and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can help them stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. she's been now is available the apple store and google play, downloaded for free today. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. host: third party congressional candidates will likely not make a big dent in 2022 but what about 2024 and beyond? ross perot's run didn't win states but helped way that race to bill clnten. 30 years later the not to be a

spoiler but open up the system to give voters better access and more choice. americans want a viable third party. do you think that's still the case? good morning, it is sunday july 31, 2022. welcome to "washington journal". our question is a third party or more needed in the u.s.? if you say -- the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. it doesn't matter what party. you can also send us a text. tell us your name, where you're texting from. we're on facebook, on twitter and instagram at c-span wj. and it was the announcement this week by three former prominent democrats and republicans and published in the "washington post" and elsewhere their formation of the forward party. this is the piece in the "washington post".

most third-parties have failed here's why ours won't. in their piece, they say in a system that is torn apart by two increasingly divided extremes, we must reintroduce choice and competition. so is a third-party or more needed in the u.s.?

we will hear from andrew yang and read more and some other views saying no a third party is not the way to go. we're joined next by bernard thomas, an associate professor of politics from the great state of georgia. welcome to "washington journal". guest: thank you. host: so i'll ask you the question. is a third party a viable third party or more needed in the united states? guest: well multiparty politics would be a great achievement and would improve our political system. i'm not sure that it's a realistic goal to hope that we can somehow transform into three or four parties. but third parties have played an important role in american politics and that role has

mostly been to pressurize the other parties, especially in moments like this. historically these are exactly the moments where third parties have mean the most successful, when the two major parties have become very polarized. and the other parties, one or two of them, would attack them from the middle in the sense they would do a strategy that is often referred to as the sting like a bee strategy they would move to take votes away from them and force those parties to respond. so that they're not just moving towards the side that they actually have to moderate themselves. so in this sense they are consistent with the long-term history of when third parties actually have had a big impact in american people politics. >> the other question, underlying our conversation this morning is kind of surprising, is the sort of do the major political parties represent your views? and asking our callers. kind of surprised to see this report from this pole from

suffolk university just this past week. so their polling says yes 25% say that my party represents my views. 15% were undecided. but 60 said no. but the major parties do not reflect their views. guest: i think that's consistent with the political science research on this. the political parties themselves have become very polarized. the american people, they have something called negative partisanship. there's opposition to republicans dislike the democrats, the democratic vote dislike the republicans. but the views of most americans on a lot of issues have not polarized that much. so there is a structural movement away from the voting base. so there really is a middle that

feels like it's not being represented by either party. and that does open the door for this kind of a strategy. host: the most recent examples we have of presidential candidates who ran on third parties, the ralph naders, we mentioned ross perot. and in 1996 john anderson in 1980. what was the best that anybody did in those races? guest: well perot was a giant impact. in terms of the other two i'm not sure how much they actually influenced the political system. maybe the outcome a little bit of the presidential race. but in a sense what they are a bad analogy for the forward party to be looking at is that they focused entirely on

presidential race. it was almost like there was a pretend third-party. and this is in common for third parties over the last quite a few decades. but the more successful third parties were actually more real political parties that really had challenges going at all levels, not just at the presidential level. and this becomes the critical question, is whether or not they can -- one of the critical questions whether or not they can challenge the forward party can challenge at the congressional level, the state legislative level to push these parties. so and so they really have to look at it. it's like being a startup. they have to come from a different angle. they cannot simply copy the strategies of the major parties or even the strategies of the last few third parties. they really have to come from an approach that the democrats and

the republicans aren't prepared for. >> one more thing here. it appears if you look at their platform at forward party.com, that a lot of their focus will be on the election process itself part of which includes calling for rank choice voting, nonpartisan primaries and independent redistricting commissions to end so-called jerry mannedering. they're calling for election reform at a time when elections themselves are the subject of heated debate across the country. >> it's a good angle to take. if we go back to the progressives, they were the progressive party back in 1910, 1912, they were looking for structural reform. this is what they pushed for. and this is what they got. this was a big part of their success. so it really does but it really does have to be built. they have to find a way to build it as if it's like a social movement. it cannot be where, ok, now

we're going to find a bunch of professional politicians and they're going to run. a lot of them are not going to want to, anyway. but the resource problem that this party is going to have compared to the democrats and the republicans is going to be astronomicalcal. so they have to find a way of running as almost like the unified team. not running a thousand, 2,000 individual campaigns but running as one unit with these kind of essential core arguments and trying to force those parties by taking their voters to shift back to the middle and go along with these compromises, these structural changes that they're talking about. host: bernard thomas, thanks for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. host: we'll hear from you and your thoughts, is a third party or more needed in the u.s.? this tw the advent we've been

talking about the forward party this week. this is the piece the headline most third parties have failed. here's why ours won't. in that piece they write this.

let's go first to juliet in rockport, massachusetts. you say yes, there needs to be a viable third-party? caller: yes, i voted for ross perot and i'll never forget the fame words he uttered. that was the big debate back then. immigration we're going back 30 years. you fast forward and i have this sort of thought that donald trump was a de facto third-party candidate. he has tried to -- or he thought of running for president many times before he did in 2016 but he couldn't run as a third-party candidate. he was a democrat, a republican, back to a democrat again. and then after that 30 years we have deindustrialization.

we have the hollowing out of america. we have what is seemingly a two-tier system in our country. we have the elites and then the lower rungs of the economic ladder and people are struggling. and if there were enough talent out there for someone who could push through, i really think it would resonate. but it's -- we're so monolithic in our politics that it's very difficult to break out of that mold. but what appealed to me about ross perot, he came out with the charts and graphs, i just found that to be very illuminating because he was a very matter of fact nonpolitician but he had these facts that were concrete, that were easy to read and to understand. and -- host: but where did you go politically after ross perot? he ran in 92 and again on -- i'm trying to recall the party in 96. where do you go politically?

caller: i have voted for only one democrat in miz entire history of voting for presidents. that was bill clinton. and i voted for reagan in 84 and then -- and then post that i've always voted republican. but ross perot appealed to me. and coming forward to this particular time in our political kind of climate, donald trump as borish as he was and offensive in his remarks, he was speaking to the people who don't have confidence and sort of, their confidence in our institutions has really declined over the years. and we've become so polarized in our country with social media and the mainstream media and it's just overwhelming. and people just have so many mixed messages. like you were just discussing about how most people in america

are swing voters. it's the independents which i am that swing all presidential elections. so somebody could appeal to those swing voters but then you have your far left far right, and those are the people very monolithic in their political ideology and it's hard to get them to move to the center. host: we'll go to james in florida. not sure we need a new party. what are your current thoughts? caller: well, i would be interested in finding more about the forward party. i voted for nayeder i don't know how many times i voted for perot. i'm a third-party person. but we ignore the constitution. we don't have runoffs. so the way that our laws are written and amended 12 and article 2, is that if you don't get 50% of the vote, it goes to the house and the house gets to vote on their own. we don't have runoffs. but so unless we fix our

constitution to accommodate a third party, because if somebody runs against 3% of the vote and then someone gets 49%, someone gets 48% but no one will be president because no one got 50% plus one so it goes to the house of representatives and thai get to pick out of the top three or something like that. and this country will not survive that. i wish someone -- i wish i had spoken to your last speaker to get his perspective but this gets ignored. i've been listening to c-span since the beginning, i've only heard you address this three or four times. host: do you think we need -- caller: we need a third party pu we need to address how we do that. when the house elects a president by themselves host: do you think it starts at the local level places that make it hard for an independent or

thifrp at the state level if you're an independent to participate in a state primary of -- that stage primary? is it hard at the local level to begin with? caller: i've been in florida and lived in california for 20 years, and it's different state by state. i remember one of the elections i voted for somebody in the green party and she was not allowed on the presidential debate stage. she was actually arrested outside of the debate hall because she wanted to come in but the democrats and the republicans who handled the debates themselves, by private organization, they figured out that you have to have certain percentage points or something like that in the state election or local election. so they arbitrarily set that rate so high that no one else is even going to get on the stage with them. this is kind of ridiculous. they did that on purpose and they're criticized for doing it.

