oil and gas association will talk about oil production in the u.s. the biden administration's criticism of the -- criticism of the industry. washington journal is next. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for july 18. americans growing discontent with the united states political system. some calling for widespread structural changes as many mentions the result of the 2020 election. when it comes to voting and elections, over the next hour we would like to get your thoughts on what changes you would make to voting in the united states. perhaps is a two how voting is done, and national holiday, the need for more parties prayed how would you change the u.s. electoral system. 202-748-8000 free democrats --

for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independent. you can also text us at 202-748-8003. you can post on facebook, twitter can also follow the show on instagram. a poll in last couple of days and you can still find online with the headline, any voters want to append the system, the first paragraph reads majority of american voters across nearly all demographics and ideologies believe the system of government does not work when 50% of those interviewed saying the world's oldest constitution democracy needs nor reforms or a complete overhaul. some of the details when it comes to those calling for

structural changes paid 50% of those who responded said when it comes to the system in the united states, major changes are needed. only 29% said only minor reforms are needed. 11% said the current system does not need changes. only 8% expressing current systems needing for complete replacement. when it comes to elections themselves, a couple of comments from the polls to show you. they say this. for republicans, the paul says the distrust is a natural outgrowth of former president trump's domination of the party into a large degree american politics after seven years in which he relentlessly attacked the country's institutions, broad majority of republicans share his views on the 2020 and its aftermath. 61% he was the legitimate winner. 72 percent describing the january 6 attack as a protest that got out of hand. taking a look at democratic

perspectives when it comes to this saying also from the paul democrats pessimism about the future stems from their party's inability to protect abortion rights, pass gun control measures or pursue other liberal priorities in the face of republic and opposition. self-described liberals were more likely than other democrats would lost trust in the government and more likely say voting did not make a difference. those are some of the results of the pole. we will show you more when it comes to electoral systems in the united states. if you think changes are needed you can call in and let us know. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. you can always text at 202-748-8003. as well as post on instagram and facebook and twitter. recently we took in an event featuring state officials taking a look at their electoral system

and talking about the 2020, voting systems and what we learn from that. you can still find the event on c-span. one person we heard from ms. al schmidt. he spoke about pennsylvania's new procedures put in place at the time and the end result. [video clip] >> even though a lot of counties and quitting hours went into 2020 kicking and screaming about requirements that our stay was having a simple meant including new voting systems with a voter verifiable paper ballot. we were so fortunate the department of state made that priority for every single county because i can't imagine this sort of additional misinformation going on had we not had that system. prior to that we did not have voter verifiable paper ballots. the cam -- the cabinet cabinet -- candidates name. in the lead up to it not only

had we just rolled out a new voting system for in-person voting, but in pennsylvania we had a new system of voting with voting by mail. other than the past it had been absentee ballots. obviously you were incapacitated in some way unable to cast your ballot on election day. we went from having a most know voters are very few voting by mail to half of our voters right out of the gate in bracing mail-in ballot voting. that was 375,000 voters who voted by mail in that election. that on top of the covid environment. one thing i sometimes forget, we also had significant civil unrest in philadelphia which was a real concern for us but having polling places that were closed. voters being able to make it to the polls to vote on time.

so it was a whole constellation of challenges that we faced and we have a bipartisan board. there was always the right amount of tension between tomorrow publican i was there with two democrats and it's designed that way to have sort of checks and balances. at the end of the day it helped result in the most safe and secure election in the history of philadelphia and that's not an exaggeration. i don't even think it's subjective because we had paper ballots that we never had before. >> more of that event available at c-span.org. your thoughts on how you would change the electoral system in the united states. for democrats 202-748-8000, for republicans 202-748-8001. for independents 202-748-8002. caller: the electoral college is perfect in terms of's running around the representation between big and small states.

it worked for 240 years. and it will work again. it's interesting that when people lose, they hate the college and when they win they love it. it's like the supreme court. when they win they love it. when they lose they hate it. finally, mail-in ballots to me are the anathema affair elections because when you go into a pole -- polling station, you are not allowed to have anyone come in with you. host: their place by place rule by rule but usually when you step in you step in alone. >> absolutely. so if you have mail-in ballots, massive mail-in ballots you have people influencing you. am i correct? host: you would have to let

others weigh in on that opinion. let's hear from jeffrey in north carolina. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the jumble for me said when the system works for i guess a set of different -- republicans or democrats, people coming out -- then you have politicians going it offices a lot of promises and the system has worked, it just has to be where the proper professionals are there monitoring putting the system to work and can confirm with really represents the opportunity in

the american dream. this situation that happened january 6 -- host: i apologize, you're getting in and out there. but thank you for the call. tulsa, republican line. caller: good morning. the democrats and the news media pole and c-span catches on to it to overthrow the constitution with another opinion poll doing away with electoral college which the founding fathers put in place for representation across the u.s.. a single state can cheat enough to throw the election and we saw in the last election how certain states can change election laws,

send out millions of ballots, get the voting rules changed to allow elections to continue on until enough votes are registered for democrats. so basically these kind of polls and c-span just plays along. host: this pole specifically deals with electoral systems, election being one of them. check about the electoral college, so using the system as it stand doesn't need any changes? caller: of course it needs changes to protect against the cheating by individual states where you are mailing out ballots putting unattended boxes where there is no chain of custody and so yeah there's as proven in the last election where biden got 12 million more votes than obama who is the most popular democrat president and it was crazy what went on in the

election and there's no investigation, there's nothing going on there. nothing to see there. host: by the way, the associated press today recent survey of officials when it comes to drop boxes, they put out a report in the last couple of days st. expanded use of drop boxes for mail-in ballots did not lead to any widespread problems according to an ap survey of state election officials. findings were, democratic and republican control states run contrary to claims by former president trump and his allies who've intensely criticize their use and falsely claim they were a target for fraud paid the story adding in some of the states in response to the -- it says none the election officials in states that allow the use of drop boxes and 2020 reported any instances in which the boxes were connected to voter fraud or

stolen ballots. a previous investigation by the ap found few cases of potential voter fraud in the battleground state which for president trump disputed the outcome. what changes would you make to these systems. buffalo, new york, a democrats line. caller: how are we doing. host: hello, how are you. caller: i'm well. to change the electoral system i would try and enact the national popular vote interstate compact, it's an initiative that says the electoral votes will be awarded to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in each state and it keeps the electoral college intact and it also franchises conservative voters and liberal states and liberal voters and

conservative states. i think it would quell a lot of the resentment and anger around elections. host: why not just keep the electoral college? caller: it seems to be a bit outdated. and also it would keep the electoral college to be clear, it would just make it so the popular vote -- host: got to that. but why not just keep electoral college as it is? caller: from what i understand there's been three elections recently that have lost the popular vote but still managed to gain power. i think a lot of people or disenfranchised and skeptical of the voting system because of that and if we want to amend that there's a quick and easy way to do it. 15 states have already done that. host: we have done segments on

this effort by the way on the network and if you want to look more -- learn more about this process you can go to our website and you can see all the segments we've done on it. she'll off of twitter says why are people trying to change what has worked for over 200 years? it doesn't need to be changed. marian owens bringing the point of the last caller. a limited electoral college and outlaw gerrymandering. another viewer saying voting access and voting security are essential for free and fair elections. the required state issued ids for all ballots passport make that free and easy to obtain in any state and require paper ballots for all elections including federal -- that include federal office. if you want to tweet us you can do so at c-span wj. you can also text us that 202-748-8003. raul from miami, florida, republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for

having me. i've got a couple quick comments. i think it would be helpful in terms of quelling people's anxieties if we had a really honest objective nonpartisan analysis of what went right and what went wrong in this past election as opposed to this kangaroo court is exactly what it is that's taking place in capitol hill these days. it is not serious and i think to restore confidence we need to have something like that done. i think we need to educate american voters. we have done away with civic instructions in high school. people do not know their history. they don't know why the electoral college was created. we literally have a country of dummies i'd hate to say. i think it's incredibly important for people to have a certain level of education in terms of the history behind

america, why it was created. i think also this money that was funded by people like the facebook founder, the money he sent direct lien to the coffers of electoral offices in places like philadelphia, pennsylvania should be outlawed. nobody ought to be able to pay literally $300 million and pour it into electoral offices in order to "get out the vote." that is wrong. i think those things would go a long way to restoring trust in the american electoral system. host: raul in florida. he makes that last point. it's also point the wall street journal editorial team. they write more pennsylvania folly. more good news and bad news. last week the governor signed a ban on private election funds. in 2020 nonprofit tied to mark

zuckerberg spent 350 million to local officials across the nation. the biggest check went to new york city. gop leaning states including counties that voted 61% for president trump, the editorial also says the bad news is the fact pennsylvania still want let election officials process mail vote before election day. many states do this included florida which is why they can resume -- deliver results on election night pig going days without a clear winner helps conspiracy theories take root. if you want to read more, of the editorials where you can find that. cornell talking about electoral systems. good morning. caller: good morning. i concur. the electoral college should be

changed. when earlier caller said, the republicans can never win election. they haven't won an election and the only reason why they are in power is because of the electoral college. we speak of the founders, the founding fathers. they were not prepared for 2020. when they put laws in place, women could not vote. they did not even consider people of color as full citizens so that every man would not be treated equally. so it is inconsistent. the person who called earlier that spoke about the mail-in ballot ding. the reason why there were so many voters paid people did not have to wait 18 hours in line to

vote in precincts coupled with the fact mailboxes were taken off the street, the republican party put in over 500 laws to disenfranchise voters since the last election. host: a new jersey jew 88 to 10 hours to vote? caller: no i -- in the new jersey. did you wait eight to 10 hours to vote? caller: me personally, i am the first one in line. i live two blocks from the polling place. but if that were to happen, the laws really should be changed but voting should be a national holiday. it should be everyone's right to vote and the laws. for some reason the republicans

want it both ways. host: that is cornell in new jersey. let's hear from susan in florida, republican line. caller: thank you very much. the electoral college needs to be cap just like it is. it's been fine all of these years and it shouldn't be changed. we should have voter id. go to your election offices in your state, bring your birth certificate, and you can register to vote. there is no problem with it. florida has the most wonderful system going here. we have boxes, drop boxes in our libraries. you can go in, there's pollsters right there. there's no problem with our voting. so why can't the other states in this country -- we don't want to be socialist. host: some of the other viewers, then why not a popular vote if one candidate clearly gets more votes than the other wine not

make that person the winner? caller: absolutely not. host: why not? caller: because why, should california and new york choose who the winner is? i don't think so. host: that's susan in florida. let's go to don in michigan. democrats line. caller: good morning. i think we need to get rid of the electoral child that college and make it one vote one person. and go that route. the republicans truly need -- host: if you got rid of the electoral college, like some of the other callers of said those running for election would concentrate on the states with the most people in order to gain those votes? and what that game the system? caller: if one vote means one vote for one person, shouldn't

the person california's vote count. shouldn't there person vote count? host: i get that but wouldn't they go to the most popular states in order to gain those votes and wind other states lose out on that. caller: i don't think so. because one vote, one person buried so my vote should count for the president. host: that is don in michigan. that same event we showed you from the representative of new jersey. they'll search for michigan secretary of state who talked about the fate she had in the 2020 election and her state system for it here's part of what she had to say. [video clip] >> all four of the elections we had throughout the year and every election since has been extremely smooth, heavy secure with high turnout levels. every one of our clerks throughout the state for the

most part has stepped up and every turn to ensure that we meet the scrutiny that was placed on us. but the story is one of great success in spite of being in that i have the storm. the other reality is this misinformation that covers everything, the cloud of confusion that i believe is intentional for various reasons. but there is a very clear statement about what we really experienced. the other thing i will emphasize is -- i wrote this book in 2008. really try to tell the story of how democratic republicans like then secretary grayson were doing great things that were going unnoticed. i took those best practices in

