founder adam andrzejewski on his report on wasteful government spending. he sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweet. ♪ host: "washington journal" for july, 19th. polls asked if president biden should run for a second term. simple say someone else could become the parties bearer. we want to hear from democrats on -- in the audience of president biden should run for a second term in 2024. if you live in the eastern and central time zones is (202) 748-8000.

mountain and pacific time zones. (202) 748-8001 you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003, post on facebook and on twitter. you can also follow the show on instagram. one of those recent polls is done by yahoo! news in conjunction with u-gov here are some of the findings. this says that 18% of americans say president biden should run for reelection in 2024 according to that poll the note -- lowest number today 54% say he should bow out and for the first time or democrats say biden should pass on a second term. that is 41% registering that. only 35% say he should run. that was conducted on july 8 through the 11th. this also says that when they were asked who they would rather

see as the democratic nominee for president in 2024, only a quarter saying president biden and democratic, kamala harris, the vice president. some said someone else. when he present that they are not sure. 30% said he wouldn't vote. that is one poll from yahoo! news. again for democrats in the audience your thoughts on this idea on a second term for the president and if you think that should happen or not. (202) 748-8000 four democrats in the audience in eastern and central time zone. pacific and mountain time zones (202) 748-8001. president biden over google asked after every simple came out about whether he should run again, it wasn't at the congressional picnic at the white house. here is some of that exchange. [video clip] >> what is your message to democrats who don't you run again? >> they want me to run.

look at the polls, jack. you have full's that show 90% of democrats would vote for me. in the majority of democrats say they don't want you to run again. >> 92%. host: that was again from the white house, the congressional picnic just before the president left for his trip to the middle east. he is referencing a poll which you can find online in the new york times publishing that saying july 11. president and facing a level of doubt by his own party with only 64% of democratic voters saying they would prefer eight new standard bearer. voters nationwide soured on his leadership giving him a 33% job approval rate. they are worried about the economy, inflation.

the trajectory of the nation with only 13% of american voters saying the nation is on the right track. with that in mind, your thoughts on another term for the president, again, democrats only for this hour. pick the line that best represents you depending on where you live. we start off with kathleen, chicago, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: i don't understand why people don't want joe biden running again. everyone is blaming president biden for what? since the man has been in office he has set policies. policies for the american people. you know what is stopping joe biden from getting anything done? the house. i wish somebody would come on tv with a list showing how much the

democrats in the house have passed this man's policies. when it comes to the senate, he has to democrats in the senate that are sabotaging him. instead of people living those two, they want to. if he can get them on board in the senate, it would be great because the republicans in the house and the senate is not doing anything. that's why i don't understand why they're going to take over the house. what have they done? they stood by and voted no on everything even including medicine. host: ok. that was kathleen in chicago. let's hear from injured in sterling, virginia. andrew, hello? caller: that lady took the words out of my mouth. how could anybody not but for joe biden? this gentleman is probably one

of the best presidents we have ever had. he walked into one of the worst situations any american president has ever walked into and all he is faced is one hundred percent opposition from every republican, every trump loving republican every maga republican out there plus he has faced the opposition like the young lady before me said of joe manchin. if you want to blame anybody in this country, for eitan's policies not being passed, it's joe manchin. biden single-handedly brought all of the countries in need to together which trump basically wanted to destroy. if it had not been for biden's efforts there we would be facing an ongoing threat from russian incursion into europe. joe biden is unfortunately facing what i think is a big problem in this country, ageism. a lot of young people are against possibly voting for joe biden because of his age.

age has nothing to do with that. the man is able, smart, he is experienced. he -- host: going off of twitter, you can respond on twitter if you want. i would rather vote for president biden than a do nothing maga republican president that who won't even try to govern. that is one of the comments coming in on the twitter feed. mara salt lake city, go ahead. hello? caller: hi. i would like to say, if i may, i think he is a fine man. he was in the house in senate for a very long time. but i feel like he is past his time. at some point, people are too old to do certain things.

and i wish they could find a younger democratic candidate who is well educated. host: who would you like to see? caller: i can think of anyone right offhand. what host: host: about you,? this is a chance to talk to the audience. maybe others will comment on that as well. do you want to see someone younger? a progressive group encouraging joe biden to run for a second term, this is saying a left-wing group persuading progressives to turn on the president. reaction.org is the latest among

democrats about the president whose ratings have finishing midterm election year. in email about one in 2 million people six figures on eight #don't run joe campaign. one day after the midterm elections on november 9, it quotes of this it says this is from a political story. he has been neither inspiring and his prospect for winning appeared to be weak with so much at stake making it the democrat party the standard in 2024 would be a tragic mistake. if you want to hear that, people will vote for president biden for another term maybe looking for a younger person to take the job again this will be what we are doing for the next 50 minutes or so.

john in ohio, you are next up, hello? caller: hi. i don't think he should run again. it didn't vote for him the last time. i voted in 2016 and 2020 for bernie and in 2016i ended up voting for trump. i think, i might vote for him the next time if he gets it because trump has turned out to be worse. but between the two of them bump with the january 6 and him with the hunter biden thing, it's pretty depressing. host: what is it about senator sanders or senator hawkins that you support? caller: the health care was the big thing because i liked

bernie's health care plan. i'm on social security and medicare and i don't have dental or vision. and like with bernie's plan, that would have been automatically included. host: that's john in ohio. from harold in california, san jose. hello? caller: good morning, sir. i am a first time caller to c-span, but i happened to get up here to make a run and i so you were on democrats only. i have been a lifelong democrat i am 68 years old and i did vote provided in this last election but i don't think he should run again in 2024 because in the first place just my personal opinion, i think he is too old to keep on going.

i have nothing against what he has done so far, except as gone back on at least one of his promises that he made during his campaign which made we vote for him. he said he wasn't going to be lying anymore -- allowing drilling for oil and now he has done a complete turnabout and he is allowing that. it is destroying the atmosphere. it is one of the things destroying the atmosphere is all the drilling for oil. i don't think he should run again in 2024. i think we need somebody he was younger. i don't have a specific candidate in mind yet because nobody has come out into the mainstream saying they are going to run. it's a democrat -- as a democrat i think we need somebody younger and there for 2024. host: because you said age, do you think anything about his

performance about his age the concerns you? caller: specifically. in his case, he has shown a little bit, i think, deterioration and physical stamina. he doesn't talk as well as he used to in the beginning. he doesn't walk as well as he used to in the beginning. and he is starting to say things on tv, like he did just a few minutes ago. he is under the impression that 90 something percent of democrats would vote for him again in 24 which is obviously not true. so, i don't know, i think that's the only thing in regards to age. host: that is harold there in california. if you live mountain pacific time zones and other states there you can call us at (202) 748-8001.

if you live in the eastern and central time zones it is (202) 748-8000. cnbc highlights actions that they see as potential for who could step up and run if the president did decide not to run again. one of them is the vice president and the other is the governor of california. cnbc story, top democrats started rubbing elbows with influential people. kamala harris has a smoke of allies who organized a campaign for senator they held private meetings of at least three supporters according to people reaped on the matter. interviews that she plans to run on the president's ticket in 2020 or. harris has been in touch with two wealthy friends. as well as -- a businesswoman and the widow of the late apple cofounder steve jobs.

as close to harris and her political career and fundraisers as well, jobs met the vice president and one other person familiar with the meeting always enjoyed hosting these at the residences and that is what the nature of these visits are. when it comes to governor newsom, the story says that governor newsom will have more chances to mingle will wealthy potential campaign patrons. democratic party fundraisers said to host at least seven governors dozens of wealthy donors are expected to go. let's hear from craig in washington, d.c. caller: yes, sir i think biden should run. he is a good president. he is trying to do the best he can. if he don't run, we still have to vote democrat because the republicans are going to take us real bad. they already got started. i just want to get this out there, joe manchin is a mole in

the democratic party. he is an undercover republican. it him out. host: do you think he is the source of the president's problem? he hung up. let's go to laura in michigan. hello? caller: hi. to answer your question, i do not think that joe biden should run for president again. i voted for him last time. i voted against trump actually to be perfectly honest. the corporations have just taken over both parties and our whole political system. we are in a pretty, as the

polling said, we are in a pretty disgusting situation. host: what would you say? caller: he hasn't done any real progressive, i'm a progressive democrat. he hasn't and anything really progressive. i mean, i can't think of the name of the head of the fed that he appointed but it is the same person that donald trump appointed which is kind of bizarre i think. host: you're talking jerome powell? caller: yeah. host: what were you looking for from the president as far as what to enact? caller: well, and this is something he wasn't even promising but like the lady stated earlier, medicare for all. we need a universal health insurance, government run health

insurance program in this country. just for basic humanity, i mean, every other industrialized rich country has some sort of universal health coverage. i think it is time here. host: that is or they're joining us for michigan. again if you are just joining us democrats only in the audience. we are asking what you think about a second term for joe biden if he decides to run. if you think that should happen or not, (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and pacific time and -- times on. the president as far as handling of the economy. the topic -- top economic adviser talked about inflation and the economy.

