sector. a sector by sector portfolio approach to making this transition and understanding that there is not one policy that is going to get us there. we need to invest in this transition on the front and so the costs aren't born on equally -- borne unequally on consumers

and we see a backlash. we also see neat -- need to see polluters pay for the damage they have caused. a carbon tax or pollution fee or whatever ends up being the next phase of the policy discussion. that will need to happen in the future. host: we will give nick loris a chance to respond in a second, but can you explain this headline -- biden is approving more oil and gas drilling on public lands than trump, and the chart shows february to november 2021, a very high number, 333 permits approved by the biden administration. what's behind that story? guest: unfortunately, in the early part of the biden administration, they came out meekly with a pause on all development of oil and gas on public lands. that was really where the biden

administration wanted to go, but they were stopped by the courts pretty quickly and were told they had to continue to hold these lease sales. also, when it comes to leasing versus permitting, right now, because of the court case, they really [inaudible] from their perspectives, but people will continue to push back on that. we also know it secretary gran said over and over again. oil and gas and fossil fuels will be part of this transition for the near term. we cannot just switch off fossil fuels, much to most of our dismay, but we have to make sure that families, workers are taken care of in this transition to a clean energy future, otherwise it will not be sustainable and we will have incredible backlash. in the meantime, that's what's happening. host: nick loris, your response

to the difference between the trump administration approach to energy independence and what is happening with the biden administration? guest: a few thoughts there. one of the concerns, if the biden administration stops leasing on federal lands or cancels the keystone xl pipeline, it is not as if that oil stays in the ground. one thing to be mindful of is the unintended environmental consequences of stopping these projects. it's not just a lost investment or economic uncertainty, when projects are held up in limbo or canceled altogether, it's also the environmental consequences when oil is not shipped by pipeline, it is shipped by rail or truck. the same thing with stopping leasing on federal lands. it's not about oil consumption that's going to stop, it is going to be here for a very long time, so it is going to shift to

private lands and to overseas, where the environmental standards are not as rigorous as those in the united states. there are a lot of unintended environmental consequences, pollutants that have had adverse effects on human health and the environment. i think there are better alternative solutions out there than federal lands -- one idea that has been populated by an organization in bozeman, montana , is to open up these leasing's to conservation organizations. right now, if you bid on the lease and win, you have to prove that you are going to develop that land and pull oil and gas out of the ground. if i am and i -- if i am an environmentalist and want to --, i cannot

legally do so. we are stuck in the process of the administration does one thing to open everything up and then the next administration shuts everything down. it's a regulatory ping-pong that creates economic uncertainty with environmentally questionable outcomes. host: when they say on public lands, drilling on public lands, we are not talking about national parks -- guest: there are leases in national parks. there are. host: go ahead. guest: we are talking about all 300 million acres of the country managed by the federal government. there are leases from national parks, before the lines were drawn on the map. the bureau of land management has the vast majority of those. host: do they oversee the leases? is that their area of purview? guest: yes. host: let's get to your calls.

jan in los angeles, democrat line. go ahead, jen. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have been studying this for quite a while. according to resources from the future and key nobel economists, if you put a price on carbon and return the fees to citizens, they do not suffer higher prices and emissions fall to 40%, 50% by 2030. this has been favored by many senators and representatives, and people call it a carbon tax, but it is not. it is a fillon polluters. -- fee on polluters. host: nick loris, do you want to pick up on that? guest: i think it shows it is going to increase prices. even if the money is rebated back to the consumer, the energy is such a critical input for

everything we make and do, americans wouldn't just be paying more for electricity and gasoline, but all the goods and services they consume. it's very forward facing. it may be an economically efficient idea, but it is not a politically popular one, or one that is popular with the american public. most polls show americans, the majority of americans are not willing to pay an additional $10 per month to combat climate change, and policymakers know this. there is also a problem, this carbon price, even though it is more economically efficient, would be layered on top of inefficient subsidies and regulations on the power and transportation vector. then you are getting a combination of all three and you are harming american families and businesses, both the taxpayers but also as ratepayers and consumers of all these products. i think it has been more politically unpopular than