2018 as an academic as well. i was a former dean of the law school. i brought experts including many in this room, a bipartisan group of people to come to michigan to advise us on how to implement automatic voter election registration proposed election audits as well as online voter registration. by bringing those experts and following the data and implementing best practices, learning from other states that had already implemented a lot of these things, we found and my team, if you follow the data, if you look at the best practices and learn from others experiences and do the right thing every step of the way, recruiting good people, following all the details making sure every clerk has the resources they need to succeed, you succeed. >> you can see that on c-span.

our viewer of the twitters as do voting by cell phone. use block chain technology. crypto is using it for many years without a breach whatsoever. from sandy saying i found people who work for the board of elections are generally honest by the don't make much money to begin with. even in 2020 the system made it through the turmoil. and then steve of twitter saying i would increase congress from one represented that would minimize the influence of small flyover states. you can put your thoughts there on twitter if you wish. post on our facebook page. you can also text if you want. 202-748-8003 is how you do that. democrats line from north carolina. caller: i wouldn't change a thing. i believe the system as is, the system responded to covid and if you go back and look we see

president trump did a mail-in ballot. mark meadows to the mail-in ballot. if the mail-in ballots were good enough for them, it would be good enough for each citizen who chooses to do so. i would also like to just say i would not have my children, a great show grandchildren or great-grandchildren future jeopardized by their publican party or have someone be put in office just to appease them. i think it is not worth this. host: we will hear next from david, republican line. caller: good morning. people can talk to their blue in the face about all the changes they want to make. the electoral college -- the constitution established these things based on the great compromise. if it hadn't been for that compromise there wouldn't be an knighted states.

there are more concerned about the tyranny of the majority than they were about anything else. small states at that time are now big states. virginia was the most powerful state from an economic standpoint and population. i get so tired of people not understanding the reason for the 3/5 when it came to the slave vote wasn't because they were specifically trying to deal in terms of slaves being less than a person, they were limiting the number of representatives that the south could have. in effect they lost 37 votes in that congress because the population was adjusted that way. that number came from a formula they used during the articles of confederation when they try to assess the amount of cash each state should pay and the economic value in terms of different persons.

they ended up using that same formula later. but there wouldn't have been a united states if it hadn't been for that compromise. you are not going to get the smaller states now to agree to a lesser representation and give that alter the coastal elite states. host: david there in texas giving his thoughts. if you go to the fulcrum website , julie brogan, on money. she compares france's presidential election system versus the united states. particularly when it comes to money. she writes not only does french law limit the total amount of presidential candidate may raise and spend, the government reimburses nearly half of campaign expenditures. that means only half the election funding comes from private donors. it cap on the amount of an individual who donate a larger in france, but the united states wealthy individual donors can

easily circumvent or $2900 cap by making donations to blood collection committees. it's perfectly legal for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amount of money to support a candidate. in france, corporate and trade union contributions are illegal. they have disclosure requirements so the public and see who is funding a campaign but there's a gaping loophole in u.s. law. there is more there if you're interested about the system. it's one of those things you would see change when it comes to elections here in the united states, you can make those comments paid several commenting on systems like the electoral college. you're welcome to call into our second half hour. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independence -- independents. new york times poll with siena

college talked about calls for major changes in little systems. we are talking about election systems. if you go to the pages of the new york times. stephen california, independent -- california, independent line. caller: can you tell me how many americans were polled? host: not offhand right off the bat. they did a sample size. caller: like a thousand people, i don't know. my second question is this. recently, arizona sent out ballots. 63,000 were now recalled. they don't know what to do. do you have any story about that? host: not offhand. caller: can you like research that because that's become a big deal. they don't know what to do now.

they are like we can recall them. now we don't know what to do. so if you're talking about changing the electoral college, you are talking -- arizona wouldn't even -- the smaller states wouldn't even combine with chicago, detroit, california, all of it. you are asking for mob rule and that is exactly what the constitution was written for. non-mob rule. and i don't mean it like the mob , i mean the masses. host: about 900 people were polled just so you now. caller: 900 out of a nation of 350 million people. host: sample sizes and things like that. caller: so you're expecting --

and we tune into your station all the time to get like the most important information. the most important information is 900 people of 350,000 or whatever million or whatever. host: the pole is just to be used to foster a conversation. thank you for participating. democrats line from pennsylvania , this is baba. -- this is bob. caller: this electoral college. my question is has ever been thought of that if you win the state by 52% and the other person gets 48, why don't they split? because then at least the person that's in the state that you know was going to go either red or blue would have more incentive to go out and vote so you would knows going on there. host: how do you think that

changes things? caller: i don't know if it would to be honest. that's what i would like to know if it would. host: ok. what is the interest? caller: well the interest is as i said, you would have more of an incentive to go vote. like our local elections here, there's really no incentive to go vote because of the amount, democrats are going to lose. but it's the same thing in this state or the national races. it ain't that hard to figure out whichever state it is, any little handheld computer can tell you the percentage rate on whatever it is. no maybe it would come out the same, i do not know but at least if you were in an already or all

blue state you would have more incentive to go vote, that your vote would still be counted even if it lost, it would still account for something. host: bob there in pennsylvania. independent line next, south carolina. caller: good morning. the guy from pennsylvania just took my thunder. i don't see why one candidate gets all of the votes. if this 51% votes for him and he wins, the other 49% are being disenfranchised. say the state has 10 electoral votes. that means that that candidate who got the 51% gets 10 electoral votes. the other people are disenfranchised, the 49%. the candidate who wins six electoral votes and give the candidate who lost four votes and then let them tally them up

by the 50 states that way. it's more fair. we are being disenfranchised, especially the ones in states where the vote is close. and i haven't been represented in the last 20 years by republicans at all from my state even though a very large percentage of it vote against the republicans heard -- republicans. have a pleasant day. host: thank you. from stephen in michigan, he says i'm an absentee voter, i have to go to my polling place in advance to prove my citizenship in order to get a ballot sent to me. then he says i see no fraud. you can text us at 202-748-8003. another michigander from rapid city, this is jeff. republican line, you are next up. caller: good morning america. c-span communists spreading

copper -- propaganda ad nausea him. this is another edition. you had that woman on from michigan who claimed outright that there was no fraud in michigan. everything is great but she doesn't bring up in 2018 the only reason her and the rest of the soros girls took over michigan was because they put legal weed on the ballot and to vote that night at 6:45 it looked like a grateful dead reunion tour. host: you're saying a lot there we are asking about changes in the electoral systems would you advocate for changes? caller: you no one -- you no one. -- know what. i want to know why i can't criticize you bringing on people. there was a 7000 vote loss and a

9000 vote county and that woman comes on national television, provided time on the air to say she hasn't had any problems with elections in michigan. host: we are not federally funded by the way we are funded by the cable industry. go ahead. caller: you know what, that's great because some ms 13 dnc constantly. these people from the left to call and have nothing to say. they want to talk about trump's and everything else and you let them blather on. host: again you've made a lot of points, do you see changes needed specifically in the electoral system. what changes would you advocate for? caller: ids across the board. no more drop boxes that people can run up. 2000 mules to everybody in the country on national television.

host: that's jeff there in michigan. let's hear from willie in jackson, mississippi. caller: good morning. thank you c-span. about four or five callers ago we had revisionary history. about this voting thing. the guy from carolina, that's my second option we divide the electoral college. the first option and i've been pondering on this for 20 years. we need to do away with the electoral college. for people with the argument states like california, everybody in the united states doesn't live in the state of california. we didn't have 48 states when

they came up with the electoral college. so now things are more spread out. they really need to do away with the electoral college. after clinton left office, his vice president winning them popular vote, hillary clinton the popular vote. this time. i'm going to say this. i want to say this on the air. if you run donald trump, there will be 100 million people who vote against you. thank you for taking my call. host: because the supreme court gets involved electoral processes, just a story to let you know about. this was by npr a little while ago saying the supreme court thursday agreed to hear a case next term the could upend election laws across the country with potential for endorsement of fringe legal theory but how much power state legislatures

have over the running of congressional and presidential elections. the case is centered on the newly drawn maps of voting districts for north carolina's 14th, next u.s. house of representatives. the lawmakers want to resurrect a map that the north carolina court struck down. it violated multiple provisions of the state constitution. giving republican candidates an unfair advantage. we recently did a segment on the court case. an ohio state professor talking about the implications on other cases when it comes to electoral law. you can find the whole program from the recent appearance. [video clip] >> the judicial system of the state of north carolina has said the constitution constrains what the legislature does. the particular disputed issue

involves redistricting and whether the district lines are subjected to partisan gerrymandering, a term many viewers will know. gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries for partisan advantage. a few years ago the u.s. supreme court said the federal constitution has no principles that allow federal judges to police gerrymandering and to stop it from happening bread the supreme court acknowledged that gerrymandering is a blight on democracy, distortion on democracy by manipulating the boundaries but said the u.s. constitution doesn't have standards. congress could write those standards but they haven't done that. in north carolina like some other states, the state courts have stepped in using their own constitution where we can stop egregious gerrymandering because our constitution demands free

and fair elections. in the state courts basically invalidated a map that the state legislature drew but the legislature is asking the u.s. supreme court to say no, the state judiciary lacks that power because the federal constitution says the state legislature write the rules and state courts can interfere. i know that was a lot but that sort of the essence of what's before the court. it would apply not just to maps, but any rules for running federal elections. host: more of that program if you want to watch it on our c-span website. from a viewer on twitter responding to the question, she or he puts mandatory elections, we want to verify or vote. sue in new jersey texting us saying we're not france.

