later, california democratic are presented of a -- representative ami bera discusses responses to tension in russia and ukraine and other foreign policy challenges. >> proud to announce our plan to supercharge the cancer moonshot as a central effort of the biden harris administration. it's bold, it's ambitious, but it is completely doable. ♪ host: this is "the washington journal," resident biden renouncing a renewed effort to reduce cancer deaths and overall improve the lives of those with cancer however what was not revealed yesterday is how much money will be tied to the effort. we will take your calls for the next hour on this renewed effort

to combat cancer by the biden administration. cancer survivors who want to give their perspective, (202) 748-8000. loved ones with cancer, (202) 748-8001. caregivers, (202) 748-8002 is the number to call. all others can call at (202) 748-8003. you can also use that number to text us your thoughts this morning. you can post on our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span, or post on twitter, @cspanwj. president biden himself announced it yesterday at the white house. you can still find it on our website, c-span.org, or the app, c-span now. here is president biden from yesterday talking about the details of the renewed moonshot. [video clip] question -- quick the death rate

in half in the next 25 years by at least percent. it and turn more cancer death sentences into something that people can live with, create a more supportive experience for patients and families. ending cancer as we know it. here is what we are fighting and how we know what cancer looks like today. a disease where we often diagnose it too late. have too few effective ways to prevent it. stark inequities based on factors still persist. and we know too little about why treatments work in some patients and the exact same treatment doesn't work in another. where we still lack strategies to develop treatments for some

cancers. where we do not do enough to help patients and their families navigate through the process. we don't learn enough from patient experiences or their data. in fact we first started this work, one of the first things we did was make sure that doctors and researchers work together, share information, allow patients to share their data with other doctors and researchers to help others. but there is so much more to do. we were going through this and i was told patients don't want to share their data. they all want to share their data. sometimes you all don't want to share what you know. for each of the ways that we know cancer today, we know we

can change its trajectory. for example, to prevent it, scientists are exploring if the new mrna vaccine technology that brought us safe and effective covid-19 vaccines could be used in some cells when they fail and when they first arrive. get them then. target the right treatments to the right patients. we are learning more about genetics, immune response and other factors to tell which combinations of treatments are likely to work best for a particular individual. to address inequities we can target prevention detection and treatment effort so that all americans, urban, rural, or tribal communities, have equal access to diagnosis, therapeutics, and clinical trials. there is so much more we can do. host: some of the details yesterday from the presidential announcement on the renewed

moonshot. you will remember that this was an initiative he took as vice president of the united states after the loss of his son, beau. you can take a look at this with us, (202) 748-8000 for you cancer survivors in the audience. (202) 748-8001 if you lost a loved one. caregivers, it's (202) 748-8002. all others, (202) 748-8003. joining us now by zoom is dr. eat at mitchell, a member of the presidential cancer panel and the thomas jefferson university medical college and oncology department. dr. mitchell, thanks for your time this morning. guest: thank you for the opportunity. host: can you tell us a bit about the presidential cancer panel? what is it? guest: the panel is a part of the 1971 national cancer act signed by former president nixon

. we have just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the national cancer act and the president's cancer panel consists of three independent members that give advice to the president based on the current cancer issues in the country and we are so proud to be a part of that presidential cancer panel. host: we saw the president undergo this effort with his initial moonshot. what changes as far as what he's doing now but the goals he has established as a part of the new moonshot? guest: it's a realignment of the previous moonshot. the previous moonshot consisted mainly of research efforts. this realignment or reignition of the moonshot consists of

multiple areas. including research, but including the fact that we can all participate in this program. so, therefore increasing screening, increasing participation. and he indicated that he and the first lady, dr. jill biden, indicated that we all can participate in this. patients, caregivers, physicians, clinicians. but other members of the health care team so that everybody is involved and therefore we are all working together to further the effort. certainly the biden family has

been affected by cancer, but so have many other americans been affected by cancer. and therefore, including everyone, making sure that we have cancer screening as a part of this. because with cancer screening, we can frequently find cancers earlier so that there are better outcomes from treatment and diagnostic interventions, therefore decreasing the suffering from more individuals presenting with late stage cancer where the patient may not feel well, may have suffered many of the consequences and side effects of cancer, and therefore is less likely to respond to interventions.

finding cancers early is a great part of this initiative. host: it's the idea of how much money should be tied to this effort. we saw congress give $2 billion to the previous moonshot. there is still money left in that. what has to be considered as far as a dollar figure? guest: he did not give a dollar figure but the national cancer institute members were there for planning and congressional members were a part of the meeting yesterday, understanding that additional resources will be needed and will need to be approved for this. but there were no specific dollar figures described. but that is to come as a part of the program and a part of the

representation of the presidential cancer panel. host: when it comes to the research being done on reducing cancers, we have seen probably years of research on that. what could be considered as new research that you talked about that could further the presidential goal on this? guest: one of the new areas involves matching the tumor, the genomic profile, with new drugs so that we can adequately prevent the therapeutic interventions that are likely to give the patient a good response. so, that is one area of research. the next is defining more therapeutic interventions that might be helpful for treating cancer. those are ongoing. and the report from the cancer

panel describes four critical goals and related recommendations to ensure the benefits of cancer screening for all populations. another area that is so important is access to care and making sure that everyone has access to the interventions that are present. better screening. more participation in the screening process for cancer. the initiatives that the panel recommends involved improving communications so that health care systems, physicians, and others have better ways of communicating information. not only regarding new efforts, but also for the patient's.

facilitate equitable access. this will provide an increased funding for community oriented outreach and support so that there is robust engagement of community health workers and others to increase the access to screening for individuals. the next is strengthen workforce collaborations. if we can have all centers and members of the health care team supporting cancer screening and expanding access to the genomic and genetic access, that's another improvement. the next is to create effective health information technology to make systems work better together for the providers and for patients by creating and utilizing computable guidelines

and clinical decision-making. host: do you know if any part of the presidential plan will include anything about doing the costs of drugs related to cancer? particularly if they are prohibitive for some people who are diagnosed with it? guest: costs is very important and certainly the new era punic sarver expensive. in working with insurance companies to provide the access to care, that's a part of what we do and we have had members from the insurance companies involved and therefore creating processes that will allow for better coverage of care and better access to the interventions that are available.

that's a part of the whole program. host: dr. mitchell is a clinical professor at thomas jefferson university medical college in the oncology department. thank you for your time and perspective. guest: thank you for the opportunity and we hope that everyone will support the president's new cancer moonshot. host: thank you, doctor. that in mind, if you want to call in and give your perspective on this new research moonshot, (202) 748-8000 for cancer survivors in the audience. if you lost a loved one to cancer, (202) 748-8001. for caregivers in the audience, (202) 748-8002. all others can call us at (202) 748-8003. you can use that number to text us your thoughts this morning as well. we will take those calls starting with lisa in maine.

a caregiver. lisa, thank you for holding on. go ahead, you are on. caller: i was a caregiver of my mother who we lost to pancreatic, -- pancreatic cancer seven years ago and it was probably one of the hardest things i had ever gone through. there's not enough research for pancreatic cancer. it's a 10% survival rate. you know, you talk about the red cross, the american cancer society and how much they are doing research on these cancers, but they don't stress enough about pancreatic cancer. maybe i'm biased about it, but it's really tough to see someone suffer like that. my mother was three months

without chemo, six months of chemo. did three rounds and passed away . it was horrible. they need more research. president biden, how does he know about what needs to be done ? he's not a doctor. he probably just hears it from the media or other doctors. host: he lost a son to cancer. caller: ok, what i didn't know that, i apologize. host: let's go to tom in south carolina. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. i wanted to just mention, i'm a cancer survivor three times. i had surgery all three times. one surgery was 11 hours and 18 minutes in duration. from what i gather from what biden was saying on the cliff that you played just a little while ago, he's trying to divert

the attention to the doctors. i can tell you, sir, the doctors that treat cancer patients are some of the most dedicated people i have ever seen and i am so upset with biden that he would dare, would dare divert this to the doctors that misdiagnose cancers or whatever. host: when you say he's diverting this to doctors, what do you mean? caller: that's what i'm saying in his comments, that's what i gathered from his comments. host: how did you gather that? caller: hello? host: i'm curious to find out how you gather that from his comments. caller: he made the comment that doctors misdiagnose different kinds of cancers. doctors cannot misdiagnose what they don't know. i have a dear friend who had

gynecological cancer. she should have died from it. but her doctor did not misdiagnose that, thank god. i think biden needs to be careful about what he says. host: ok. that's tom in south carolina, part of this renewed moonshot initiative, as it's called, to reduce the death rate from cancer over the next 25 years. you heard our guests on the top of the show talk about increasing the access to cancer screenings as being a part of that, improving the experience for people living with cancer and their families as well. it would also establish a white house moonshot cancer coordinator position within the office of the president and form the white house cancer cabinet, bringing together officials from multiple agencies. you can find the full presentation on our website,

c-span.org or the c-span now app. from your perspective when it comes to the topic, but do you think about this new effort from the white house? you can call and let us know. (202) 748-8000 for survivors. (202) 748-8001 if you lost a loved one. (202) 748-8002 if you are a caregiver. all others, (202) 748-8003. ronald, texas, hello. ronald in beetle, texas? one more time for ronald. let's go to fran in jacksonville, florida, cancer survivor. good morning. caller: yes, i am. i'm a breast cancer survivor and was diagnosed in 2014 and i want to put a plug in for obamacare.

i didn't have insurance for five years and without insurance, it was in 2014 that i was allowed to get obamacare. signed up for that and i went on to have a regular mammogram and that's when the cancer was found and obamacare saved my life. so, i wanted to put the plug in there. one other thing, my best friend is going through cancer right now. she was diagnosed in november and she just started her treatments and it's going to be a long road. she has a very rare form of cancer that is a mass that's pressing on mostly all of her internal organs and she has a real fight to go ahead and i just wanted to say that i am all in for this moonshot thing. what my friend is going through is going to be something new and

innovative and hopefully it can save her life. host: you said you had signed up for the affordable care act. before that you had no access to screenings as far as cancer was concerned? caller: actually i was getting a mammogram each year, i was paying out of pocket for it and you know, they were good, but the first bad mammogram i had, thank goodness i had insurance. if i had had one of those bad mammograms a few months before? i would have had to pay, i saw the bills. like $200,000. thanks to obamacare, i had a $2600 out-of-pocket. for my cancer treatment. i am very thankful for that. host: fran, cancer survivor

sharing her experience when it comes to screenings and the like, which the president talked about in his presentation yesterday. next we hear from glenn in texas on the line for others. you are on. caller: smokers are the biggest problem with cancer. and the government has to purchase every pound of tobacco grown and the government sells it to the tobacco producing companies. there is something there you need to start to slow down on or eliminate, tobacco growing, in the united states. vipers need to be eliminated also. joe biden is using this as a smokescreen to draw money out of the federal reserve. host: ok. manny, california, la jolla. caller: i'm a retired law professor.

i had five roy cancer 20 years ago. that's a good thing. but my big thing is the money. the money is being spent too much for the military industrial complex. i remember seeing on c-span a hearing where found cheap possible said one out of every seven research projects were accepted, in other words six out of every seven scientific proposals for this kind of research was being rejected. so, it's all about the money. you know. we have got to get more money. that's the one missing piece. host: so you are saying you're supportive of money particularly for this new effort? caller: yeah. instead of going to afghanistan and wasting trillions of

dollars, if we had redirected that money to scientific research? you know, 50 years ago, nixon did the same thing. we are nowhere closer. what they did with me was so barbaric. you go in and you cut out the cancer. they did with me what they did 50 years ago. you go in, cut it out, and you treat the person with, you know, poison. you know. with, with chemotherapy. in my case. host: the obama administration spent about $2 billion on the first cancer moonshot. money is still being spent from that. do you think that figure needs to be renewed at the same costs, more should be given? what kind of costs are you comfortable with as far as money being devoted to it? caller: i mean our crazy

congresspeople just approved $1 trillion after getting out of afghanistan for a war, for all the jets and the crazy, you know, military-industrial complex. and only $40 billion for all the health things, you know? faucher she, his department, the faucher boss who just retired. host: we will live -- leave it there from california. you can add your thoughts to the mix as well when it comes to the presidents renewed moonshot for cancer research. (202) 748-8000 for cancer survivors. those who left a lot -- lost a loved one to cancer, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 for caregivers. all others, (202) 748-8003. you heard the caller mentioned president nixon back in 1971.