but as a public, we are cheap. we get a lot of propaganda. we call it fake news, whatever you want to call it. but that's what's happening in our government. it's these controls by the democrats and republicans at the state level. there's no law saying that they have to run our government. if they had convinced each state one by one that they're all powerful and in california when i lived there the state decide that had we're not going to spend $75 million to have your primaries and then have you dictate to us how we run our primaries that we pay for. so that's why california had open primaries where anybody can vote if the state is going to pay for it. but here in florida we still have, you can only vote in the primary if you belong to the club. host: a number of other states like that as well. thanks for the call. our lines as you can see this morning are not by political party, they're asking you is a third party or more needed in

the u.s. based on the announcement last week of this new forward party. if you say -- the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. one of the cofounders, andrew yang explained why he thinks, why they think the party is needed now. >> if you want to solve the problem here's how we do it. the forward party has the very straight forward tenant. we changed the primary system from the closed party primaries to open primaries and rank choice voting. this will immediately make our figures more rational because they have to cater to 50%. one state has already done this. alaska and there are 24 other

states where you can do this with ballot initiatives. universal basic income, hum centered economy, fact-based governance. modern effective government, system that work but also grace and tolerance. we're not out to demonize or villainize anyone. what we have a problem with is a system that's going to turn us against each other. what we're in the midst of is one of the worst nightmares. there's nothing in the constitution about any political party. and the due oply would be their worst nightmare come to life because what they would have seen is factions that clash over and over again and are susceptible to bad leadership. if you look at democracies around the world, how many parties do they have? five, seven, eight, 18. then you'd have shifting coalition, people would come together and get things done. and by the way if one of the parties that come to bad leadership, we've got another 17. that's how you make a strong system that's actually

responsive to the needs of our time. host: this is the headline from today's sunday "new york times". in that piece he writes that the most successful third parties have been those that galvanize the narrow slices of public over a specific set of issues. let's hear from nicholas in new hampshire. good morning. caller: hi. i was just listening to that report you just had. i think one of the great things

thoobt forward party, i'm a registered libertarian but just hearing what it's about, it doesn't sound like it's on an idea lodge skl scale. it's speaking more to structural issues with the political system in the united states. and for me like i just read an article the other day in the "new york times" so right now we're looking at a situation in new york where i'm from where we're probably only going to have kathy and lee on our ballot. very sharp candidate. he's blocked on the ballot. governor cuomo he signed a law that says we need triple the number of people just to get on the ballot. so it made it that much harder just to get a third-party candidate. that stuff is happening not just in new york. i mean, for me yeah we do need

third-parties and it's not just because i'm registered third party. what yang is saying, this is something that all americans should be able to get behind that we're trying to break the due oply but it does have a vice grip. that's what wr i'm at right now. host: to greg in north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i think we very much need a third party because what's happening is people are going in reference to presidential elections they're going to the ballot and voting, making protests votes. so people go and vote because they don't like trump and they vote for biden even though they might not necessarily want biden to be president. and so this has been happening for probably decades. i think the last time i voted for somebody that i really wanted to vote for was about 20

years ago. i've been going to the -- and voting against the other candidates not because i really like the person that i wanted to vote for. host: who was the last presidential candidate that you really wanted to vote for? caller: that was probably george bush in 2000. so -- and that's what's been happening. people go and then really only have a binary choice, end up getting somebody that may be we don't really want. so we need to get a -- somebody in there that can really speak to the people and actually be a viable thifrp -- third-party candidate. host: terry from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning.

we do need a third party. the two we've got is just playing a stupid child's game, i didn't do it, they did it, they won't let me do it. and maybe by getting a third party in there they can -- both will jump on them then and at least, we're going downhill fast. it's just -- we've just got to get something straightened out. we're losing our country. host: comments on twitter.

this one says no. not surprisingly, the gallup poll on this issues continues to show support for a third party. their most recent polling, about six months ago of this year perceived need for a third u.s. political party at a high point and the number, the percentage say a third party is needed is up to 62% of those surveyed. we'll hear from joseph who is not sure from caller: bill, you are in the industry. we all know. you know it, everybody listening

knows the two things controlling -- our media and money. you have to have the big dollars to put up the big campaigns. north carolina split through. they cannot happen. in 2016, i voted for darrow counselor of the constitution party. you might remember virgil goot, to c-span credit, y'all had him on there. some people are hungry for that. i just don't know if they have the media and the money to buy it. host: the subtext to our

conversation is not, is it third-party. there are third parties out there. conventions for the constitution party, the green party and others as well. the christ -- the question is with this new freedom party with andrew yang, is that the one. is it needed at this time? we will go to zachary in lafayette. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. more people having access, being able to be accessible. i don't know is talked about the primary. changing some of the items around key. money is a component. even if my campaign is $400 and

we have 20% of the vote for mayor in lafayette. it can be done. with that, having been shut out of two debates, they didn't want to show up. and have several candidate components. it is hard work. there is a lot of door-to-door. getting out there and trying to be as accessible as possible. earlier people talking about, i do not know if financial is the easiest to go after. on the federal level is where stars. there is a lot of interest in talking to people that aren't democrats and aren't republicans . empowering individual voters and citizens to be engaged in their government and not just superficially used to be like did. but to build that community around politics. host: would you run again?

caller: oh, definitely. that is where our lower municipal elections will be. that is definitely on the table. other people have ran. it is very interesting when you do engage outside of the two stable parties. parties don't appreciate it because you will take away votes. you challenge people and take away their ideas. we see some common media. i celebrate new york. those are always fascinating gubernatorial root -- debates. it is a very important question. it is not something that should easily be disseminated for everybody's time benefit.

people given tremendous amount of power monetarily through their budget. host: thanks for the call. the forward party. among those forming it and promoting it, andrew yang for new york mayor candidate. david jolley, former can -- former congressman from new jersey. christine todd whitman (202) 748-8000 is aligned to call if you think a third is needed in the u.s.. (202) 748-8001 if you say, no, the parties we have are fine. (202) 748-8002, if you are unsure. the forward party announcing the parties says a new party must break down the barriers between voters and political choices. we will passionately advocate

electoral changes such as chores voiding -- choice voting and gerrymandering. it -- to make democracy incredibly easy. these reforms go hand-in-hand with the new quality. james calling from florida. good morning, sir. caller: i am a transplant from basically everywhere, i lived in 14 states. but now i live in florida. we want to parties plus the -- party down here. 30% are democrats, and 40% are in between. we don't top politics because we

don't know who is in between. but i watch c-span, probably the best channel to watch. i watch cnn, fox, cnbc. i think we need a third channel that is an independent channel. host: an independent news channel? caller: yeah. an independent news channel. you are the closest thing to an independent news channel but c-span, fox, cnbc, cnn, none really that is a third -- that is an independent channel that can give you both sides and the third side. host: jim stanly of next. middletown, pennsylvania. says yes, there should be a viable third party in this

country. go ahead. caller: we need something because the two-party system we have got is not doing any favors. we definitely need something to have because the left and right are tearing this country apart. you got an independent vote, there are probably more people who vote independent then they would republican or democrat. democrats want to take our guns away. guns have been here since the 60's. you can brian machine gun and using that since 19 86. because he $6,000 to own a transferable machine gun. we had gun clubs in high school

and junior high, we had gun clubs. i think it should be 21, 22 years old. we need something. something has got to change. this two-part system is definitely tearing this country apart. i know a bunch of conservative people. i live here in littlestown. what was so wrong about driving an election machine? why can't we talk about that? they don't want anybody to talk about that. we need something more in this country. if i didn't have kids and grandkids, i could care less about it. host: stanley in pennsylvania. (202) 748-8000 for those of you

who say yes, we need a third party in this country. (202) 748-8001, if your answer is no. and for those who of you who are unsure, (202) 748-8002. post comments on social media. o'leary -- says we have no choice. that is what we see when we look from reality. there are superdelegates for republicans and democrats but not a third-party. nothing for the green party. a party can compete against this system only with two-party politics. -- says yes we need a two-party --. i highly doubt the mainstream media will be on board because they are a part of the corruption. from the ford party announced last week, forward party.com is

their website. more unites than divides us. therefore priorities. americans can fix any problem. the forward party is approaching differently. the outdated political parties are drifting towards the -- making it possible. and pursuing common ground. free people, revitalize a culture that celebrates difference, rejects hate and removes barriers that each of us rise to our full potential. reinvigorate a fair, flourishing society where everyone can live a good life and is safe in the places where we learn, work and live. more choices in elections, more confidence in -- that works. more flexibility in our future.

in los angeles, good morning. all right, we are going to go to tom. i am sorry. i had the wrong line for you. you there, aspirin? tom in new jersey, go ahead. caller: i am advocating for the elimination of all these parties. i don't think we need more parties. most of us are all independent and we choose the lesser evil. i am more thinking we don't need federalists, we don't need a democratic republic party like we had originally. i think we should have followed george washington when he said the steel teachings is what is creating the struggle. if we can find a way to say, "i am not a part of any of these parties. they are all ridiculous."

that is my perspective. host: in maryland, we hear from jessica. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just have a quick comment. i don't think the parties are doing us any favor. particularly since citizens united was passed. but what i don't hear a lot about is right choice voting. i am a big fan of right choice voting, that way everybody gets a buy in at some level to their candidate. host: do they have that there now? caller: no. we don't. host: when have you heard it work before? why are you a proponent of it? caller: i just looked it up and i read some about it. i know there are some states that do it, not at the presidential level, but it just

makes sense to me to be able to vote for the person that you most want. and then, if you don't get that person, the person that would be your second choice, or your third choice. or those people, it is a little complicated. for those people who don't want to do that, they could just pick one person. but that way, if your third choice came and, at least you would have bought in that much. it is not like you lost. host: ok. appreciate that just go. a couple stores updated overnight. this is from u.s. house speaker pelosi -- the u.s. house speaker will visit for asian countries from sunday. without mentioning taiwan immense -- amidst intentions speculation. that trip getting underway late yesterday. also an update from the white

house on the president himself. the story here in the new york times. biden tests positive for covert rebound. biden tests positive again for the covid virus on sunday. a rebound case after taking the paxlovid treatment that has otherwise been credited with rockley -- fighting the virus and suppressing its worse effects. the president has experienced no reemergence of symptoms and continues to feel quite well. kevin o'connor said in a memo released by the press office, " there is no reason to reinitiate treatment at this time. but we will continue close observation." talking about third parties today. a third party needed in the u.s.? pittsburgh, pennsylvania, patrick is online. caller: good morning.