i do agree big money has way too much influence and swale for political process and at times seems rigged. charles says make in -- make mail-in voting the default to ensure all those eligible and only those eligible vote and reduce the danger and stress on the public. so people texting us and tweeting us this morning. our twitter feed is at c-span wj. our text number, 202-748-8003. california, independent line. caller: thank you. shout out reminding me daily. to all the people who have bees and their bonnets this morning. there's no chance the electoral system will ever be eliminated, just ask those people who've been trying to pass the equal rights amendment forever.

it ticks a constitutional amendment to do such and the states would need to ratify it. all the small states like wyoming and south dakota and other low population states would not sign off on it so it will never happen. having said that though it is systemically undemocratic because we are supposed to live in a system in which one person gets one vote. it is really difficult to explain to people from -- to people from other countries and new immigrants how someone who did not gain the popular vote, did not win the greatest number of votes becomes the winner. that is really difficult how you have to go over this archaic system we have created in which someone who is the minority can actually be the leader of all of us. that is just my comments on it. you guys do a wonderful job every day. never forget how grateful we are for your service. host: patricia, next up in

arizona. republican line. caller: hello. i would like to thank washington journal, c-span. you are a great service to the united states. the electoral college, i agree with the call from california. it will never be changed. i live close to the border and i am telling you, this inundation of immigrants is destroying the democratic party. i changed for the first time in my life to a republican ticket because of this. biden is an embarrassment. electoral college is need to change, it's the big money that needs to change. we need to start looking at the dollars that the politicians have as opposed to what their views are on american citizens. our babies can even be fed with

infant milk but the border has all kinds of supplies for the immigrants. host: as far as big money is concerned, what do you mean by that. caller: i'm talking about pelosi, the big money that's in the democratic party that that's all they look at. host: republicans do not have issues or gather in large amounts of money? caller: absolutely, but if you look at the republican party, they are looking at the fact that immigrants are coming and over fist, they can see their babies -- they can feed their babies but we cannot feed ours. host: arizona, democrats line. good morning, you are on. caller: thank you. as changes of the electoral system i would suggest having one primary data for all the states as opposed to some early

-- earlier states determining the results for the rest of the nation. host: what do you think that does for the process if that were in place? caller: i think it creates somewhat of an unfair advantage and a focus on those early states and it really leaves out those concerns of the states that have their primary data later on. host: a one data super primary across the united states? caller: yeah. i think that would level the playing field a little better in my opinion. host: andrew in arizona offering his thoughts on changes to the electoral system. we have about 15 minutes left. you can do the same. last year, monmouth university did a poll looking at the issues of changes to the electoral system. it talks about some other

aspects saying at the time a large majority, 71% of the public so they feel in person voting should generally be made easier. 60% of the time -- the opinion is more divided on voting by mail. 50% saying it should be made easier. 39% saying it should be harder. at the same time, four in five americans support requiring voters to show identification in order to cast a ballot. requiring photo ids both of bipartisan majority support, approval making early voting easier stands at 89%. support for acquiring a photo id to vote stands at 80's and present independent spread 97 among republicans. these from last trip it gives you a sense of some of the other issues when it comes to the process of elections.

we will go to nick in florida, independent line. caller: good morning. people who do not want ids i would just point out one illegal vote negates one citizens legitimate vote. so all you have to do is have to ask is that can be your vote that gets negated. on the electoral college, you'll notice anytime something doesn't put the democrats and full power they want to change it. just like they did when you had 60 votes in the senate to put someone into the supreme court, than the democrats changed down to 50 to do a couple of things which they -- mcconnell told him they would regret. now they have the three conservative justices there and there's all this crying and moaning. as long as it works for them at the time it's ok but that's not how america runs. you have to have something that's consistent. the electoral college like other

people pointed out, the smaller states need to have an equal fair say in our national leaders, otherwise, that shows you they had foresight. as the country grows you can have urban enclaves -- now they are communist, all deciding who are. host: nick there in florida. let's go to delray beach, florida. republican line. caller: good morning. i want to say something a little bit different. really fast i will say i am against the electoral college and support voter ids. but i'm currently working for republican candidate. he's running for florida state rep. i will tell you what i like about him. host: let's talk about the systems themselves instead of pumping your candidate. caller: ok. what i don't like is the

attitude that politicians have a republican candidate might be afraid of having too many black voters in the district or a democratic candidate wouldn't want too many white male voters in the district because those voters tend to lean the other way or i want to have a district that has similar demographics to me. if you deserve to be in office you should god and change people's minds. it shouldn't matter if your district is black or white or male or female or left-leaning or right-leaning. go out and prove yourself as an individual. prove the you deserve to be in that office regardless of the person you are talking to. host: that is thomas there in florida. about nine or 10 minutes or so left of this conversation. sam in oregon, democrats line. caller: hi there. i live in oregon.

we have had mail-in voting for i do know how long. not quite as long as i've lived here. you do have to have voter id because you have to show your identification to vote. i'm just saying it is totally legal and recommended. all of america should go to mail-in voting. that way you can prove that my ballot came from my address through my post office to the election bureau. host: in oregon is there a means to track your ballot to see where it is at? caller: yes you can make sure that they got it. host: how is that done? caller: i did it on the phone. there is a phone number you call. host: it ensures that it gets to its intended destination. caller: that you can check your personal ballot yes.

host: a viewer in oregon talking about mail-in voting. something discussed about the process per rick scott, a republican senator on fox, the head of the republican senatorial committee talks about looking at this year's elections and the process there. here is some of what he has to say about this years coming november election. [video clip] >> this year will be a referendum on biden. midterm is a referendum on the presidents strategies which are horrible. so this is not good to be about 24, it will be about 22. we have to continue to focus to win this november we have every reason to believe we will win. this will be about gas prices and food prices and the democrats wanting to defund the police and critical read -- cortical race theory. it will be about inflation, my kids getting a good education. the democrats are on the wrong

side of those issues. every democrat voted on the wrong side of that issue for years. >> does president trump change the topics if he gets in before the midterm? >> i think it's all going to be about what's happening to your family right now. people are focused on what happens to them. they care about their job, the inflation. take florida. the cost of living in florida is up $770 a month, a month. inflation is up since joe biden got elected. that's the issue people will focus on. they know democrats are causing this reckless spending. they want to spend more bread they have a variety of bills, people know you can't keep doing that. why would anyone believe your government can do it. host: talladega, alabama. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i kind of find it hilarious in a way that people want to change the electoral college. in our constitution, the right to regulate voting is controlled by the states. but in california now that they are going through a recall, they are certifying and verifying every vote in the recall. what's up with that? thank you for taking my call. host: john in north carolina, republican line. caller: yes. i believe the biggest problem we have in elections today is the mail-in ballots. most european countries outlaw them for they call them postal ballots paid they are rife with

fraud. i think everything should be same-day in person with paper ballots. if you look at oregon, washington, california, they went mostly with mail-in ballots 20 years ago and now they are all one-party rule all democrat. republicans are disenfranchised. don't even vote. i think definitely the mail-in ballot is the most -- host: why do you think it produces disenfranchisement? the process itself? caller: they don't think they can win. they've lost any -- i don't how to say it. they don't think there's any opportunity to win so they don't try. host: ok. john in north carolina giving us his thoughts. one factoid from this report in the new york times of the survey

that was done, saying american's bipartisan cynicism about government signals a strike and philosophical shifts. for generations for democrats campaigning on the idea that government was a force for good will republicans saw it limited. the polling shows the number of americans in both parties who believe the government is capable of responding to voter concerns has shrunk. a lot more to that pole at the new york times in siena college at the top of the program. we are using that to foster this conversation what comes to election systems here in the united states. if you would call for changes to those systems. democrats line, this is martin joining us. caller: how are you. host: well, thank you. caller: this is -- you have been talking about changes to the election system. here is the thing with the electoral vote system.

22 years ago and this was before bush v gore, two guys. a guy named slashing her -- two guys suggested that we have 102 bonus votes for whoever carried the national popular vote. that would probably guarantee that no candidate can lose the popular vote and still win the electoral college. but how about every state they should also mandate that every state with more than three votes goes one vote for every district they carry and two votes for every statewide win. that's the way they can deal with that. i think those who want to get rid of it entirely, that is a

pipe dream. host: thank you so much. one more call on this. any in georgia, independent line. caller: so we are supposed to imagine a system that would be more fair, less contentious. and the whole thing is red and blue. i don't think the presidency should be voted on by the people , that office you should ascend to the presidency through the state department. so once the president's term is done, we would have the president to a term of six years in the secretary of state to a four year term and once the president's term is done, whoever's the current secretary of state would ascend to the presidency and that would take all of the red and blue out of it. host: why would you think -- he hung up so that will finish off that. we appreciate all of you called

in and participated. our next guest will join us to talk about the issues to look out for in washington this week. neal covers congress and the white house. that conversation coming up later on in the program. we will be joined by tim stewart talking about oil production in the u.s., criticism of the industry by the biden administration. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our news letter. to receive an upcoming program -- book tv, every sunday on c-span two or anytime online. television for serious readers. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house generate

sixth committee hearings -- january sixth committee hearings investigating the attack on the capitol. go to our web resource page to the latest on the hearings, coverage of the attacks. we will also have a reaction from members of congress and the white house, as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january6. >> celebrate christmas in july by shopping at c-span shop.org through july 19, save of to try 5%. there -- save up to 25%. there is something for every c-span fan through life -- good

delight 19th. scan the qr code to start shopping now. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter caps the day from the halls of congress, to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the bottom to sign up for this email and stay up to date on everything happening in washington each day . subscribe using the qr code or visit c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: my guest now is niels lesniewski. he serves rollcall as their chief correspondent, covering the white house and congress. when we left congress last week, week's votes in the house when it came to abortion-related

legislation, both passing. the of us a sense from the white house side or senate side what is next. are those bills actually becoming law? guest: it is not likely that any of the legislation passed recently related to protecting abortion rights is going to make its way into law. we saw in the senate that catherine cortez masto and several of her colleagues were trying to get a unanimous consent to take cap one of the bills that the house had passed related to protecting rights for interstate travel to make sure that women have the opportunity to cross state lines to receive abortion services and reproductive health services. that was blocked.