he signed the national cancer act back then. here is a portion of the signing. [video clip] >> won't you be seated, please? members of the senate, the house, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today for the purpose of signing the cancer act of 1971. i hope that in the years ahead that we may look back on this day and this action as being the most significant action taken during this administration. it could be. when we consider what cancer does each year in the united states, we find that more people each year die of cancer in the united states than all the americans who lost their lives in world or to. this shows us what is at stake. it tells us why i sent a message to the congress the first of this year that provided for a

national commitment for the conquest of cancer. host: that's president nixon back from 1971. the write up on this proposal in this morning's paper, they write that last year it was biden asking congress for $6.5 billion to fund the new research agency dubbed the advanced research project agency for health but it's part congress -- controversy as to whether it should be a part of one institution or part of a standalone agency. recently senator patty murray 4 host: -- host: john in new

york on the line for those who lost a loved one. go ahead. caller: yes, i lost one of my best friends i went to grade school with. we grew up together. we went through high school together. we ran around together when we were in our teens and 20's. you know, he got a full-time job but then we got reunited because i started a little landscape is in this and he was unemployed, i guess he got laid off. and then i guess, you know, he just contracted the cancer and we didn't know, i didn't know. i thought it was just a thing where he had an issue with his bowel movements and stuff. they discovered that he had it and he had emergency surgery and i sat there outside the surgery room there and his parents were too old to attend. the doctors came out and they said who are you and i said, i'm

one of his, i'm probably one of his best friends and his parents couldn't be here. they were very reluctant to give me the diagnosis. i guess during the surgery there was a doctor with three other doctors preparing, they called them in and they went in and they found out this this thing had metastasized and they said we could do this, this thing, gotta remove that, gotta remove that. but the best decision once they did all that surgery, he would have been suffering more than, you know, he would have had to. host: for all the experience that you relate, what do you think about this new effort as far as research is concerned but overall the government involvement in these kinds of issues? caller: i'm just saying that this country and our doctors and everybody else is

pulling as hard as they can to try to resolve this thing and i don't blame, we got to continue on with it. i think we are going to need some sort of epiphany here where we discover something and i hope it comes along soon. host: caroline, ohio, caregiver, thanks for calling, go ahead. caller: i could use either line, lost a loved one or caregiver. i was a caregiver for three months and maybe this isn't the right time, but i really hope that congress passes something for the family leave act. i used that and of course, my job didn't pay me anything. i didn't have a salary or anything coming in for those three months. i just know that that would surely help the living, the people that are left to pick up the pieces if there was paid

family leave. host: as far as cancer research specifically, what do you think of these efforts by the government? caller: honestly? i am so naive to all this. even after going through the cancer with my loved one. i just know they had a long way to go, at least with the type of cancer that my loved one had. so, i'll just plead that i am not educated enough to answer that question. sorry. host: ok. lockhart, texas, on the line for others. you are on, go ahead. caller: yes, i'm calling, yes, so, what i think is, i think i'm

naive to the efforts that the government are trying to take, but i will say that our doctors and our health care workers and everyone else needs to come together to kind of figure out a plan on how to get things right. you know? it's just so much. i think that you know, with time, if we have time, what they need to do with it is weak i'll just need to come together and -- >> get off my phone -- >> and -- host: let's get to michael. caller: i've been in cancer research for the last 14 years of my life and i would like to say that during that time i was

president of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, in the top seven. i will tell you this. the main goal of the pharmaceutical companies as we know them today is profit, profit, profit. we need an independent organization similar to darpa to do the research and to control the greed that comes out of pharmaceutical companies. look at them. look at the situation where people that can't afford insulin and how much it really costs to manufacture. host: talk to us about that specifically as far as cancer research is concerned. caller: it should be done by minds that think outside the boxed. not just as ways to make profit. this initiative. thank you. host: what kind of oncology did you study? caller: radiation oncology at

harvard medical school. host: because of your background and your experience as you describe it, what do you think of this latest effort specifically? caller: well, i think it's a good thing. even with president biden being in someone of a weak state. i think the fact that he's bringing this up again is good. but we need, we need to put the effort with strength behind what he's saying and we can't wait 25 years. our goal should be 10 years or less. we need to go after cancer like we went after viruses. host: what convinced seat -- convinces you that the science exists to stop that in 10 years? caller: sorry, say it again? host: what convinces you that

the science exists to stop it in 10 years. caller: i think we need a goal of not 25 years but 10 years to find an answer. host: gotcha, michael. jim, missouri, cancer survivor. we will go to linn in silver spring. lost a loved one to cancer, talking about the renewed effort by the biden administration on research. go ahead. caller: good morning, i appreciate it. when i was listening to the doctors, it made me think about the judy mikovits book, i'm sure it's at the national cancer institute. corruption and ending plague. i was thinking about beau biden, ted kennedy, john mccain, they all died of the same brain tumor. when my father had cancer the

radiologist explained how the low level radiation was much more harmful to us. scc still has the gag order on letting people know about the radiation coming from cell phones and telecommunication technology. host: do you think that this kind of research is something the government should be engaged in? caller: definitely, we are subjecting our children to the hazards of this technology at such a young age. host: brenda, washington state. also lost a loved one. caller: yes, i lost my daughter to cancer. they made her a new bladder. seeing all the children in the hospital, it's so sad how many people are getting it.

their doctor said [indiscernible] host: as far as this effort from the obama admin -- the biden administration and your optimism that it could accomplish something, what do you think? >> i guess anything they could try would be wonderful. my daughter was on fenton all in her iv. she died in 2000. there was no pills back then. kind of sad. on the fenton all. host: that is brenda in washington state. robert, huntsville, lost a loved one, hello. caller: i lost my wife in 2013,

head and neck cancer. it really was a challenging situation but it wrought us together. she fought the battle for two years at the cancer treatment center here. cpi was her caregivers. me being retired air force, 100% service connected disability, my health care was paramount. it was 24 karat gold. that was not even an issue. it was a struggle, it was a struggle to see how this disease that my wife had, head and neck cancer, excuse me, i miss her every day to this day. to see how this disease just consumed my beautiful, beautiful, beautiful wife of 27 years was really, really rough on me.

i appreciate the subject today and i appreciate what the biden administration is going to do in terms of jumpstarting this moonshot again. i remember with president nixon signing that, i had just arrived to england, raf back in 71 as a young airman. so we have a come along way with the treatment of cancer, but there is still a lot of work to do. host: i was going to say, we talked about biden yesterday, the nixon, the years of research done by the federal government. you still think there is a role on this topic for the federal government? caller: absolutely, absolutely. we need the strength and power of the federal government behind it. my gosh, they have all the research labs, the access to all the great institutions, the medical institutions, the great scientists around the world. yes, of course, we definitely need the federal government to get involved with this. i'm glad to see it.

really am glad to see it. host: that is robert in alabama. national cancer institute are operating under a continuing resolution for their budget through february 18 of this month. operating at a level of $6.7 billion. you should know that the continuing resolution excludes funds of the beau biden cancer moonshot. here's more from president biden yesterday. [video clip] >> this can be an american moment that proves to ourselves and the world that we can do with a big things. we have made a norm's progress since president nixon signed into law the national cancer act and declared war on cancer. we learned cancer is not a simple disease. at that time we thought it was a

single disease. there are over 200, as you all know, different types caused by different genetic mutations in ourselves. we discovered new medicines, therapies, early detection prevention measures that extend and save lives. the first 25 years since the national cancer act the death rate was largely unchanged. then things began to change. progress of the last 25 years, the death rate has fallen by more than 25%. but here's the deal. despite the progress of lives extended and lives saved, cancer is still the number two cause of death in america. second only to heart disease. in the last two years, covid-19 pandemic, the pandemic has taken more than 800,000 american lives. but over that same amount of

time, cancer has claimed 1.2 million american lives. year in and year out. too many patients and their families diagnosed with cancer instead of hope. there is also bewilderment. i remember you telling the family, doc that we had the questions and you are available. it's a hard road to understand and traverse. if you end up being on your own, static and adrift in a sea of patients, frustrated that hospitals and doctors can't easily share your medical records. or help find answers when minutes count. having to advocate even the most basic care and attention for your loved one. a flood of information, completely different

information. no one to help you decipher it. being within reach of a therapy, a therapy that is too expensive, or your insurance won't cover it. despite the progress, there is still a sense of powerlessness. guilt that maybe you are not doing enough because you don't know enough. and fear. host: speak -- c-span.org is for you can see it. for you cancer survivors in the audience, (202) 748-8000, if you want to talk about this renewed effort. if you lost a loved one, (202) 748-8001. caregivers, (202) 748-8002. all others, (202) 748-8003.

online they talked about the announcement yesterday talking about the redo illustrating the limitation of what the white house can do without a flood of new research money amid the uncertainty over the inability to confirm new leaders for research agencies. the food and drug administration has stalled on capitol hill and the white house has not announced a replacement for francis collins, who stepped down in december. the signature science proposal languished on capitol hill, the creation of the arpa h, a new research agency that the president said could end cancer as we know it. there is great value in a president giving the populace hope that science can lead to cures. but i would say that without funding for a research component you are not going to get over

the goalpost. that is just some of the perspective on statistical use. let's hear from neil in missouri . good morning. caller: how are you host:, young man? host:fine, thank you. caller: i'm a survivor of esophageal cancer which i contracted from the world's oldest nuclear dumpsite in clearwater creek, st. louis. if not for the wonderful staff at st. louis university, their knowledge and their ability to do this, i would have been dead if i had gotten this 25 years ago. i'm all behind president biden for doing this. it's probably one of the most singular best things that man will ever do as president bar nothing. all you out there need to think about that going through cancer. if it wasn't for people like him and nixon get into it, we would still be dropping like flies.

host: yesterday the president talked about extension of quality of life but he also talked about access to screening. what were those things like for you as far as your screenings when you found out you had cancer, the medical care afterwards, the access you had, what was it like for you? >> it was right now on the money. i went in and had an endoscope done and the doctor came out and said you had esophageal cancer in two days later i was sitting in the oncologist's office and she was going over the regiment of what i'm going to do, what i'm going to experience. and how to handle it. let her know of slight changes or anything. i had to had an's, i guess mine

was a good one and i know it doesn't work out that way for anybody. i'm so so sorry, i wouldn't wish this disease on anybody. host: correct me if i'm wrong, as you have access to insurance? caller: yes, i did, medicare. host: did you get all of that? caller: i was still responsible for a bunch of it. we had to jump through hoops to get charity to cover the rest. the hospital was nothing short of fantastic in helping with that experience. they were more concerned about me getting over the cancer than they were there money. they gave me the charity i needed beyond what my insurance would cover. i can't say enough good stuff about them there in st. louis.