anything, and we have seen that through the reconciliation process. this is something that would make it through the reconciliation process, because it is a tax and yet, the political unpopularity of it among some members, even among some democrats, is why it is not part of that process. host: christy goldfuss? guest: i agree with nick on this. this is more about politics than substance. our core economic solutions don't get public opinion, and the public is divided about whether it is a good idea to set up a whole government process versus investing that in the infrastructure that is necessary for the transition. while in theory this sounds like a good idea, and we have certainly seen this in canada and the carbon price in europe, there are systems around these types of policies. however, the united states has

taken a different path of investing in the solutions that we need first before we put a price on carbon or any kind of fee associated with it. that would offset any price to consumers and increased costs of transition with the utilities there. while yes, on paper and the models it looks so beautiful and so simple if we could just do that, but unfortunately, that is not how our system works. host: let's go to georgia. lewis is on the line. good morning. caller: yes, sir. i would like to question the people about algae-based fuels, using them in applications like diesel locomotives to generate electricity, or jet engines that could be used in a liquid biofuel to run a jet engine to

produce electricity? host: thanks for that call. to point out, the amount of biofuels use nationwide for electricity generation, part of the renewables, is 1.4%. do either of you care to answer that? guest: sorry, christy. i would say, there is a long way to viability. advanced biofuels are more environmentally friendly than the first generation biofuels we have had, including corn ethanol, which most biofuels now opposed because of the land use switching and all of the food for fuel arguments that have been made over the years. i think there's an opportunity there. there has been some private and public investment, but i think it has a bit of a long way to go. host: to steve in colorado

springs, on the republican line. good morning. caller: i guess my question is for both of them, but what i wanted to do is just make a comment on the current environment politically -- i've just got to say, things seem to be going downhill the minute biden was put in office and those policies don't seem to be working, and it's reflected in the price of gasoline. anyway, my question is, you seem to be focusing on a carbon output for fossil fuels and things like that, but my question is -- i watch a lot of news -- my question is, why don't we focus on the pollution from all the plastics? they seem to be everywhere. they talk about this floating island in the pacific ocean that is bigger than the state of texas. i live in colorado, but this plastic is everywhere. why are we talking about going

back to taking -- why aren't we talking about going back to paper bags, which are biodegradable? at least they will break down and not pollute the ground, etc., etc. host: lily hear from our guests. christy goldfuss, do you want to take that one? guest: it's a great question. petrochemical plants and the proliferation's of plastics in all parts of our society is a huge problem. while it is not front and center the way we talk about the power sector and electricity use, it is part of that overall picture, especially when you listen to the oil and gas industry, as they see potentially electric vehicles and other forms of energy coming into their share of the market, they are doubling, tripling down on petrochemicals and the buildout of plastics.

it will take different policy solutions, in some cases there may be regulatory solutions, but there could be ways of looking at that pollution fee, that could work in the case of plastics. for the creation of it, which is incredibly dirty, and then there is the problem of picking up and really addressing plastics internationally, which is part of the discussion that has come up repeatedly at the u.n. and as a global problem. no simple answer here, but it is definitely part of the discussion we are talking about, where we need to go in solving the climate crisis. host: nick loris, would you like to weigh in as well? guest: i agree. i especially the ocean -- i especially agree with the points on ocean plastics, where there is an absence of any real rule of law that establishes any types of garbage collection and recycling systems in place.