here is a portion of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> i'm sure we all remember a year ago inflation was -- we are not going to go up to where we are now. do you think it's possible in a couple of muncie might regret standing here we are not about to be in a recession? >> let me flee -- be very clear with what i am saying. based on consumer spending, and employment and where the end up limit rate is i think we can confidently say that these numbers that we are posting are very much inconsistent if and for we are right now. i think that is the most accurate way to assess the answer to that question. when it comes to transitory, i think the answer there is that we were careful when we were talking about that. to consistently reference the forecasts that were out there, they view on inflations trajectory by not only pretty

much every forecaster we could find of course developers are visible and so this is the. where we haven't seen a new variant of the virus, of course it was not yet a reality. i think if you look at the general trajectory of where the forecast was pointing there, that was generally the way in which we try to talk about that. i think that is worth going back and seeing. host: again that was from yesterday you can see more of that on our website -- website at c-span.com. , look cannot run again, a secretary of state. janet in florida says the race for the presidency is joe biden and donald trump in percent of

voters would vote for joe biden. caller: i think he should run again because the only problem he's made, is stopping them. he needs to step up and be stronger and what he wants done with his democrat party. he is the head of the democratic party and he is not showing it. if he was like donald trump, even though donald trump is not who i would vote for, but if he was like donald trump they would stand up to his party and command as commander-in-chief of the united states. he let go and he seemed to hide when it comes to making sure that his promises that he told the people that he would do,

come to bear. again, i think we need a younger person. host: what do you think are some of the things that president biden should be stronger on? caller: the voting rights. the criminal rights, the laws against the people. medicaid,'womens right to choose. it is stuff that he promised he would do that he is not standing up and saying nothing about. joe manchin, he needs to call him out. he needs to talk to him. he needs to be more stronger with joe manchin then he is instead of -- host: ok. caller: in is to tell joe

manchin if he don't give him this, he needs to stand up if he -- and be more stronger. host: we will go to leon in north carolina. caller: good morning. i want to say that i think that joe biden, if he decides to run again, he should run again. the reason why say that is if we look at what he has been doing, we don't wake up every morning on high alert with twitter tweets about foreign policies or the federal government. the second thing that we have had record unemployment numbers of hiring during this administration. another thing that he has done, he has started to the attention of the american people that if

we want to change things, you have to vote. he is not a king. he can't make these people do anything. the only people that can make thing -- these politicians do what they are supposed to do is vote we cannot just vote and walk away. and say he can make these people do anything. cinema and mansion have held up all of his ideas on his platforms that they all ran on. they knew that this man was up in age when he read for office. i don't know why this is an issue now. he has gotten along with everybody. he tries to get people to work together. so in terms of a gun president, a young face, it doesn't have as much wisdom and experience just to say i want somebody new, it

just doesn't make any sense. inc. you very much. host: that is leon. if you go to the website real clear politics one of the things they do is take a series of polls and compile an aggregate of polls, snapshots if you will, they have collected several from several sources. if you put them altogether as an aggregate when it comes to the presidents approval rating 38.6% expressing approval of the presidents. 54 expressing disapproval. if you look at the aggregate, not individual polls and the like but if you want to see real fear politics is where you can find that. kathy in ohio is next up. caller: good morning. i don't believe that president biden should run again because he appears to be physically weak

, mentally i'm sure he's quite strong. i think his demeanor through his political career has been low-key. because he is elderly, this makes him appear to not know what he is doing. personally, i would vote for him again if he ran. i would vote for him. but i feel like the best people we could run is actually bernie sanders. he has a lot of fire in his gut. i think he could go after these people. he states -- he is very aggressive. i like that. i would not like kamala harris to rent because she is a woman. i mean, i bet she is probably the most wonderful person but a woman is not going to win. the democrats have to get smart about who they are going to run for office. i don't think the governor of gallup -- california, he just

has too much baggage. i don't even want to see him run. host: let's go back to kamala harris why do you not think that a woman could take the presidential nomination or win the nomination for the party? caller: she could probably when the domination but i don't think she could win the presidency. she is a woman and women are discriminated against. i never thought hillary clinton should run. i just don't think the american public can handle that. just can't. women are even prejudiced against women, it's not just men. host: ok. giving her thoughts on another term for president biden. you can do the same if you have others in mind that you would rather see run. you can comment on those as well. again, eastern and central time zones it is (202) 748-8000.

if you live in mountain and pacific time zones it is (202) 748-8001. indiana,, mack you are next. caller: i am for biden all the way. i would vote for him three times if i could. he came in and people were tired of listening to trump, they listened to trump for four years because all he did was talk. biden sat back and got a plan together. you didn't hear from him. it was wonderful. i enjoyed the ease and the pace. he got his whole plan together, then he says he came back. as he gave people money. why not? they were not putting them out of their houses because of rent. the thing we were going through

was telling people not to have a job. so, yes, he put money down. why not come back and give it to the people here in the united states? and help them out? that is what it is all about. we are on in -- uneven playing. the first thing he said, if all of us for just 100 days would wear the mask it would've made a big difference. host: taking a look at inflation and gas prices and other things you don't attribute those to the president or his handling of things? caller: there are a lot of things that attributed to that. a lot of things attributed to it. but he is not going to get it all. he is trying. the one thing about this, i'm 82. just the thing is, just because he started a little bit, it's

what he does when he is away from the camera and a lot of people are trying to put him down. he is a good man. host:mack there in indiana giving his thoughts. we will do this for a half-hour more until 8:00 or you can text us if you wish, post on our facebook and twitter need, you can call the line that represents you. something to watch out for the house on the senate today as the house goes on, roll call picking up this story saying it is unusual the house authority trying to rally the troops. familiar with the processor skeptical much more than half of them will get that far given the -- house democrats can lose votes. no republican votes are expected on the spending bill judging for the party line votes in the committee. divisions among house democrats against spending levels and

foreign policies and law enforcement funding and online security. in particular, there is more to that role -- story if you want to see how that plays out. also we are picking up the house is set to vote to protect same-sex marriages. it has sparked concern countless americans may be in jeopardy. setting up an election year.

you can go to our c-span now. connecticut is next, margaret, hello?

caller: i don't know about kamala harris. i did like her but i don't think she has a chance. that she has a chance to win, because she is a woman. host: as far as a younger person, anybody stand out in your mind as far as the younger democrats who would -- who you would see as the standardbearer? caller: there is a slim chance, but there is a local politician here who is running to fill the mdc left by antonio delgado. -- the empty seat left by antonio delgado. i have met him many times, and he is charismatic, he is intelligent, he knows what he is

doing, and i would love to see that if he gets into the house, this special election, which is coming up in august, i think august 23, i would love to see him. i'm just going to throw his name out and you can look him up. his name is pat ryan. and he is just -- i think he is capable of doing it. he is ex-military, he is a businessman. right now he is involved in ulster county, new york politics. but he was running for the primary in 2018, and i interviewed him extensively, and i was incredibly impressed, and i voted for him. so, i'm just going to throw that name out. i know it is from left field, but people ought to check him out. host: that is jan with her

choice as far as a standardbearer. she is talking about that election in new york. it is primary day in maryland, so look from outcomes -- look for outcomes from that throughout the week depending on the counting process. this is some of the responding via text. jimmy from maryland says, i do not feel president should run. my choice will be seth moulton from massachusetts, who has a stellar war record and qualities. biden was already the oldest president ever elected, despite younger candidates available from the start. it is not ageism to have legitimate questions about his ability to effectively continue. he has already given us reasons to doubt that. steven in michigan saying that, i voted for joe biden, i am happy he signed more bills into law the last -- into law than

the last two presidents. some of your thoughts on what you would like to see. the question, if the president should take on another term in 2024. terry in illinois. hi. caller: good morning. biden is a great president, i think, and i think we should select somebody that is -- [indiscernible] my choice would be chris coons of delaware. we move forward and not backwards. host: when you say consensusbuilding, elaborate on that. why do you think that is a needed thing? caller: i think the democrats is becoming disarrayed because of, you know, inflation and everything. i don't want to jump on that

inflation bandwagon because i put that on some of the higher ups. as soon as we get that money back from the covid relief, everything started going up and the jobs improving, you know? look, the employment rate is high. so he is not in tune with the way our country should be going forward. mention -- manchin. chris coons could move the bond agenda forward, and that is the person we need for consensusbuilding on the democratic party. host: several of you in the audience mentioning senator manchin over actions of pulling back from the reconciliation bill due to the inflation report put out. that was a topic of discussion yesterday, with the white house, with the press secretary, about his lack of support for a broader bill. including money to combat

climate change as well. here is a little bit of that from yesterday. >> the president and senator manchin have a very close relationship. we will continue to have the conversations that we have been having with him for the past 18 months on a variety of if -- of issues. we do want to lift up what is about to happen, what we are on the cusp of doing with the reconciliation bill. that is going to impact tens of millions of americans lives, and that matters as we are looking at health care, when it comes to climate change. saw the president's statement recently. if the senate does not act on that and take action on climate, he has a contingency plan, which is using his executive authority to make sure that we take on climate change in a way that is going to be effective. i don't have anything to read out to you on that particular action, but, again, we are not

going to negotiate from here and we are going to continue to make sure we did -- we deliver for the american public. host: again, if you are a democrat who thinks the president should run again for a term in 2024, give us a call, (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. a couple of stories related to january 6 and the committee investigating those events. cbs reporting that matthew pottinger, a former security council official, and president trump's press secretary, sarah matthews, will testify at the primetime hearing. the committee has not publicly confirmed thursday's witnesses. those were first reported by cnn both pottinger and matthews resigned in the aftermath of the january 6 attack. a committee said that matthews had described the scene on

january 5 and the president called top aides to the white house. that is cbs news. when it comes to those secret service texts, a story in the hill, a spokesman for the secret service said the agency will comply with the requests for those texts by a 10:00 a.m. deadline this morning, but that much of what it has to turn over will replicate what is already shared with the committee. he denied the existence of any "hidden messages" the agency was concealing. and anything else officials were holding up from the panel, saying we are going to respond to the subpoena in thorough detail. by the way, axios reporting that when the committee issued its report it is going to come out in book form, saying that 12 books will announce it plans to publish the january 6 report and partnership with the new york times. the story adding that the addition will include eyewitness accounts and analysis from new york times reporters who covered the story.

adding that because the report is public domain, expect diversions from multiple publishers. the january 6 hearing, you can watch it on c-span and uninterrupted. stay close to our website for more information on that. dwight is up next in fairfax, virginia. hello karen caller: hello, how are you? host: i'm well, thank you. caller: joe has done a lot of good things. it will come to fruition in his first four years. nothing but his third and four year -- third and fourth year you will see the difference in polls versus what is going on now because of all of the good things he is doing. do i think he needs to run again? i'm on the fence about it, but my choice would be shel obama. -- michelle obama. i know it is far-fetched, but i would love to see her run, and i

think democrats ought to push her name out there, say it loud. i wish she had run as a running mate with him. kamala harris, i love kamala harris, but i just don't think she has the charisma to be president. i just don't think she would be a strong candidate. but michelle obama is the -- is an excellent candidate. host: can i ask you -- why michelle obama, what she brings to the table as far as being president of the united states? caller: well, just all of the things she did as a first lady. just the programs. her foresight. she was out front, she did things that were good for the nation. she taught a lot of things about family. there were a lot of things she brings that she -- i think, in

her style of politics. she is fair. just the one topic that she said , the one verse she said was, when they go low, you ohio. it is an example of her politics, and i think that is how she would be, and that is what this country needs. you need someone to go high, and i think joe biden is trying to do that. you just have a lot of due-nothing republicans, and they call themselves patriotic? they are doing nothing to help this country get out of this mess, just like they did with barack obama in 2008, and it is sad. host: let's hear from michael. hello. caller: yes. i like biden a lot. i have been a democrat all my life. the first time i got to vote i was in vietnam.