they were just absolutely marvelous. host: let's go to lonnie, good morning. caller: i recently lost my brother to prostate and colon cancer. in my family there is a generation of cancer. my mom died from brain cancer and breast cancer. my sister is a breast cancer survivor. my aunt had leukemia. i just recently went to buffalo, new york. they have a thing called the billion veterans program and what they do is they take your blood and they do dna testing on it. that's a very good program. what they said is that in the future my grandkids or my great grandkids will be able to look at my blood and see if i had

some type of cancer or something and they will be able to give a cure for my kids in the future. so, i see a lot of good stuff coming on with cancer research and we need to support that. joe biden is right. nixon was right. cancer has been around for a long time. when you have symptoms like this going on in your family, the first thing family members should do is look and get diagnosed as soon as possible. the earliest that you can catch the cancer, the better it can be treated. host: ok, that is lonnie giving his experience out of new york. go to the website of the american cancer society, cancer.org, they put out a prediction of estimated numbers of new cancer cases in 2000 22, including skin cell cancers. they are estimating 1.9 billion plus new cases for the coming

year. 46,000 plus in virginia. 28,000 in colorado. if you go to washington state, 42,000 estimated cases. 189,000 estimated cases in california in the like. we hear from stuart in st. petersburg, florida, on the renewed call by the biden administration on cancer research. good morning. caller: hello, good morning. i am a survivor of both bladder and kidney cancer and i just had an operation on uterine cancer. it's i want people to know that because of all the doctors and testing, i am now still surviving at 77. my mother died at 53.

she didn't have all the great tests that we do today and we are so lucky to have moonshot to keep going for all us survivors and i want to thank all the doctors, nurses, dialysis clinics and the dna tests and to know that my jeans are just like my mother's and all those things are so important. that is all i have to say. host: lorton, virginia, lost a loved one, good morning. caller: yes, i lost my mother to a disease called mesothelioma. this caused by exposure to environmental toxins known as is festus. asbestos continues to be a product that exists in many buildings. in fact it exists in many

federal buildings. i would urge president biden to please review the presence of asbestos in federal buildings, many of which are quite old. it is a carcinogen that exists in the buildings to which not only are federal employees exposed, but visitors that come to the federal buildings, they are also exposed to it. i would also note that the cannon office building in washington, d.c., recently was remediated for the presence of us festus in the building. i would just make president biden aware that there is a dangerous carcinogen that exists in many government buildings and private buildings and that this should be examined so that people are not exposed to this carcinogen. host: the front page of "usa

today," taking a look at the topic of leukemia. karen weintraub writing the story saying that doug olson was thrilled one month after his treatment when a bone marrow biopsy showed he had no more cut cancer cells and his doctors were happy but less convinced that the experimental therapy would prove, they didn't think it would be a curative therapy at all

host: let's hear from patricia in north carolina, cancer survivor, good morning. patricia, north carolina, good morning. one more time for patricia? ok, we will go to mary in west virginia. caregiver. good morning, thanks for calling. caller: i called on the lost loved one, i lost my mom to ovarian cancer and shortly after her death, that situation brought it to light, always around babies. since i was nine years old, health was on the radar. i worked three jobs. well, i'm 67 now. worked two or three jobs my entire lifetime but when i was nine i told my grandfather i

needed to know more about nutrition. since then i have come to the conclusion that we need to watch our words because what we are talking about today is actually sick care and if you want real health care, you need to combine the possibilities that body fuel can give to the health care industry that isn't yet in existence. host: what was your mother's access to care like when she was diagnosed? caller: family, family. that is all she had was family. you know, she got the basic emergency issues taken care of. there was no health care. as far as finances were concerned, she just lived with what she got. that's how they handle that. and i lost a mother-in-law, well expected to be mother-in-law,

but lung cancer. she had so much morphine in her that literally in those days they poured it down the toilet bowl and that's a horrible situation. i'm surrounded with sick care and we need to redefine this. it's important to define it. host: because you made that point we will let you go and hear from ron in greg ville, virginia. caller: i gotta couple of points if you don't cut me off if you don't agree with them. something for people to think about is the war on terror that we spent a trillion dollars on. question is, i wonder if it had been insured by now, that $8 trillion on research, some thing else to think about is we are on the verge of getting in war with russia, god knows how much that is going to caused in lives and dollars. something americans should really pressure their

representatives on his maybe prioritizing our health over these, you know, the crazy foreign policy. another thing is the iniquity of coverage. you have some collars calling in talking about their goldplated coverage to treat cancer while a lot of other people are flat bankrupt. something to think about. host: ok, edward, wake forest. caller: thank you for taking my call. discussions of costs, the insurance company paid half $1 million for my treatments and the provider settled for $64,000. that was alarming. another thing a technician told me recently when i went in for a checkup is that she is seeing an alarming increase in colon

cancer of people in their 20's. i think we have to take food into account here. there is something we are eating that is killing us. but the pharmaceutical companies, maintenance drugs is where the money is. not curing people. thank you. edward in north carolina -- host: edward in north carolina, finishing off the calls. our first guest will help us to take a look at campaign 2022, particularly control of the senate and what it might hold as far as elections are concerned. we will look at that with jacob through baskin and later on the first of our lawmaker interviews this morning. we will be joined by brian style of wisconsin to talk about the presidential handling of the economy and other top issues. those questions and more, coming up.

>> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern on in-depth, georgetown university law professor cheryl cassian live taking your skulls and -- your calls and discussing race relations in american. the books include the agitators daughter and white space, blackard. then a congressman shares his book digitally -- dignity and a digital age where you've offer suggestions on how to close the gap. interviewed by founder and editor-in-chief of the markup, julia anglin. watch book tv every sunday c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide and watch online at tb.org -- booktv.org. >> c-span offers a variety of

podcasts for every listener. washington today gives you the latest from the nation capital and every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works while the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years and our occasional series talking with features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and works. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. find them all on the c-span now apple or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion of campaign 2022 with jacob rubashkin, a reporter and analyst for the publication. thank you for joining us. guest: happy to be here. host: could you set the stage is far as where the senate is now and what 2022 could bring as control of the senate?

guest: the united states senate is currently split as evenly as possible, 50 democrats and 50 republicans. when jill biden is president, kamala harris's vice president, that means the democrats have a functional majority in the chamber because vice president harris can cast the tie-breaking vote. in the 2022 election, we are looking at a battlefield that while small still could determine control of the united states senate, which is on the line this november. either democrats or republicans could walk out of 2022 with control of this important chamber. host: if that is the case, what are the most important races you are watching that determines that ultimate outcome? guest: while there are 34 races up for election this fall, there are eight that we identify had elections that we believe are the most competitive, evenly

split battlefield like the senate is evenly split. there are four democratic held seats or republican held seats we are watching on the democratic side. that is arizona, georgia, new hampshire, and nevada. on the republican side, wisconsin, pennsylvania, north carolina, and florida. host: let's talk specifics. you mentioned arizona, correct me if i'm wrong that is senator sinema's seat and that is something people are watching, particularly what has played out over the last few months in the senate. guest: this was particularly mark kelly c. he has to run for election again even though he was elected because that was a special election to fill the remainder of the late senator john mccain's seat. mark kelly is up in arizona, a similar situation in georgia will -- where rafael warnock won

his election two weeks ago but has to run again in the fall. the controversies surrounding senator sinema and her relationship with the democratic base certainly are playing a role in the 2022 election in arizona and puts senator mark kelly in an awkward position as he is trying to both hold on to the most dedicated voters and while not spurring the independent voters i kyrsten sinema has been courting and not making things awkward between him and his senate colleague while it is so divided. voters will not get their chance to determine senator sinema's next couple years until 2024. she is still finding herself playing a role in these elections in 2022. host: you mentioned also new hampshire being at play. talk about that race. guest: new hampshire is above all a democratic sea, the one we

see democrats have the strongest at the moment. nevada, georgia, and arizona are tossup's. new hampshire it is tilt democratic race. that is because republicans hope to incoming governor chris sununu would run against incumbent senator maggie hassan. they believe the senator was the best candidate, not just in that race but any race in the country and the cycle and if sununu ran he would be the automatic favorite. a lot of republicans i spoke to spoke about that race and certainty for a pickup opportunity when they believed kristin sununu would run. sununu decided not to run and did not just to that but launched a great blistering attack on the united states senate as an institution, saying he had no interest in going to work there and would much rather remain governor. that means the republicans have to sort through a primary

election to find their need. they have a whole bunch of different candidates and then stay on their primary is not until mid december, one of the latest in the country. so it's a universally well-known , well-funded governor and maggie builds up her war chest and her support within the state while republicans are busy fighting it out amongst themselves until the september primary. that is why, along with the bank of new hampshire, is a little more democratic as we see democrats are best positioned at the moment. host: this is jacob rubashkin of inside elections. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to talk about elections in 2022 and what the senate might look like after the elections.

what are the republican races to watch? guest: we are looking at four republican races that we view as particularly competitive. the interesting thing about the republican side is we see quite a few retirements out of republican senators. five of them, well only one retirement from a safe seat of a democratic senator. senator pat toomey is not seeking reelection and that makes it the democrats best chance at a pickoff race this cycle. while we feel republicans are slightly favored given the national environment, pennsylvania was one of the closest state in the presidential election, an open race, there are good candidates, and it's a real opportunity for democrats. then you have wisconsin where senator ron johnson has announced he is running for reelection. another state that was very close in 2016 and 2020, johnson

is an incumbent and democrats are working through their primary and will not have a nominee until mid august. after that, we have north carolina, another republican retirement, senator richard burr's, similar situation, big republican primary, democratic -- democrats already have their presumptive nominee and former state -- in former state supreme court justice cheryl beasley. she has transitioned to republican mode. north carolina is a bit more republican intrinsically that wisconsin -- stand wisconsin or pennsylvania. so we view the republicans as slightly favored in that race. finally we have florida which always seems to play host to these really competitive, tight elections. no matter what the national political environment is. there we already have our general election matchup. marco rubio running for a third term, republicans, and on the democratic side, congresswoman

val demings is the almost certain democratic nominee, has been raising a ton of money and while she faces our real uphill battle in florida, only a few democrats have won statewide in the last decade. she is a strong candidate for democrats. it is a race we have to watch because florida, even when the races are not close, they are close by any other states standard. host: there is talk usually about the president's approval ratings and where they stand. how much of a determining factor are those ratings on these races and can things change before november? guest: the president's approval rating plays a huge role in the midterm election. that is because the president is not on the ballot. voters do not have a way to take out their frustration directly on him. historically speaking, they take it out on his party instead. if we go back and look at the last 100 years of midterm elections, it is quite consistent.

the party in power in the white house almost always loses seats in the house of representatives and more often than not loses seats in the united states senate as well. the trend is more consistent in the house but it is pretty clear across the board. having an unpopular president is a drag on the president's party. that is because voters are generally unhappy with the direction of the country, they do not like what they are seeing out of washington, and because the president is not on the ballot, they go for the next best thing, the president's party. if we look at the few situations in which the party in power did not lose control or gained ground, they are generally in times whether president has been quite popular. i think the best example there is probably the 2002 midterms in which republicans gained seats in the house and senate despite george w. bush being in power because the country was still reeling from 9/11 and very much

behind george w. bush politically speaking during that election. that is not the case in 2022. joe biden is an unpopular president and that is real trouble for the democrats in the house of representatives. in the senate, it is a little different because the math is more constrained. not every senator is up for reelection this time and democrats have the benefit of only defending seats in states joe biden wine in 2020. so they have a bit of a built in advantage. though things are so bad for the president at the moment that a lot of those close states like georgia and arizona, which won by less than a percentage point, could easily flip to republicans even though they voting for joe biden -- voted for joe biden in the election of 2020 because a president's own popular. host: jacob rubashkin of inside

elections joining us. florida, democrats line, you are first up for our gas. go ahead. caller: i want to ask why you people always say the house and senate are evenly divided, that the powers evenly divided when the senate has the filibuster, which means we have no power in the senate at all. senate democrats have no power there. guest: i think in some cases that is certainly true. when it comes to legislating, it is far more difficult to pass most legislation when you do not have 60 seats in the senate. when you cannot overcome a filibuster. i would not say there is no power. the last year also so demonstrated that pretty well and democrats passed several trillion dollars of spending in coronavirus relief packages with no republican votes.