we have also seen in women's health protection act, the legislation that would largely codified the old roe v. wade decision. that has not advanced in the senate. it is not clear whether or not chuck schumer and the democrats will take another bite at the apple of trying to it, but those are largely questions for voters in a couple of months into november in terms of whether or not they want to elect a larger and pro-choice abortion rights- favoring majority in the senate or go in another direction. that is where this is going to go. host: we set the president

overseas talking about this becoming a campaign issue. there may be hesitancy in leadership on the senate side to take another bite at this. what is the basis for this? the time that is left to do other things for other factors? guest: the biggest factor -- this may not be true for the kill regarding -- the bill regarding crossing state lines, but the broader abortion rights bill has been something that has been debated in the past. they may call it up for a vote. it would not put, but i do not they will dedicate serious fraud time to it, because there is a limited amount of time. we look at what the senate democrats want to get done

before the august recess and presumably the truncated session in september because of the eagerness that always exists for members to get home in an election year. there really is only 3-5 weeks of legislating, most likely, before the election. there are bills amateur sure we will talk about in a couple of minutes that leaders want to get done before voters start voting. host: niels lesniewski joining as. if you want to ask him questions about things taking place is weak in congress or the white house, call and let us know. host: --(202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. our text as at (202) 748-8003. a bill looking at china and semiconductor chips, can you put that together for us? guest: that bill looks like it will be narrowed significantly from what we saw when the senate passed its sweeping competitiveness bill and it has been under discussion in the house. there is talk that as early as tomorrow senator schumer may try and call up or at least start the process of calling up a narrower bill that provides $62 billion in incentives to help promote domestic semiconductor chip manufacturing.

other provisions that have bipartisan consensus from that earlier package, which was a broader effort to counter chinese influence in technology and manufacturing, that could come up this week. there was some discussion last week and the last couple in which mcconnell had said that that could not happen by that it was not likely to happen as long as there was still a partisan, democratic reconciliation package with environment-related provisions and tax provisions, but, as we learned in a tweet from john cornyn over the weekend, now that joe manchin is

torpedoed anything other than health care provisions in the reconciliation bill, that objection to the republicans may go away. we have all these moving parts moving in one direction. at the semiconductor bill -- it looks like the semiconductor bill is one that is going to move while democrats work with the parliamentarian to figure out what they can do on the health care front and comply with the senate's reconciliation procedures. host: i want to talk about joe manchin as far as the reasoning he gave for pulling back, the response he is getting from belgium at -- getting from fellow democrats. >> one of the poorest states of

this country. u.s. people of west virginia whether they want to expand medicare, ask them whether we should demand that large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes, ask the people of west virginia whether all people should have health care, that is what they will say. in my humble opinion, joe manchin represents the wealthiest. >> if the provisions do not get passed, what does that mean for democrats' climate goals and the climate itself? >> it is not the precedent. it is in future of the planet. when joe manchin sabotages climate change, this is for future generations. all over the world, we are looking at more and more heat waves. this is an existential threat to

humanity. what this election must about is whether or not we are going to vote for candidates who are prepared to stand up to working people, for the planet, and have the courage to take on the billionaire class that dominates our economy and political life. the republican party is not there. we need more progressive democrats who are going to fight for workers. host: there is one reaction from a democrat in the senate you can talk about others and why senator manchin chose the steps he did. guest: senator sanders there expressing the sentiment we heard from avril members of the -- from several members of the democratic caucus martin heinrich from new mexico questioning openly whether or not joe manchin should be the chairman of the energy and

natural resources committee, there are other democrats like john fetterman, lieutenant of pennsylvania, nominee for senate, who are willing to counter manchin on the campaign trail, tuck about the need to bypass manchin. that is something we are starting to see is a democratic talking point, that voters need to elect more democrats so that manchin does not have this functional veto over the process. manchin's most recent claims have said that he has pulled back from the are getting table most recently because of inflation concerns. there was the real order last week over -- the report last

week over the 9% inflation. he wants to see what happens in the next report, which should come out in the middle of august, but that means if the democrats were to wait for manchin to read the next inflation numbers, you would not see this move until after labor day. what it appears is happening, thanks in large part to has by -- present biden, is that they are just going to move a hard with what manchin seems willing to go along with, which is some health care provisions, efforts to extend expanded benefits under the affordable care act that largely came about because of the pandemic. i think that what we are looking at is a narrower effort, but

always with the senator from west virginia, you never know quite what the questions he is going to be. this inflation report certainly changed his calculation. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for niels lesniewski. the semiconductor industry is the backbone of the economy of the american states. that is going away soon, china

is taking over everything. taking over the supply line. they are now making their own technologies. unless our congress does something, we are not going to be --. there are new technologies on the horizon, but it is so difficult to traction. congress should be doing something. host: that is a viewer. guest: one of the things that the caller reminded me of is the fact that there are so many emerging technologies that choose a lot of chips.

i remember last year when the senate was first working on this bill that there were discussions about how many chips are needed to operate the backbone of the oncoming electric cars and the emerging technology regarding self driving vehicles. the lot of these emerging industries are so dependent on semiconductors that relying on the idea of potentially having to rely on chips that are chinese in origin is a dangerous national purity question, to that date -- security question, particularly with more advanced technology. that is part of the reason why

this has become a priority. both the house and senate last week had closed briefings on the risks of not getting this done. host: let us switch to the house . later on this week, the judiciary committee supposed to take up assault weapons. can you explain what viewers can expect? guest: the house is going to try and continue to advance more than safety, gun control legislation -- gun safety, gun control legislation. the president is continuing to advocate for a return to the assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994-2004 that he

was the chairman of the judiciary committee the type went in past -- time when it passed. the house will presumably take it in committee and call it up for a vote on the floor. it will not go anywhere in the senate with the current conduct. this is another example of the house attempting to lay down a marker. we are at that point in the here where the house is going to be laying down markers going into the election where house democrats are going to say, if you reelect us and keep us in the majority, this is what our agenda looks like. on the opposite side, you will republican opposition and you will see the makings of what the

agenda would look like if speaker kevin mccarthy comes into office next january. host: greg, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: how could it be worse if the next speaker is kevin mccarthy than what we have got right now? how could that possibly be worse? anything is possible. the sun may not, tomorrow, but the bottom line is why doesn't c-span cover what the governor of california did in the white house while the president was too young -- while the president was overseas? there is a lot of white guilt, a

lot of people afraid to say what they really think. we will find out in november. i hope that there is a big change. people can say, here is the big change. in 2024, who knows who will run for the democrats. it is ridiculous how people are going, maybe joe is not good enough. is it going to beat joe and donald again? , i vote donald -- if it is, i will vote for donald. he knows what he is doing it that she knows what he is doing. host: let us assume if the republicans do take control of the house, has there been any telegraph and of what a republican-controlled house would look like?

guest: the republican majority, if it does come into existence, as my colleague nathan gonzales at inside elections would be suggesting is the most likely outcome, as are other prognosticators, because there is a democratic president, much of what the house republicans would be doing would be the opposition play. you will see a lot more investigations. they have already telegraphed, if you look at the judiciary committee likely chaired by jim jordan of ohio and other allies of former president trump, and others with gavels in republican

hands, there has been talk they would investigate the operations of the january 6 committee, as well as various departments and agencies of the government. you will not see legislating that will become law all that much. you have the opposition party, particularly if they control the senate but only narrowly and mitch mcconnell does not have 60 votes, it will not able to send a holdout of things to president bynum's -- present biden's desk to be vetoed. legislating is not likely, other than that which needs to be done to keep the government operating and even that may become a challenge/ you will not see a holdout of

legislating if you have a divided government, based on what we are seeing from people likely to be leading committees from house republicans. host: glenn, california, independent line. caller: hello. would like to talk about joe biden and the iranian deal he has been brokering with russia. why isn't nancy pelosi [inaudible] ? what did she know about the trillions of dollars joe biden wants to give russia? amongst other things, january 6 committee and the peaceful transition of power, like barack obama in the secondary white house? host: that is glenn in

california. let us take the point about the president back from the middle east and iran coming the conversation. write down what was said in the future when it comes to iran's nuclear program. guest: that would be a point of discussion. well the president was in the middle east, -- while the president was in the middle east, particularly israel, that deal, as far as we know the efforts to revive the agreement continues. the nsaid that they are not -- the president has said that they are not going to wait forever, but that can -- continues to be a point of negotiation for those who have been in the audience and who were around during the obama years when that agreement

first came into effect, before it was jettisoned by trump, there will be the question of whether or not in the to go through congress and in which form. it would not get the votes if were submitted as a treaty because it would need to third -- would need two thirds, but there will be some sort of symbolic vote if a new agreement is reached between the parties, but as of right now, that does not seem to be -- does not seem imminent coming out of the most recent trip to the middle east. host: mike, ohio, independent

line. caller: good morning. good morning, gentlemen. as far as senator manchin goes, the story is that he is worried about inflation and he constantly moves the football as far as the build back better or climate change, the fact of the matter is he is probably the most corrupt politician in the country. if journalists would do their job, you will see that the number one recipient from the coal mining industry, the mining industry, number one from natural gas transmission and

distribution, the oil and gas industry, savings and loan, number one tobacco, you can see that he is worried about his bank account, not inflation or anything like that. west virginia is one of the poorest states. it mystifies me as to how guy gets reelected every time, even when his -- so that to pharmaceuticals and transferred 1200 well-paying jobs to india. there is no backlash. host: that is making up time making his point about senator manchin. guest: the caller's sentiment is shared by a lot of folks.

it is certainly true that senator manchin has received substantial campaign funds over the years, from fossil fuel- related businesses and some others that our caller from ohio outlined. it is also true that when you look at the demographics of voters in west virginia, it is a state that was overwhelmingly favorable to president trump. the question is always could any other democrat other than joe manchin ever win that state, at least in the current construct? there is always the tension with the democrats -- would the democrats rather not have to be relying on senator manchin is a tie breaking vote, but with a

rather have senator manchin and have the ability to have senator schumer calling up president biden's edges confirmation votes? -- judges for confirmation votes? it is hard to say he would rather have mitch mcconnell as the geordie leader then have -- as the majority leader than have joe manchin as a democratic senator. is that the most comfortable thing to say -- that is not the most comfortable thing to say, but with it this narrow, it will end up with somebody like manchin as the swing vote. host: deandre, miami, republican line. caller: i had a question. i hear what everybody is saying about the democratic side, it

looks like they're are throwing everything out the window, but as far as a possibility of trump running with the santos -- with ron desantis as his vp? do you think that is possible? host: that is deandre in florida. guest: i have no idea what would come together in terms of former president trump and governor desantis. i know the betting money you into this sort of thing is that governor desantis is the most likely alternative to trump, but i have not the faintest idea of whether or not the former

president -- i covered the white house for the last year or so of the trump administration. i cannot render a gas what he -- a guess what he would do it a running mate. it probably will not meet make pence again -- mike pence again, given the opposition that the former president has to vice president pence fulfilling his constitutional obligations regarding counting votes, but i had no idea where he read go for a running mate or if running with desantis would be tenable. host: one topic many people caught up was inflation and what the white house will do about

it. is there more clarification as far as it steps ahead when it comes to combating inflation? guest: part of it is they are already noting that gas prices have started to fall. if you look at the trajectory from where it seems to be going, it seems to be going in the right direction, prices are going down a bit, but in terms of cutting costs, you will hear the white house talk about ways to reduce costs rather than inducing inflation -- reducing inflation, which is not the same thing. this health care bill ensuring that -- trying to control the cost of prescription drugs while also trying to make sure people continue to get subsidies and reduce costs for insurance

coverage on the lower income levels is the kind of thing that they can actually do that are not within the policies of the set. -- of the fed. one of the convocations is that one of the ways to control inflation english by raising interest rates -- control inflation is bite raising interest rates, which also seems to raise the cost of rent if you have got a lot of landlords that may be seeing higher interest rates. it is a challenge, because sometimes reducing inflation brings higher costs in the short term and that is difficult to message. host: the fed is leading toward

another increase when it comes to inflation. california, democrats line. caller:.good morning -- good morning. also, i wanted to make a point, they have changed their minds so many times and it came to former president trump. he took us down the wrong route and we do not want to support him anymore but after meeting with him in florida, they change their mind and said we do not agree that president trump did anything wrong. if he becomes in charge of house and senate, how can we trust him? they are wishy-washy.