we need to work with those countries to help develop their standards of living and ensure that there is an economic incentive, to make sure these countries reduce the amount of waste that is flowing into these rivers and therefore into the ocean. similarly, i think there is a lot of encouraging private investment through biodegradable plastics, alternatives -- we have seen arguments over plastic bag taxes and the our environmental -- the environmental footprint. some with cloth bags, some say you have to use them x amount of times before you actually make up the energy use that goes into making the bags. there's trade-offs and everything that we do. i think we need to ensure that any investment we are making into the future is one that is both providing economically good outcomes, but also environmentally good outcomes. host: let's hear from junior in

pikeville, kentucky, democrat line. caller: yes, i would like to ask -- a lot of people are putting solar panels on their homes. the thing that they are running into is a lot of parent companies are telling the states that the reduction on their power bill will be on the wholesale level rather than the retail level. they do not feel they are getting a fair price for their savings. also, how do you all feel about geothermal heating, and is that helping the environment? also, we've got to worry about -- i am going to add on electric cars. then we've got computers, we've got all this stuff, when it

seems we are at a problem of making enough energy to keep things going. host: several good points. do you want to respond to any or all of them? nick loris, what are your thoughts? guest: what of the bigger near-term concerns with the solar industry and the growth of solar deployment in the united states is solar tariffs. they are set to expire on february 6 and a lot of the solar industry, the ones who import solar cells, say this is their biggest concern and it increases the price of not just the cells and the modules, but the insulation costs as far as steel and aluminum tariffs. that's the forefront of why solar costs are higher in the united states than our counterparts in europe. they will continue if our tariffs increase in the next few

years. both democrats and republicans want to be tough on china and we do not want will are cells or modules coming from uighur camps , but there are better ways than outright solar tariffs. there are a lot of geothermal potential on federal lands, and that's another clean energy solution that offers a ton of potential. we are starting to tap into it. i personally see a lot of promise there. host: christy goldfuss? guest: let me go to the point about the expanding energy needs. that's a big point for a lot of people, how are we focused on electric vehicles and putting more demands on the grid? i think the strategy the united states has taken is to focus on the power sector and that we clean up the energy that is needed for expanded use.

with support and the funding that was in a bipartisan infrastructure bill to really cleaning up the grid and getting the transition right, there is the potential that we can move much faster. if we can get the real tax credits extended for a decade, which is going to allow the industry to supersize their deployments, it will make sure the investment is where it needs to go. i think we are answering that question of, how are we responding to greater energy needs? we need to make sure that the grid and the energy that is on the grid is as clean as possible in order to answer those needs. host: to our caller's comments about geothermal's, part of renewables. 20% of electrical generation in the country was from renewables. geothermal just 4.4% of that. two per -- 2.3 generated

by solar, and most renewable energy as of 2020 comes from wind energy, 8.4%. jerry is in long beach, washington. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i am 74 years old. i grew up in the pacific northwest. i grandparents had a business right on the beach, so my brother and i both said wow, look at the changes we have seen. we believe the globe is changing. yesterday, i filled up my vehicle, and it cost me $95 to fill up my vehicle. i was shocked for someone who could not afford that kind of thing. with that, i watched c-span a lot, and i think --

someone asked a very interesting question. if we totally eliminate carbon, will that change the environment? the answer was no. that's my question to the speakers now. if we totally eliminate, totally eliminate carbon, would we stop global change? thank you. host: nick loris, we will start with you on that one. guest: if you totally eliminate co2 in the u.s., it would not make much of a difference. we are only about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. if you get to net zero in the united states, the climate impact in terms of abated warming or sea level rise is pretty negligible. i believe if you had total global decarbonization, there are ways to save off the worst -- stave off the worst impacts of climate change. the most extreme, really scary

scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, in part because of the transition to more carbon friendly fuels, including natural gas. that's why the u.s. is a leader in emissions reduction. i do believe that would help stabilize and keep global temperatures at 2.2, 2.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. but you also bring in a really good point, we need to maintain energy affordability and reliability. that's why, as secretary kerry said and special envoy kerry said yesterday, that natural gas needs to be part of our future. we need to take a realistic approach, that oil and gas particularly are going to be part of our future, but well into the future, because they are very affordable and very reliable to ensure we have any