if you are discussing whether or not we need a third party, which will be great in a viable way but we live in complete unique system. it you would have to have the corporate media -- with a national securities surveillance. you have corporations which have become dangerous to democracy that they can become the platform for independent news organizations end today with one america news. we should be boycotting corporations like verizon which are setting the standard nash. we are in another war after another. having a third-party is absolutely meaningless.

when you exist in corporatized -- developed in america, you're going to be in a situation where you are not going to get funded. they're not going to provide any funding for you. presidential elections cost a billion dollars. edward yang is a socialist. this has nothing to do with creating an environment of stability. this has to do with creating changes that increase -- host: patrick, you still there? all right, we lost him. we will go to derek. good morning. caller: good morning. i am on the not so sure channel called number. he kind of stole a little bit of my thunder. i don't think it will make a difference. what we really need where the

people get to donate. as long as -- and the wealthy is able to donate to these parties, and they are going to dictate. it is just that simple. eventually, if we had a third-party, it would be just like it is right now. that is my comment. host: a part of what the forward party founders say, they write, "the system is already spoiled. more than 500,000 elected positions in the united states. a tiny sliver of u.s. congressional seats will have close races this november. the two parties have shut out competition and america is suffering as a result." let's hear from james in buffalo, new york.

james, make sure you mute your volume and go ahead. james, go ahead and mute your volume there. caller: yes, sir. i am doing it right now. i thank you and i appreciate you for taking my call. there should be a third-party. democrats are trying to turn their party into a communist or socialist party. why shouldn't you have a third party. democratic people want all parties. it is a sad scenario that the man that is in office right now, running this country into the ground and the people that are behind the democratic party have

not a clue. everybody is losing. the money they saved so they can have a better retirement, people across the board are losing their 401(k). it is just a mess. it is just a mess. that is all it is. host: next up in san francisco, we hear from ajay. hi, there. caller: i think we don't need a third party. historically, parties have always taken extreme positions. you have got the green party. we have a problem with the democratic party being too socialist. the third party would be socialist. once we go back to the -- party. nationalists and -- forcing

people to go into these extra -- were you could see something like a rand paul, and you see jeff bush representing. that is kind of our system. at the end of the day, only one person can win. just for the sheer fact that we need to maintain and you have a women's party, a socialist party, a green party, a nationalist party. it is just an extreme party. host: talking about divergent views within parties. this morning, democrats split on

biden one third pledge despite -- discouraging joe biden from seeking reelection in 2024. there it agreement that he is making a 2020 pledge could help in november. if joe biden would announce winning next week -- minnesota this week became the first member of congress to go over the record to contend biden should not run for president again in 2024. >> "-- this is from washington

news. since i do not agree with them on anything. californians have contributed more to recoat -- more to republican wins, liz cheney from any other state, including her wyoming home. an increasingly careless reelection bid. a third party from the u.s., sue is not sure. sue, tell us your thoughts on that. guest: i am not sure. what we need to do something. we have sat here since donald trump and watched what the democratic party has done. each party has systematically shredded our constitution. you can see it played out.

they won't even protect the children. if you are not going to -- i didn't know until i looked in newspapers and media and -- we have a beautiful country. host: in brooksville, florida, dave says, yes. go ahead, dave. caller: you reflect this on speech and -- reflect this on c-span. in one line for the mentally handicapped.

they complained about january 6, the insurrection, they ask, what do you think about it and they say it is a sham. and you ask do they watch it, and they say no way. i haven't watched that. that mentality, just ponder it for a moment. they leave the economy in ruins. it was that way in 2008, it was that way in 2020. democrats come in and they have to institute code lands to keep society from completely unraveling. now they are whining about

spreading their feces and urine on the side -- on the wall of the state capital. host: next up is john in bedford, new york. good morning. caller: hey. i love this show, i really appreciate it. we need a party -- the equality and justice and safety improvements. crit nissan witnessed was a disgraceful choice because she

was responsible for 1000 -- after 9/11. as a part of the npa, she noted -- she knowingly lied that it was safe to reenter when they had testing equipment at the epa office on 57th street showing that there -- showing that they were extremely toxic. the fact she has reemerged as a public figure and andrew yang chose her shows his terrible judgment. and they think know people have idea that she did this. she could shut up and disappear or pay for the crime she committed against the 11 -- against the american people 9/11. host: here is one from anthony miller in new york. a democrat. "the establishment for a third party sounds reasonable. what will be more reasonable if

politicians would follow their oath of office. stop accepting bribes and obey the laws that already exist. align themselves with policy manipulatives, campaign bribery. everything is broken." dave in orlando, "no, we just need politicians to tell the truth. that goes for the media also." scott in houston, texas says he just joined the forward party. on twitter, not everyone tweets their party like a cult. some find it a better way. a part of this opinion piece out earlier. he says in the united states, a

successful third-party is an unfairly one that wins. a successful party is one that integrates itself board programs into two major parties, either by forcing key issues onto the agenda or reviewing the existence of a pertinent new elector. during the presidential election of 1848, after the annexation of texas, the mexican american war and the treaty of guadalupe a and held although, antislavery politicians from the democratic leading formed the freeze similar party for the expansion -- free soil, free speech, free labor, free men. third party politics 1858, 1854

endorsed the clearing congress had no power to extend slavery. because of its its tension, returning to the principle of the northwest ordinance of 1787. this was a controversial to put it mildly -- the free slave party for president in the 1848 elections fought to put that conflict at the center of american politics. we hear from patricia.

good morning. caller: good morning. there was a gentleman on a little while back. he stole my thunder. they are lying. every. cnn, cnbc, they have a talking point. collusion. every day, another talking point. collusion, collusion, something else. they will destroy, hello? host: yeah, don't go on to anyone you hate.

until we have hope to exercise the -- we need to have term limits in the house and the senate before any changes. if you get rid of them from being in there for all those years, you will be able to stop lobbyists, stop all the money. that is what was supposed to happen. they were not supposed to get paid for the rest of their lives. not have to worry about social security. they get free benefits. we work very hard. we don't get to leave our jobs and make 187,000 dollars a year. they are locked into whatever

they get. when that change is, the rest of the changes can happen. until then, it is not happening. look into the convention of the state and re-up on all of that. and go back to our constitution of the united states. host: ok, appreciate that. bill is in albany, new york. go ahead. bill in artibonite, new york. -- albany, new york. caller: it cannot work. history has shown. construction always comes into play --.

here is the thing we really need. it was pointed out in the last election. the states have to change the voting law. the states are the one. they think legislatures change the way it is. what happened in the last election in the four states, the governor went ahead and made the change going through the legislature, which really made it unconstitutional for those four states. i am not taking the side of one party or another. i am just saying, the constitution needs to be followed. if anybody watching can look that up and they will see pennsylvania and georgia are the

average on it. what happened was, the governor was democrat and the legislature was republican. in the legislation did not get a say in how --. host: we have one more call from dave who is in liverpool, new york. caller: that is outrageous. that is stupid. it -- we need to change citizens united. we need to -- that is buying the republican party.

what we need is to get that -- to get back to some common sense. we need to stop the gerrymandering. we need to stop republicans from only low states. there are democrats in little states. wyoming, all these others. i am sorry. i have got to go. host: you have a good day as well. coming up next, we will be joined by republican -- and democratic strategist warren -- will be talking about political news of the day. later, landmark legislation continues with a focus on 2002 no child left behind law. president george bush's signature and one that changed the public role -- and professor

from vanderbilt university. >> the ferns -- the world's first general computer, antioch was a top-secret -- during world war ii. it weighed 30 tons and took of 1800 square feet. tonight on -- 16 american women who programmed antioch and their efforts to get it known.