we are going to see another example of this in the coming months with joe biden nominating a supreme court justice nominee to replace justice breyer. that person, she may pass through the senate with no republican votes because you can do nominations and appointments on a simple majority. i am not diminishing the role of the filibuster in the chamber. i think the reason why we have seen such a lack of everyday legislating coming out of the united states senate over the last decade or more now is because so much needs 60 votes to pass. there are still things that a democratic president and democratic majority can do with 50 votes in the united states senate. if democrats lose the senate, provided the last two years of biden's first term, it is going to get to a lot more uncomfortable for him, even

more so than the difficulties they have now. host: joe in maine, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to ask, what are the republicans going to run on? in 2016, they promised to repair and replace, they did not do it. they did not do anything on immigration. they do not do anything except a lie about how many miles a while they built. now they will be running in on campaigning, but what are they going to run on? we defended president trump, who was impeached, refused to look at evidence. they took an oath to be fair and impartial jurors and they obviously just pedaled -- pittled on that. now you have people running

around saying he still won an election, he has lied repeatedly , republicans got behind them, and it is obvious it was a lie from november 3. thank you. host: that is joe in maine. so what is the message generally republican senators will run on? on the second part, how much does a former president and letting the events of january 6 factor into these elections. guest: one of the nice things being the party out of power is a lot of times voters do not really care what you are running on so much as you are not the other guy. that is what we are seeing out of republicans at the moment, they are focusing on failures of the. the thing i hear over and over again is cost-of-living, the border, the situation in afghanistan. they are presenting themselves

as an alternative and historically speaking, that is an effective way of getting back in power. they don't like how things are going with democrats and regardless of the more substantive criticisms on policy, a lot of voters are looking for something new and republicans go in the midterm is to present themselves as a reasonable alternative to what we have going on at the moment. that may well be effective because voters are so dissatisfied with the direction the country is going in. to your second part, the question, the danger for republicans, they become unreasonable and become perceived by voters as unreasonable. the presence of the former president's interval here because voters rejected donald trump in 2020. he lost the presidential election, democrats won the united states senate, they won in red places.

it was a rejection of trumpism in a pretty clear way. if republicans decide rather than being the alternative to democrats, to inflation, to rising cost, to chaos in afghanistan, if they become perceived as just a return to trumpism, that could be a difficulty for the party heading into the midterms because voters have said that is not what they want. so it is the republican quandary here, how much to lean into association with the former president and not all that is voluntary because as we know, the guy likes to put himself into these situations, he likes to be the center of attention, so republicans at the moment are simply trying to present themselves as better than joe biden, not joe biden. but they're going to have to navigate not being donald trump

either if they want to have as big a success as they could in the fall. host: monique, washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: hello. i truly believe that -- thank you for c-span. sorry for not respecting the platform. i think it is an imbalance in congress and senate when it comes to the population of the people in the whole and also the amount of representatives that they are lighting. i'm from washington, d.c. and we are taxation without representation. we don't get to say so in laws that are past, legislation, anything. our voices don't count. you also have a lot of states with a significant population with more votes, more power than

in other states with less population. it is very imbalanced, especially when it comes to the south states. they have more power than the north. in so many ways when it comes to the legislative task. i think it is sad. sad that washingtonians don't have a vote in the senate or congress, but we pay more taxes than any other state in the union, and it is not fair. at all. host: thank you for calling. that is monique. guest: while this goes back to something i was saying earlier about the level of power the democrats have in an evenly divided senate. we saw this last year and two years ago, the movement for d.c. statehood, movement to make d.c.

no longer this unto itself territory that has 700,000 people who do not get a vote in congress, which is absolutely the case, into a state granted to increase the size of the united states senate to 102. a bill to do that passed the u.s. house and died in the united states senate because there are still a few democratic senators who are not on board with d.c. statehood. were democrats have a larger majority, it is possible that we could have seen the district of columbia admitted as a state to the union and granted those two senators, but because that legislation is subject to the 60 vote threshold, there are not enough republicans, some like lisa murkowski expressing

openness from d.c. statehood coming from alaska. there are a lot of folks who are alive when alaska was not a state. we are only talking about a half-century ago that alaska and hawaii were admitted to the union. there was a chance to correct that imbalance, at least when it comes to the district of columbia and democrats do not have the votes to pass it. more broadly speaking, the senate these days is a tough place for democrats to be successful because the party is struggling so much in smaller, more rural places over the last decade. that is not how things always have been and there is no reason to believe that is how things always will be if we go back to 2008 when democrats did have the 60 vote majority in the united states senate. democrats had two senators from montana, two senators from north dakota, and a senator from south

dakota, and republicans had two senators from georgia and from arizona. the balance was simply different, and at the moment, the two parties are positioned in a way that democrats are at a disadvantage in the united states and and there is no denying that. host: since you brought it up, the georgia senate race, what is the status of rafael warnock's race on getting another term in the senate? guest: absolutely. this will be one of the most competitive races and one of the closest races in the entire country. rafael warnock won the huge victory along with jon ossoff in the 2021 georgia special election runoff. now he will face in all likelihood republican herschel walker, the star university of georgia -- star university of georgia who has never run for political office before but it

was former president trump who encouraged him to run and cleared the field for him to run. both warnock and walker all raising incredibly large sums of money. warnock is democrat's top fundraiser in the entire country and walker is one of the top fundraising republicans of the entire country. george as a state is so evenly split between democrats and republicans. both of these candidates have a very high floor in terms of how low they can fall in the low ceiling in terms of how many voters there are out there for them to get. we look at the elections in georgia in 2018 when brian kemp beat stacey abrams, he only won by two points. we go to 2020 and joe biden won by a fraction of a percent over donald trump, despite a different national environment. 2021, no -- those special elections were decided by two points. that is a state where at the

moment holds really close, competitive races. this race will be close both because we have got two candidates raising a ton of money but also because the state is simply so evenly divided. host: from clark in michigan, independent line, you are next. >> i am calling about the young man on tv here. he is saying that the democrats never have a chance and everything. i have not heard a republican or independent or anybody in their party get on tv and say anything about social security. how are they going to handle social security here on out? the people in social security need a word about this. what do republicans stand on as far as their midterms on social security? i am interested on what is going on in social security.

host: how to those specific kind of talk -- kind of topics like social security and up in a person's race for the senate? guest: the reality is, republicans have stopped talking about social security, stopped talking about medicare. a lot of the government support programs that once made up planks of the republican party, looking at ways to restructure and in some cases privatize that the way bush tried to do a decade and a half ago, those were once central tenets of the republican party. that is the paul ryan movement weakening the party. they have learned their lesson which is stop talking about social security, medicare. donald trump made that clear when he said [indiscernible] and everyone else will cut your social security and medicare and

i'm going to increase it. that was an uncommon position for republicans at the time. since then, i think they realize how politically unpopular that is. they are staying away from the issue. regardless of how they may feel about what to do in social security and medicare and broadly speaking republicans do not like government spending in any sort of way, but when it comes to uses as a political issue, it is rare to hear that centered as a real topic of discussion when there are things they think that are so much more salient. for voters, like cost-of-living, the economy in general, and some of the other things the biden administration has done. host: this is mark, democrats line from seattle, washington. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thanks for c-span. i just think, jacob, he is very well studied but i think he is

missing the mark in that nobody wants to be typed as i am a republican all of the time. a lot of people will change to this election -- change this election. i think he needs to reflect that american people cannot be stereotyped. they will vote the way they want to vote and i think he has a very accurate representation. host: what leads you to believe that? caller: he reminds me a lot of my cousin. he wants to reassure us republicans will vote this way. for instance, normally republicans support war and the war effort, but they are not doing it this time. the foolishness of war and maybe we will lose. host: how does that relate to

the senate elections in 2022? caller: well we've got to break that -- we've got to get a majority in their. it has too long been a tie, so a good question for the election to answer. host: mr. rubashkin. guest: i think certainly when it comes to how politicians vote, the republican party has gone through a bit of a metamorphosis over the last couple years. that demonstrates similar what i was saying for social security that sometimes the party can move in unpredictable ways and particularly in the age of donald trump who has shifted the party on a lot of these issues, particularly on foreign policy when republicans were kind of the party of an incredibly muscular and present foreign policy and trump in some regards really tried to yank that back, specifically talking about ukraine a lot now.

the former president had major beef with nato, which for a republican was rare that a republican would go up and so openly question our alliances in europe and cozy up to the russians. that was not the republican position prior to 2017. it became the republican position and now we see a lot of republican media in particular at the forefront of questioning the united states involvement in the situation in ukraine. i make no pretension of knowing how each and every person, each and every republican will vote because i understand physicians shift and parties shift. when it comes to voters, while there are voters that do change their votes, for the vast majority of voters, how they voted in the last presidential election is usually the best indicator of how they will vote

in the next election. that has increased every single cycle. it used to be a lot of split ticket voting. these days we see very little. in those competitive races, that segment of voters, it does change their mind and end up being the difference. that is why a state like new hampshire or georgia or nevada that voted for joe biden in 2020 would easily elect a republican to the united states senate, states like north carolina, which elected, voted for donald trump in 2020 could easily elect a democrat, so voters do change their minds. politicians do move on issues, but we can determine and project voter behavior and politician behavior from how they have acted over the span of their voting or politicing careers. host: let's hear from thomas in

florida, republican line. we are just about out of time so go ahead with your question or comment quick. caller: i will make a quick. i'm 20 years old and plan on running for president in 2032. i think we need a new face of the republican party and we need to be a party of the future. i'm so sick of going on cnn and fox and every single day they are talking about january 6 or hunter biden's emails, or trunk, or hillary clinton. all they do is talk about the past. i would like to see a republican party looking toward the future. looking at green energy, stem, add new technologies, and new economic ideas, at things to move forward rather than constantly moving back. i accuse both parties of doing that. host: that is thomas in florida. for all of these looking at the races and potential outcome, i know it is early but what do you see as the outcome? guest: it is still early. i think anything from a

democratic gain of a few seeds to a republican gain of a few seats is well within the realm of possibilities. i think because the battlefield are so small, which is rare for a senate battlefield, there are only four democratic seats that are particularly vulnerable, only four republican held seats that are particularly vulnerable. we are not going to see these massive swings that previous years have brought us like in 2014 when republicans picked up nine seats in the senate, 2010 when republicans picked up seven seats in the senate. that is highly unlikely. that said, because the senate is evenly divided 50-50, they do not need seven or nine, they need the one and they have four opportunities to do it, particularly if democrats cannot pick up any seats on their own. so the national environment is looking pretty good for republicans. the senate map gives democrats a little bit of cause for concern

and at this point it could go either way. host: jacob rubashkin of inside elections. if you want to go to the website and take a look at the senate races, you can do so. thank you for your time today. the story breaking during the course of the morning, president biden saying today a u.s. rate in northwest syria has killed a top isis leader. what he was saying or quoted saying, forces successfully undertook a counterterrorist operation to protect the american people and allies and make the world a safer place. the president expected to speak in an hour from now on this topic before he heads to new york. you can see that at c-span.org. look for that later on. coming up, another legislator joining us, the first of two lawmaker interviews today. we will be joined by brian

style, a republican congressman for wisconsin to talk about issues of the economy. later on in the program, a democratic congressman, ami bera , and those conversations are coming up. ♪ ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, to the 60th anniversary gala from the white house historical association with caroline kennedy and first lady jill biden -- joe biden reflecting on jaclyn kennedy's work and founding the association. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, former charleston south carolina mayor joseph riley and professor carrie taylor talk about why a new african-american history museum is being built in the city.