how can i vote for these people when they cannot make up their own minds? there is money, power. -- where they are doing to the country. if they become wishy-washy, how can we trust that they are going to do the right thing for the country and people? host: that is mohammed in california. caller: that is --guest: that is going to be one of the real points of the democrats are going to try to make going into november, that if you are a democrat, you do not necessarily want this congress set comes in will be the one that will be in power for the ration dental --

operation of the next presidential election. if you are talking about election integrity quote what could happen vis-a-vis not specifically the electrode college counting -- electoral college counting date, but if you are looking at how they go about handling the republican primary for president the next time, the past is prologue. will be -- it will be interesting to see how mccarthy, mcconnell, other leaders would handle a potential reemergence of trump. some would get close to him again, others might not. host: dan in memphis, independent line.

caller: every time a democrat gets elected, they amount the will lose the house, lose the senate. they do not know what is going to happen, but we have to bank do is vote. -- have to do is quote. host: do you sense any shift amongst your colleagues as far as if there will be great interest in voting and what drives that, particularly as the supreme court factors in? guest: i just spent the week of the fourth of july in arizona doing campaign coverage. there -- i spent more time with the republicans because there is a contested primary for the chance to take on mark kelly.

there is a 12 rally scheduled on friday this week -- is a trump rally scheduled on friday this week. there was a lot of interest among the public, but one thing i noticed was that at this stage, if you had not risen to the point of being the dominant thing in the news, it is and is as tricky with midterm elections -- it is always tricky with midterm elections because there is not always as much interest. we will see what the turnout looks like, but if you end up in a low turnout situation, that would not be the surprise in a midterm. host: carol, maryland, democrats

line. caller: that is corral. -- terrell. mr. lewis, i would like to know, i know that mike pence was getting a lot static in the white house. i want to know, did you hear any embarrassing stories of mike pence in the white house with donald trump and do you think that the mob with seriously harmed mike pence if they would have got their hands on him? guest: let me take the second part that and day -- and say that i am so relieved that we

did not actually have a contemplate that situation -- half to contemplate that situation. i'm sitting in the same room where i was on c-span for hours on the day of january 6. we had no idea what was going to happen and it was happening. as i was talking to my colleagues in the building, as i was watching various video fields, -- feeds, i had no idea how much worse that could have been. we keep saying this. there is another hearing coming up this week, but i appreciate the caller's question because i have no idea what the answer

would be if we need for and the police had not been able to keep vice president pence away from the mom, i have -- from the mob, i have no idea how much worse it could have gotten. host: that clearing this week will be a primetime hearing, the committee hearing from pat cipollone. did you get a sense as far as the committee's end game? guest: i think the real question is going to be what the justice department does with the information that has been brought forward by chairman thompson and vice chair cheney and the committee. whatever it is that the committee ultimately issues as its final verdict, whether it is

in the form of a written report or letting the extent to which the record of the hearing stands for self, what the justice department decided to do with information that has been turned over or it will be turned over and the interviews which have been conducted, some in the live hearings, some on videotaped testimony. all of this information presented under oath, we do not know how much the fbi or the justice department may already know, but the ball they shifted their court as to what to do in terms of prosecutions to pursue

coming out of the committee. host: we have somebody texting us, saying as scarf legislation making it to the president basque, do you anticipate any bills making it before the midterms? guest: the chip legislation the scaled-down version probably does make it to the president's desk. there is probably a better than average shot that the reconciliation bill restricted to health care makes it to the president's desk. the other thing is the house is taking up the first bunch of appropriation bills for the year -- transportation, hud, military construction. there will needed to be a continuing resolution, because

september 30 is the end of the school year. the other big moving piece is that fair they went as a thing i would put on people's radars is that the senate foreign relations committee this week will start taking up the treaty document regarding admitting new members to nato. that is something that will probably get expedited consideration as well. treaties take a bit of a different process but will probably get expedited consideration. those are items that probably need to pass -- three continuing resolution, chips legislation and something related to health care. host: niels lesniewski, you can see his work rollcall.com.

coming up we will hear from tim start. we will talk about oil production in the u.s. and criticisms of the industry by the biden administration. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only on c-span, c-span is america's network -- unfiltered,

word for word. if it happens here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of them on c-span's podcast. the nixon tapes, part private conversations, part deliberations, 100% unfiltered. >> the main thing is that it will pass. i am sure you know -- if i could have spent more time being a politician last year, and less time being president -- but i

did not know what the work doing. >> find presidential recordings on the c-span mobile app or you get your podcast. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing the plaintiffs from white house officials, the pentagon, the state department. we also have international perspectives, all on the c-span network, the free app, and it c-span.org/ukraine. you can follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> washington journal continues. host: joining as now is tim stewart, president of the u.s. oil and gas association. good morning. as far as the association

itself, whom does it represent? -- who does it represent? guest: we are the oldest energy trade association, formed in 1917 to make sure petroleum made it to the military. our membership has evolved. we primarily represent production companies. we represent publicly traded and small companies as well, a good cross section of the industry. a lot of the legacy companies, odds are that it they are the name on a building in oklahoma or texas, it is a company founded by the grandfather of eight-member. host: how would you characterize oral production in the u.s. today? guest: given where we were a few

years ago and the dark days, we have stepped back in a resilient way. we are encouraged right now. we have 250 more rigs than we did last year at this time. we are almost at full capacity. there is a rig in the u.s., odds are it is in the air right now. production is starting to, we are facing interesting challenges. we are feeling the impacts of inflation, but we are in a better situation than we were in april of 2020. host: was that strictly because of covid? guest: pre-covid, the saudi's and russians declared war on the u.s. shale industry and ramped up production significantly to drive the price of global real

down. shale producers -- of global oil down. shale producers responded in kind. then covid hit and that led to demand collapse. i only put gas in my car once during the three months during those first months of covid. those were the dark days -- overproduction, no use. we sense have come back from that. host: as far as numbers, most people will take a look at how much it cost to fill their cars these days. help much is that attributed -- how much is that attributed to production in the u.s.? guest: the cost of a gallon of gasoline, only 60% of that is the cost of crude. another 20% is refining,

transportation, distribution. on top of that is taxes and the margin for the retailer. the cost of crude has had an impact on rising gas prices. they challenges as demand increased faster than ramping up production from those dark days in 20, we have not been able to catch up. the other challenge is the impact on refining capacity. some refineries have not come back online. it is this accordion effect, where we have not hit that valance yet. host: tim stewart is with us. if you want to ask about the whale and gas industry, you can do so on the lines. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans.

(202) 748-8002,s. --independents. you can also text at (202) 748-8003. -- talked about the role of oil producers. listen to what he had to say. >> there is number one reason why oil prices go up or down. when prices go up, they tend to say that his political leadership, but think about it this way. over the last few months, the president has supplied the u.s. market with one million barrels a day from the strategic reserve. we have never done that before. that will end toward the end of the year. >> will it end? >> look at what has happened. the private sector said they tend to increase production by about one million barrels a day

that that will take time to invest in. the president said, i will fill that gap. my expectation is that the private sector in the u.s. will have those increases coming so we do not need the emergency from the government. host: how would you respond? guest: the private sector plays a critical role. the challenge when you tap the strategic reserve for that long is that it still disrupts production in the u.s. it puts a million barrels a day into the system, which has an impact on prices but also impacts the ability of producers. the strategic reserve, i worked on that in the 1990's, there was a time when congress was considering privatizing the

strategic reserve because industry had a better feel of where markets would be six months from now. i would suggest it is used primarily for an emergency. from an industry perspective, we wish they would have said, ramped up, give us an extra million barrels any way you can and we will remove obstacles. that has not had the impact on prices that they thought it would. they did this in november and prices still went up. it sets out the issue of increasing domestic production. host: when you hear him say that the private industry could come forward and help, are there still obstacles? guest: yes. whenever you do work on federal lands, those obstacles remain. we think there was an opportunity the administration hat and we are still open to them coming to us and saying

let's look at critical infrastructure, expedited permitting, let's see what we can do to make sure we do not find ourselves with a global price shock. when we were at the shale peak, saudi production facilities -- nobody registered that. u.s. producers head so felt that market that it was a price shock that never materialized. we could use something like that again. host: our first call from richmond, virginia. this is bill, independent line. caller: mr. stewart, two quick questions. please explain the difference between the keystone pipeline and the keystone xl and whether or not president biden has

actually shut down either. guest: great question. it seems to catch everybody's attention. i find infrastructure in -- pipeline infrastructure in north america is pipeline. those two lines are part of the same system what was needed was for that last segment to be approved to get it from canada, to oklahoma, to the gulf. the administration essentially killed the project because of the time delay that would take place. they sent not do it while we are in office, possibly an 8 year delay. that was a troubling signal to

our closest partner that we were not going to participate with them appeared it had ramifications not just for the pipeline but for broader energy infrastructure. that is why if you hear the industry being worried about being the banked were not funded -- debanked host: the pipeline would not have increased capacity for years. guest: it would have taken several years, but oil market locally and to the future. that extra supply could bring imbalance to the american portfolio. now the canadians do not have an option to send it to the u.s. so they send it to asia. host: delaware, jay, democrats . caller: i am in my late 70's.