>> together there was a team that led the construction. a lot of these guys, if they did something technical, i wanted to know because i could use some roles models at this point. he sent me to the cofounder of the president of the history museum and she showed me models. i didn't think that was something that was right. i wanted -- young women hired during world war ii. >> kathy hyman tonight. you can listen to q&a on c-span or our video mobile out c-span

now. >> this week on the c-span networks. wednesday morning with the upcoming midterm elections, hearing from the department of justice and cybersecurity officials on election workers. many republican -- testify before the senate rules committee about their role in the presidential reform. on thursday, christopher wray goes before the senate judiciary hearing. the senate remains in session one more week live on the c-span networks. for schedule information, logons and to demand at any time. c-span, urine filtered view of government. >> washington journal continues.

host: political news of the day, campaign 2022 for the next hour or so. we are joined by democratic strategist. let's start with you and ask you about your mortgaging arena. what is the focus of arena? guest: arena is an organization that supports the next generation of campaign staff. we are working on doing building a bench of leaders and working on diversifying that bench so they are more represented. at the core of our belief is that if we want individuals who

are more representative of our country, campaigns of individuals more representative in our country, there most likely to win. i have to tell you they have 100 -- and we are recruiting individuals to work on campaigns. if you look at what is going on politically, this year politically about overturning roe, sending of washington power back to the states, there is recognition of what happens at the state and local level. some effects in individuals lives. whether that is reproductive rights, voting rights, climate change and energy policy. especially from young people. there is a real duty to get involved to make change and to do it at a level that you can

see and feel. at washington can feel really distant at times but working on a state legislative we know someone of what is going on in our country is that the outcome that these give is they -- the freedom to enjoy this and beyond. guest: it tends to be when a party is out of power, you see more enthusiasm. the last couple of midterm cycles, 2010, 2020, republicans are really fired up. we are seeing that again in 2022. host: the outlook has kind of been this looks like a change in election or the economies drag

on the democrats. guest: this is a profoundly good week for democrats. this is a good week for the country as a whole, american people as a whole. if you look at what came out in terms of the reduction inflation act, this is going to be a massive policies that is really good for the american people. a huge investment in clean energy. lower health care costs for every american. one that is allowing medicare to negotiate for the cost of prescription drugs, lowering drug costs for seniors. that is the expansion of the obamacare premium so that it is lower for the average american family. in addition to that, waving the corporate tax, waving loophole

so you are seeing more money going into the government. when we expect to be the outcome from this, a better economy, more money in people's pockets and a better outlook. when we think about the impact that will have in november, what this ultimately means is that people see joe biden and democrats finally being able to deliver on the agenda that they promised in the 2020 election. host: you think it was the -- from joe manson that was the term for that? guest: they need to do it now. the news that came out yesterday, it does all the things -- but lowering taxes on things. especially with joe manchin's promise that he would not do it. is it a quick win for democrats?

yes. it is not going to change the shape of what is happening in november. it might make things harder for democrats because raising the tax rate for families. host: it is kind of -- to get things done for congress and democrats. guest: this doesn't raise taxes on families who are earning less than $400,000 a year. more than that, what people have been wanting to see is congressional action. the failure in congressional action have largely been on account with republicans in the senate. whoever refused to take up measures. it would americans want to see. it is better for our economy to move to a clean energy merger and this combination -- the

direction of the supreme court and the whole party that fundamentally doesn't believe -- will lead to better anticipated out, would democrats come november. we are living in unprecedented times. i don't feel like we can take lessons learned from previous election cycles and assume the exact same thing will happen. host: for democrats, the number is (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . for all others, (202) 748-8003. the final weeks for congress in some critical weeks ahead. we will get your calls in a

moment. there was a headline yesterday in the wall street journal, nash becomes a crucial vote for democratic legislation. kyrsten sinema of arizona. could she hold the trump line and some of this debate? guest: she certainly has the potential to derail things if she wanted. i am not really sure how that is ultimately in her interest or the interest of the party if -- for the party that she is a member of. we are ending the first two years of the biden term, people are wanting to see action coming out of congress. we finally have a limited window in which to pass it. i hope that senator -- will realize the interests of her constituents in arizona and the

country as a whole to pass legislation on the issues that we were promising we would act on. issues like clean energy, lowering the cost of health care , eliminating tax loopholes. these are fundamentally important to the american people. i believe at the end of the day, you will be able to get senator sinema on board, you will see historic key legislation passed. i will add to the list, historic legislation the biden administration has already passed on covert relief. finally able to get done to make investments in the united states to be competitive with china and bolster our national security. this administration is really getting things done. i am hoping that senator sinema will be a part of that process. host: will things resonate with

voters in 2022? guest: the news from this week that we haven't heard, the country is in recession. there were two reports that the economy declined. inflation is around 10%. joe biden's approval rating is in the 30's. you just can't outrun those types of political headways with legislation. we see it over and over again. with the economy in recession, the presidential approval rating , the economic approval rating in the low 30's, that is not an environment where democrats are going to see any kind -- any type of good news on election day. host: lara, how do you respond to that? we have -- from minnesota who says the president should say

--. guest: this is quite interesting right now. if you think of the polling numbers, beyond president biden's approval rating, the generic poll of immigrants over republican actually shows democrats. that is not good news for republicans. there might be some dissatisfaction with the president right now, mostly on account of failure to deliver on his agenda -- deliver on his agenda, which is a failure of -- but overall in the country that in terms of getting in the direction that we want to go, democrats are the party better equipped to do so. more than that, republicans are holding a fundamental threat to our democracy at the moment. the number of republicans who at this point ultimately don't believe in free and fair elections have been open and public about their intent to

effectively instruct the election, give americans reason to have paws about putting that pack -- putting that party into power. combining that with decisions we have seen coming out of the supreme court and hearing what type of legislation we would see if we had republicans back in control in congress, i don't think you could make predictions solely on approval ratings. if you look at the economy, it is the economy we are in right now. growth has slowed, we are seeing the lowest that our treasury secretary janet yellen says we are not in yet. the story remains to be read and as to what will happen. after this week, i am feeling optimistic about what is going to happen to democrats. host: the treasury secretary

says we are not in a recession, why are they saying that? guest: they are always saying, -- look at what the american people are feeling. the consumer report came out this week, it was historically low. we have not seen since 1980. look at the overall data. not necessarily biden's approval rating, but look at is the economy getting better or is it getting worse? even before the report came out this week, if you ask voters are we in a recession, they said yes. voters think the recon -- voters think the economy is bad. host: i'm going to ask both of you in a moment what you think the hearing of the january 6

committee and the final report might mean in the 2024 election. our viewers and listeners for our guests this morning. greg, your first up. ohio. ryan's running a very smart campaign. his first campaign ad talks about how he was against the obama trade deal. similar to shared brown who runs in ohio against. and as far as -- vance one of the big things, define your opponent before they can define themselves. and ryan has run an ad which talks about vance setting up a

nonprofit supposedly to help in ohio and it turned out he didn't use any money for that. he used it in his own campaign in the primary. another one is on the internet where he talked about the far left saying women should stay with their abusive children for the state of -- abusive spouse for the benefit of their host: ok, jerry, we will let our guests weigh in. guest: there is a thought that biden has gotten close there in 2020. ultimately, you are going to see the state revert -- very much

the favorite in that race. what tends to happen in that state, they eventually revert. we saw in south carolina in 2020. we saw the same in kansas in 2020. host: lauren, what do you think? guest: ohio can send a democratic senator to washington because they have a democratic senator in washington. coming in without any government experience and their radical views out of step with everyday ohioans and everyday americans, there is a real race to be fought there. tim ryan has a proven track

record in washington. he is running a campaign and he is speaking to the issues at everyday ohioans care about. i want to use this opportunity to get back to how the economy is going to play. ultimately republicans message has been, the economy, inflation. there has been no ideas of how to change that. all that has come out of washington is obstruction on the republican side. this week, we are going to see tim ryan voting on pieces of legislation that work to alleviate some of that economic pressure that americans are feeling. i believe that will resonate with voters. guest: i believe it will too. tim ryan voting 100% with the president.

we guest: are also looking for a new generation of leaders here. the democratic party is aging. it is not reflective of the population of democrats as a whole across his country.

a new younger generation of leaders rising up from their community can really speak to what constituents want to see. it is that kind of authenticity that ties to community a personal narrative and desire to make government work. at the state and federal level. that is what we look for in candidates and people working on campaigns. guest: i mentioned this earlier. host: a final revolt -- a final vote will play in 2022? . guest: voters are ready to move on. voters always focus on the party . you look back in 2020 and they thought, we will just focus on pelosi. it didn't work for us in 2018.

in 2010, we can work -- we can bring up george w. bush. it didn't work. former president trump is going to help immigrants. especially now any time they are really frustrated with how things are going in the country. host: the january 6 hearings and the eventual report that will come up, how important is that? guest: the purpose of the january 6 hearings is an ultimately a shift of electoral outcomes. it is to get to the bottom of what was an attempted coup in the united states of america. an attempt to undermine the results of a fair election in