they are joined by the former south carolina representative and author of my vanishing country, exploring the american story. watching american history tv, saturday on c-span two and find a full schedule on your c-span guide or watch online anytimefa at c-spanr.org/historym -- any time at c-span.org/history. >> sunday on in-depth, georgetown university fetzer cheryl cassian will be our guest to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her many books include the failures of integration, the agitators daughter, place not race, and her latest, white space black hood. join in on the conversation with her facebook comments -- your facebook comments and tweets live sunday noon on book tv and c-span2. before the program, visit c-spanshop.org to get your copy of her book, white space, black

hood. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning is representative bryan steil, a member of the financial services committee and on economic fairness and growth. he is the ranking member of that committee. thank you for joining us. >> thanks for having me on. when it looks as matters of the economy, what topics of the committee focused on? guest: there are a whole host of topics we are covering. we are diving into what are the challenges americans are phasing to get back to their way of life and in particular we have seen a challenging two years. people i've seen their incomes go down, seen prices go up, so we are really diving into some of the underlying issues that are causing the disparity that we see in the united states. i think we have opportunities to dig into the overall social programs, make sure they are tight to wear, allowing individuals to return back into

society and get a good job, a better job. we need to make sure we are continuing to get prices under control. the runaway spending in washington is clobbering people in the pocketbooks. i think there's a great opportunity to turn the corner on this and get our way of life back. host: one of the topics of spending that came up yesterday was the national debt of the united states, now $30 trillion with stories saying a lot of that is pandemic standing -- spending. in light of that figure, is it your opinion that the endemic spending was worth it? guest: the spending in washington, d.c. is mildly out of control. as governments were closing businesses, we were concerned people might not be able to cover the rent, pay mortgage, cover grocery bill. initial spending in washington was necessary but what we have seen is instead of them ripping off the band-aid of covid era policies and returning to the policies leading into the pandemic, we have seen continued spending in washington. earlier this year, on a partisan

vote, congress passed $1.9 trillion in additional spending under the guise of covid, very little of that money went to addressing covid. we sought struggles of getting people tests heading into christmas. masks are being produced in china domestically so what we have seen is spending continue on a whole host of different topics rather than addressing the pandemic and covid, getting us out of the pandemic and getting the way of life back. host: because pandemic spent -- spending existed in this segment astray and last administration. would you have questions about spending in both? guest: absolutely. in all of the bills i went through. that is what washington does so poorly. at a time where we should be targeted and focused on spending to get us through and out of this pandemic, what it ends up being and many times is a trend where everyone is loading on their pet projects into the

spending bills going through. the first one had $25 million for the kennedy center in washington, d.c.. nothing wrong with a center, it just did not have anything to do with the bill going through. what we need to do is get our spending in washington targeted, under control, we need to get through this pandemic, to get our way life back. host: our guest is with us, and if you want to ask questions on the economy and other matters, call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. rep -- represented, because we go back to the previous administration and spending overall, the president's sub tax cuts ending the contribution to the current debt. how would you relate that? guest: i think what we saw coming into the pandemic was record growth. we have seen tax revenue increase to record numbers.

we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. we need to make sure we are putting forward progrowth tax policy. we sell rising wages in real terms, meaning wages were significantly outpacing the rate of inflation. tax revenues for the federal government are going up. you can do that by putting forward tax cuts and a progrowth manner. what we do not have in washington is a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. host: the discussion we are having comes as a debate on capitol hill with the future of what was commonly known as build back better. do you see any attempt i democrats on the hill to break that into pieces to pass this through? if that is the case, are there any individual portions of the overall plan you could support? guest: i think that is very likely the democrats and particularly nancy pelosi will continue to try to push through pieces of the so-called build back better plan. i think what is so important is the topics often in the bill are quite reasonable for us to

address. childcare is a huge challenge for families across the united states, incredibly expensive, and is now were difficult to get access to childcare in the first place. otherwise we could come together on the help. unfortunately, the legislation put forward by build back better would examine the childcare use. it does provide free childcare for some americans but if you dig into the program, it is negative for all of the faith-based providers. it puts in a whole host of regulations and restrictions that will drive up the cost of childcare. one study suggested it would take the cost of childcare in the united states from $16,000 to $29,000 a year. i am focused on making sure we have affordable, accessible childcare. i would love to see democrats come to the table and have an adult conversation about this. the legislation is drafted under build back better and moving us in the wrong direction. would host: child tax credits fonder something you would consider? guest: the original tax credit into the pandemic is something

that works well for families. i support legislation that would allow a family member to pull some of that forward into the year of the bird, making sure moms and dads are able to stay home and particular in the weeks following the birth of a child. there are creative ways we could look at this. host: our guest is from wisconsin, and if i understand it correctly, you currently hold the see paul ryan how that one time. guest: that is accurate. southeast wisconsin, my hometown is james vale. the district goes to lake michigan, racine, and kenosha, into the southern suburbs of milwaukee. host: ryan from albuquerque, new mexico, up first for our guest, on the line for independence. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. an issue that comes up especially in republican circles is illegal immigration in -- immigration and our out-of-control border. i would like to point out republicans never discussed all of the american employers that

hire them. when does the republican party going to go after the business community that uses illegal immigrants as an entitlement? if you look at the meatpacking industry, years ago, it used to be a unionized business and it was all middle-class americans that worked there. what they did in the 1980's was bankrupted the companies, dumped the union contracts, and imported all of the illegal immigrants to work in their factories. they earned eight or $10 per hour, next to nothing. the republican party does not say a word about it. if the republican party is looking for illegal immigrants to start looking in your hotels, your restaurants, your hospitals, your warehouse is, all of your meatpacking plants, all of your ad business, and that is where you will find them, working for american criminals. host: ok. that is right in new mexico. representative steil, go ahead.

guest: he brings up a point, there is a push on many illegal immigrants coming to the united states of america. there is a pull and we need to respect that, understand it is going on, and address it. we need to hold individuals accountable. at the same time, it is important we do secure our border. i have been to the u.s. and mexico border and i've seen firsthand individuals coming across, how poor the border is, the amount to the border patrol officials need our support. i think it is important we do build the wall, that we hire men and women in border patrol, invest in technology, that we get situational control on the border. this is a broader issue than just securing the border. we have to have a rational immigration policy. step one is gain control of the border where thousands or millions are coming across on a yearly basis. host: greg on our republican line, wisconsin. caller: good morning, c-span.

thank you. it is wonderful to have a conservative republican on, which you should have more of. my comment or question to the representative is this, being a relatively newer member in washington, d.c., how can we as conservatives get the republican party to stick together on these issues without being scattered around with rhinos like liz cheney trying to steal what we are doing in a good fashion, equitable for everybody in the country? guest: i think what you are seeing now is the republican conference and the house being quite unified about getting our way of life back, about securing our border and being tough on crime and making sure our communities are safe. i think we are quite unified right now as we see a unified democratic party pushing through really aggressive social spending policies or

dramatically changing people's relationships with our federal governments. i think we will continue to be in the weeds, talking about the importance of policies, to allow us to rip the band-aid off of the covid-era policies we have been under the last two years. host: baltimore, maryland, andrew, democrats line. caller: how is it going? you mentioned getting the democrats to come to the table to have an adult conversation. are you able to name some the democrats you are ready to work with side-by-side to get stuff done? and actually have that conversation? what are you doing to get them to the table, to make them feel ready to do business with you? guest: on the select committee on economic fairness and growth, jim himes and myself spent countless hours dialoguing where are there areas we can agree? our committee, we have a wide range of views from the left and right, but some areas really are

nonpartisan in nature. i think it is one of the areas i would love to see our committee dive in and get into the weeds in. i will give you an example. far too often individuals on social programs for the federal government -- from the federal government field there is a significant benefits clip that is allowing them from taking a better job, taking an overtime shift, earning more money. that has real-life consequences for sony americans who are working their tails off to be able to get into the middle class. i think the scenario where republicans and democrats can come together, where we can explore how we can make our safety net programs there but be a trampoline to bounce you back into society rather than the hammock that lulls people into complacency. the committee i serve on with jim himes from connecticut is really a platform where we can do that. host: representative steil, the federal reserve plans to hike inflation or at least raise it in march. i want to get your thoughts on

if that happens, its ultimate effect, particularly on matters of inflation. guest: i think we are going to see higher rates and particularly in this period of time significant of inflation. over the course of the last two years, the federal reserve increased its balance sheet by four chilean dollars. the last two months, the federal reserve balance sheet increased by $100 billion. what this means is from a monetary policy perspective, we have a lot of liquidity in the market and it is part of the reason we are seeing inflation and costs increase day over day. we also have a fiscal policy problem in washington where we are spending way too much money. when you combine the fiscal policy with the monetary policy with the energy policy that we have in the united states, we are seeing higher prices. i'm concerned there will be real challenging month and years ahead as we work to get prices under control i do think we will see the federal reserve have to continue to raise rates to tame rising prices. host: as far as the

liquidity you see then, what would you see is the correct amount? guest: i have had conversations on our financial services committee with chairman powell with my concern about the dramatic increase in the balance sheet we have seen in the last two years. chairman powell publicly indicated he plans to hold those securities, meaning all of the bonds and this money, until they mature. years and years into the future. my concern is that is going to have real-world consequences. i would have rather we did build up -- did not build up the balance sheet in the manner we had. we are going to have to continue to monitor how the federal reserve is behaving and what the implications are of the monetary policy we have seen over the past two years. host: representative bryan steil joining us. our next caller is on the democratic line. caller: i want to commend the

man that called in from new mexico regarding illegal immigration. i want to make a couple of comments about that. both parties benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigration. last year, from what i understand, over 2 million illegal aliens entered this country. this does not even include the ones on a way that were not apprehended. the drain this is putting on the american taxpayer, you are talking about the economy for american taxpayers, and terms of housing, education, and health, this is criminal. i believe a recent rally of donald trump, he even came out and said if he were to win in 2024, he would strengthen i.c.e. so they could go around and deport all of the people that have come in during the biden administration. i would like to know what the republicans intend seriously to

do about this massive issue because this is draining all of us. guest: i think you bring up a really important topic. i think step one is we need to enforce our immigration laws. in particular, we need to get situation control on the southern border. i have been to the southern border and have spoken to the men and women of the border patrol. they are currently understaffed. step one we have to make sure we are staffing up and having an appropriate number of members of our border control -- border patrol so they can do their job too. we need to redo construction of the wall bang. this was stopped on day one of president biden. we need to make sure we invest in technology, motion sensors, drones, other pieces of technology to leverage the work of our border patrol agents because we have to gain situational control on the southern border and enforce immigration laws. host: baltimore maryland,

independent line. dustin in baltimore, maryland? we will go to john in wisconsin, independent line. caller: yes, hello. thank you for taking my call. i was going to ask a question about the border also and it reminds me back to when the ronald reagan passed immigration reform and did that kind of amnesty. his agreement was to secure and build the border wall before offering any amnesty. they're trying to the same thing again. they want amnesty before we have a secure border. i think you can't keep bringing the tarp before the horse. guest: i think what you bring up is an important topic that we need to secure the southern border before we address our broken legal immigration system. we have a broken legal

immigration system, a broken illegal immigration system. step one, we need to secure our border and restart construction of the wall, support our men and women of border patrol and invest in technology. host: when it comes to security on the u.s. capitol, on your side of the capital, there is the work of the january 6 committee. what do you think of the work and what'd you think about january 6 in light of the committee's investigation. guest: i served on the house administration so i served at the forefront of many of these reviews. i think the january 6 select committee continued to show it is a partisan operation. i'm not overly confident they can reproduce any products other than a partisan product in the end. i think criminal investigations done by the department of justice are the best place to do criminal investigations. individuals who broke the law should be accountable for any infractions on that day or any other day. we need to stand with the men and women of law enforcement need to make sure we are

enforcing our criminal code. host: some of those matters, at least as far as a committee is involved, it is referring people to the justice involvement for criminal investigation. why not support that? guest: i think the department of justice in our current, existing criminal apparatus is the best place to do criminal investigations. i think once you have partisan operations conducting their own investigation, you wind up with a partisan product that will not give any kind of an is to the american people at the day. i do believe individuals who engage in criminal behavior should be held accountable. i think that is true across the board, whether it is the riots we saw a sum or two ago or the behavior we saw in the nation's capital, but i do not think a partisan review of this process is going to move us forward. host: from jim, new york, a republican line. go ahead. caller: hi. i often call and you hang up 20 or 30 seconds or so. i will try to get in something.