transition needs to keep the american family and consumer at the forefront of that conversation. host: christy goldfuss? your thoughts on the caller's comments. guest: i suspect the panelist you heard was responding to the idea, if warming were to stop tomorrow, what has been really stark about the climate from words we have seen over the past couple of years? unfortunately, we have a lot of warming at this point. it will take time to slow down the progress of climate change, but as nick just referenced, we need other matters in our repertoire for center for american progress. we do not know when we are going to reach a certain tipping point. scientists know, for example, when the arctic reaches a certain point of melting, what is that going to mean for

ecosystems around the world? we need to do everything we can to stop what is happening right now so we can actually in the decades ahead reverse this course. this is about a long-term set of solutions, and the united states can do a lot. we are going to help the rest of the world do it to lead into a clean energy future. host: christy goldfuss is the senior counsel for policy on the issue for center for american progress. also our guest nick loris, from c3 solutions. we are talking about the biden administration energy addenda and welcome your question -- agenda and welcome your questions and calls at (202) 748-8000 free democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. caller: hi, my question is for nick. i would like you to go back to your question about the keystone pipeline. you stated how unsafe it is to transport oil by truck or by rail. why don't you talk about how the tar sands from canada are shipping the oil to us to process because it is too dirty for them to process. i would also like for you to talk about how these jobs for keystone -- it's great while it's being built, but once it's processed, they are going to sell it. it doesn't belong to us. host: nick loris?

guest: there are trade-offs and risks in everything we do, and pipelines are no different. it has been sadistically proven, though, that pipelines are the best way to transport oil and natural gas. the pipeline has been studied by the obama administration, which concluded it was safe on multiple occasions, and would not meaning we contribute to climate change. and they we need to look at the alternatives and the trade-offs. i agree that these jobs are temporary, all construction jobs are temporary. we want them to move on to other things. it's a matter of if we do not build the keystone nextel pipeline, what should go through the environmental safety review and permitting processes, and make sure it's what climate owners want. but what are we going to do instead? i think if a pipeline like this is stopped, we can't just think

that is the end of the story. we have to look at what the alternatives in place look like for the economy and the environment. that's where i believe a lot of the unintended environmental consequences of some of these decisions get lost. the decision on keystone is the end of the story when, quite frankly, it's not. host: we will hear from bonnie in flemington, new jersey, republican line. caller: good morning. my question is, you talk about being environmentalists, but we are shutting down nuclear plants all over the place and there were two shut down in new york state. it is some of the cleanest forms of energy that we have. also, with the comments of the keystone pipeline, there is nothing more cleaner than that. the cost of energy in this country is very high right now when we are energy independent. also, a lot of people like china

produce products for solar and wind panels and everything. it seems counterintuitive to say it is environmentally friendly when you are opening up pipelines in russia and letting china mine minerals and fossil fuels in their country, which is all the same. host: the percentage of nuclear power provided, 20%. will that continue to decline? guest: nuclear is a tricky topic, because it depends on how people feel about it. if it were to go off-line wholesale, we would see a very quick reflation of natural gas, which would increase emissions. most states, which have 100%

clean goals like illinois or new jersey or elsewhere, there has been a deal to figure out how to maintain the safety of increasing nuclear. but there are also other groups that have decided they are not going to take those chances. i think until the american citizens are satisfied around nuclear energy, it will have a really, really hard time being built out as a core portion of the clean energy future in the future, versus what we have right now. host: let's go to mike in beaverton, oregon. he is on them independent line. caller: i was wondering, are we looking at a global problem or something that is just based in the united states? if so, china has no environmental protection