2020. those were terrifying images and terrifying moments with individuals scaling the wall of our capital trying to -- the results of our election. it spoke -- it struck at the core of whether there is still integrity of american democracy. when we look at the results there, getting to the truth of what happened. we believe it is fundamentally critical to preserve american democracy and the rule of law going forward. it is to get to things and also message clear that there are still individuals in our government now beyond donald trump who fundamentally don't want to compete fairly in elections but want to skew the playing field, want to ignore results, and undermine democracy and the rule of law. and if we put those individuals

in power, that will ultimately scuttle everything that we hold dear in our country. host: let's hear from jeffery on the republican line, north carolina. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: make sure that you mute your volume on your television there then go ahead with your comment. caller: thank you very much. thank you. i would like to kind of elaborate a little bit on what ms. lauren just touched base with about the january 6th situation, and comparing to your other guest how he responded to it. it is very important that how one side, the republicans which i take fair free election, is looking at it as that's not no big issue. that's a major change in every aspect around how the world views america now, how they are

dismissing such a dangerous, chaotic, at the direction and the edge on of donald trump actually said it and stated not having a free election or fair election, that was just something right now it is still to this day the problem happening -- host: i'm going to let you go. a reminder call in on the line that reflects your political views. the numbers are on your screen. fred in michigan, go ahead. caller: i would just like to state a couple of things. that bill that you're talking about that's going to be so good for the seniors and everything, one, ain't that just ten and don't you have to wait until 2026 that kicks in and then this guy calls talking about these elections and republicans not

wanting to be fair. how about when hillary and the democrats paid for a dirty doszier and smeared a guy for four years to begin with, with that? host: ok. response from either on our caller's comments. guest: sure. i think that the prescription drugs again i think that one thing to keep in mind and i think this is an important point made by that caller is that a lot of these things in the bill, whether you're for them or not, are going to take a while to be implemented. host: this is the bill agraed to by the president and joe manchin and -- senator schumer i should say. guest: it's not instant action, not something viewers are going to be feeling before november. and health care is a priority. but until voters start to see their grocery prices coming down, until they start to see energy prices coming down to a more reasonable level, the democrats are doing a victory

lap when they get gas below $5. viewers want it to be back to $2.50, $3 a gallon. host: lauren, the democrats, joe manchin calling this the inflation reduction act, correct? guest: that's because the act is fundamentally intended to reduce inflation. and as much as republicans have called attention to this and complained about this over many months, they haven't put forward legislation to solve the problem. inflation ultimately results when demand exceeds supply so prices rides. and what this bill is intended to do and will start doing immediately is increasing supply in the economy by investing in infrastructure by investing in clean energy, and also cooling demand by doing things like raising the corporate tax rate and closing tax loopholes. so i do think benefits will

start to be felt. but at a certain point you have to decide as a voter are you going to vote for the party that scomplanz about problems but ultimately doesn't want to put forth any solutions to sofl them but want to obstruct positive action or are you going to vote for the party that is actually going out there and making changes that will put more money in americans pockets that will prepare us for a clean energy future, that will make our country future, that will make our country safer and more prosperous. that is the choice that we have and it is a choice about whether you want to vote for a party that is invested in american democracy and rule of law or one that is invested in holding onto their own power. the last caller made an excellent point. america's standing in the world depends on our ability to still have free and fair elections where every individual vote counts and you have one party

viewing -- veering away from that, it is hard to see that that is the party of the future. democrats -- >> democrats continue to believe that every problem can be solved with more government spending. the reason why we are in this, is because of the $1 trillion spending bill from 2021. now the democrats are like, more spending will solve that. republicans do not believe that. they believe the way to bring side -- prices down is not more spending. host: lauren baer is a managing partner and democratic strategist. we are talking politics. 2022 congressional politics. we welcome your calls and comments at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, it is (202) 748-8001.

independent, (202) 748-8002. we will hear from charles in florida are the democrats line. caller: good morning. first time caller. i just want to say to the republican strategist, give us a better candidate. ron desantis is a mini me of donald trump. he is not the one. we are in a position to where we are about votes and not substance. it is the same challenge for the young lady who is the democrat. give us more than votes. give us substance. i am working with two scientists are global warming and i have reached out to both republican and democrat offices and no one seems to be interested in technology that can save the planet because people are busy

pushing their own private agendas. host: we will hear from our guests. >> governor desantis is popular in florida and heavily favored for reelection. it would be difficult to get a candidate better than him. host: lauren baer, what are your thoughts? >> i think governor desantis is leaning into the culture war debate because he has very little in terms of substance or policy to improve the lives of floridians. what he is doing is polarizing the state of florida, polarizing our country. it is deeply upsetting to me as a floridian to see the way that he has done things like decimate our public schools and, the public schools that i attended, that enabled me to get an ivy league education and the way he is attacking the most vulnerable members of the

florida community, members of the lgbtq community, desantis is very popular in the state but ultimately he is not proposing or enacting policies that are truly intended to improve individuals lives. he is running on a platform of fear and division and the lowest common denominator and that is ultimately bad for the state. i would agree that it is an uphill battle in the gubernatorial race in florida. i think the senate race between val demings and marco rubio's want to watch closer. it is something that floridians will grow tired of and want to see real change that will benefit them. host: we will go to north carolina. don on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the confusing and frustrating things for many

americans including me is when we hear conflicting statements from one side that says there will be no tax increases for people over the $400,000 barrier and the other person says there will be tax increases. my question is for the republican strategist, can you give us a specific example where taxes will be increased for citizens under the $400,000 level and did i would ask the democratic strategist to respond to jim and tell us where he is right or wrong. mr. hobart: that is a valid question. i joined -- the joint committee on taxes came out yesterday morning. taxes will be raised all the way

down to those making only $30,000 per year. that is the joint committee on taxation. that is not partisan. that is what they said and i have every reason to relieve -- believe the report. ms. baer: it is a false statement. but the bill does in terms of taxation is raise taxes on corporations to make sure that they are paying their fair share and close tax loopholes that have enabled the wealthiest among us to get away with paying less in taxes. at the same time what the bill does is it increases funding to the internal revenue service so that they can make sure that individuals who have been avoiding paying their taxes actually pay that money and that money goes into the government. joe biden made a promise that taxes would not go up on individuals who are earning less than $400,000 per year. he is sticking to that promise and that is not happening in this bill. host: let's hear from kathy on the republican line in maryland.

you are on the air. caller: good morning. i have a couple of comments. i think the majority of americans are feeling the pain of every time they go to the grocery store like i did yesterday and have to pay six dollars for a jar of mayonnaise and go to the gas pump and something else nobody is talking about now because it is july, almost august, heating oil for the winter. i just called the other day to find out the price and it will cost $4.59 per gallon for my heating oil that i heat my home with in the winter and it will cost $1100 to fill up my tank. what is president biden going to do about that? how can senior citizens pay that much money to heat their homes? host: kathy, what did it because

last winter for your heating oil? caller: it was approximately $289. host: lauren baer, your comment? ms. baer: this is exactly what this bill being passed is intended to help alleviate. that pressure you feel is being felt by individuals around the country. i feel it in my own family as a mother of two young girls having to go to the grocery store every week. what biden is doing when it comes to energy costs, when it comes to gas prices, he already took action earlier this year to open up a great deal of gas from the strategic petroleum reserve to help drive down gas prices and what this bill will do when it comes to heating costs and energy costs is make an historic investment in the transition to clean energy so that we are less dependent on limited and expensive fossil fuels. if we will see prosperity and

economic security for americans in the future, we have to stop being so tied to fluctuation in oil prices and move to a cleaner energy future and that is where the bill is moving us. host: jim hobart, is this a gain for oil exporters, producers in this country in terms of what is in the bill for fossil fuels? mr. hobart: when you look at it, maybe biden is making a couple of decent steps in this bill. the reality is since the moment he took office he has done things to limit them domestic exploration -- limit domestic explanation for oil and gas. the keystone pipeline was supported by 66% of voters. he will not approve it. when you ask why gas prices are high, this has been the intention of the biden administration. they want to limit domestic oil and energy production. that is why you have them going

to saudi arabia to ask for more oil instead of here in america. host: to sacramento, john on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. this republican guy sounds just like the rest of the republicans. he is supposed to be a strategist but he sounds like a regular republican, the ones getting on the phone with all of these talking points. they do not know what they want. all they are doing is trying to keep others down. i used to look at these third world countries and wonder, there are so many people in the country but they are so little of them doing good. come to find out, most of these countries are ran by right wing people, the ones who want to keep people oppressed.

that is the republican party. host: jim hobart, as a republican, do you consider yourself right wing? mr. hobart: certainly right of center. i am a conservative and i believe the best way to find solutions for the country, this is a fundamental disconnect between republicans and democrats. republicans believe that less government is the way out of the problems that we are having right now, that investing in the private sector. democrats believe that another spending bill, that giving people subsidies to buy electric cars is the way out of this. it is a disagreement between the two parties. host: houston, texas, nancy on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this woman you have on there, has she been to the grocery store lately? has she put gas in her car? has she taught to the american people -- has she talked to the american people?