i have been through this before. i tried to trigger everything we are told -- try to check out everything we are told. i cannot believe you are still saying it is all regulation, we cannot get enough, it is the keystone pipeline. there are people who leave you, but a lot of us do not because of the obscene profits you have been making and the because you still insist that everything is the fault of the government who did not give you everything you want. you want to try to do a better job. host: what would you like to ask our guest? caller: i am asking him when they are going to stop blaming the government and the keystone pipeline, which was an option to sell us the oil, not guaranteed,

which was not going to do much for us. how many times do you think we can go through this? guest: the caller is expressing the frustration that millions. our industry functions largely independent of significant government subsidy or support. i think -- i understand the estimation because that has been the political back-and-forth that we have been under for the last 18 months. even four years ago, it was a quiet time in industry. we had our disagreements, but a tendency to work with each

other. most of my colleagues do not deal a lot with the federal government but they deal with global markets. the concern they have let -- get out of our way and let us do what we were doing quietly and we can produce a product and bring down prices. the president host: -- the president sent a letter -- a letter to oil executives. today gas prices are $.75 higher in diesel prices are $.90 higher, the difference is the result of the historically high profit margins for refining gas and diesel and other products. prices have tripled another highest levels ever recorded. is the president right? host:'s goat -- guest: this goes to our ongoing criticism with he

and his administration. we make the argument they only view half of the problem and they do not give credit to the markets or the way we do our business. this is been a criticism, the number of people that came out of our industry that work in the administration that understand oil and gas production, you can probably count on one hand. they do not have a lot of advisors who can come in and say to the messaging team yes, but, and i think that is a challenge. people that do understand the industry work hard to try to bring that balance. our industry responded to that letter and we said yes, but come and laid out some of the reasons why we were facing the pricing climate we are. nobody is completely free of fault in the administration or the industry. the reality is we do not respond

in time like we could and we cannot get the financing we had hoped in time. host: you are making high profits. guest: we are making high profits and we are also paying record prices. we are making record profits in a historical context. 2008 was actually a higher pricing environment when you factor in and nation, but we are also paying record prices from everything to labor costs to the cruise we bring in. i think what you're saying is our record profits are reflected in the record prices our industry interview analysis paying. host: let's hear from can in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: it seems to me trump build up all the oil reserves and biden is emptying them all so we have to vote trump back in to fill them up. guest: i am glad you raised that

because we were talking about the collapse during covid and how prices went underwater for a matter of hours. when they were negotiating the covid package, the covid relief package, one of the ideas was if oil is trading at $11 or $12 a barrel, let's invest $3 billion in completely fill it up to the whole capacity because it will never be cheaper than it is right now. unfortunately the democrats did not agree to that. that was a big missed opportunity. when you an extra 100 million barrels at $14 a barrel, that is a good deal for the american taxpayer. it is a missed opportunity. host: tim stewart of the u.s. oil and gas association joining us. can you walk us through what happens when a company requires an oil lease and what they do with it? guest: that is a great question.

an oil lease is no guarantee for everything. it is not like buying a sixpack at a convenience store. it is not a guarantee of 612 outs cans of something. when a company secures a lease is the equivalent of saying we are securing the right to make a big bat that may or may not pay out. that is all it is. it is a gamble. you are making an educated guess on a parcel of land that may or may not have resources. the leasing process is very long and very complicated. it starts when a company or individual come to the bureau of land management and issue what is called an expression of interest. they say we think this 4000 acres in wyoming, we are interested. the bureau of land management takes their plant managers and they go through a process to

determine if the parcel qualifies or if it has resources. it is everything from do we own the surfaces, do we own the minerals. the bureau goes through all of that and puts forward a quarterly lease sale. as a company i may express that interest, i may not secure the lease if i bid on it. let's say i requirement. that becomes a rigorous environmental process by which i have to go in and present my drilling plan and my plan of production to the bureau of land management, i have to comply with numerous federal laws and documentation can sometimes take years. we have to record everything from the archaeological surveys to wildlife stipulation impacts

and things like that. that is a process in and of itself. it is very rigorous. all of the time the blm is processing these permits and this takes anywhere from six months to 5, 7, 10 years. it is a challenging process. in the meantime all of my capital is locked up in this project, either the lease or the rental payments or the environmental work i am paying for the attorneys fees before i can get a raid on the ground. i am burning capital while i'm waiting for a lease. the administration's criticism of our industry, you have 9000 leases you are not losing, my responses we have 4500 leases we are waiting for you to approve and the other -- the other 4500 way got approval for the first 4500. host: let's hear from new york

on our independent line. this is dave. caller: i live in suburbia. anything i to do after you get of the car in drive and pay for gas. after 2008, the big financial crisis, there was a big spike in gas prices, but the interest rates came down and that is when the fracking started to blow up. our number at one point it was like $80 a barrel, then supposedly they brought it down. when you said russia and saudi arabia attacked the fracking industry, they had to. the fracking industry used cheap debt. it is manipulated interest rates that the fed put in to continue fracking. at one point everybody was --

and then as time progressed everybody fell away from that and went back to giant trucks and suvs. what i'm saying now is what happened is are we ever going to get back -- did fracking burn up all that cheap fuel and in the long-term is suburbia a big mistake? host: we got you. thank you. guest: that is a great question and you articulated it really well, a certain sense in 2008. the irony in high gasoline prices and high oil prices is it increases the number of reserves we have. the way the industry operates, we have proven reserves at a particular price point.

interest rates made the capitalization of those very capital intensive projects and made them possible, the price point on oil was sitting that 50 to $60 to make shale profitable. if we remain above $90 or $100 a barrel we have proven and probable reserves that all of the sudden we have tens of billions more barrels of oil that are financially feasible. none of us want that from the consumer's perspective. our industry -- a volatile place -- price climate is not ideal for us. by those low-interest rates allowed for the industry to crack the code on the shale plays. each shale plays different. they are not identical in terms of how you produce.

i would say do not bet against the industry. to the issue of the suburban lifestyle, that is a long-term transition that will take place, i cannot bet on what that will be like in 20 to 30 years but i can say our industry will be around for a long time. host: the administration is pushing things like electric vehicles. how's the industry looking forward to that if people are going to rely less on petroleum-based products? guest: that is interesting. odds are if i plug in my electric vehicle there is a 41% chance i will be charging that vehicle using natural gas and a 22% chance i will be using coal. we are shifting the transportation use from vehicles to charging of those vehicles. from the industry's perspective, we are agnostic with regards to

how it is used. if it is used for power consumption is great. it is a long transition. europeans are telling me if you are moving rapidly towards a transformation of your transformation sector, you better be ready to have something in place to receive. caller: i was wondering if you could fill in the timeline of the situation we find ourselves in. when there was a lot of talk about the oncoming inflation from joe manchin and why he wanted to stop build back better come and then having the russian invasion of ukraine and knowing there was going to be in need for all kinds of petroleum resources for europe as well as everyone getting over covid and being ready to get back driving and doing everything.

i wonder how long it takes to use the rigs that were already there and ready to go. what kind of percentage of the inflation you think the petroleum industry is responsible for. guest: is a good question. if you look at where the cpi numbers are, obviously energy is a big portion of that. that is not just for gasoline but also for electricity production and other things. if i can take you back 18 months ago when the biden administration first came in, industry was slowly ramping up, coming out of the pandemic impact and we were bringing more rigs and cruise online. we were still finding workforce and supply chain constraints. as we were trying to ramp up the administration knew early on it was their intent to force the

transformation, particularly in the capital markets. what that did is have a chilling effect on our ability to raise capital for these projects going forward. i was talking with a small investment firm out of denver a couple weeks ago. they are here in washington. bright women but started a venture capital fund. normally they would go out and identify a project. they found themselves last summer abby to make over 300 presentations before they could hit their target. the reason being there was so much uncertainty for that first year of the administration with regards to where we were going with regards to the oil and gas industry. unfortunately for inflationary pressures the global events

caught up and they have since realized we played important role. i think it has a chilling effect on our projects being financed. host: in early july the interior secretary posed a new round of leases saying the proposed plan puts forward several options for sales over the next five years like the current program finalized in 2016 that removes the federal waters off the atlantic and pacific coast. the gulf of mexico in the cook inlet off of south-central alaska. what does this do as far as production is concerned? guest: that was for offshore lease sales. the secretary in the five-year plan, they were a few days late getting the draft out. they are about 18 months behind. the trump administration five-year plans are all forward through administrations. the trump administration had proposed 48 lease sales

offshore. they had died out that back and we were waiting to see if it would be in the 20 to 30 range. in july the administration said our draft plan calls for 11 to zero lease sales. the offshore research in the gulf of mexico is astounding. there is one project which is an engineering marvel in and of itself. 8000 feet to the c4, 200 miles offshore. 33 wells that expand in a 30 mile diameter. a massive project that also requires a massive amount of capitalization. when you're putting billions of dollars on the table you need assurance leases will be available before you bid the investment and then you will have ability to get it out. i think the department of the interior has missed an

opportunity. the draft has not made it quite palatable to industry to seek this billions of dollars into the market. if they had 25 leases, i think there would be much more interest. now is limited to a handful of players who can invest that much capital. host: we are talking to tim stewart, president of the u.s. oil and gas organization. let's go to angela, independent line. caller: since this is a complicated issue, what effort is mr. stewart making to put out information a lot of americans are not aware of? to give you one example, that the way oil and gas are retrieved in the u.s. is probably more careful and more eco-friendly than the way that happens in other countries, but there is lots more to tell and i'm wondering how mr. stewart gets that information out. guest: that is a criticism of my

industry i hear over and over again from people. i hear the church, here in my neighborhood, i hear it from c-span. i'll be the first to admit that despite our best efforts, we still struggle to get a good message out there. the reality is that a barrel of oil produced in the united states is the cleanest barrel of oil anywhere in the world. the state of north dakota it requires 96% of all emissions are captured when we are producing a barrel for an oil and north dakota. you do not find that in saudi arabia or venezuela or anywhere else that is doing that. i remember early on in my career when i was working on the issue in utah and bought public lands in utah on an oil lease. we counted the number of state and federal and local laws that a company needed to comply with

before they could bid again producing those, it was 127. that is a rigorous legal and environmental criteria the industry has to make. we do produce energy cleaner than anywhere else in the world and to angela's point we are not good at telling our story. i appreciate the opportunity to tell the story just now. host: if you are from twitter asks what happens to u.s. oil when saudi arabia shale production is up and running? guest: that is a great question and we will still be competing globally. the price point right now is we prove that when the saudi's were a complete full production, when opec plus was jamming everything into the market, we still could compete. the shakeout was interesting because we had over 100 companies go bankrupt. they disappeared. we have learned that unlocking

the shale revolution was a very expensive proposition for the industry. it was very capital-intensive and we went to the capital markets and they backed us. we learned some lessons. i think the industry has winnowed itself down and is ready to compete regardless of what the salaries -- the saudis do. host: we have heard president biden say they expect the saudis to help with production. where is the reality? guest: that was an interesting correspondent. we learned the saudis were working with russia -- is cheaper for them to buy the cheap russian oil and spirit the sanctions which frees up their own production for the global market at a higher price. i did not think the president accomplished what he wanted to do and there were warning

signals from the saudis and others we are not going to be able to deliver what you asked for. you cannot call someone a pariah that expect them to do you a favor shortly after. host: larry is in maryland, democrats line. good morning. caller: i work for the federal government in energy modeling and we used to have a model that modeled all of the refinery industry of production and its pipeline extended shipments. it gave insight into the total industry for the u.s. it helped the government have an idea of what would be happening if production was lost and all of that. when i would give presentations to the industry, they stopped

all that they wanted it out so we do not have the insight. when the administration change from democrat to republican, all of that knowledge modeling went out of the federal government, which gave the federal government very little insight into what the oil companies do. the only insight they have is what the oil companies tell the federal government this is what we do. that is a very bad situation for a nation that depends on the oil industry's ability to repair the economy. something in the interests of the american people may not be profitable for all companies at certain levels. at least when you have the model and you and conversation back and forth between the industry and federal government, that is god, so the federal government is blind to what the oil company does now. host: that is larry in maryland.