whatsoever. that's the second largest economy. host: nick loris, you mentioned in a similar vein the no regulations on things like plastics, etc. address what the caller is talking about here. guest: it's why climate change is such a difficult situation to tackle. 90% of future emissions growth will come from countries that are not part of the organization of cooperation for economic development. christie made an important point earlier, and these countries are going to do what is in their economic self interests. right now for china, that is burning a lot of coal. the role the united states can plays reduce the cost and increase the deployment of

technologies that are cleaner than that, and incentivize countries like china and india to stop pursuing things like coal and to build more natural gas and nuclear and nuclear power energy storage. if it is not in their best interests, they are not going to do it. that is why china has made a weaker commitment as far as paris climate agreement. there emissions are going to peak in 2030, what's true with a lot of these developing countries. consequently, what we do in the united states, filled with mandates and regulations and subsidies is not going to make a dent climatically. the best chance for us to make a global impact is to reduce the cost of clean energy technology and deploy them rapidly across the globe. host: let me ask you, christy,

about electric cars and charging stations. they are built by taxpayers who cannot afford these things -- the wealthy will benefit on a cost of fossil fuels going up. we need to gradually transfer our energy resources. that would take thinking equals time away from fundraising. guest: i speak to the fact that we also have a huge amount of public transportation funds that were part of the infrastructure bill. electric vehicle charging stations, there is a lot of funding here. we know there is going to be a push to make sure these resources are available to all communities in the country. the biden administration has made a commitment that 40% of the benefits from their climate package will be delivered to disadvantaged communities. this is part of the charge mitch landrieu has in implementing the

infrastructure and jobs act. the build back better bill that came out of the house and hopefully what other ever -- what other elements remain in the senate has a key piece in electric vehicles, so these cars can be available to everyone. that is the only way we are going to reach these targets, if they are affordable, more affordable, in many cases, then there fossil fuel alternatives. it is something that is key to the infrastructure plans we expect to see out of the biden administration, that these do not reflect what we have seen in the past and electric vehicles are part of all americans lives, it's not just a tool. host: it seems like there has been a ground shift in terms of the auto market. you watch a commercial for the d.c. auto show, and every truck in there is an electric vehicle. to both of you, do you think there is a significant change in

consumer demand for electric vehicles, or is it driven by the fact that there are going to be subsidies, money out there for things like electric charging stations? nick loris, if you want to take that first? guest: probably a little bit of both. if you have been in a tesla, they are smooth. autos have seen some market pressure shift and are making amendments to go all electric to maybe get ahead of some of the regulations and rules. they will benefit from some of the subsidies and help be compliant with things like fuel economy standards from the department of transportation. to the commenters point, we should not be subsidizing wealthy elite. that's where a lot of americans feel frustration with the current tax subsidies that are available to consumers. there was a study a few years ago from the university of

california at berkeley that said 90% of these tax credits accrue to america's top percentile. about 80% of them went to americans with adjusted gross income of over 100,000 dollars per year. if you are subsidizing wealthy elites in california, where half of ev sales are currently happening, that's where it becomes problematic and as part of build back better, it's an extra subsidy if you buy an ev built with union labor. you should not care necessarily whether the ev is built by union labor or not. host: christy goldfuss, do you care to weigh in/ -- wa -- weigh in? guest: they also care that they are built with quality jobs. we incentivize all kinds of behaviors through our tax code. it is very clear, especially

with the supply chain disruptions we have seen over the past couple of years, that the united dates has got to figure out how we manufacture components of electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines here in the united states. those are jobs that need to be here in the united states so we are not so reliant on the supply chain issues that really cause major disruptions. i would also say, a huge announcement today from gm, that they are going to be expanding their capacity in michigan, 4000 new jobs to build out there electric pickups -- their electric pickups. these are jobs that can be in the united states, and i agree with nick, it is a combination of consumer behavior and the demand for cleaner vehicles. also, this is not only where consumers need to go, but the entire world needs to go. it is a good market when it comes to cars, and they want to