has she looked at the poll numbers? she says we are not in a recession. are you kidding me? she is a joke. host: lauren, you talked about going to the grocery store. any further comments you would like to elaborate on? ms. baer: i feel this in the same way other americans feel it and i am acutely aware that many americans feel this in a significantly worse way than i do. when it comes to my politics, that is the very reason that i'm supporting a party that is choosing to do something about it. jim is saying that the republican solution to the problem is less government and allowing markets to solve the problem. that did not work. that has not worked. if we are going to solve it on its own, we will be sitting pretty but we are not. democrats are the only party that is actually actively

investing in solutions that will ease the pressure on americans pocketbooks right now, that will bring inflation down, that will help americans with struggling healthcare costs, that will put more money in people's pocketbooks. at the same time, it will deal with some of the bigger issues that are affecting people across the country. if you look at the other news this week, historic flooding in kentucky, wildfires in california, we are far past the point in time where we can say that climate changes in real. -- climate change is not real. that is having a profound impact on livelihoods as well and what this bill will do is make the single largest investment in combating climate change and ensuring that we have a safe and healthy planet for all of us and our children and grandchildren to live in long into the future. what i can say is we are

fundamentally feeling the same hurt. the difference is we are the party that is choosing to do something about it. host: another notable political story this past week, the same day appearances, the first since the inauguration of former president trump and vice president pence speaking to another conservative group, the young america's foundation. i will ask both of you what you think the role is in 2022, what you see is potentially the role for former president trump and the former vice president mike pence? mr. hobart: when you look at republican voters, former president trump is much more popular than vice president pence. there is still no bigger vote-motivator among republican voters, especially republican primary voters than president trump. mike pence is -- he has been wanting to run for president for a long time. he has every right to do that. right now president trump is

still more popular in the party than pence so he will have more of an impact in the midterm election. host: lauren baer, your thoughts on what we saw last week with the former vice president in washington. where do they stand? ms. baer: i would like nothing more than for former president trump to try to play a prominent role in the 2022 elections because it will be a constant reminder to the american people of the chaos and the disorder, the erosion of american values and trust that occurred during his administration. there was a really resounding rebuke to his leadership in the 2020 election. a punctuation point on that when he tried to undermine the results of that election and lead a violent coup to undermine those results and retain power. if republicans want him to be the face of their party, that kind of extremism, that kind of

disrespect for democracy and the rule of law, then in my opinion, go for it because that will ultimately benefit the party that is actually respecting the rule of law and democracy and the fundamental values of our country. host: jim, i want to ask you about some of the candidates that the former president supported and opposed. three more republican teachers face primary election jurors. peter meyer of michigan and dan newhouse of washington state. their primaries are coming up tuesday. in general, how has the former president's endorsement been faring for those members? mr. hobart: for the president's endorsement record in senate races, his endorsement record in governors race's are not as successful.

those three members of congress in particular, all three of them could win. there have been other states where someone who voted for impeachment lost. but in washington state with peter meyer, you are seeing instances where you can see all three of those republicans win. host: a number of states having their primaries. michigan, washington state, and arizona on tuesday. north carolina, let's hear from neil on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a problem with the democrats trying to force us into electric cars when we really do not have the infrastructure, the charging stations, anything like that. it looks like the inflation reduction act that they passed recently seems to help with the infrastructure but also with the amount of money spending on infrastructure to be built, we will have a big problem with even more inflation. we are in a recession right now,

no matter how the democrats try to spin it. we are in a recession and it will get worse and the money they will print for the infrastructure will get worse and it will take forever for them to build it. they really have to brush up on their economic skills. host: lauren baer, do you want to comment? ms. baer: analysis has shown that the inflation reduction act will reduce the federal deficit over time but it is making historic investments in clean energy and things like electric vehicles that would make them more accessible to everyday americans. that means not only investing in building out the infrastructure and things like charging stations to make it easier to own an electric car and actually drive want to go about your life, but tax breaks to americans in lower income boxes -- brackets for purchasing these vehicles and making the transition to a type of transportation that will ultimately be not only less expensive, but better for the planet.

what i would say to the caller is that he raises a good point about there being a lack of infrastructure and that is exactly the reason why we are making that investment now because if we do not start, it will never get better. host: jim, are you skeptical of the deficit reduction qualities of this legislation? mr. hobart: i think that when you look at injecting more and more government spending into the economy, i am skeptical that it is actually going to bring the deficit down. we have heard that before. i do not think that the role of the federal government is giving people money to buy certain types of cars. i think you will see voters react to that. voters do not want money to buy a certain type of car. instead, they want money four strategies that will bring prices down. instead of looking at ways to bring gas prices down, democrats are shifting to try to get voters to use less gas. voters prefer the alternative. host: nancy in nantucket,

massachusetts. democrat mike -- democrat line. caller: good morning. i have locked c-span for many years and have never called in and 99% of the time i agree with the person like yourself who leads and guides people when they call in. a gentleman called in on the republican line a few callers ago and he did not focus his comments in the expected republican way and you chastised him for calling in on the republican line because he put forth a little bit more of a democratic view. when you chastised him, i felt very uncomfortable because -- and i do understand that some people do use that in order to get in and that is not ok but

this gentleman just happened to have a different view. i am a person who, although i am a democrat and 99% of the time will vote democrat, do not always agree with the democrats and i may call in and agree with the republican person making a presentation. i felt that that is not your job to tell people you have to always think like a democrat. you can never take a republican view. host: your criticism is well received. we try to manage the line so we make sure people call on the lines that best reflect but i appreciate your call. let's get to sean in columbia, maryland. republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am just an average american who gets up and goes to work and minds his own business. i keep track of both sides, the democrats and republicans.

you can sell me on $4.50 of gas and the only energy policy is to take more from the strategic reserve to keep the price down. you cannot sell me on my grocery bill being double what it was two years ago. you cannot sell me on the democrat plan when you have a foreign nation telling one of our congresswomen, the head of our house, you cannot land in taiwan. we are currently a laughingstock of the world and i think that if the republicans run on the platform of trump, they will remember what the price of gas was, they will member -- they will remember the putin economy. you guys try to sell something on fear out of what will happen to the environment, there were floods 40 or 50 years ago. one that i lived through. this whole thing on bringing up one terrible storm after another and claiming that this is the only way that we can survive, i'm sorry.

i have to survive every day by filling up my tank and my family. host: a couple of things. do you want to respond? ms. baer: people like to criticize president biden for the increase in gas prices but not give him credit for the fact that gas prices have decreased week over week for the past six weeks, that we are making investments right now to move us toward lower energy costs not only in the nature -- in the immediate term come about the long-term as well. what i want to respond to, from a perspective of someone who served for six years in the obama administration in the senior foreign policy position is the notion of america's standing in the world and our national security. when given the opportunity this past week to vote on a semi conductor bill that would make historic investments in the u.s. semi conductor industry or to

remain competitive with china in order to bulk up our national security, republicans overwhelmingly out of spite and against national interests decided to vote no. i have for years worked in a position where it was my responsibility to look outward at other countries around the world and raise flags, signs of democratic decline. one of the things that has been most frightening to me is seeing those signs in our country today with the way that republicans are attacking the integrity of elections, of free and fair press, demonizing minorities. these are a fundamental threat to american democracy and they are also a threat to our standing in the world. at a base level, i have a disagreement with our caller as to which party and which type of

leadership will ultimately make america more safe and prosperous and improve our standing. host: we have a few more calls. we will go to lewis in the nation's capital on the independent line. caller: hello. i thought c-span was just informing but i have experienced where you get two people on the air and they are just giving opinions. they are talking in general. they are not being specific. the americans that have to go through what they are doing every day, they are looking at what it is costing them right now. people eat in the short term. they are just looking at how things are going to get better today. when you hear these people, it is almost like they are talking about a history of before or a

proposal of what is coming up. host: look ahead to 2022. if republicans take the house, what do you think their platform is? what are they pushing for the most? mr. hobart: they would look down to bring -- look to bring down the cost of energy, bring down the tax burden on american families, and do things to hopefully bring prices down. what is very clear is democrats control the presidency, congress, and the senate. that is not working. the voters are unhappy. there is no doubt about that. if we have a republican check and balance to president biden's policy and the house and the senate, that will be a good thing. host: lauren baer, assuming the same thing, that the republicans take the house, how difficult does that make it for president

biden to get things done on his agenda? ms. baer: what i want to call attention to first is the idea of what republicans do if they were in power because i think we actually need to look to what they have done recently when they held power as an indication and that is not lower the tax burden on everyday americans. there was a massive tax giveaway to the wealthiest americans, those earning the most money, creating historic inequalities, making it harder for people to deal with things like inflation and tackle economic downturn. it is overseeing an economy where there were historic job losses when democrats have overseen historic job gains. i do not think we can fundamentally believe that republicans, if they gain power, will behave in a way differently than they behaved in the past. the way they behaved his massive giveaways for the most fortunate

among us while turning a blind eye to the middle class and the working class. it will certainly be significantly more challenging for president biden if he does not retain control of the house and the senate and conversely, it would be significantly easier for president biden to make good on some of his campaign promises if democrats increase their majority in the house, if they have more than a 51 vote majority in the senate. my message to voters is if you want to see good on biden's campaign promises, then we need to lean in and give democrats the majority that they actually need to get things done in congress. host: one more call. nicholas in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the first thing i would like to say to this republican is he believes in a smaller government. all republicans do is go after

american people's freedoms. they say less government but they attack unions. they go after reducing the people that vote. they want to reduce who you love, who you marry. they want to stop women from having a choice over their own body. this is what they believe in less government. under george bush, they believed less government but they created the homeland security, a new branch of government. donald trump created a space program or star wars or whatever it is. all these things they claim, but it is not true and as far as electric cars are concerned, jimmy carter put solar panels on the white house back in the 1980's. reagan took them down. we should be off of oil. we constantly have to deal with the middle east on oil and as far as infrastructure is concerned, if you want to talk about electric cars, joe biden needs to buddy up with elon musk. host: i will give jim hobart the last word on this.