the major came around, and he had to be 21 years old, and i voted. biden, it depends on what is going to happen in november. right now he has one big problem in the state i live in, and that guys name is joe manchin. i voted for him twice for governor. i thought he did ok as governor. then i voted for him when he ran the first time for u.s. senate. then i started realizing his changes. then the second term here i voted for him again, but i did not realize he was a coal baron, where him and his family owned several big coal businesses him and they were also tied into the oil and gas companies. manchin has hurt by an extremely bad, what if fetterman -- and i think kim ryan is going to win ohio. and i think the guy in wisconsin, johnson, is going to

lose, and the dealer rats -- and the democrats have a chance of getting two seats. if that happened i would vote for biden in 2024. if it doesn't happen, i would go for the governor of california or possibly kamala harris. that is who i would go for. but if they can hold the senate i think they have a chance to -- he has only been in their 18 months. he has another 2.5 years to go. let's see what happens. if they can hold the senate maybe they can get the voting rights bill and some other things through, such as climate change, and some taxes on the wealthy people. i do like gavin newsom in california. host: michael in west virginia on not only the president, but senator manchin. delaware, richard, hello. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm well, thank you, how about yourself? caller: i'm awake and watching with great interest. [laughter]

i want to second what the previous caller said. biden seems like a terribly nice guy. we live in delaware, and everybody knows about joe biden. we need a fighter. these people on the republican side are going to come hammer and tongs in 2024, and i don't know if biden is up for the fight. he has manchin and sinema. and he doesn't act. he should be going to morgantown, west virginia, and tucson, arizona, or phoenix, and making speeches about voting rights and roe, and climate change. somebody like gavin newsom, he is the governor of the fifth-largest commonly -- fifth-largest economy in the world. when he was mayor of san francisco he was the first person to marry same-sex couples. he went out on a limb for the

right reasons. and i think he is a fighter. i think you would be the worst nightmare of the republicans, because he knows how to take the fight to them. and if we really want to win, somebody like that is essential. biden is a terribly nice guy, but he thinks the republicans -- when he came into office he thought the republicans were going to have an epiphany. i don't know where he got that notion, i don't know who is advising him, but somebody like newsom, and as a vice president or candidate you have a huge bench, men and women, and it is essential. but i don't think biden, he has disappointed us so many times in the past. you look at anita hill, and the way he just rolled over. the way he is being rolled over by the -- by his own party. two people in his own party.

joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, who is not even going to be a senator in two years. host: that is richard in delaware. the same polling we talked about at the beginning talked about potential matchups, should the president run again? it says that, this is the hill picking up that story, saying the same poll that had terrible news for the president as far as his poll numbers also showed he would still beat president trump in a head-to-head match, up 44% to 40% if the election were held today. -- a democratic strategist being quoted, it is clear that the strongest argument for biden 2024 is a rematch, saying that the president's approval rating hit that low of 33 percent, showing a majority of democrats wanting someone other than him to run in 2024. from our twitter feed, this is a viewer saying the president walked into a disaster and has got nothing but resistance and

no support from republicans and two of his own party. i will vote for him again, that being said, there should be an age limit. that would also rule out 45. .-- then this also, if you are from twitter saying president biden should not run if he fails to keep his 2020 promise to forgive student loans. just some of the sampling from our twitter feed. we have about 10 minutes to go on this topic. erica in miami, florida. you are up next. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. it is very exciting for me to be on your show. i would like to support president biden. i definitely feel he is a very,

no, nice president. nice president we have not seen in a while. i feel that people should be more supportive of him, being that he is so nice and very just. and he is basically good -- a good option for president coming up in 2024. and he should be supported. host: from rita in kansas. hi. caller: i support president biden, but i think he has problems. i am personally older than he is. i'm going to be 83 next month, and i have parkinson's. i think that is what he has, parkinson's. parkinson's is really hard to deal with. i have trouble myself. who i would like to see run is

stacey abrams. stand up to those republicans. with a strong woman. i would like to see stacey abrams run. host: we have had several people saying a woman cannot win the party's -- caller: that's -- i don't know. especially if trump is the one she is running against. sean cannot deal with a strong woman. he would be apoplectic if he had to deal with a strong woman like stacey abrams. host: ok. caller: i really like senator warren, but we all get old too fast. i'm going to be 83 next month myself. i like president biden, but he is too nice. we need someone to get in there and kick ass, like stacey abrams. host: one of those criticisms

coming from senator mitch mcconnell, talking about the biden administration, particularly on issues of inflation. here is some of that. >> last week america's familie'' pain was confirmed by statistics. year on year inflation said a 40-year high in june. the painful fall of washington democrats' 2020 one spending binge continues to spread. a loaf of bread because the american consumer 10% more than it did a year ago. the price of a gallon of gas, of course, rose more than 100% on democrats' watch. across the board the american people's hard earned dollars are not going nearly as far as before democrat's inflation. even as nominal wages rise,

families have seen their real income decrease. a pay cut for workers, courtesy of democrats' runaway spending. three out of four americans -- three out of 4 -- say inflation is causing them financial hardship. 75% of the country is in a tough spot. of course, it is not affecting everyone equally. the lowest-earning americans consistently spend larger portions of their incomes on the sort of essentials that are most expensive right now, from housing to fuel, to groceries. and workers in blue-collar industries are among those having the hardest time keeping up. u.s. manufacturing workers are seeing their lowest average earnings adjusted for inflation since 2014. host: you can see more of that

at our website, and other news. this is concerning president trump's former advisor, steve bannon. his attempt of congress -- contempt of congress try will extend. he is facing criminal charges for refusing for months to cooperate with the house committee investigating the january 6 investigation. harmon is next in seattle, washington. hello. caller: hello, how are you? host: fine, how about you? caller: i'm good. on this subject, i like this guy, joe biden, that i figure the only way that, you know, he should run in 2024 is if he can get enough courage to start calling for expansion on that supreme court, for one thing, and calling for eliminating the filibuster, and, you know, pass voting rights, with strong voting rights legislation.

so we can save this democracy. the last thing i have on this subject is, if he can't find courage to fight for these things, then he needs to, i think, go home. i think you, and may god bless you all. host: that is harmon in washington. several legislators yesterday revealed a proposal to expand the supreme court. democratic senators. can see that on c-span.org. some of their thoughts and thinking on what they want to do that. or that available at the website and our c-span now app. tyrone in new york city. hello. caller: hi, good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i know that biden will win another term. i just think he has to get rid of kamala harris. i don't think she is helping

amount as far as -- well, i think she is weak, and he needs somebody really strong. however, i will vote if she were -- what is the lady's name on the january 6 panel, the republican? cheney. i would vote for cheney, as a democrat. host: in your opinion what makes the vice president week? caller: well, i just josh because i have not heard much about her. i wasn't going to vote for her for president -- republicans this time around, i think he needs a pit bull, and she is not a pit bull. biden has experience. he knows how things are in government, you know. but i just don't have confidence in her as a president.

i did not have confidence as for president, and vice president, ok, she is here, but i think he should pick a different running mate. host: tyrone in new york city. in washington state, this is lori. hello. caller: yes, good morning. i love c-span, watch it everyday . i am impressed with chris van halen of maryland, and nobody is talking about him. i have watched him for years. i have voted both democrat and republican, but i think somebody needs to talk about him, because i have been impressed with his way, his comments. he seems informed, and i just like to hear somebody talk about him and find out more about him. host: you must be pretty impressed, being on a whole other coast and knowing about representative van hollen. caller: well, yes. as i say, when i have heard him

he has been just intelligent, level, and i would like to hear more about him. host: ok, representative fallon -- representative van hollen. this will be john in lancaster, pennsylvania. hello. caller: hello there, pedro. if president biden chooses not to run for a second term, i think tim ryan from ohio would make a good replacement. he is a guy that is for, you know, labor and the working class, and we need somebody to actually represent that segment of society a little more aggressively than, you know, it has been happening in the past, in my opinion. we have a tax code basically, to me it favors the

rich. i think we need to get back to a more fair tax code and try to get jobs back. president biden is trying to get jobs back. i credit him for that, but i think ryan is a more electable candidate. i would vote for president biden over president trump if he chooses to go back. host: that was john and pennsylvania. thank you for all of you for participating. we will be joined by representative mike johnson talking about issues such as abortion access and spending bills. later on, democrat al green will

talk about the mass shootings and other issues including inflation and the economy. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings investigating the attack on the capital. notice c-span.org/january 6 our web resource page to watch the latest videos, briefings and our coverage on the attacks and subsequent investigation since january 6, 2021. we will have reactions from members of congress, the white house, journalists and authors.

go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you cannot see it live. >> live on august 7, columnist larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness, and racial politics. he is the author of several books. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. in depth, with larry elder on book tv from c-span2. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine bringing you the latest from the president,

white house officials, the pentagon as well as congress. we also have international perspectives and statements from foreign leaders. all on the free c-span now mobile app. and c-span.org/ukraine. go to c-span.org/ukraine. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is representative mike johnson. he is a member of the judiciary commission on civil rights. where does your state stand on trigger laws? guest: we pride ourselves on being a pro-life state. we passed a constitutional

amendment to further ensure it. it would be a pro-life jurisdiction except the trigger law has been challenged so it has been tied up in the courts. ultimately, it will be resolved in a few weeks. host: what is the challenge that they brought forth against the law? guest: they say that the trigger law is vague in they can't understand how it will be enforced. the people making that argument, this is the overwhelming consensus of our state and we have the right to do that. host: if the lot does go into effect what would it cover? guest: there is an exception for the life of the mother, it is a conservative state. they believe in god and country in this is in line with that. host: as far as access for those

who do not share those beliefs where do they turn to? guest: we believe in the sanctity of every human life. we have had debates on this and the judiciary committee. what we have to acknowledge that this is an unknown child. in 1973, we have medical technology. we can see that this is a tiny person. that is an important issue. there are jurisdictions that will go in other directions but in our state, the people have spoken repeatedly as recently and 2020 to amend the state constitution so this is how our state deals. host: two pieces of legislation were passed last week where did you fall on those? guest: the democrats are doing a lot of fear mongering. they are trying to delegitimize the supreme court.