have the most cutting-edge options for consumers out there. host: we will get a few more calls in here. we will go to georgia. marion, good morning? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to talk about the subsidies. from what i remember from my civics class in high school, subsidies for the oil and gas was very important because they weren't making money, the oil and gas companies, when they first came online. the government, because they knew it was good for the country, would be subsidizing to help them until they became profitable. that's the key -- until they became profitable. is there a law that once they become profitable, we are supposed to cut off these subsidies? if not, why not? for the electric cars and

everything like that that we are going to comment that's when we need to subsidize them, until they become profitable and then we need to cut them off. where am i wrong here? that's what i have to say. host: thank you. nick loris, go ahead. guest: i don't think you are wrong, quite honestly. i think the problem with subsidies in the first place is a lot of temporary measures that are supposed only last three years or five years. once the three years or five years are up, you have a team of lobbyists and companies coming back to members lobbying to put them in place for another five or 10 years in a cycle of lobbyists and politicians determining how resources are allocated, whether it is possible or not. that's how they make a living. we have tax extenders at the end of the year on purpose, because it is an industry for lobbyists

to make money. the policymakers like it because it benefits their districts. again, i think you are exactly right. it would make more sense to have projects like demonstration projects, the department of energy is funding and should fund. if there are tax credits for emerging technology, they are phased out over a period of time -- that would be a more efficient process than what we have now, which is a hodgepodge of subsidies and tax credits for every industry out there. because there are lobbyists and politicians that benefit from that, it is very difficult to get rid of. guest: yeah, that is exactly the reason why we don't have times to waste when it comes to climate change to adjust the entire tax code. senator wyden and his proposal for a clean energy america that came out of his committee in the senate really tried to take a neutral approach and focus on the initial reductions in the

hikes of energy that were being --, not whether or not they would get the tax credit. there are other ways to go about it, but the system is what it is right now. really, we see the role of government as investing in this transition to make it possible for the market to then pick up. right now, there is absolutely no way that the fossil fuel industry won't continue to dominate. that's the way it is structured. they've got all the systems in place to benefit them. they have all the disinformation campaigns out there to tell people that climate change is not happening or you cannot do anything about it. right now, the role of the government needs to be to invest in the technology. not only becoming profitable, but we can give them a leg up, given how far we have to go in terms of getting to our clean energy goals. it's very true in theory, but kind of goes back to the pollution fee -- what is

sensible in theory does not always look practical when it comes to where we are right now. host: brian, independent line. caller: i wanted to talk about plug-in hybrids, because i think electric cars are kind of -- i hate to say it -- a rich man's toy. i have two plug-in hybrids. the second one, i just finished putting my first tank of gas and it. i got 3073 miles on my first tank of gas. i think we have created a system where the electric cars -- i have never had to charge it anywhere, i plug it in when i get home and i can go anywhere i want. host: let's hear from ron in florida. ron is on the republican line. go ahead. ron in florida -- yep, go ahead. caller: yeah, if the government

wants to cool down the earth, why invest in solar reflectors when we need solar reflectors? host: why don't we have white, solar reflectors? caller: yes. to cool the earth. host: all right, i am going to move to harrison, arkansas, and hear from our democrat line. robert. go ahead. caller: yes, this is interesting. first of all, it is my understanding that the keystone pipeline was tar sand coming from canada, a foreign company, coming to the united states to the gulf shores to be sold overseas, possibly for china -- but that is just a comment. two questions. we produce electricity, more and more and more. i am shocked and amazed that energy is still using wooden power poles all over.

it looks to me like, when you see new areas and you see those wooden poles, we have a serious infrastructure problem that we need to be looking at. the second thing on that is a personal question -- if we have our dams and that water is being forced through the dams and it creates a high rate of speed, can we not put more generators on the lower side of those dams to generate even more electricity, knowing that storage of electricity is one of the major problems? as we look to increase electricity, we already have dams built. can we not trap the water as it passes through and generate even more electricity? i will take lancer offline. host: ok, some specific things there we have not touched on. nick loris, go ahead. guest: i am not an engineer. it sounds like a good idea.