you talk about the border. you don't need to come to the border. come to brentwood. it is spreading into bayshore. it is a real mess. i don't know what they will do with all of these people. i am involved. i go to the town hall meetings. the town hall supposedly is republican and they have been a flop. these houses are packed with people. here is what i was treated to on christmas eve, five inch mortise, all night long, until 2:00 in the morning. i go to see who is lighting them off, i go to 1st avenue, four cars in the driveway, six cars on the sidewalk. the whole block is like that. my block is like that. these houses are packed with people. and nobody is doing anything about it. host: ok, thanks. guest: i'm not familiar with the local situation the gentleman describes, but we are a country

of laws and i think we need to make sure we are enforcing our laws. host: michael in maryland, independent line. caller: yeah. congressman, i have been in the united states for over 25 years, and there is only one thing i understand you guys say, republicans talk about giving more to the rich and democrats talk about giving money to the middleman and individual class or the poor. the last tax cut under president trump benefited the top class. you took over from [indiscernible] that bill punished states that do not vote republican. so now that the democrats are giving money to the poor, why do you guys talk about inflation?

because poor people will spend the money. rich people do not spend the money. host: that is michael in maryland. guest: i disagree with the caller's analysis. let me break it down this way. as we saw under build back better, the biggest piece of the puzzle was a tax cut for the rich. the democrats put in a significant tax cut to give tax benefits to some of the wealthiest americans. i actually think the tax cuts put in place under president trump were very progrowth and moved us in the right direction. i think the results speak for themselves. real wages were growing approximately 7% heading into the pandemic. who was it helping the most? it was helping some of our lowest income earners the most and also helping a wide variety of americans who saw the largest wage growth in some of the best employment environments we have seen in generations for blacks, hispanics, asians, women's, veterans. when you put in place progrowth tax policies, we can grow the pie for everyone.

i think that is what is so important that we do, that we are not targeting tax cuts to drive forward social policy, we are putting forward progrowth policies that grow the pie so that everybody has the opportunity to live out a better life. host: a couple matters of foreign policy if i may, there was news from president biden today about the killing of an event by the united states in killing a leader of islamic state terrorist group. what you think about that action? guest: i have been reading the news reports on this this morning as well, continue to track this. i think it is a solid reminder of the dangers that terrorists around the globe continue to play and in particular failed states such as syria. we need to remain vigilant. there is a number of threats currently occurring around the globe that have significant national importance to the united states of america. there will be more information likely out on the strike that occurred last night but i think it is a solid reminder of the threats that exist to the united

states of america around the globe. host: do you support the operation? guest: i think there are a lot of facts to come out. i do not think i want to prejudge what it was done but i think it is appropriate for the united states to remain vigilant and not allow terrorism to fester anywhere on the globe. host: also, deployment of troops, at least more so than initially announced by the biden administration when dealing with russia and you aim. the operation the united states are involved in. guest: i think it is important we make a statement that we support the territorial integrity of ukraine. i'm frustrated we are negotiating from a position of weakness following the botched evacuation from afghanistan and countries around the globe will continue to test the resolve of the united states of america. but we do need to protect the territorial integrity of ukraine. it we can do that through a whole host of actions, including the deployment of troops, recently authorized by president biden. host: did you support that move as far as the authorization of

the troops? guest: i think that's a reasonable step. i think there are a lot of tools in the toolkit to examine that -- examine so that we make sure we are -- host: such as what? guest: there are sanctions. we should re-explore the sanctions when it relates to nord stream 2. when germany is increasing their dependence on russian oil and gas, i thing there's a lot of options we could be looking at here in washington, well short of war, bullets flying, to make sure we make a clear statement to support the integrity of ukraine. host: here is a reporter from ohio. caller: thank you for letting me express my opinion and god bless. i'm not totally partisan to my party. from what i've seen so far, i

think it is a total mass. how can i watch the congress -- i watch the congress and senate every day and i watched them go through the motions and nothing ever gets done. there is no allegiance to one another or to the united states as a whole. i just find it -- i just find it interesting that bill clinton was the only president to balance the budget, and since then, there has been no budget. none of us seem to care about health care in this country. they are more concerned about 2 million immigrants from mexico coming to work, that pay taxes, that will never be able to receive any benefits from them. i live in a state that employs many immigrants that come to help in agriculture.

i find it interesting that the lady from new jersey has such a strong opinion toward anti-immigration, yet she is going to the grocery store and grabbing all the fruits and vegetables that were harvested by these immigrants. host: greg in ohio, got your thought across. we will let the guest respond. guest: i share your frustration over dysfunction in washington. how can anyone look at what congress is doing and be proud. i come from a business background. if this was a business, it would be bankrupt tomorrow, and everybody would be terminated. we need to dramatically alter how congress operates so we start to get stuff done on behalf of the american people. host: from michigan, charles, independent line. caller: i agree with the

previous caller and the caller from new mexico. when i walked around my town this summer, a lot of roofs were being repaired, and it was all hispanics that were working on these roofs. there was no one else. these employers are not getting punished for any of this. there is 10 million job openings in this country right now, 80,000 truck drivers that are needed, and yet you know that these employers are going to be going after these aliens that are coming in. and you guys do nothing about it. i don't blame them for coming into this country. we can do something about it.

guest: we do not know when we just observe whether people are legal or illegal immigrants. people that are illegal immigrants is a major point of pride in the united states of america. we are a country of immigrants. there are employers engaged in employing illegal immigrants, and i think you can do that, step one, by taking care of the southern border, making sure we gain situational control of the southern border, which is completely broken down over the last year. host: to what extent do you support the reform of the legal immigration process? guest: step one, we have to secure the borders. we have to address the illegal immigration side before we turn and address the legal immigration side. as we get through the illegal immigration side, secure the foreign border, there is time to look at what our workforce needs are, irrational immigration -- a

rational immigration approach. but first we have to secure our border. host: what would be involved in that? guest: we would explore agricultural visas. in wisconsin, we have a dairy program that is short workers. dairy, by definition, is not seasonal. it is 24 hours a day for many of these dairy farmers. a lot of agricultural visas do not address the workforce needs for dairy farms. where there is a truly -- true need for labor, we should shore up our legal immigration system. but step one is we have to address the illegal immigration. host: a member of the select committee on economic disparities, also a member of the financial services committee. representative steil, thanks for your service this morning. we will be joined by ami bera to

talk about issues in ukraine in about a half hour from now. at 9:30, the president is expected to make comments on the death of an isis leader, an operation approved by him. you can see that on c-span.org up until 9:30. you can make those calls now. we will take those calls in just a moment. ♪ >> in early 2001, bethany mclean , at the time a writer for "fortune" magazine, asked the question in an article, "how does enron make its money?"

mclean's reporting, along with others who wrote articles, led to a lot of inquiries that were put to the enron management. within a few months, the company was bankrupt. bethany mclean's subsequent 2003 book, titled "the smartest guys in the room," came a bestseller. next, a successful documentary. since 2008, mclean has made a career of writing about american financial crises. in january, she discussed her reaction to the thoroughness -- theranos saga. in an essay about convicted felon elizabeth holmes, she wrote, "for those who believe she is guilty of a great crime, it is a disappointing verdict." >> bethany mclean on book notes plus, available on the c-span now app.

or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you can participate in open forum by texting us. a follow-up to the news you just heard. the president on the hill and nothing early today that a u.s. raid in syria -- they killed the leader of an islamic state terrorist group. the u.s. military forces in northwest syria undertook an operation to protect the american people and our allies to make the world a safer place. thanks to the skill and bravery of our armed forces, we have taken off the battlefield the leader of isis. all americans have returned safely from the operation. expected to make comments on that at 9:30. pentagon press secretary john furby talked about the

additional deployment of 2000 troops to assist in issues concerning russia and ukraine. here is part of that from yesterday. [video] >> we are moving approximately 2000 troops from the united states to new york in the next couple of days. the 82nd airborne division is deploying components of an infantry gate combat team and key enablers to poland, and the 18th airborne corps is moving headquarters to germany. both of them are in fort bragg, north carolina. collectively, this force is equipped for a variety of missions to reassure and defend our allies. not surprisingly, we work closely with our polish and german allies to set the stage for these movements. again, these are not permanent moves. they respond to current conditions. we will adjust our posture as

those conditions evolve. third and finally, all of these forces are separate and in addition to the 8500 personnel in the united states on heightened alert posture that i announced next week. as needed for other contingencies directed by the secretary or by president biden. host: you can see more on c-span.org or our c-span app. democrats line, good morning. caller: is your guest still on that was on a few minutes ago? host: he has left us. caller: i did want to ask a question but i guess i will make it a comment. when you ask about the select committee embedding skating -- investigating january 6, he three times at least described it as a partisan committee.

this is what the republicans do. they say this is partisan so you don't need to pay attention to what they find out. they do have two republicans on that committee. what i wanted to ask him was, when they come up with facts, they have thousands of pages of documents from the trump administration. when they come up with facts, to say the administration was actively considering seizing voting machines -- can you imagine? seizing voting machines that were voted by american people. that is just one. but what i wanted to ask him was -- i guess it will be a rhetorical question -- the fact that they find out, are those partisan facts? are the facts that don't matter? are they partisan fact? host: that is built in

pennsylvania. donald in omaha, nebraska, independent line. caller: i was listening to your previous guest and you sure bypassed that illegal aliens being hired by big corporations to do the dirty work. never answer that question, any of them. we are screwed. host: next, people from seneca, south carolina, republican line. caller: your last guest, i thought he did a pretty good job of addressing some of the immigration questions, although it is tough on a station like yours just to go ahead and come up with everything, when they have not discussed it completely. i think they really do need to look more into the -- how they are going to -- what they are going to do about legal immigration to make sure that we have legal immigration. but they still lead to secure the border.

still need to look at what they are going to do with all of the illegals that are here now. do they make it -- do they come back and say all of them have to report to the government to decide whether or not -- whether we can account for them? are they going to be deported? there is a lot to discuss, and trying to make that decision on a tv show is not going to be an easy thing. but all our congresspeople need to step up and start doing something about it, instead of just hiding it under the table. host: part of the president's agenda today is to travel to new york to visit with new york city mayor eric adams. also part of that, the administration announcing plans to crack on illegal ghost guns and firearms trafficking along the east coast pipeline. the president is expected to address the issue with attorney general merrick garland.

they meet with eric adams and governor kathy hochul later today. among the new measures of the new ghost gun enforcement initiative -- crackdown on homemade firearms that like serial numbers to trace them. the effort will bring federal charges against people who use ghost guns, as well as those who sell or transfer guns used in violent crime. stay close to c-span.org for more information about that. brian and forest hills, south carolina, independent line. caller: i want to comment on the immigration issue. one of your collars, either from michigan or wisconsin, called in and made a comment about roofs being done in their area. they are being done by illegals and by immigrants. i am in south carolina and have an uncle in colorado. it is all over the united states.

where i live, you cannot even own a loan owner unless you are an illegal immigrant. they cut the grass here. they do your roofs. the build all the new houses. i cannot tell you how many new houses they build in this area. it is all done by these slave labor companies that are not much different than china. i guess they do pay them a little bit of a wage. it is all initially done by slave labor, and i thought we outlawed slavery. i guess if it is a little bit, ok, ha? host: from maryland, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call, but i piggyback on the following callers about the whole illegal immigration that is going on. even though there are jobs that are opening, i have relatives who have not even been hired

because they are picked over for someone who is not even from this country. i think this is a shame. that is all i have to say. host: if you go to the new york times today, it takes a look at reelection races, and money being raised by those republicans who specifically voted to impeach the former president, donald trump. they are saying in wyoming representative liz cheney, who is exiled by her party by condemning trump's false election claim, has emerged among the leaders on the select committee on the january select attack. with nearly $5 million in cash on hand, her opponent, who has drawn the vociferous support of mr. trump and the family, race $443,000 last quarter, and has about 380,000 dollars cash on hand. representative fred upton, a centrist who has held a seat in southwest michigan for more than

three decades, brought in $726,000 and has about $1.5 million cash on hand, well ahead of the challenger mr. trump has endorsed, steve kyra, a state representative who raised $134,000 last quarter. the new york times has a look at that. if you go to the washington times, former president george w. bush donated to the campaigns of two republicans being targeted by the former president. mr. bush donated to representative liz cheney of wyoming and senator lisa murkowski in the last three months of 2020. he maxed out ms. cheney with two separate donations. the donations came the same month that mr. bush held a ritzy fundraiser in texas. mr. bush similarly donated to ms. murkowski's reelection campaign.