there never was a right to an abortion in the constitution. the court finally acknowledged that after 50 years of this atrocity and it was a long time coming. the states get to make that decision. our guest will be with us until 8:30, the numbers are (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 and independents. host: do you think the decision on roe v. wade does it apply to other things? guest: judge alito said that this only applies to abortion and he says that anyone who says otherwise is a misplaced concern. even justice thomas says that i agreed that abortion is different. those who would suggest

otherwise have not used the opinion or are trying to use it for political purposes. host: concerns for obergefell? guest: page one 19, i agree with justice alito said, abortion is different and this does not apply to anything else. host: legislation preserving sex same marriage. guest: this is fear mongering. the mike ross are trying to dealer gemma ties -- delegitimize the court. chuck schumer stood out on the stats and called out justices kavanaugh and gorsuch saying that we will release the world wind.

this is serious stuff. now they are using legislative measures to do this. they are ignoring the language i used out of the opinion. they are also trying to distract from their policy failures which most of america is concerned about. inflation, immigration and incompetence. host: the right to contraception act is also being considered. guest: there is no jeopardy about that in the law. the people who are bringing these laws are smart folks. we have lots of crises to work on and they are distracting the people and they are wasting our time doing these things. host: on the pregnancy front, you have the unborn child

support legislation. guest: we have lots of cosponsors on this, we say that a pregnant mother should be able to seek child support for the unborn child dating all the way back to the moment of conception. if she so chooses, this would allow her to go to seek child support just like it would be done in any other scenario. fatherhood is an important thing. we have lost sight of that. we have an epidemic of fatherlessness. costs are incurred for carrying a baby and we believe that the father should be involved. host: representative mike johnson, our first call is from stephanie. she joins us from rocklin, new

york on the democrats line. go ahead with your question. caller: good morning, how are you doing this morning? i do have concerns when it comes to roe v. wade. i think most of you republican men are getting it wrong. we are living in a new century. we have new views. we have smarter views. yell talk as if we don't know what we are doing. we as women don't know how to control our bodies. and the republican men are trying to tell us what to do with our bodies. you can't do that. your state is one of the poorest states as far as helping out a mother and a child. you denied the child tax credit. you don't have medicaid in your state.

maternity mortality rates are horrible. walk into one of those lower income neighborhoods in speak to those mothers and find out how can they take care of their children? guest: those are valid concerns. i do go into those neighborhoods. we do have medicaid in louisiana. we do have a high infant mortality rate but there are a lot of societal factors in that. i am an advocate in congress as many pro-life leaders are of improving that social safety net. we need to support unwed mothers, mothers carrying their children to term. we have to allow them more assistance and there is a broad network to do that. we can do that through the

private sector, churches. we have to protect these mothers and allow them the ability to carry their unborn children to term. this bill that we just discussed that i filed is one measure in that regard. we have the ability to disagree. the plain meaning of the decision and dobbs is that the constitution does not speak to abortion. host: does your state offer childcare support? guest: there need to be enhanced measures to protect women who are in crisis pregnancy situations. there is a lot of good work done on that front and you will see many of those measures advance in the next couple of months and years. host: from louisiana on the independent line, bobby.

bobby, you are on, go ahead please. caller: i belong to a veteran center in louisiana and what we are concerned with is being stuck with conservative in louisiana. voting conservative has held this state back for 50 years. we are the second poorest state in the union. we lead in heart disease, cancers, all of the crime statistics we are right at the top with all of the big states like new york and texas. what benefit has it done for louisiana to vote for conservative?

whether it dog democrats or republicans. it just does not show up in the statistics. one out of four louisiana ends are illiterate. why did you vote against the infrastructure bill? we have some of the worst highways in the country. some of the worst bridges in the country. it would have brought millions of dollars into the state, thousands of good paying jobs. why would anyone vote against that when you are coming from the second poorest state in the union. guest: thank you for your service in vietnam. we could have a long conversation about this and i would love to do that. the problem we have in louisiana is that we do not have a conservative structure and a conservative history. we are still in the shadow of

huey long. our whole system of government is built in that government. we have a highly centralized hub of power in baton rouge. that model does not work. we need to run our state like texas. their business climate and everything about their culture is better in terms of economics. they have more jobs, more innovators, that is a long-term conversation we can have. we just now have a conservative majority in both houses. we still have a democratic governor. if we had true conservative leadership we could fix this. the reason i voted against the infrastructure bill, a small percentage of those dollars would come to louisiana and we are concerned about the spending

from the federal government. this is not the time to be dropping cash, that is why we have inflation which is destructive for all of our working families. we could have conversations about all of these issues. we have to look into the details of these things which matters. host: john from taxes on the democratic line. caller: republicans always say keep the government out of the bedroom. when they get pregnant, they want taxpayers to come pay for it with their tax dollars. you have a lot of elderly on social security. they have to pay $150 a month for medicare and they have to purchase a supplement on top of that. why can't you make people on

medicaid pay the same as the elderly. if you are getting health care you ought to have something rather than have kids and live off the government. guest: i do think we have to analyze the social safety nets in this country. there is no conservative that argues against, no one wants to eliminate safety net programs. in just a few years, social security goes l.a. up because we are drowning in debt. we have to think about long-term reforms to those programs so that we can keep them. this is an existential threat to a lot of people in this country.

medicaid is supposed to be at hand up and it was never intended to be a permanent way of life. social security is not an entitlement because it is a contract with the government. host: what reforms would you advocate in those programs? guest: there are a lot of proposals being discussed. if you just change the eligibility age, and i don't mean for people on the near horizon. if you tell 30-year-old, 35-year-olds that they are going to get it at age 67 rather than 65, you can dramatically change the direction of those programs. people live to be 100 routinely so they are on the program for decades when it was never structured to be able to do that. we have to make some difficult

policy decisions now. we can't kick the can down the road, this is something that has to begin in earnest. host: an medicare/medicaid? guest: the medicaid system is a terrible example for this. 10%, 15% is wasted on fraud. we need much tighter control and make sure those dollars are there for people who desperately need them. it has an important role and function but it will not be there for folks if we can't get a hold of this. there are a lot of good reform ideas. we have to debate those in regular order and figure out what we have to do. host: mary from massachusetts. caller: i am just calling about abortion and the roe v. wade, the overturn of roe v. wade.

women have been endangered because when they have a miscarriage or net topic pregnancy, the doctors were not sure that they were able to help them legally and one woman lost a liter of blood while she was waiting for them to try and figure out what they could do for her and what they could not do for her. the fear of breaking the recent law in their state. you have put millions of women in danger, many of them will be teenagers. a recent woman was 10 years old. at 10-year-old is not a woman. she is a kid, a child.

you are putting these females in danger of their lives and i know someone who died during an illegal abortion the year i got out of high school. it was one of the worst things that happened during my teenaged years. it suddenly opened my eyes to the way women were treated and regarded before roe v. wade. host: thank you very much for the question or comment to our guests. guest: before i got into congress i practice law for 20 years. i represented a number of women who were terribly harmed by botched abortions inside abortion clinics. abortion is a dangerous procedure, has long-term negative health consequences in

terms of mental health and other health outcomes. all of this is shown. if you go to the obstetricians who are pro-life they will give you the data on that. the anecdotal data about people who have lost leaders of blood. anyone who practices in this area would understand that you protect the health of the mother. every pro-life district allows for that exception. that will be the rule of the day and i think people will understand that. ultimately, we will save millions of lives. 63 million unborn children lost their lives because of this legal fiction that the supreme court foisted upon this country. i was born in january 1972.

63 million represents about one third of my generation. if you are younger than aged 50, your high school class should have been a third larger. they were not allowed to be born. we celebrate the overturning of roe and returning this decision to people. ultimately, that will be good for our nation and god will bless us. host: many women who seek abortions do so because of financial uncertainty and their inability to care for those children. those babies will need to be fed, help women by raising the minimum wage. she goes on from there but what about that argument? guest: those are important debates about social safety nets. we don't kill a child because we are afraid they may be in

poverty. we have foster families, a broad network of crisis pregnancy centers. they do exceptional work. there are 2700 pregnancy centers that serve women every year. they need more funding, they need more volunteers and help. they will get that in the days ahead. to say that we will have to work harder to save more lives, i will take that challenge. host: in virginia, on the independent line. caller: i am a huge fan, this is the first time i have called. i want to have my opinion heard. i am the mother of three.

i am pro-choice, i don't believe in abortion. that is my choice, i choose to have my children and i love them dearly. my question to you sir, in my experience i am 43 years old. as an immigrant when i came to this country, i made sacrifices. i put my dreams on hold to be a mother. that can happen to any woman. for some women out there, whoever who is had that

experience. my question to you, for birth control. after i had my second child, and if i had another child it would be very hard for me. i said, if i get pregnant i will have the baby. host: for the sake of time, what is the question for the guests? caller: a woman you can get pregnant, maybe twice when you are ovulating. but a man can get many women

pregnant in a day. should men take contraception? guest: that is a personal choice and i am not a medical doctor either, i am a lawyer. i will tell you that what you described is a great blessing. being a mother has a measurable value and i'm glad that you had the opportunity to do that. contraception is not under legal jeopardy. everyone will still have that ability and there is no policy that i have even heard of that should be taken away. host: you put that under the umbrella of personal choice, do you put abortion under the umbrella of personal choice? guest: no because you are taking the life of another person. host: jean from michigan.