there are a lot of people working on how we can leverage existing hydro infrastructure into the clean energy mix. i think your point is your point is well taken about infrastructure. i think part of the problem is this federal, state, and local permitting challenges to get around what occurs. in the northeast you saw a lot of people using home heating oil and they use more oil for electricity in the past several years than they need to because we cannot build cleaner natural gas lines or get a translation line that would supply hydropower from canada so this presents a lot of challenges for the development and deployment of alternative energy technologies and cleaner technologies that could own -- not only deliver affordable energy but modernize our grid and infrastructure. host: let us hear from rj oklahoma.

caller: good morning. i have had a highbred, i like them, they are good cars, but here is my problem and question. where are we going to get all these minerals to buy the batteries. how are we going to build up the infrastructure, the electric infrastructure to handle all of this so quick. china is going to make tons of money off of us. they are going to beat us in the global market. everything we are going to get is going to be bought from them. it is crazy, but anyway, thanks. host: it kind of touches on the battery storage issue, we are making batteries here in the united states. go ahead. >> it is an incredibly important point. minerals are seen as a very important problem and we look at apple and many companies talking

about a secular economy because they understand how difficult it would be to get lithium and poly silicon from some -- whether it is china or congo. we will have to figure out how we use the resources in the united states responsibly, but we are also going to have to figure out a system that does not require that they are new every single time because based on where we need to go in terms of technology, we are not going to have enough of it. i think this is kind of core to research, development and technology questions on how we are going to do this more efficiently and how we are going to make sure that we have the resources that we need, because right now it would be difficult to see how we could carry on these things that we have and expand without changing the policy or technology. host: dj in bloomington, indiana. go ahead. independent line. caller: i would like to get them

to discuss the benefits of nuclear power like in france where they have 80% nuclear power and figured out a way to dispose of the waste without problems. and the fact that they are not talking about the negative effects of solar power, which is igniting birds on fire and wind which is changing wind patterns. i would like to see the discussion of the negative components of renewables and the positive. please do not mention three-mile island or chernobyl, they are extremely rare. host: we touched on nuclear power on the waste issue, we did not -- do you want to mention or talk about anything else? guest: there are nuclear waste solutions that are out there that are modeled and work. part of the problem right now is that in the united states the way producers, the nuclear energy companies and utilities are responsible for the

management and disposal, and by law the federal government is and it has created a broken process where nuclear energy companies and utilities have to pay a fee to take care of the waste and it is not happening. in finland they have a better model. they manage waste with geologic disposal and they have been successful. there has been opportunities for waste recycling and storage that can be practical in the united states. again there are challenges that exist, but i think we can overcome them. on the front end there are a lot of small modular reactor technologies that have zero or very waste and these micro-reactors or small modular reactors have fewer upfront capital costs, and they supply less power but they might be able to be built in a number of locations including remote ones. there is a company that is going through the nrc process and had

its license rejected but they are back at it and want to get approved sooner rather than later. bill gates' parapower is building in wyoming and there are a lot of exciting things on the front end of nuclear power. solving the waste issue is critical and there are models that exist internationally that the u.s. can follow or develop. host: it sounds like we could go another hour. but we will have to wrap it up. nick loris and christy goldfuss. she is the energy environment policy senior vice president. thank you to both of you. >> thank you for having us. host: we look forward to having you back. that will do it for the program, we are back at 7:00 eastern and we hope that you are as well. next up we will take you live in just a bit to the state department to hear from secretary of state blinken ahead on c-span. you will you tomorrow morning on "washington journal."

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> live pictures at the state department this morning awaiting remarks from u.s. secretary of state anthony blinken to address the increased tensions between the u.s. and russia over russia's attempts to invade ukraine. live coverage here on c-span when it starts. right now, your calls from " washington journal." [muffled conversation]