thank you. guest: 80% of inspiration is based on good information. i do not disagree that there have been periods where there not been good communication with the federal government. we rely on the agency for their modeling. i think this refining capacity challenge we are facing because obviously there has been a breakdown at some point of our ability would protect and prepare for the problems that you can see something coming down the road but you cannot find the ability to address it in your present day. we were warning about this in november and october of last year that the signs and the inventories are not looking good and it is too late for us to react quickly. host: we have a question from

stephen michigan who says how can you ensure another deepwater horizon does not happen? guest: nobody wants another deepwater horizon. after that we learned lessons with regards to our well safety and the operations we do. multiple redundancies were put into place. you always knock on wood something like that does not happen, shortly after that incident the industry responded, we worked well with the obama administration to put additional redundancies in place and if we maintain our rigorous standards like we do offshore, that i think we are in good shape. nobody wants that to happen. that is such a huge impact on our ability to do our job. like that is loss of billions and billions of dollars. it is in our interest not to have something like that happen.

host: as far as next six months, where you see the industry going and what is your message to those skeptical and the role you play representing the industry? guest: i split time between washington, d.c. and the family farm in utah i was talking to a friend of mine who is a farmer. i was saying how are you doing. he says tim, we are paid to keep gas in the tractors and you are a new gas industry, how do you think things are going? the worst case scenario for us is a demand collapse, to have people stop using our product. that does not solve our problem. we get as much the blind of the system, make sure we are doing it in a safe way, even the manufacturers see plenty of options to make product

available, and do it at a price point where it is affordable. when summary says how high is too high of gas prices, my responses it is too high when you cannot afford to put gas in your car. six months from now, i think dependent on what happens globally come in the u.s. the production numbers will be up if we can adjust our fighting capacity in the global refining capacity comes back on, we will see a more comfortable price give i meant. host: tim stewart, the president of the u.s. oil and gas association, thank you. next we will talk with washington post opinion writer paul waldman about campaign 2022. that conversation is up next. >> this week on the c-span networks. thursday night, the january 6

committee holds its eighth hearing investigating the attack on the capital. also on capitol hill this week, tuesday transportation secretary pete buttigieg testifies before the house transportation committee on the implication -- on the limitation of the 1.9 trillion dollar infrastructure bill last year. on wednesday morning disco hearings on gun and gun violence. the senate judiciary committee examines the highland park attack. ceos from gun manufacturers have been invited to testify before the house oversight committee on the practices and profits of gun makers. the house and senate are both in session with the house taking up their first spending bills for 2023 and -- the senate will considered executive and judicial nominations. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile video app.

c-span. your unfiltered view of government. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 eastern. listen to c-span any time. just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span. powered by cable. >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book teepees podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews.

you can find about books on c-span now or rutherford -- on c-span now or wherever you get your podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is paul waldman, and opinion writer for the washington post. a recent piece of yours in the post, i will give you the headlines. you call it joe biden's bad news problem. what is the bad news he has to face and how do you think the administration is doing as far as pushing back on that? guest: this is a problem every president faces. bad news is inherently more newsworthy than good news. the price of gas has fallen between $.30 and $.40 of last month which is a pretty precipitous drop. what you do not see our hundreds and hundreds of new stories

where they put up pictures of the signs with gas prices and people talking about how much this will benefit joe biden. when gas prices were going up, we saw exactly the opposite. all kinds of speculation about how it would affect him and his approval rating. the truth is he did not have much to do with gas prices dropping just like he did not have much to do with gas prices going up in the first place. the president gets the blame for pretty much everything that goes wrong. that is especially true at a moment like this. when you knew you have problem like inflation that is complicated and you of democrats often a more inherently fractious party then republicans, on the one hand, when reporters are writing those news stories, you have a unified opposition will say whatever bad is happening, whether it is inflation or foreign crisis, it is all the president's fault --

it is not all the president spoke. -- another problem that he has is governing is inherently difficult and there is this famous quote from mary of cuomo who said we campaign in poetry and govern in prose. people run for president and they promised all kinds of things and they paint a picture of the world in which every problem we have will get solved, and then they get into office and things are extremely difficult and especially for democrats. keep in mind they are the party of government. when republicans get elected they want to cut taxes and do a couple of other things. they did not have complicated legislative plans.

the democrats usually do. then they run into the difficulties of legislating in congress. there is something else to keep in mind with joe biden stop everyone knows he has small majorities in the house and the senate. i do not think people appreciate how unprecedented it has been. there has not been a democratic president going all the way back to andrew jackson who came into office with congressional majorities as narrow as one joe biden faced when he came into office. he has no room for maneuver. that means legislating will be really hard -- the process is full of setbacks and frustrations and then you see his base get rested up and dissatisfied. that becomes the subject of more new stories.

i'm not saying joe biden could not have done things better, but so many things about the system are set up to make him look like he is struggling, whether he is or not. he is in some ways. he has a lot of things stacked against him in a way -- when there not a lot of things like inflation -- host: our guest is with us until 10:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. let me flip it a little bit. what does joe biden have going for him? guest: at this point not a lot. you can look at his approval ratings which are pretty low, around 40%. if you think back on other recent presidents come this is

about where they were. presidents would look back on like barack obama, bill clinton, ronald reagan. at this stage of their presidencies they were in roughly the same spot. their approval ratings were low. if it looks at the opposition party would build a big midterm, and also as presidents, reagan and obama and clinton all recovered to win a second term. george w. bush is a special case because of 9/11. you see the pattern over and over. one of the things it shows is the public is fickle in many ways. there is always an evan flow. what we see is republicans will win one house or two houses in the midterm elections. they will then make a lot of people unhappy with what they are doing with the majority, and then biden could cruise to reelection just like those

previous presidents did. host: one of the issues is the issue of abortion, project lead after the roe v. wade decision. a lot of people looking for the president to do things that could counteract that, more than what he could do. what is the administration to think of this issue and where should it go as far as counteracting what the supreme court did? guest: if you talk to the administration their argument is we are doing everything we can. he can issue some executive orders that govern the policies of the executive branch, but he cannot single-handedly pass a national codification of roe v. wade. they're not 50 votes in the senate to do that. there's only so much he can do. often biden's first impulse, he is an institutionalist, he is

someone very focused on what government is capable of. his first impulse in some of these situations is to say this is going to be hard and i can. that is often not the kind of thing that his own supporters want. they want people to know he is really fighting and he is aggressively trying to satisfy their demands. he is reading not constitutionally inclined to give his supporters what they want. when he says you have to go out and vote, that is true. if democrats want to change the legal situation with abortion, they need to get the right governments elected, they need to turn some state legislatures, they need to maintain control of the senate and the executive branch so they can reverse some of what has happened with the judiciary.

none of that is possible without voting. voting is the base level, i have heard a lot of different metaphors. it is the first thing you have to do before you do anything else. stacey abrams says voting is not magic but it is medicine. you have to keep taking it. you have to think about it a lot of different ways. when the base years leaders of their party say you just have to go out and vote, that is not what you want to hear. they say we voted and we are still at this point. part of the problem is that that is bidens impulse. he says something that is true but not thing his base wants to hear. one argument in his favor as this is what the right did. this is why we are in this moment. they never stop voting.

when they decided it was their goal to overturn roe v. wade, they spent decades working on it and they voted and they made it possible in their party to win a primary -- they made it impossible 20 primary their party without being 100% antiabortion and they did not think they would get the change they wanted in a year. they realized it was going to take a long time and so they kept working. that is why we are at this point. to say to people you have to build a movement that will play out over the course of decades is often not the most satisfying answer. he is in a position where it is very difficult for him to satisfy the emotional needs of his supporters, both in terms of the power he has in terms of his own inclinations. host: our first call comes from georgia. this is amelia, democrats line. you're on with paul waldman.

caller: what i wanted to say is democrats have a problem with messaging. if they would do their messaging a little better -- just the republicans are trying to do away with medicare and social security. this is rick scott and mitt romney. people do not understand stop the republicans are for less tax but they do not understand the implication this has for working people. when you have less taxes, issues like tornadoes and hurricanes, they will need the money to fix your home or fix your cities. the republicans are for the rich and the corporations and they have been trying years.

the democrats did social security and medicare and they opposed it. what they're trying to do now is do away with these things. host: mr. waldman? guest: the caller points to something that is important. gallup recently measured trust in institutions, they asked people how much faith they have it all sorts of institutions, they found trust in institutions is at its lowest point since you have been asked to the questions -- that is a situation that is very good for republicans. they are part of the party that say government is bad and you are on your around. the more things feel out of control, the better that is for republicans. first because democrats control the federal government right now. also because it plays into the

general conservative ideology that says you are on your around , that you cannot rely on the government to help you come you cannot rely another institutions to help you. the more it feels like those institutions are not providing for you and not solving the problems, the more it seems like the republican argument is right. you have a situation where there is a lot of that kind of sense. anything that goes wrong, we have the pandemic lingering for years, we have inflation, there are bad things going on around the world, it contributes to a sense things are out of control and that enables republicans to say nobody will help you and we should just elect people who will mirror your anger about whatever it is you are mad about. that is an inherent structural advantage. if you are the party that does

not believe in government, you do not have to do much once you get power because you did not set a great deal of expectations. your expectations were just i will say i am mad about the things you are mad about. that is part of the power of donald trump with republican party. sure he may have set we will have so much winning, things like that, but he did not make that any specific promises. for so many of his supporters, just getting elected was the fulfillment of the promise. he said there are people you hate, i hate them, too, and we will give them a giant middle finger, and that is what his election was. that, as far as that was concerned, was a success. policy changes were just frothing on the cake. it is another way where democrats have inherently more difficult task when they get elected then republicans to.