caller: the unborn are protected in the constitution. insecure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity. an hour unborn is our posterity. abortion never should have been legal, not ever. no one ever brings that up but they are protected under our constitution. that is all i have to say. guest: even before that, in the declaration of independence, we boldly proclaim that we are all created equal.

because of that, every single person has value will end it is not related to how good-looking you are, what color you are. it is given to you by your creator. that is the central premise and a founding principle of our country. it is stated right there at the beginning. we should defend innocent life. host: should republicans take over the house, what can we expect as far as the goals republican congress will have? guest: we will rollout, you remember the contract for america? we will have the commitment to

america. the same idea and it will be a bullet point list. we have a lot of things to work on. there is a crisis on every front. democrats in charge of the white house in both houses of congress. economy, inflation, supply chains, military recruitment, crime, the border. we have to fix all of that. we have to do it in short order. joe biden will still be in the white house after we take the majority, will he work with us as bill clinton did and try to get things done or will joe biden dig his heels in and work on his european style socialist dream. i think we can work together and get things done. host: what is the top priority

in that commitment? guest: i did a town hall in louisiana and there are three refrains that i hear. inflation, immigration in the incompetence in washington. inflation is the number one concern for everybody. our energy policies need to be reversed immediately because if we could get energy going again, that will resolve a lot of this. this open border immigration is an absolute catastrophe in a real threat to the sovereignty and safety of our country. you begin working on those things, the republican majority will have oversight responsibilities. it will be a new day in washington because it is a long time coming. host: thank you for your time. we will be joined next by al green, a member of the homeland

security committee. he will talk about the investigation into the shooting in uvalde. we will also talk to adam andrzejewski from openthebooks.com. we will talk about wasteful spending. that's all coming up next on the washington journal. >> c-span shop.org is c-span store. there is something for every c-span ban and every purchase goes to support our nonprofit association. shop anytime at c-span shop.org. be up-to-date and the latest in publishing with book tv's

podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find out about books on our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live on demand. white house events, reports, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. help us stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal. plus, a variety of compelling podcast. c-span is available on itunes.

washington journal continues. host: representative serves the ninth district of texas he is also representative of the homeland security committee. we saw two pieces of legislation passed on abortion last week. we will see another one pass on contraception but go nowhere in the senate. what should happen from there? guest: thank you for the question, we did pass legislation last week but we have two pieces of legislation that we will pick up this week which is the right to contraception and the other one is the respect for marriage act.

we should pass these pieces of legislation so that we can show the american people that in the house of representatives, we are concerned about a woman's right to choose. women have that right, they still have it but it has been placed in the hands of the state. for many people, these state rights are state wrongs. i heard someone say they are proud that people will make these decisions after having roe overturned. i could only contemplate what my fate would be if brown v. board of education was overturned and placed in the hands of the state. if it had been overturned 30 years ago, i probably would not be in congress. returning things to the states is an abomination. i would not want my state to be

in the hands of the state in terms of my freedom to be the person that im. i am proud that we are doing this. hopefully they will find their duty to take up the legislation and pass it or at least give it a vote that is meaningful. i understand that we have the filibuster. i understand that with that process that the minority rules. the minority has to have its rights respected at the minority does not have to rule. minority rule, the rights of the majority are being disrespected. host: we have see some democrats call for a public health emergency. would you advocate for that call and what would it accomplish?

guest: a public health emergency in the sense that what the republican is doing is reasonable. he has executive authority and with his executive authority, he can do things to make sure that women will have the right to choice protected. you do have states with the authority to make the rules but the federal government has a role as well. we in congress can pass laws as well. i think the president would have a greater amount of authority to make additional rules that would help to protect a woman's right to choose. for example, there is a fear that just going across the state line to get contraception can

become a problem for a woman. in the state of texas, there is a bounty if you assist a person who was trying to acquire an abortion, there is a $10,000 bounty. that is what it amounts to. simply for assisting someone obtaining an abortion. that places the responsibility in the people at large. once we started to do this kind of thing, when you give people the authority to make decisions about the masses. there is still a lot of prejudice in this country and a lot of that is being disp layed. the way people behave

with guns, white supremacy. i am very much concerned about how we move forward. i think the senate has to come forward. host: representative al green here until 9:00. those numbers are (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independence and you can texas as well (202) 748-8003. host: you are involved in the investigation on mass shootings. guest: the hearing is today at 2:00 in the viewers can expect this, expect us to demonstrate by way of credible testimony

that mass shootings impact lives and we could never overlook that. they also impact the quality of life after the shooting. topp's food store was closed for months after the shooting took place and people lost their lives. while it was close, you had workers being displaced. these shootings also have an impact on stores in the neighborhood. people are reluctant to shop in the neighborhood. many teachers will leave schools, students who won't want to go to that school because of its reputation. we will expose some of what we don't talk about as it impacts the quality of life when a mass takes place.

i would invite all people to listen in. i am the chair of oversight investigations. they believe this is something that is necessary for us to discuss for the quality of life after a mass shooting. host: you can see that here at 2:00 you can also follow along on our app c-span now. you have been highly critical on the release of those reports stemming from the uvalde school shooting can you explain why? guest: yes i can. but first, i express my sympathies to the people who are suffering as a result of losing their children. people who expected to have

their children, home from school. i will never forget for as long as i live, the day the young child who was in the room with me and said she took the blood from another child and she placed it on herself so that she could appear to be wounded in hopes of having the killer avoid shooting her. that is an indelible memory. we cannot allow this kind of action taken by the killer and by the police, public safety officers in the aftermath to go without accountability. the governor of the state of texas, laid the foundation for

much of the confusion that you see and for what appears to be a cover-up. a cover-up doesn't have to be a crime, you will see it can be a serious mistake, it can be something illicit. it does not mean criminality or something linked with criminality. when the governor held that press conference with all of his top agents there representing their police department. many of them with knowledge of what actually happened in because i don't want to misquote the governor i will read what he said. the governor said, the reality of how horrible it was, it

could've been worse. the reason it was not worse because law-enforcement officials did what they had to do. they showed amazing courage by running towards gun violence for the singular purpose of trying to save lives and it is a fact that because of their quick response, getting on the scene, being able to respond to the gunman and limiting the gunman they were able to save lives. when the governor said that, he set the tone and tenor for this whole fiasco. he said it by sending a message that the officers should be held in highest theme and they should be held as heroes. the government has said since,

that he was given bad information. he has said this, but i have not found where he was told this and if that person is interviewed, who told that person? that comment is an insidious prevarication of the highest magnitude. when you see the video, you understand what actually happened. one can only imagine what would be the story if the video never surface. if that video never surface, this would be a totally different conversation. the video tells the truth of what happened there in the governor needs to come clean. he is the point person on this cover-up and he needs to tell the truth about who told him so

we can get to the bottom of it so families, can get some justice. i stand on it and the government needs to stand up and take responsibility. host: we will start with carmine from new york. caller: good morning congressman green. well said sir. i know little bit about schools and fire doors. just last evening, i saw this monster come into the school by way of the fire door from the outside. it can't be done in less was wrong. you can't enter by way of a fire door. it is meant for exit only. by that i mean, the mechanism that is set up on the inside, it

is never key locked on the inside because if children were trying to escape, all they have to do is push the bar in the door automatically opens and the children can run to safety. that is the way of fire door set up. there is something wrong with that door that we are not being told. either it was propped open or the mechanism was not working properly. i am amazed that no one is bringing this up and also congressman, you can't lock a fire door, you can't key lock it from the inside. it defeats the purpose. host: that was carmine there, let's get your reaction. guest: the collar makes a significant point about those doors.

there are certain things that a culture can develop when you don't have the right tone and tenor set at the top. all of the doors should have functioning locks. if you needed the money, you have to make sure that you make the proper request but the demands from the person who could help with that request. the person in charge of school safety has to make a demand that that be corrected in those doors should not have been easily accessible. host: from david in new mexico, on the democrats line. caller: with all due respect, a politician is a politician.

it does not matter if they are democrat or republican. my problem with the democrats is that we are being flooded from the southern border and the democrats are happy with this. with no disrespect, you and other people of color say we are not doing enough for the blacks. i agree. but you let these people come in and work for less than what american should and that is not helping the blacks or the whites. people are saying that we are letting them in because they are afraid in their country. we have that here.

there are black people who don't even like getting out in their own neighborhoods because they are afraid. i feel sorry for those people, but my family, my country should be first. we just have to apologize sometimes and say, we do what we can when we can. host: got your point caller, thank you. guest: i love my country. i salute the flag, sing the national and the. but i also defend those who choose not to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance. as a lover of my country, i respect the laws of my country. right now, as i speak, persons

can come to this country seeking asylum and they can make a claim for asylum based on persecution in their own country. based on fear of harm in their home country. that is a legitimate claim for people to make and for us to sort through. we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. i am not for open borders. i think we need to know who is coming in and out of our country. but we have to have some reform of the law, we can't disrespect the law and just do whatever we choose. i don't think that is the way you do business.

eventually, there will have to be competent immigration reform. i will go to a place were not many politicians go. ultimately, the two sides are going to have to talk to each other about at least two issues. one, a wall. that discussion has to take place. two, we have to talk about the people who are here already and how they are going to be properly inculcated into our society to the extent that they will be. these two issues are preeminent in this debate and until we decide we are going to sit at the table and negotiate, when negotiation becomes dictation

nobody wins. those two issues have to be dealt with. i am prepared to deal with those issues. i think persons can apply for asylum from their home country. i support making change, but you can't make change by yourself. you have to have a willing partner who is willing to negotiate and not dictate. i respect you greatly for the disrespect you have for politicians. host: this is representative al green, william from california on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i called on the independent line because i am still at an impasse. i was voting democrat and

recently, i am part of a large group of individuals questioning my affiliations. it is clear as day that joe biden is a failure. my question for the representative, i just watched the video last night. the lady asked -- host: i will have to ask the senator about that? guest: it is not true.