mr. hobart: i would be very careful bringing up jimmy carter given that that is what the joe biden biden presidency is currently looking like. host: lauren baer? ms. baer: i think our last color actually ends on a good point because it is well served for democrats to remind americans that although republicans talk a good talk when it comes to freedom, ultimately what they try to do is restrict the freedom of americans in ways that it matters most. you need look only at the dobbs decision that will restrict the fundamental reproductive freedom of millions of american women and the supreme court indicating that they want to go after individuals right to contraception, the right to choose their own partners, the right to marry, to understand that the republican party is not the party of freedom right now. it is the party that is choosing to control particularly how

women get to choose to live and exercise their own lives in this country. there is a very stark choice in november and what it ultimately comes down to and voters will recognize that choice and vote for the party that ultimately believes in giving them the right to live their own lives with dignity and respect. host: lauren baer is a democratic strategist and jim hobart also a strategist and a partner at the public opinion strategies. thanks to both of you for joining us this morning. ahead here on "washington journal," our landmark legislation series continues with a look at the 2002 no child left behind law. the discussion with frederick hess of the american enterprise institute and carolyn heinrich. check out this clip from republican john boehner and democrat george miller on this show back in december 2001 as the house was getting ready to

consider the no child left behind act. [video clip] >> what is in this legislation? >> two things in this legislation. the money to help school districts and states try to address the problems of educating poor and minority children in this country and they are very serious rules on accountability about how you will spend that money and the results we will expect from the expenditure of that money and that is different from the way we have run the program over the last 30 years. in 1965, president johnson wanted to address the issue of the education of poor children in this country, which was the right thing to do and it is today and put a lot of money on the table but we never really got around to the second part of the equation which was the education of the children. the intent of the act was to close the gap between rich and poor children, majority and minority children and that gap has not in any significant way closed in terms of educational

achievement. it will still measure whether or not school districts and states in fact closed that gap between those two groups of children. >> how do you are doing what they should be doing and at what point does it become too much washing to control and too little local control? >> that was the delicate balance that we had to find as we moved this legislation through. the president started this in the campaign last year and his first full day in office. it is a push of requiring testing in grades three through eight and reading and math and making sure that those test scores, that information was public data for parents, community leaders, school board members and to make sure the information was just aggravated by subgroup. white students, minority students, low income students, disabled students, so

people would see what is happening in their local schools. 80% of those parents with school-age children think their kids go to great schools. they don't. for the first time we will have objective data by which to help children who need help, to help principals and teachers in terms of identifying where the problems are. is it to your curriculum? is it the teacher? is it the system they are using? this information is the most critical part of the bill because it is empowering people to take action in their communities. host: that was republican john boehner and democrat george miller of california on the show back in december 2001 as the house was getting set to take up the no child left behind act. it was president george w. bush 's first signature educational and primary signature educational policy achievement,

one that changed the federal role in public education but was ultimately roll back. here on our legislative series joining us this morning for this last hour, we are joined by carolyn heinrich who is a professor of leadership and policy at vanderbilt university's peabody college and frederick hess who is studies director at the american enterprise institute. both of you, how does this legislation, the no child left behind law fit into the category of landmark legislation? carolyn heinrich, we will start with you. ms. heinrich: it really shaped educational practice at many levels. it was a law that came out of work that was already being done in the state to try to reckon with the fact that when we looked at our students performance, we were not measuring up to our peers in other countries and there was

concern about some groups falling further behind. not only at the federal level but states had already been looking at things we could do to change the circumstances. as we know, george w. bush was president and much of what came to be part of no child left behind reflected things that were being done in texas as well as other places and it really did, for more than a decade, shaped what was happening at the local level. host: rick, as part of his platform, george w. bush ran on passing a law like this. changes happened with the law. we will get into that. tell us how it was received at the time in terms of the policy changes it made. mr. hess: it was modeled on what they did in texas.

it was a bipartisan effort over 10 or 12 years. no child left behind, think of it as the high point of this school reform coalition that took shape in the early 1980's. it really came to fruition in the clinton, bush, and obama years and has largely unraveled. no child left behind did a lot of different stuff. it is one of those big fat laws with 100 pages but it did three main things. back in the late 1960's after that initial clip of them talking about it, at the time they referenced lyndon b. johnson's great society. back in the late 1960's, robert kennedy, a senator from new york, asked the commissioner of education how will we know if this stuff is doing any good. he shrugged and said, we do not

have any way to know. the big thing that no child left behind did was it said that if states wanted their title i dollars, they had to have standards and test kids regularly from gates -- grades three to eight in reading and math and once in middle school and high school in science and report this information. this is why today we know some of the consequences that the school closures during cold had -- during covid had. it also did two other big things that were more problematic. it required states to say whether schools were making adequate yearly progress, whether they were doing ok. if they failed to make adequate yearly progress, the third thing it did was it came up with a federal string of intervention that states had to do. there was little evidence that

we knew whether any of this would actually work and it created a bunch of problems. that transparency that it created was hugely significant and still is 20 years on. host: carolyn heinrich, what do you think of the no child left behind act? where do you think it went wrong? ms. heinrich: rick made a really important point in that the test-based accountability as we describe it was a central part of the law. requiring us to test students from three to eight grade and once in high school did give us really important information on how kids were doing. another important part was to also look at how subgroups of children who we were most concerned with were being left behind, part of the name of the law, were doing relative to their peers and to ensure that we were working hard to put the

best resources in helping those students who were most behind and meet the standards being set. that is an important part that continues on into educational practice and policy today. however, and rick alluded to the fact that there were things that did not go well and he pointed out that this system created essentially specific measures for us to judge whether or not students were making adequate yearly progress. this was defined by proficiency rates. the federal government had set targets for achieving proficiency that moved each year. the other kind of complicated part of it was that states started in different places with their own benchmarking of where they were relative to the progress and how that actually turned into standards within

each state for schools and students to meet. the remedies, for example, rick mentioned that if a school for at least three years in a row failed to make adequate yearly progress, then these consequences, the federal interventions that were required, had to be implemented. there were two main things that the schools required -- that the schools were required to do. the students in the schools that were identified as not making adequate progress, those students could either choose to go to another school within the district, so they may have to be bused to another school, or they could receive supplemental educational services. those services were essentially very much like tutoring but they had to be outside of school and were required with the exception of some waivers to be provided by providers that could be

nonprofit, for-profit providers outside of the school system itself. if schools are failing students during the day, why would they do better in providing supplemental education services? schools and states were expected to manage this market for how services would be delivered and ended up being far more complicated and requiring a lot more capacity than schools and states had time or resources to invest in. there was a lot of practices that were ineffective and also for some of the biggest school districts, i was studying this in the field with some of the biggest school districts in the nation when it was happening, some of the school districts were overwhelmed each year. more and more of their schools came under these consequences and they had title i fund budgets that did not have enough to spread those resources out so people got enough -- so kids got

enough of those tutoring hours . the market would have wide-ranging providers. it was not well monitored. it was supposed to be monitored by states. states were supposed to be identifying which providers with the schools, which providers were effective and which were not but there really was not capacity or a system set up to do this. we did some of that work funded by the education sciences. it really reflected what we see often in our markets. there are some providers doing well. some are doing poorly. school districts without additional support were having a long time making the system work well for kids. host: here on "washington journal," we are doing the last of our landmark legislation series on this sunday morning. we are talking about the no child left behind act which was signed into law in 2002. our guests are carolyn heinrich, a professor at vanderbilt

university's peabody college and rick hess who is the education policies director at the american enterprise institute. we want to remind viewers the process of this law in terms of it came into effect, signed by president bush in 2002. it was approved by the house and senate in december of 2001. it is legislation that established standardized testing requirements for federally funded schools. it defined ways schools could improve the educational experience, it established mechanisms to improve low performing schools and students at low performing schools were allowed to transfer to other schools. it also establishes new standards for teachers. rick, what do you think the legacy of the nclb is? mr. hess: i think it is big.