host: mike in california, independent line. caller: how can this guy say biden has nothing to do with the gas price hike is ridiculous. when he get into office he declared war on the energy companies in the united states. vladimir putin saw that and smiled, and then the way he left afghanistan, he caused the war. he saw how weak he was, he knew he could get away with anything. for this guy to say biden had nothing to do with the gas prices is completely insane. he had everything to do with that. he had everything to do with the start of the war because prudent saw how weak he was he when in a did everything he wants like he is still doing now. biden -- everybody is laughing at us now. caller: -- guest: it is a good

indication on the propensity to blame everything on the other side's president. gas is a global market. we have plenty of oil production in the united states. none of the tentative steps the biden administration made had any real impact on the amount of oil being produced. the oil companies, if you ask them, they are much more concerned about wall street and what their investors want them to do in terms of their production than what the president says or what some proposed environmental regulation might do. as for vladimir putin's decision to invade ukraine, there is an american disease where we think anything that happens in the world must be because of what we think and what we do. the fact is people all over the world have their own incentives and their own goals.

vladimir putin had his own reasons for wanting to invade ukraine, and he decided he was going to do it. now there are very few options the president has. there's nothing in the world joe biden would like more than to bring down the price of gas. if there is anything he could do to do it he would try. right now his options are very limited. host: here is wynonna from vermont. caller: i am putting plans and i am washing my hands because i am going yes, yes. i am astounded on a daily basis by how much bitching is going on within the democratic party. people who should know better. it is like being gas lighted. we have gone through so much.

we are currently enduring so much, and in my opinion our democracy is in peril. there is a lot to go through. have people forgotten about the pandemic? i think biden is doing great. under any circumstances, who else would do any better? he made some mistakes, but i am astounded. i don't know. host: that is wynonna from vermont. guest: i think the frustration she is speaking to his democrats are inherently fractious. they have a lot of different kinds of people, it is a very diverse coalition. they maybe share a lot but they also have a lot of different short-term goals and there is also a lot of frustration within the party because of how we

understand more than ever how many different ways the system is rate against the interests of a more progressive vision. you have something like the electoral college where two out of the last five elections, a republican president who did not win the popular vote became president. you have a system in the united states senate where it is split 50/50 but the democratic representatives represent 40 million more americans than the republicans because wyoming 600,000 residents get two votes in the senate and california's 40 million residents get those two votes in the senate. that produces the situation where we have a 6-3 conservative supermajority on the supreme court doing things that are extremely unpopular. all of this makes liberals and democrats feel like the system is rate -- is rigged against

them and that causes incredible frustration and some of that is turned back on biden because he seems powerless to do anything about it and because parts of the system he does not seem eager to change like the filibuster, that makes a lot of democrats extremely frustrated. one of the things i would say to that if that is how you are feeling is to think about how you would have the most impact. if you are a democrat who has a couple hundred dollars you want to donate to candidates, one of the things that will be the most effective in terms of beginning to chip away at some of those institutional problems is to go down the ballot. there's a big incentive to say i saw this, some person running against somebody who i really hate that i will send them $50. your money could probably go a lot farther if you look at a state legislative race in a state like arizona or michigan where republicans control the

legislature but you have a slim democratic majority in that state. that can have a big impact on policy and especially on the 2024 election. for instance, there are states like that where you have people running for secretary of state for out and out election conspiracy theorists. those are absolutely vital races. much more so than some member of the house and the nice thing about some of the state legislative races is your money goes wrong way. if there is some senate race were both sides will be spending $50 million versus the state legislative race were both sides will be spending $100,000. it takes a little time to research it. this is one of the things republicans have been better at in recent years the democrats. they have focused intently on state legislative races and you can see a chain of events where

that makes a difference in taking power. in 2010, a big republican year, they flipped a bunch of state legislatures and that gave them control over the redistricting and that enabled them to institute brutal gerrymander's that make it impossible for democrats win control of the state legislature even when they have majority support. you've seen how this whole series of events comes from that focus on what is happening lower to the ground and then they can leverage that into state power and national power. democrats, there are democrats who will scream until their voices are heard to focus on state legislatures, but the whole party has not been a strategic as the republican party. host: from pennsylvania, republican line, this is mary. hi. caller: hi.

i want to simply say mr. walman is giving a pep talk to democrats and that is all i have to say. host: that is mary from pennsylvania. paul waldman, let me follow-up. when you hear questions about the president's age, what goes through your mind? guest: is a legitimate question. the presidency is an extremely taxing job. it is intellectually taxing, is physically taxing, and joe biden is the oldest president we have had. he would be 86 at the end of his second term. it is legitimate to ask about his ability to do the job. donald trump would be in his 80's, too, at the end of his second term. these are legitimate questions.

it can be somewhat awkward to talk about. a lot of democrats are now in a position where they would rather not say anything about it publicly. biden says he is running again and he is the leader of the party there not anybody who wants to go on record saying he should not. probably after the midterms, when the 2024 campaign has to get going, that is when people will start to debate it in a more intense way. right now among democrats the feeling is let's get past the midterms and then we'll worry about 2024. that may be biden's own feeling. he says he is running but he could change his mind. that is the conversation that after november we will be having much more. host: darrell in missouri, independent line. you are on with paul waldman.

caller: you are talking about approval ratings on institutions. congress has about a 50% approval rating at the only thing lower than that -- about a 15% approval lady and the only thing lower than that is approval for the press. i don't read the washington post. i do not know anyone in missouri who reads new york times -- liberal leanings. cnn because of their liberal leanings has declined tremendously. host: what would you like to ask our guest? caller: where does he get his information regarding the gas prices? we have 9000 acres but if you do not get permits to drill you cannot drill. when you can drill come does not

make any difference how much oil you bring in if you do not get a permit for a pipeline to take it to market. host: darrell in missouri, thank you. guest: asked the oil companies why they do not seem to have much of a sense of urgency for drilling more. they are doing great and making lots of profits, this is not something they feel is a problem. when it comes to the approval ratings of congress, that is true, there approval ratings are always very low. part of the reason is when people look at congress, what did they see? they see a lot of people arguing. they see two sides with independent -- with incompatible goals, they see a frustrating and maddening process which takes a huge amount of time to get anywhere and what it produces always looks like a compromise that does not make anybody happy. it is almost impossible for congress to get good ratings, even when it passes bills.

people do not know much about what is in them. passing bills does not get you very much of a boost with congress or the president. that is part of the problem. if you do not pass anything, that makes you look like you are ineffective, if you do pass something people say they do not like it. there's nothing they give you any credit for. this is been something that is true for decades and decades. there is a paradox which is named after well-known political scientist a few decades ago. people said they hate congress but they love their own congressman? why is that? there congressman is someone they know, they see him in the local paper cutting a ribbon at the new senior center or whatever it is, they see the congresswoman on local tv talking about issues and they say i like her or i like him,

but all of the news they get about congress in general is bad. the caller also mentioned, but he knows reads the washington post or the new york times, they do not trust other news outlets. it is important to realize that is the result of extremely successful campaign from conservatives that dates back to the 1970's to tell people who are conservative you cannot trust anything the news media tells you, is all lies, whenever you hear from them is inherently untrustworthy and those people are people who hate you and everything about you, therefore you should only get your information from news sources that validate everything you believe about the world. that is something they started to say in the 1970's, they built up in institutional apparatus of alternate user organizations. fox news went online in 1996. it has been extremely successful in putting up a firewall between

their own voters and any information they do not want to hear. the other thing it does now, it is not that people who are conservative to not know the kind of things that appear in the washington post, they do. they care about it. they can also tune into fox and get an entirely different narrative. when there is a mass shooting, that might cause them to think we do have a gun problem in the united states. they will tune into fox, where they will be told no, guns have nothing to do with this. the fact that we have more guns than anywhere else in the world has nothing to do with the tens of thousands of people were killed every year, it is mental health problems or it is video games or tucker carlsen will tell you it is women who are too naggy and laura ingraham will tell you it is marijuana. you have this narrative that will enable you to say now i do not feel so bad about all the

mass shootings. it feeds into something more comfortable for my worldview and that is an important function of the conservative media as well as constantly telling you you cannot trust anything that appears in any other news outlet that is not here it specifically towards your point of view. host: this is from tommy in kentucky. democrat line. jump right in free or question and comment. caller: my question is how a guide can call in and say biden is with russia when donald trump kissed up to him all the time he was in there, saying he was right on everything and was agreeable with north korea, kissing up to that, or can you say biden is weak when he is the reason ukraine has been fighting on account of trump going over

to that helsinki meeting nobody knows what they talked about. it is ridiculous. i would like to know real fast wine the world is nobody talking about jeffrey epstein getting killed in these pedophiles -- host: that is tommy in kentucky. one more topic real quick. there is news today steve bannon will faces criminal contempt trial for refusing to turn over materials to the january 6 committee. i want to ask you because after holding their hearing, what you think the impact will be of those efforts? caller: i do not know that they set out to say we will transform the way everyone in america thinks about january 6. that may not have been possible given the polarization and everything we've been talking about. they wanted to establish a historical record, they wanted to gather more information so we have a more complete understanding of what went on,

and i think so far they have been successful. there is a lot more we have learned about what happened that we did not know before, especially about what went on inside the white house. i think, who knows how many minds they will changed. i think it is certainly true we know better just how profound the threat was just awful that day was and what went on in the white house and how close we came to what would've been the dismantling of our democracy. i would hope that everything they revealed and have brought in this high-profile way before the public would make us more resistant in 2024. that is when this will come into play again. we should make no mistake about it. donald trump and his allies are trying to put in place an

apparatus that will enable them to do in 2024 what they could do in 2020. even if whoever the democratic nominee is wiens more votes, they will have enough people in place in the secretary of state's operas is in state legislatures that will enable them to take the election even if they do not win it. that is the real threat and i would hope at the end of the january 6 committee and the hearing and everything, you will have a more acute understanding that will enable us to be prepared for the threat we face in 2024. i do not know if we will or not. host: paul waldman writes a regular opinion column for the washington post is also a senior writer at the american prospect. you can find his writing at washington post.com. thanks for your time. guest: thank you. host: does it for the program today. another issue of "washington

journal" at 7:00 tomorrow. ♪ >> this morning, usaid administrator samantha power talks about food security, inflation, and high gas prices from the center for strategic and international studies. watch live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can also watch on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and the

state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks, the c-span now mobile app, and c-span.org/ukr aine, our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> the house is back for legislative work today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. this week, members take up the first federal spending bills funding the government for next year. the house will also vote on legislation guaranteeing the right to access countries have is. the senate returns today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. senators expected to begin work later this week on legislation providing funding for the u.s. computer chip industry so it can better compete with china. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on

c-span2. you can also watch on our free video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers so students of low income families and get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. urnal continues. host: my guest now is niels lesniewski. he serves rollcall as their chief correspondent, covering the white house and congress.