not one part of what he announced had any credibility associated with it. we are in a world where people can make specious allegations and have it legitimize because they have access to social media and because they have the means where they can spread these lies. i would love to see this video myself because i would be interested in seeing how the could create such a fictitious video. host: you have probably heard senator manchin pulling back on the reconciliation bill because

of inflation. what does that do to the democratic party at large? guest: with the vice president breaking the tie vote, it sends a message that you can have a majority and still not be able to move your agenda if you have any one person in that majority deciding that what you desire to do is not appropriate. one person rule is what you have. i am not sure that is the best way to do business. i appreciate people standing up for what they believe in. but i also know this, you cannot have minority rule, the rights

of minorities have to be accepted. otherwise, you have a majority that cannot have an agenda move through the house and the senate. at some point, we have to suggest to senator manchin that there are things important to the country that should be important to him as well. they have to be so important that you are willing to lose an election. so that the country can move forward. host: there was a piece in the washington post talking about senator mansion. democrats have gone through the five stages of grief. now, since the senator has torpedoed the bill back at her

act. they are finally approaching the last stage, acceptance. would you agree with that? guest: i think there is a certain amount of acceptance. i don't think acceptance means that you decide you will capitulate, i don't think that is the case. we accept the fact that he is recalcitrant, but that doesn't mean that we now walk away from the agenda that we had. we have to continue with our agenda. at some point you would trust that he would make a change, but if he does not change, i had a grandfather who was a hunter and if they had a dog who would not hunt. i am not saying the senator is a

dog, if the dog won't hunt you have to get another dog. i think we are probably reaching that point. i think we still have to try to reach him because as a country, we are at risk. host: let's hear from greg on the democrat line. caller:caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my wife and i are both pro-choice regarding abortion for certain situations. but i never hear the majority of abortions in this country are used as birth control, when it's the year 2022, there are all sorts of contraception, which have been discussed earlier, that prevent pregnancies,

prevent unwanted pregnancies because the majority of the abortions in this country, as we know and would agree, are used as birth control. the other comments i would say, congressman greene, take your mask off. you look really silly. guest: well, let me address the last comment first, if i may. i have had covid. i am from a state and a county where there is a rise in the virus, and we tend to want to protect the public. my staff and i are wearing our masks. if i look a little bit silly to you, i am trying to protect other people and i will suffer that. i respect your opinion, sir. but i wear this mask when i am on a plane. i wear this mask when i am in a

crowd. i wear this mask in my office. this virus is still among us. as much as we can desire to wish it away, that is not happening. we are going to have to protect ourselves. i don't impose my will upon others and my hope is that others will allow me to do what i think is best to protect myself. i guess i am pro-choice when it comes to wearing a mask. my choice is to wear it to protect others from the many people i encounter on a daily basis, hundreds. host: let's take one more call, barbara, in california. democrat line. caller: i'm sorry, representative green. you are beautiful. i love the way you look. i wear my mask in the car with my kids and grandkids, i don't care. but please, as a democrat, tell

the other democrats, [inaudible] we have to fight harder. they took abortion oh wait, what's next, interracial marriage? i am going to be damned if someone takes that from me. guest: thank you for the caller. i have had people tell me i look better with my mask on, so maybe it has to do with that. i am a -- bein a little bit comical now. but in reference to what the lady said, i am a democrat, i will not deny, but i am a liberalized democrat. i call them as i see them. my party doesn't always agree with me, and that's why i say to

people that mr. manchin has every right, but there are times you put the needs of the country above personal needs and the needs above a smaller location. i think we can find ways to agree on his concerns if we could sit and talk about them. they could be situated as could the health of the country. i will yield back to you and hope you give me an opportunity to make a closing comment. host: i was going to ask you as far as finishing up, but go ahead. guest: thank you. back to the governor of the state of texas, if the governor 's there and you want to know what you can do, here are a couple of things. one, tell the truth about how you acquired this full aeneas, foul information. tell the truth about it so we can get the bottom of it.

two, not ban long guns being sold to persons who are under 21 -- we don't allow them other privileges and we can do this in the state of texas. if he were not able to buy that gun when he did, those people would still be alive. as we move forward, people who oppose the banning of these long guns, that's my position, keep them out of the hands of a person under the age of 21. you are going to have the blood of many of these people who have died on your hands. i thank you. host: representative green shares the hearing on mass shootings at 2:00, on c-span that our c-span now at. representative al green, who represents the ninth district of texas. thank you for your time.

guest: thank you. host: up next, we will be joined by the founder of a group known as openthebooks.com, adam andrzejewski. he will discuss wasteful government spending. you can ask them about that next, on "washington journal." ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, authors, book festivals, and more. book tv, on c-span two or any time on book tv.org. television for serious readers. now available in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022 congressional directory.

go there to order a copy of the congressional directory. this compact, spiral-bound book as your guide to the federal government, with contact information for every member of congress. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy today or scan the code with your smart phone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. ♪ at least >> six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations during c-span -- season two 's presidential recordings. >> the nixon tapes, 100% unfiltered. >> the main thing is it will pass. my heart goes out to the people who with the best of intentions

were overzealous. but as i'm sure you know, if i could spend a little more time being a politician last year and less time being presentation president -- president, i would have kicked thereabouts out -- they are -- out. discusses his -- guest: thanks for having me back. host: remind people about your organization, what it does, and how are you able to do the things that you do? guest: we believe transparency revolutionizes united states public policy and politics. to that end, last year we filed 47,000 freedom and information acts, and successfully captured $12

trillion of federal, state, and local spending and put it on our website for free so people can follow the money. we will hold both republicans and democrats accountable for their spending decisions. host: who supports you and what you are doing? guest: we are 100% privately funded, and do not receive any money from the federal government. we could have received alone during covid, but we chose not to take that aid. host: and what did you find from this latest report of yours? guest: we come out with this approximately every other year. one of the examples we highlighted this year, we asked the question, what federal program is morning well --

running well? it can't be the largest federal agencies, because they came out with a report on improper payments. outside of covid aid and the fraud in covid aid, there were billions of dollars they admitted to in the federal program that were mistakenly paid or went out the door under the wrong set of the rules, the wrong amount, or to the wrong entity. host: can you give us an example? guest: yes. the irs administers the earned income tax credit program, and they admit to one every four dollars going out the door and a mistaken credit. that's $18 billion. host: so is it sent to the wrong address, someone who is not living anymore? how does that work? guest: most of the payments go out the door to people who are unqualified to the program. we reached out to the irs and a spokesman who said, you can tell

us the number, $18 billion. it's a big number. why don't you put controls in place, basic accounting controls in place to prevent mistaken and improper payments? they said, we would need a bigger budget to do that. they can tell us there is $18 billion going out the door, but they can't stop it. host: our guest with us until 9:30 or so, then you can ask him questions about this report taking a look at spending. it's (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. one of the things the report highlights is covid. can you talk about that? guest: if you take away the national health emergency, a lot

of your therapeutics, vaccines, a lot of what is the entire national public health care response goes away. it is only not authorized -- only authorized on the national public health emergency. president biden campaigned on ending covid, but he wrote to governors and said look, we are going to be in the national health emergency for the entire first year. we found that interesting. we quantify what that means on an annual basis, and its $18 billion. it triggers taxpayer payments on medicaid payments. host: does this happen every time the government decides to extend the deadline or the state of emergency? or is this a yearly amount we are talking? guest: that specific number, i don't have it in my notes if that is the annual amount or every quarter.

it's a little over $4 billion every single quarter. host: can you break down that cost? is it money that goes to the states, programs that support the states? guest: i don't have the detail on that. host: one thing you did talk about when you talked about money that received covid funds, taking a look at area codes and places in the united states, where $100 million is how you break that down. can you talk about that? guest: in california, where there is the richest place in america, think tech titans in silicon valley. a lot of them live in this place in california. the american rescue act passed last year in march and provided $350 billion of oil out -- bailout to states and noon its apologies. that community was bailed out

for $1.4 million. i reached out to the bigwigs and they refused to even comment on where they spent the $1.4 million. they cannot make the case, but they needed taxpayer help. host: why should they receive money that is deemed to help everybody? guest: in beverly hills, california, zip code 90210, $8 million. we bailed out beverly hills and the american rescue act. in the greenwich area, 20 million dollars of taxpayer bailout. that's where the wealthy new yorkers fled, to greenwich, connecticut, during the pandemic. they received $10 million of taxpayer paid bailout. this goes across 36,000 communities across the country, and many communities do not even know how to spend the money. host: and has anyone justified

why they should get this money in the first place? guest: nancy pelosi said it best. all the democrats in congress who voted for the american rescue act, including this big bailout, the republicans voted against it. but pelosi said, and she was right about this, the republicans in congress would vote no, but the republican governors would take the dough. that's exactly what happened. let's talk about texas. at the time of the act, they were running a $1 billion surplus and were bailed out for another $17 billion. utah was running a $1.5 billion budget surplus. they were bailed out for an additional $1.5 billion. then you have states like governor newsom's california. at the time of the bill, they were running a $75 billion budget surplus and were bailed out, u.n. die bailed out the

golden state for an additional 26 billion dollars. this year, they are running a $100 billion surplus. california did not need the money either, but they did not send it back. host: this is adam andrzejewski of openthebooks.com. in georgia, republican line, ed starts us off. good morning. caller: adam, good morning. i want to ask you the question, what would happen if our government, and spending 30 -- instead of spending $30 trillion, had bought $30 trillion worth of gold? would that have been a better deal for us? guest: can you clarify the question, please? caller: i'm saying, why did we not buy gold? why did we spend $30 trillion and have nothing to show for it? host: $30 trillion with nothing to show -- that is his argument. guest: that's a good argument.