jimmy, republican line, you are next in this open forum. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for the bit of good news you just read from the new york times and the washington times. i am an optimist and i think america is getting better. that news right there about fundraising makes me -- confirms my optimism. on immigration, i want to bring up one fact that i find unusual. there are zero americans in federal prisons for hiring an illegal alien. but i don't want to talk about immigration. i want to talk about how to reduce hatred in american politics, ok? i'm too much an optimist, but here is what i'm going to say. if you think either donald trump or alexandria ocasio-cortez, then you should not vote. if you hate either alexandria ocasio-cortez or donald trump, then i urge you to not vote.

as an american, you have the right to vote, and you have the right to own a gun, but if you hate the politician, this hatred will eventually destroy you. just because you have a right does not mean you ought to use that right. that is my first amendment right. host: we will hear from ralph in washington, d.c., independent line. caller: they are talking about troops and ukraine. first of all, the media is -- even npr was bringing people on from bbc. i don't know why hitler's -- i don't know why putin wants to do this. maybe there is megalomania. when the soviet union broke up, we made a deal with them that we were not going to put nato troops up to the border. they lost 40 million people

during world war ii. you've got to remember what we did when they put troops in cuba . we nearly went to nuclear war. now we are putting troops over there and we are being sold a bill of goods by the military-industrial complex that we are going to get another war. this is not afghanistan. these farmers have nukes. if they start losing a war, they are going to start using tactical nukes. how far are we going to go. are we going to go into another 20 year war so we can feed the military-industrial complex? i'm getting sick and tired of the media, which is controlled by corporations, and our congress, which is controlled by the military-industrial complex, taking us down another path. we don't need nato. nato was formed to counteract the soviet bloc. the soviet bloc is no longer there. host: let's go to patrick at

naples, florida, democrats line. caller: as far as the immigration -- they don't want to talk about how many russians have immigrated to the united states in the last four years. they come here. they have pictures of them on the beach so they can have their babies here. they don't talk about how he came from cuba that were born and raised communist. all they want to talk about is the south americans. and i don't know why i live in naples you could not get anything done without immigrants. host: how many russians have come? how many cubans have come? caller: millions of cubans, or millions of cubans live here. and right now, they seem to be taking over a lot of construction, because for some reason they don't check them. and you can't hire anybody,

because the companies are paying them -- i don't know. i get frustrated because you try to make a living, and these big companies that hire let's call them immigrants, but they don't want to pay them -- like anybody said, slave wages. they live 10 or 12 in another house, and it is better than what they came from. host: let's go to michigan, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. two points i would like to say. i'm 82 years old. i have voted in presidential elections since i was old enough to vote. i worked in a factory, and there were republicans and democrats in our shop. when the election was over, a little bit of rising went on because your opponent one or did not win. we used to have stickers on her toolboxes. a week or two later, everybody

was back doing what they did to make america great. it was not what is going on now with all of the dissent between the parties. the other thing i would like to say -- my whole life, i would think from all my friends, that 80% to 90% of the people in america have guns. i am for restricted gun controls to stop all this craziness that is going on, but i would like to just remind the white supremacists and the proud boys that with 90% of the people in america having a gun in their house, these guys aren't going to walk around like they do in south america and all these third world countries. host: one of the things highlighted in the wall street journal this morning with the president's pledge when it comes to matters of student that. gabriel ruben writing under the headline "the biden pledge to ease student that stalled."

more than $130 billion owned dashcode in private student loans. legislative efforts to forgive student debt has -- have stuttered in congress. they are calling for forgiveness of up to $50,000 in debt per borrower. senator warren said it is the right thing for generational and racial equality, the right thing for strengthening our economic future. pelzer publicans argued in a letter last year that they were tweaking loan balances. brian from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: i'm calling in reference to the immigration issues. both parties -- emma kratz, republicans have pushed for years -- democrats and republicans have pushed for years to keep illegal immigrants

off record. they are not paying taxes. the businesses that are hiring them are not paying taxes. these guys are using these people as slaves. why don't you guys as the news media push the issue. we want these people legalized. that way they will have the social security number. we will have the tech space. employers that use these numbers would be part of the tax base. that is part of the lobbying effort to keep these people illegal. nobody begrudge his these people for coming into this country to work. we would do the same thing if we were coming from mexico or south america or wherever. but we need these people on the record so they are paying taxes and working in the system. that is easy to do, but it is something the news media needs to push. host: we will go to david in georgia, independent line. caller: hey, pedro. how are you doing? you should have let that guy finish what he was saying.

you have a bad habit of cutting off people with good information. host: he made the point he wanted to make, so i decided to move on to you. caller: is that what you want to hear? host: caller, you are on. go ahead. caller: pedro, let me finish, please. we never talked about the criminal element that is coming. we talk about the southern border, but what about criminals like the guys said earlier, criminals that are limiting at hartsfield and o'hare and laguardia? like the guy said, why are we not checking the russian element here? why are we not checking the italian element here? why are we not checking the european criminals that are coming here all the time, that do business here in america? we never talk about that. pedro, don't start your act, ok. host: i'm just asking you, criminals such as who, those countries you listed? caller: let me finish this up.

about the southern border, do you want to know why they don't want the people at the southern border to come through here? if you go to this thing on youtube about those hispanics checking those cops that come into their neighborhood, putting them on camera, telling them to get out of their neighborhood -- they are not afraid of whites like we are as black people, so they are putting them in check. host: david in kennesaw, georgia, i will leave it there. caller: we are all in this together. i wish everyone would lay down their swords and go greet their neighbor and enjoy the american experience together. as far as the immigration, i have been in construction in chicago my entire life.

i have worked alongside all kinds of hispanic people who are very good, very hard-working. what a lot of folks need to understand is there is not people coming into the trades as they used to. i am 64. most of us have retired. the new young people do not want the trades. the hispanics are hard-working, and they can get a good job. i don't know if they are paying taxes. i don't know if they are being abused. i know they are excellent workers. they are good people. and they are the only ones out there looking for work right now. host: finishing off this open forum. one more legislator to join us this morning, democratic congressman ami bera of california, a top member of the foreign affairs committee. also talking about issues dealing with ukraine and russia. we will have that conversation when washington journal continues. ♪

>> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1954 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, 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. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were tape, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> jim, i want a report of the number of people that were assigned to kennedy the day he died, and the number assigned to me now.

if my number are less, i'm not going anywhere. if i can't go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay right behind these flight dates. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: representative ami bera of

california, democrat from that state. he is a member of the foreign affairs committee. thank you for your time, sir. i want to talk about issues of russia and ukraine, but first i want to get your thoughts on this announcement by the president on the death of the isis leader and the operation by the united states. guest: we're still getting the details and i think we expect to hear from the president this morning. it still shows there is a continued threat for isis, and we saw the hostages a couple weeks ago. we have to remain vigilant in states like syria. host: do you get information about this beforehand or afterward? how does that usually work? guest: usually we won't get the information on airstrikes ahead of time. we get some after the fact. host: decisions about russia and afghanistan, what was the

purpose of that trip? guest: the purpose of the trip centered on ukraine, where we went to give -- kyiv to get an assessment of our european and nato allies. but also to have a direct conversation with a zelensky -- with the linsky -- with zelensky and ukraine to see if these russians are threatening him. we are taking the threats very seriously. host: as far as the nature of it, since two say it is not imminent, what status do you think it is? and what does that mean to the united states, especially with president biden adding more troops to the mix? guest: we are trying to make sure that the russians and mr. putin -- the ukrainians, they have been on board with russia since 2018 when russia invaded

crimea. they have been in a constant fight for the last eight years. they are not asking for the united states to send troops in. they're asking for security assistance, economic assistance. on the nato front, we are shoring up the eastern european-nato allies. i think that is the right thing to do. host: i was going to ask you about your level of comfort, using american troops in that process. guest: that is part of nato obligations. it is not just american troops. he was seeing the british, the french, but also ukraine shoring up their defenses. host: ukraine is not a nato country. what is the point of the u.s. being involved in the first place? guest: i went down to the house floor yesterday and really pointed out that when you talk to the ukrainian people, they are a young democracy. they appreciate their freedoms.

i think that is what scares vladimir putin. you have democracy, and it is moving westward. they are going to fight for their democracy. i think we as the oldest democracy in the world ought to stand with people who want to choose their own path forward, who want freedom and liberty. as at the birth of our nation, others like the french supported us in our quest for freedom. host: how much interaction did you have with president zelensky? guest: we had time with president zelensky and some of his staff, open, frank conversation. i think he does get the russian threat. they are concerned about crating panic in the ukraine. they're concerned about the impact on their economy. that said, he is willing to fight and defend his country. host: he has made messages over the last few days about tempering down concerns expressed by the west concerning

what is going on. how do you respond to that? guest: i understand why he is doing that, because he wants to keep calm in his country. my sense, talking to high-level leaders and ukraine, fully preparing -- they understand that if the russians have a full-scale invasion, the russians are better equipped. they have got a bigger military. they have got to be -- they are not able to defeat a full russian invasion. what they are also hunkering down and willing to fight an insurgency and fight back. host: representative ami bera joining us, mccright from california. if you want to questions, particularly on issues of foreign policy, call him. you can also text us. representative, in those

discussions, what sense did you get as far as the preparedness about a possible invasion by ukraine? how prepared are they? they are getting -- guest: they are getting prepared. based on conversations, if the russians were to invade, it probably happens in the next few weeks, based on weather patterns in the region. there is a lot of snow and ice and cold in the region. as soon as the ice and snow starts to melt, it becomes harder for folks to move heavy equipment through there. the timeframe is short for them to do all the necessary preparations. it does seem like they are moving ahead. i think in the united states as well as our nato allies, we are supporting them with equipment and expertise. host: as far as troops are concerned, do you foresee the level of troops committed to staying the same, or do you see an increase possible? as far as american troops assisting in nato.

guest: we will meet our nato obligations. president biden has activated 8500 troops to be at the ready. i think 3000 are going to eastern europe along with other nato allies coming to shore up other nato members. that could increase if there is a full-scale invasion. the point here is to deter vladimir putin from invading ukraine. guest: senator mike braun of indiana said this. as far as troops are concerned, i've strongly opposed president biden's decision to send troops to eastern europe to defend countries that should defend themselves. two weeks ago, president biden killed an action that would have ended the pipeline.

that is on the senate side, but what do you think of the sentiment? guest: i voted for sanctions on nord stream 2 because i do think it gives vladimir putin the ability for recursive measures. that said, the president has, pretty strong, saying that if there is an invasion, but are prudent can kiss nord stream 2 goodbye. the germans may not like that, but there have to be economic consequences. there are impacts on europe because of their dependence on russian energy needs. he saw the meeting earlier this week, trying to shore up natural gas supplies. host: joe in west plains, missouri, republican line. go ahead. caller: i don't think the russians or putin are going to do anything. they would have did it already.