let me answer it. starting with george w. bush, there was a national debt that was slightly under $6 trillion. you had bush, obama, trump, biden, and over the course of the last 20 years, it's absolutely staggering, the growth of our national debt. it has gone from less than $6 trillion to $30 trillion, a five-time increase. both republicans and democrats spent too much. host: from sherry, in virginia, independent line. hi. caller: hi, thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. it's interesting how the billions of dollars that are being allocated to these programs don't end up in the hands of those people who they are intended for. rather than talking about

smaller governments, perhaps we should be talking about more efficient government. there are many, many reasons why there are people that need to be provided with funding, so they can get services they are guaranteed that they need to have happen. the only way they can make that happen is the federal government stepping up in terms of that. host: are you there -- caller: -- virginia, we do this work of helping people understand how the government is working, rather than the government is doing too much. guest: in these hyper-partisan times, this is a principle we should all be able to agree on. when the government taxes us, the tax dollars should help people who have real needs. the point is a valid one. we actually show that twice the

federal government on covid aid, for example, did not check proper lists and billions of dollars went out the door improperly. for example, the irs, they were in charge of the economic stimulus checks. the $1200 stimulus checks that ended up in your mailbox. the irs did not check with the social security administration. the social security administration keeps a deceased person list. so the irs told out 2.2 million checks for $3.6 billion to dead people. when they realized their mistake, they asked for the money back, but the dead are notoriously bad at paying up. but there are honest people in the country, and the relatives did return $77 million. host: you highlighted in the report the average time a

federal employee gets off each year. guest: a federal bureaucrat gets 44 days of paid time off. that's 11 holidays, 13 sick days, and 20 vacation days when you hit your three year anniversary. that's different from what folks get in the private sector. 44 days -- that's nine full weeks of paid time off that our federal bureaucrats are paid to stay home. we estimate that federal perc costs the taxpayer in excess of $20 billion a year, because your headcounts have to go higher. you have to employ more people if everybody has so much time off. host: how does that compare to the private sector? have you made those comparisons? guest: we have not done that study. host: and as far as saying look, we are doing what we can for the government versus the private sector, that should be

considered in terms of time off. guest: we are a nonprofit organization at openthebooks.com and we do not get 44 days paid time off. we actually have that private sector work mentality -- we don't sleep, we don't eat, we just work. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: hello, i have a question. i come out of health informatics and epidemiology, and there is a matter of taking data, looking at a lot of spending information, but turning that into a meaningful conversation and consensus building. i am wondering how your organization, which is obviously vital, but it is a niche

audience. how do you take a lot of your work and turn it into a real perception and shared, a collective, agreed truth on what is happening in government and policy? guest: specific to this report, this is an excellent question about context, we have macro examples. large examples of government waste. we also have micro examples. some people have asked, why do you highlight harvard with a grant from the national science foundation to blow lizards off trees with leaf blowers? it goes to the culture of disrespect for taxpayers in washington, d.c. what we find is at the small amounts are off, we also have problems in the large programs. the 20 largest federal agencies now admits, outside of the waste

in covid aid, the mistake in improper payments of $282 billion a year. host: do you highlight delinquent student loans in this report? guest: we have 50 halo examples of staggering, sometimes silly spending in our report. we also go back to the late democratic senator from wisconsin, william proxmire, who pioneered the most effective public policy device in the 20th century, the washington post said that, and that was the golden fleece award. we highlight in the 1970's and 1980's what he gave to the golden fleece award. an early award went to the faa. the faa -- this sounds pretty incredible in today's world -- they took the measurements of 432 -- they called them stewardesses at the time -- they called them flight attendants.

they measured them, including the width of their but ox and the length of their knees when they sat down. it cost thousands of dollars of taxpayer money in today's dollars. host: you highlight a price tag of $45 billion of that. is that people who have not paid back their loans yet? guest: i do not have that example. every day we do a waste of the day column. i think that's where you are drawing that example. we have 215, five a week, one a day, so that's a tremendous amount of content, but i have examples in our report. host: baltimore, maryland, republican line. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions for you.

the first [inaudible] we know a lot of private individuals [inaudible] secondly, how much do we spend on our defense? [inaudible] how does that affect spending in this country? host: let me pause you there, only because you are breaking up a bit. i think we got your point across, but he starts about saying who fund your organization specifically? guest: we are privately funded. private donors, we keep their expectations of privacy. we are private organizations and

funded privately, and we don't take any government money. if we did, we would open up our entire donor base, but we don't. on the military-industrial complex, there is so much wasteful spending within our department of defense. one of the historic examples we uncovered was in 2017 -- we put this in the wall street journal. we found the air force was buying expensive coffee cups. each coffee cup was running up to $1300 to keep the coffee warm for their fighter pilots. when we showcase this, senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley picked it up, and he picked up how much money was spent at the time, 300 thousand dollars, and the purchases were stopped. when you see how poorly government is spending money, you can do something about it. host: his wasteful spending a partisan issue?

does it differ between republicans and democrats? guest: here is where it is absolutely nonpartisan. everyone's running on transparency when they run from -- run for office. when they get in office, they run from the issue. host: robin is next in columbus, ohio. hi. caller: hi, i want to ask about the idea that -- i think you mentioned 44 days off, that it is somehow a waste. we know that in countries where employees, workers get days off, societies have healthier health outcomes, children have

healthier outcomes as well. if we are looking at 44 days in the year, my calculation is three days off in a months time. that does not seem like a waste to me. can you explain more about how days off for workers in this country is somehow a waste? guest: i think historically, america has had a pretty hard work ethic. when you talk about 44 days of paid time off, which is nearly nine full weeks, if you think about it, on 52 weeks a year, nearly but not quite, it is a four-day workweek every single week of the year. people, by and large, find that excessive. there are also different federal programs put in place during covid for the federal workforce. for eight years i had a column at forbes and showcase one of the columns congress put in

place. if congress members had children that were not in the schools full-time, this funds a special fund at treasury that would pay the federal bureaucrat to stay home over a 15 week period up to $21,000. that's something we did not have in the private sector. host: jay is next, indiana, independant line. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment on senator proxmire. i think he was a jogger, i remember him jogging on dupont circle when i lived there and you could run right into him, because he was a very focused guy. but i remember one particular golden fleece award, which was

cited, got a lot of publicity. the study was a scientist who was studying why monkeys clinch their teeth in anger. the scientist actually fought back on that, saying the study was extremely important to the understanding of humans, human aggression. i'm wondering if science, experiments like that, which probably would have gotten a gold of fleece award, would have a payoff at some point? i am also thinking of january 6 -- the payoff may have been on that day. we might have understood a little or. -- little more. guest: the government and the scientists always have a justification for the federal grant. always. in our report on where's the

pork, for example, we showcased a grant that goes to a casino for pigeons. pigeons are given tokens, they can save the token, spend the token, or gamble the token. the researchers admit they do not have a strong correlation of pigeon gambling behavior to human behavior, but they are trying to study the addictive properties of gambling. anyone can make a justification in this particular example, but taxpayers are out $468,000. host: how do you compare that to actual research and development that gets done in the name of science? guest: here is an example -- one half million dollars comes out of anthony fauci's institute to turn monkeys transgender. the justification on this one, they are dowsing the male monkeys with female hormones

because that is the process that is done, i guess, in humans, and a lot of trans women are catching aids because one of the hormones is suppressed. they are trying to study the intersection of how aids exists at the margins of society. this was a 2020, 2021 grant. host: is this highlighted in your report for viewers? guest: this is highlighted in the where's the pork report. caller: hi, i have a question. it's about the pentagon -- i would like to know, whatever happens in the investigation when they had to spend their money before they got anymore, and they were -- they bought lobsters? is that true? guest: yes. you are a regular watcher of c-span. i was on c-span in 2019

talking about the phenomenon of use it or lose it spending. the department of defense was the biggest defender in the last early days, where it was christened in september, and we showcased to the myriad of different ways, including the $10,000 club leather chair, the millions of dollars spent on lobsters and snow crab in the final 30 days, and other examples of military waste. this ended up in the congressional appropriations hearing in the house on the dod's budget appropriation in 2020. it had bipartisan support to put controls in to end the phenomenon of lose -- use it or lose it spending. former generals testified they should get rid of that and the language was very strong. one of the generals said, you

know, we are going to burn in hell for the last 30 days of our spending. he called it a moral crisis in the military. it was tabled for that fiscal year and to my knowledge, it has not come back up. this needs to be an area that is explored by both parties. host: one more caller, in west virginia, democrat line. david in west virginia? caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. yes. a couple questions, i know the pentagon blocked one bid from a contractor of $700 billion, this contract had given trump quite a bit of pain in the past, and trump overrode him.

my second question is, there was one american contractor that got the contract for making army sweat jocks, and the investigator for reporting, it might have been 60 minutes -- anyway, china so the tags in, made in usa. they you for taking my call. guest: there are so many examples of waste at the department of defense. one year ago, when the taliban was advancing on afghanistan and our a of auditors at openthebooks.com, we take a look at the myriad examples of waste the taxpayers have put into afghanistan. here's one example -- in 2017, the special inspector general did in audit and found that $174 million worth of super sophisticated scan people drones were missing. -- eagle drones were missing.

nobody could find where they were and nobody knew where they were. we looked in every single budget after that, and after that, tens of millions were appropriated back to afghanistan. they lost 170 $4 million and the drones end appropriations continued to flow. host: more can be found on this report on openthebooks.com. adam andrzejewski, founder and co-writer, thank you for your time. we have 30 minutes until the house comes in. if you want to come in, -- call in, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents.