it is not a good military strategy to wait until your opponent that's their troops in order, and then we are going to do it. they are not going to do nothing. they are just pushing our buttons. and what the hell do you mean by security assistance? what does that mean? i think it means nothing. goodbye. guest: it is entirely possible that vladimir putin is full of bluster. we hope he thinks better of this. when we think about sending military equipment, we are getting to basics like body armor, munitions, and the like. in a bipartisan way, congress has to support people. caller: i've got a question. why is he willing to send american troops to ukraine but won't do nothing about the southern border? guest: nobody is talking about

sending american troops into ukraine, and ukraine is not asking for boots on the ground. they're fully prepared to defend their own country. we are meeting our nato obligations. through article five, we all come together. when we went into afghanistan, the nato forces sent the forces beside our forces. there are former soviet union countries that are now part of nato. we have been working with nato. host: we heard the secretary of state talking with russia. how confident are you in diplomacy? guest: my hope is that we find a dip a medic path forward. a relationship with russia has not been great in recent years. i would like to get us to a better place. in the pre-first century, we

don't need this type of armed conflict. i am empathetic to viewers who after 20 years in afghanistan are a bit war weary. there has been this rise in autocratic leaders. you see it in beijing, you see it in russia, and it is not a given that the democratic way will be the path forward in the 21st century. i think we have to stand up for democracy. i think we have to stand up for freedom and liberty. host: you mentioned afghanistan. critics citing the pullout in afghanistan. much like going with russia, ukraine, are there comparisons to be made? guest: i think afghanistan is a very different situation than ukraine. certainly, the withdrawal from afghanistan could have gone much more smoothly. but at the end of the day i

don't think people disagree that after 20 years of fighting it was time to start bringing our troops home. what you saw was that the afghan army, the afghan people, did not step up to fight to preserve their country. the taliban kind of rolled through. i think that is the difference. in ukraine, even talking to everyday citizens, they are getting ready to fight to defend their own country. i hope this is not an invasion. i hope there is not a full-scale war between russia and ukraine. but i would -- i walked away from my visit to luov -- kyiv knowing the people will fight to defend their own country. this was a bipartisan trip. it is important for democrats and republicans to go talk to folks directly together. if there is a confrontation between russia and ukraine, it

is always going to be stronger if democrats and republicans can speak with one voice. host: in albuquerque, new mexico, democrats line, you are up. caller: good morning, pedro. i have been trying to reach you a few times, and it has been difficult. thank you for taking my call. good morning, representative. thank you for what you have done and how you stand for it. i strongly agree with the caller that was talking about our brothers and sisters from our southern border. they do work hard. they do live in multifamily homes. but they do work for their own single homes. that is what we all work for. isn't that the american dream, to get the house with the white picket fence and a little dog called -- what is that little dog called? i'm a sheet metal worker. i've been in the traits for a long time. in our trade, on the, we have

seen a lot of ethnicities come from different cultures, different parts of the world, even our own country, from different states, travelers. and we have always respected them. they work hard. they work for the paycheck, earn money for their family. give them a chance. this country is based off of sweat, blood, and tears, and even death, of immigrants. that is what this country is based on. can't we all get along? guest: i appreciate that sentiment. we are a nation of immigrants. one generation after another has come to the united states to build a better life for ourselves as well as our children. that is what makes america great nature, people bring their traditions and religions with them, all woven into this great tapestry. part of the issue with supply

chains and inflation, i believe -- the last five years, the flow of immigrants has just trickled. i think that is going to be a real issue. to rebuild america's infrastructure, we passed the largest infrastructure bill in our history, and a bipartisan way. there is going to be a real issue. we have the workers to rebuild those highways, water systems? that is where the immigrant workforce -- i would hope that we could come up with a bipartisan way to allow some of those workers to come here, contribute to our economy. as one of the earlier callers said, allow them to pay their fair share of taxes. let's treat them with respect. they do contribute to the united states. host: robert, brooklyn, new york, republican line. caller: i don't know military,

russia, ukraine. in world war ii, 20 million people died. was world war ii for race or was it for some other reason? could you explain world war ii for me, if it was for race or not? can i get my explanation, please? guest: i think i got some of that. i think the world war ii analogy is important. if you look at our history, the united states did not want to get involved. after pearl harbor, the united states got involved. those in the pacific theater as well as the european/african theater. there was tremendous loss of life. that is what we are trying to avoid at this point. if you think about the 75 plus years past world war ii -- the united states, we helped rebuild europe.

we created relative peace and prosperity on the european continent after decades and centuries of ongoing conflict in europe. i don't think we want to go back to that time in the early 20th century, where there was constant conflict on the european peninsula. i don't think the countries in europe want to go back there either. that is why it is important for us to step up, to work with our european union allies, to work with our nato allies, and hopefully engage in dialogue with vladimir putin and russia, to find a better path forward. war is not beneficial to anyone. and obviously there are lots of humanitarian issues created by it that are not beneficial to anyone. host: one of the discussions with ukraine is the idea of the expansion of nato and whether

ukraine should be part of the expansion. what do think about expanding nato and making ukraine part of it? guest: nobody is talking about ukraine joining nato. the president said that. the nato allies are all coming together to admit any additional countries into a nato bloc. at this point, i don't think russia has to worry about that. i think that is a false flag. host: dorothy in north carolina, democrats line. caller: hello, gentlemen. you know, our democratic party, i know they are trying to do good, but people are talking about immigration, which is true. you could just have people come in and you could weed in who is who, and it would be over there, but you would have some guards

come in the national guard or whatever, to make sure people don't get killed. that could be solved right there. russia is not going to attack ukraine. they are just messing with us. and one more suggestion. senior citizens. you never talk about giving us a break on that medicare that they take out almost $200. most seniors can't afford that. but you all don't even mention anything to seniors, and you let republicans run all over you with all kind of everything. and you never message good messaging about helping people. you bundle everything together. nobody knows what is what. it is just terrible. it is horrible. guest: yeah, there is a lot in there. on the messaging side, i do think we could be a lot clearer on who we want to help. when it comes to seniors, i think we are pretty clear that

we understand the burdens that are on so many american seniors, particularly on health care costs, the cost of medicare. one thing it certainly helps you do is address the cost of prescription drugs. that is a burden on so many of america's seniors. that is something we did negotiate and put in the build back better act. if there is not going to be a big bill, i think that is one piece we have to pull out and try to pass. host: can that happen even on the piece aspect? has leadership told you that will happen? guest: i think leadership is still trying to push together a bigger package. it might not be as big as originally envisioned. as the caller said, if we do not do something on prescription drug prices when he -- when we have talked about it so long, there will be a backlash. a lot of democrats feel at a minimum that peace which was negotiated, which was not what the leadership originally wanted

-- it was a compromise. senator sinema said she could support that package. i imagine joe manchin would support it. you could get it out of the house, and i bet you could get 50 votes in the senate. host: you talk about the success of the infrastructure law, the current status of bill back better. as far as those issues are concerned, are you concerned going toward november, the midterm elections, what democrats will be able to offer that you would be able to support, as far as why would that support be given? guest: i think as we go back to our districts and you get into campaign season -- we spend too much time saying what we did not get done. what we got done back in march with the american rescue plan, which really didn't rape up vaccinations but also provided necessary funding for law enforcement to rehire firefighters, to get small businesses back up and running, and to get our kids back in school -- what we did was a

bipartisan infrastructure plan, rebuilding america, investing in ourselves. what we are debating on the house for today which will go to conference with the senate -- we will invest in technology, bringing jobs back to the united states. those three bills, taken together, even including the build back better act, are huge, and i think they will jump start a recovery if we come out -- as we come out of the pandemic. host: our guest was formerly a clinical professor of medicine and associate dean for admissions, and sacramento county's chief medical officer. as far as covid is concerned, from your medical perspective, where are we, particularly as far as testing by the federal government, in particular as far as how people are cared for? where do you think we are? guest: i think we have to start making the shift to thinking

about this as a pandemic that is going to end one day, and start to message to the public and talk to the public honestly. covid is not going away. we have to learn how to live with it. we certainly know that the vaccines are very effective, especially if you have your booster shots. get vaccinated, get your booster, it is very effective. we also know that we cannot take our kids out of school any longer. we have given school districts billions of dollars to improve their ventilation systems. if we did that, we would keep our kids very safe. and we have learned a lot about how to mitigate covid, so let's use common sense. if you are feeling ill, you have a sore throat, a runny nose, we should have readily available covid tests, where you can test yourself.

if you work from home, you take that day off, you wear a mask -- there will be stops and starts, but i think it is time to start getting our lives back and living with covid, and doing what we have to do to mitigate it. host: the administration approach to testing -- could the administration have done things differently when it comes to putting more tests out? guest: certainly going back to the last administration, there was a mandal with testing on the front-end, which probably did make the initial phases of covid much harder in the united states than it needed to be. if there is readily available testing, we should get those out to individuals that request them. if you just go out and buy a test, you should be able to get reimbursed for that. but again, the rapid tests should be readily available. host: from illinois, democrats line, good morning.

caller: good morning. do you think there is a chance that biden and trump -- i'm sorry -- have decided to create this russian/ukraine hoax to increase the price of oil and gas? it seems like if you correlate the stories of ukraine and russia, they are correlated to very high increases in oil and gas, and trump and putin could have futures markets on the oil exchange. i'm wondering, is there any talk about that at all? guest: certainly, former president trump and vladimir putin have an unusual relationship. i think many of us in congress would like to know the things that they talked about in private, and everything else. i don't think this was

necessarily collision -- collusion between latimer pump -- between president trump and vladimir putin. gas prices are high in the united states, and i don't think any of us wants to see gas prices go up. that would certainly impact president biden's standing. i don't think this is a plot by president trump. host: howard, chicago, illinois. caller: i am responding to the previous caller from illinois. trump is not really relevant. no one ever talks about the relationship between our current president and the head of china, or -- our current president, one reason our price of gas is so high is, didn't he cut the keystone pipeline? and didn't he approve the deal for russia to sell fuel to germany? no germany, one of our nato allies, who we are there to

protect, is buying from our enemy. but in nato, germany would not allow weapons to be transported from germany because of that relationship. everyone keeps saying trump this and trump that. trump has nothing to do with anything anymore. you are giving him a voice where there is not one. no one ever looks at the president and his relationships with former heads of state. host: howard, you made a point. we will let our guest respond. guest: howard, i am not focused on president trump, since he is no longer president. i think there is some legitimacy to what happened to u.s. oil. right now, we export more oil, and i believe right now we are the largest producer of oil and natural gas. we keep them here to bring down

the price of gas for consumers. on the german element, you were talking about nord stream 2, a pipeline. some of us had agreements with president biden. i voted against north stream in the past because of the very concern we are living through right now. russia could use it in a coercive way over europe. we have been very clear with the germans. if there was this invasion, nord stream 2 would never come online. it would get shut down. that is a sentiment shared by a lot of european countries. i would like the germans to stand up a little bit stronger and speak with the same voice that we are speaking. i think the biden administration is trying to work on that. host: stephanie on our independent line. go ahead quickly please with your question or comment. caller: mr. bera, i heard you

say they were doing the nato obligation. what about the obligation to the u.s. citizens about keeping the illegals out? i mean seriously, come on. guest: so we do have an obligation to protect our own borders. how i would look at that is a combination of protecting the southern and order borders. viewers talked about folks that are coming in our airports. i don't think it is a huge risk, but we certainly should be doing things. i think the best way to address immigration is to come up and reform our immigration system, as a number of viewers have talked about, folks that are coming here for work. the truth is we need those workers to keep our economy going. we need those workers to help with their supply chain in the agriculture and construction sector.

these are folks that are hard-working individuals that would like to live a better life, want to contribute to the american dream. i think it behooves us as congress to come up with comprehensive aggression reform. host: february 18 is the deadline for government funding. would you keep the government funded, do you think? guest: i do think we will do an omnibus bill as opposed to a continuing resolution. you might see a short-term fix for a week or two, but we ought to pass the omnibus bill in the regular order. host: that is representative ami bera of california, joining us to talk about issues of ukraine and russia, and other matters. thanks for your time, -- your time this morning. guest: have a good day. host: that is it for the program today. another edition comes your way 7:00 tomorrow morning.

[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] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including wow. >> the world has changed. today the fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. now more than ever it starts with great internet. >> wow, supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.