♪ >> listen to c-span radio with our free mobile lab, c-span now. get complete access to what's happening in washington, life floor proceedings and hearings from u.s. congress. campaigns and more, and the analysis of the world of politics with our informative podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple app store and google play. c-span now -- your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or

here or anywhere, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> 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 a.m. eastern. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, catch watching tin today for -- washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. c-span -- powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: it's open forum. you can also respond to us via text if you wish, (202) 748-8003 . call the numbers that best represent you. the president's top economic

adviser, jared bernstein, posted about the administration and giving the administration credit for the dip in gas prices. here is that from yesterday. [video clip] >> when the gas prices go up, it has nothing to do with the president, but when they get a decline you want him to get credit? >> there is no both ways thinking here at all. there has been a consistent pressure on this white house to try and do everything it could to mill your rate -- amileorate these pressures on behalf of the american people. he got us to work to do everything we could to achieve that goal. he then presided over the largest historical release of arrows of oil -- barrels of oil from the strategic reserve, then

got global partners to kick in another 60 million. >> it was putin's faults, but when they are coming down, he gets the credit? >> this is a president working tirelessly to address the largest constraint, probably the toughest constraint facing american households right now. the budgetary impacts of these elevated prices. we are showing them here today real results, partially derived from concrete efforts he has taken. host: you can see more of that on c-span.org and our c-span now app. an executive order aimed at bolstering the administration's efforts to bring half villages -- hostages and wrongfully detained u.s. nationals home, it expands the tools available to disrupt and deter hostagetaking and wrongful detentions.

they have also included new state department travel advisory for the risk of wrongful detention by a foreign government in their big picture section of axios, highlighting the mounting pressure on the government to bring wnba star brittney griner home. you can read more of that at axios. the house coming in 20 minutes from now. we will take your calls until then. virginia beach starts us off, democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. i know this is an open forum, but i want to speak to the last guy you had on the show. i have an interesting opinion about what he said with the use it or lose it spending. fun fact, i served two and a half, three years in the united states coast guard and worked as a storekeeper. we were basically the people who do all the funding and stuff like that. use it or lose it is good when you have a small crew, but

unfortunately, like you said, there needs to be more supervision on the use it or lose it. i literally got punished because i refused to buy a $100 knife for the entire crew. i was told by a chief that we had to buy these special namebrand knives in order to ensure the nations safety. there needs to be more supervision in the use it or lose it, thank you. host: constance is up next, in florida. republican line. caller: yes. as the gentleman was just saying, i have a strong feeling that when our country makes you pick a certain brand, they are in cahoots with that brand to make that brand rich. the republicans -- that's why i am not one anymore, they have been pulling shenanigans out the yeah and yang. host: you are calling on the republican line, i am going to

have to stop you there, only to pick the line that best represents you. let's hear from tom in baltimore, maryland. caller: yes, when we achieve a high degree of electric cars, we will reduce dramatically the federal gasoline tax. how will we replace that? host: as far as the taxes cutting down revenue overall? caller: that fund the federal roads, yeah. host: i don't have the answer to that, but what are your concerns? caller: well, you would lose significant energy revenue that currently maintains the federal highway system. you would have to generate that on some other place. host: do you think there will be that many electric vehicles to

cause those concerns? caller: oh, no. no. over a period of time, yeah, but that does not reduce the importance of reducing the revenue. host: tom giving us his thoughts in baltimore, maryland today. their old and holding its primaries today, so you want to keep watch on that today. in light of the decision from the supreme court, breanna abbott and others quoting that there is an increase in demand that is disproportionate. this from the founder of a nonprofit in monterrey, mexico. the group has received over 400 requests for abortion pills from women in texas, louisiana, and other states as the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. they have also received more

employment requests and payments from patients in states that allow them to operate since the decision. if you want to read more about that, that's in the wall street journal this morning. let's hear from ricky in florida, republican line. neuron, go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to make an observation. my observation is this. during biden's tenure, we left the afghanistan war, right? gas prices seems like they would have adjusted. but he blames this new gas hike on putin's war. how can that be when he was in afghanistan for 20, 30 years? gas prices went up white, two dollars, something like that? we left that war and we go into putin's war, and they doubled. why is that the case, considering all the money that would have come back from the

afghanistan war would have been put back into the economy? host: political highlights of the story you have probably seen, but it fleshes out -- dr. anthony fauci and interviews he did with politico, talking about his plans for future retirement. he wants to put covid political polarization behind him. ron and pennsylvania, democrat line. hi. caller: i think it was very interesting, the man who was just speaking about found she, i have some concerns about faucher she. i think he should be investigated for whatever interest he has in big pharma. pfizer was leading the big pharma horse race to get a vaccine and in the meantime, other manufacturers have come up

with not equivalent, but vaccines -- immunity bio in california, now novavax is coming out. protein-based vaccines. what i am getting ads, big pharma has been controlling the vaccine race. i think this goes back to afghanistan and is tied up with afghanistan. there are fields of poppies growing like wheat in the prairies. that's what a businessman told me, an international businessman. what impresses me, we have suddenly pulled out of afghanistan. we should not have been in afghanistan to begin with, but thankfully biden got us out of there and cut us loose from there. i think this is so deep and we have to get into it -- host: but what ties it together? caller: pardon me?

host: as far as your claims about afghanistan and poppy production and what goes on at pfizer? caller: opioids. host: can you clarify? caller: it's practically a free pass or free access to opioids, through poppies in afghanistan. for big pharma. internationally. this is what i am feeling. it all makes sense to me. you have to get the details, and i don't have them with me, but it is complex. i believe faucher she is aware of this and i think he would be a good one to start asking questions. host: david is next in california, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, i want to address the veterans care admissions act

that president trump passed for veterans care benefits. billions of dollars went into the v.a. coffers and yet, veterans are not getting adequate health care. instead, they are getting the drugs biden is fighting, which is opioids and pain medication then promises from v.a. that the surgery is on its way, but the surgery never gets to the veteran. they are waiting for us to die off so they can save money. that's my statement, thank you. host: the new york times reporting that several aides of several offices specifically are seeking the right to form a union on capitol hill. the move, which has been in the

works for more than a year, paves the way for house aides to begin negotiating on paid sick leave and other benefits. petitions were filed by andy levin of michigan, who sponsored the resolution as far as several other democrats. cori bush of missouri, jesus garcia of illinois, illinois of minnesota, and metheny stansberry -- bethany stansberry of new mexico. caller: i would encourage everyone to call their representative to lower drug costs. get a better price for us.

we are americans -- we will drive across town to save the nickel on gas. we want the best price. host: what are your drug prices currently? caller: well, i have elderly parents and i see the effect on their income, so i want to representative to represent the best for us. host: i'm sorry, go ahead. caller: tell me, tell me good news. host: in the senate yesterday, there was a debate over the topic of prescription drugs. you can find a little bit of that as far as what was discussed when it comes to the topic. other things related to the topic as well -- if you want to find where congress is on these topics. in tennessee, democrat line. this is arnold. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i'm fine, thank you.

caller: the fellow that called in a couple of calls back and was concerned about, if everyone goes to driving electric vehicles, how do we continue to collect our gas tax? so we can take care of the roads and highways? to me, it would be a simple thing to have an odometer tax. you pay the number of miles you drive, you are taxed for those number of miles, which is basically what your gas tax is right now. it doesn't seem like that should be much of a problem. you asked him, did you think their would be a lot of electric cars being sold?

excuse me, i stutter slightly -- i am running for congress. i am on the ballot here in tennessee for the fourth district, the fourth congressional district, and my name is arnold j wyatt. but one of my main things i am running on is how to power electric vehicles without batteries. i think i know away to do that, and that's going to be one of the main platforms of my campaign. i thought i would let you know. host: let's go to christine in rhode island. democrat line. caller: yes, i was listening to that young man talk earlier and i listens to him in 2019. i feel like what biden runs on

is from the bottom up. i see there is a lot of corruption from the top down. i think they both need, democrat and republican, to tighten up the belt in congress. host: the house of representatives set to come in in a few minutes now. with the president back from his trip to the middle east, one of the questions yesterday was about what the president said to the crown prince about the murder of jamaal khashoggi. here's a bit of that exchange from yesterday. >> if we are going to talk about our rights and values, he believes it's important to have that straightforward, leader to leader conversation. the president has talked about how important it is to talk directly and frankly with

leaders when it comes to our values, to issues like human rights. he will continue to have those conversations. >> the saudi's say that conversation about because show be -- khashoggi never happened. >> the president was asked this question and spoke to it directly. i do believe that if anyone tells differently about what the president said, when he spoke about how he brought up the death of jamaal khashoggi. i will leave it to what the president said when he was asked directly about that. host: more of that on our

website and c-span now avenue. security advisers told leadership there that the information board was unnecessary. the homeland advisory council subcommittee concluded in the draft recommendation that open out there was no need for an information board." officials say they created the board in april to fuel extremism that might endanger national security, but it was called an orwellian tool that could infringe on privacy and free speech. if you go to the pages of the wall street journal this morning, a story about afghanistan. the pentagon keeps a lid on exit review. the draft report, submitted to pentagon officials earlier this month, is one of the assessments being conducted with date u.s. role in afghanistan. so far, none of the report has

been released. the report was asked to be revised or reflect different information of data and expand the report beyond the initial assessment. a new draft was resubmitted, but it was not there when the report would be complete and officials would not comment on what was lacking in the initial draft, except to say it was too narrow in scope. from maryland and capitol heights, democrat line. wesley, go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to make a statement when it comes to clarence thomas. i think the attorney general has the right to sanction him. to me, if he is not going to excuse himself, that means he is perjuring himself. garland has the right to sanction him. that is my statement. host: we will also hear from

george, st. paul, minnesota. hello. caller: hello, i'm george bedford. i am calling to express my displeasure with the republican at large. their willful spread of disinformation about covid is beyond, beyond, beyond. 90% of the republican party should be brought before a commission to determine sedition. that's my statement, thank you very much. host: how do you connect this to covid? caller: i was told this is an open forum, anything goes -- host: i am wondering how you connect those two things? caller: the republican party willfully put out disinformation on covid, making the situation

much worse than it currently is. there statement, you know, and statements of disinformation on covid are treasonous. that's all. host: how does that ride to sedition? caller: let me put it this way. that's a good one. very simple. if you are going to put out disinformation from the highest level of government, that is sedition. if you are purposefully spreading incorrect information. host: ok. that's george there in st. paul, calling on our independent line. the house of representatives is about to come in. what you can expect today, we will be taking a look later on

this weekend the judiciary committee taking a look at a vote to protect marriage over concerns from the supreme court. on the senate side, work on what is known as chips, or semiconductor legislation helpful to the semiconductor industry. a lot going on, as well as the january 6 committee will meet on thursday. you can see that on c-span and follow along on our website and these men now app -- and c-span now app. michelle, we are short on time, so go ahead. caller: i would like to say, i was a democrat but now i am switching to a republican. it was bending money like a drunken sailor -- joe was spending money like a drunken

sailor, and the economy is horrible. and the border -- what are we doing with the border? i feel so bad for those people in texas, with those people running through their backyards and destroying their property. we go back to the trunk border. host: let's go to sharon, oklahoma, democrat line. caller: yes, i don't trust republicans. they lied to us about covid. covid was real. it was killing people. and they lied all the way through it. because their leader is a liar. i don't trust republicans. i am 70 years old and i have never seeis