it really is a landmark law in a couple of ways. it really launched a shift in the republican party. part of the debate is playing out today between the trump wing and the mitt romney wing of the problem -- of the party. no child left behind is a law that bill clinton wanted to pass. in 1994 clinton proposed having states test kids once an elementary, once in middle, once in high school and reading and math and he got so much blowback from the education establishment in the union, that they wound up doing something called the improving america's schools act which was voluntary money. by the time you get to 2001, you actually had huge frustration on the left in the form of ted kennedy and george miller who were saying we are not sure that

these federal dollars are actually making a difference and they really wanted washington to step up. on the right, george bush on this program of compassionate conservatism, one of the things that republicans needed to do by the end of the 1990's was reposition the party by trying to convince americans that they were sincere about opportunities and that it was not lipservice. what you have was real meetings. on the left it was ted kennedy standing up to the educational establishment and the unions. on the right, it was inviting washington into education policy. it was explicitly race-based in the way it would break down subgroups, in the way it was tracking whether or not schools were performing. it really set expectations that

washington was going to tell states you have to have standards, you have to support schools. as this played out, because the law was spasmodically designed, it is good to take a snapshot but the loss of 100% of kids will be proficient by 2014. that is like saying we will eliminate 100% of crime by 2028. it is not a serious goal. it is an aspiration. the closer you got to 2014, the more and more schools were identified as failing. by 2010 and 2011, well over half the nation's schools were labeled feeling under no child left behind. they were identified for remedies with all the problems that ensued. one of the things that happened was the moment a partisan group -- agreement gave us no child left behind, 89 votes in the

senate almost 400 votes in the house wound up giving rise to a bipartisan backlash against federal leadership of education. to the legacy of nclb, it shows the ways in which we have set a new platform for federal involvement with transparency around achievement, testing, the notion that there is a significant federal loan but also set the table for so much of the blowback we saw against common core, frustration about federal intervention in education, what became the feedback for 2015 as we scale back nclb. when we talk about education policy in america today, we are still living in a world that nclb created. host: we will talk about the follow-up legislation, the every student succeeds act. let's hear from our callers. (202) 748-8000 is the line for

east and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for mountain and specific. -- mountain and pacific. let's listen to the words of president george w. bush on the day of the signing of the legislation in january 2002 talking about transparency in education. here is what he said. [video clip] >> we want to make sure no child left behind. every child must learn to read and add and subtract. [applause] in return for federal dollars, we are asking states to design accountability systems to show parents and teachers whether or not children can read and write and add and subtract in grades three through eight. the fundamental principle of

this bill is that every child can learn, we expect every child to learn, and you must show us whether or not every child is learning. [applause] host: carolyn heinrich, how did states do in responding to the president's call in return for federal dollars, you have to do all of these things? ms. heinrich: states did take on the responsibilities for determining how it would be implemented, determining what the standards within states would be, how were they going to help schools move toward the proficiency standards that were set at the federal level. as rick mentioned, there were impossible standards where everyone was supposed to be proficient by 2014.

research points to the fact that there was additional state and local spending by the law and there were more investments in trying to retain quality teachers. there was the whole investment in the infrastructure needed for the systematic testing of students. it has also been well-documented that in some respects it was interpreted as an underfunded mandate. the money that had to be used for implementation came from title i. title i money might be taken for other purposes. as rick mentioned, as more schools come as the standards ratcheted up, became subject to the consequences of the interventions. it became unsustainable. that is when we saw school districts requesting waivers from the provisions as more and

more schools came under the responsibility for providing supplemental services or transfers. it was not working. the other thing that is well-documented is that this is something that is not specific to education, but when you set a target, people do everything possible to reach it regardless of whether it is bringing about the kind of change we want. something that is called hitting the target but missing the point. this starts to happen under the test-based accountability system. we saw systematic cheating to achieve standards. we saw perversions in the provision of interventions. i was in texas for part of the time and working with the legislature because they were provided with services that were going around signing up parents to give their students these services and never delivering the services and there were not provisions to hold those providers accountable. they were not actually -- there

weren't any resources to fully monitor this expansive market. there were a number of ways in which it started to unravel and it was not doing what we had hoped it would do. it is also important to point out, test-based accountability has been somewhat controversial as rick pointed out. part of it relates to how we use that information. when students are being tested in two particular subjects, math and reading, which we were held accountable, schools were held accountable under no child left behind, they start to do every thing they can to make sure they are achieving those harder to reach standards. that is where people feel like it is out of their control to reach it, that is when we see that breakdown. host: 13 years after the law -- after the bill was signed into

law, the every student succeeds act was passed. we will talk about that and i want to talk about what the education scene was like and the politics behind that. we have calls for our guests on the no child left behind act, the law that was signed into law in 2002. it is part of our landmark legislative series. we will go to anthony in detroit, michigan. good morning. >> good morning. it seemed like it was way too many standardized tests. they did extracurriculars and tried to push this science, technology, and math. for english, they tried to teach everyone how to write a five paragraph essay. not everything you write will be a five paragraph essay. i understand they were trying to

establish measurable objectives for achievement but we had limited english proficiency. our president, i do not know how he could improve english proficiency for students. host: rick, would you like to respond? mr. hess: it is a great point. when you set targets in complex areas, you tend to distort behavior. if utility school district -- if you tell a school district that you will be judged on whether you are making adequate progress are not, we saw school districts shifting time away from other activities, away from physics, the arts, and giving kids more reading and more math. today, we still see this play out. because the focus was on getting kids to proficiency, you saw

them shifting away from the focus on gifted programs or advanced instruction and moving into making sure they are getting kids over the bar. one big problem when the x-ray that we talked about with nclb -- i think it was important and essential. it sounds like caroline is saying something similar. but when you lifted up, you create real problems. part of the distressed that you see in the public -- part of the distrust that you see in the public is what the color identifies -- what the caller identifies. no child left behind on the required kids take one test per year in the spring. -- only required kids to take one test per year in the spring. whether your school will be identified as a good school or

school, schools really ramped up all the other testing to make sure that kids were ready for that test, to identify which kids were not over the bar yet. what happened and we saw this by 2013, 2014, even the obama white house was sharing data from the council of city school districts pointing out the extraordinary amount of testing that had grown up around what was supposed to be a once per year assessment. host: let's go to carl in virginia. good morning. caller: hello. i was born in 1998. i graduated in 2017. this was my life in pennsylvania. you make a great point. i did not know it was supposed to be one test because when it came to the npa, they were developed and written by pearson . then we had the keystones given

to us in high school. it is this runaway testing. we felt like there was a revolutionary year. what are we going to have this year? what tests will we have to take this year? it really got crazy. you made a good point about gifted education. i was gifted. i went through that program. that fizzled out in high school. from a student perspective, this was an incredibly confusing, stressful because we knew we would have to take all these tests and they took a while. my question is, because i have been out of the system for five years, where does it stand today? our students taking as many tests or have they abated whether through purpose for because they do not have the money? host: great question. ms. heinrich: you are pointing out this focus on benchmark testing.

you needed to get over the bar to be proficient. you may have been subjected to even more testing than your peers. i mentioned i was in texas. there has been some pulling back on the excessive additional testing. at the time my kids were in high school and they had 14 to 15 different tests they take each year in addition to that and the benchmark testing. there was legislation that happened that rick perry signed to ratchet that back down to five tests. at the time of no child left behind, there was some pulling back of the extensive testing. part of the reason it has been necessary to do so is teachers also. right now we are looking at a serious teacher shortage and teachers were also posing back -- pushing back. this was affecting what would be taught in the classroom, how

much time would be spent inmy se of teaching them how -- if they didn't know the answer, what would be the best approach of guessing that answer on the standardized test. that's not really how they want to spend their time practicing. host: those kind of stories, those set the scene for the repeal of some of nclb? >> i think that's exactly right. some of the viewers may recall huge fights around the common courts. the common core was actually the stepchild of no child left behind. what no child left behind is it said we are knocking to tell you what standards to adopt, we are knocking to tell you what tests,

you just have to have standards. so if you are a governor, there was a big incentive to choose easier standards and to set a low bar and kick the can because you didn't have to be at 100% of 2014. what happened was you saw a lot of states opted for the politically more attractive course setting the bar where they could say kids are doing well. there were skepticism among folks like ted kennedy who said this was not what we attend -- intended. the push for the common core was the idea the states should adopt the same standards in reading and math and then that way schools will be on 11 playing field. once you get there the whole genius of the no child left behind design was every state was allowed to go its own way. once you get into common core you have to choose what's the right waited to this, what's

cannot go and those recommended. this all blew up into a national fight. folks on the left who are worried about too much testing and being too intrusive with teachers. on the right you had people lashing out, big foundations and politicians and d.c. trying to dictate to their schools and interfere, so that really let a firestorm of pushback against testing and standards and that's what gave rise to the push. host: the act in 2015 made annual standardized testing -- continued it -- continued annualized standardized testing. under that law, it required an indicator of accountability.

english proficiency, high school graduation rates and a choice of the state to set new standards for students with disabilities. let's hear from albany, georgia who is a teacher and trainer. caller: good morning. this is such a timely topic especially because another couple of weeks begins the new school year for teachers and students. the impact of courses the reckoning we are having right now of the 2002 law no child left behind. as you stated, president obama came in and then created the emphasis of trying to i think bridge the gap of a movement to try and abate to the decline in proficiencies.

i think the larger point for this is a society for right now having 30% to 40% of teachers first to five year teachers who are knocking to be coming back. we are in a bind with regard to teacher education and retainment of teachers. and in do part due to the fact i think we have lost the value and the foundational construct of this is a profession. most of our teachers right now are paid 39,000 for entry-level positions who must be board certified and have a masters. they are not able to come to the classroom with just ba degrees. that's not the profession we have. we have a highly educated profession. talking about the charger and choice, that really was part of

this no child left behind. we are really talking about an ideology whereby we were using the word reform and standards and common core that actually was about changing the public schools fundamental investment. where those funds were initially , you cannot sustain taking money from title i programs but to get to the larger point, we are right now facing a situation where in 1991, i think it was minnesota the became the first state that legalized the so-called reform which was the word charter school that came about the l.a. board, the largest second district in the nation. host: what is your question for our guests? caller: how do you see that the

new construct where parents now most of our children, a 90 percent of children are in the public school system, we have 6% to 10% in something that's charter or voucher or opportunity scholarship and these things still do not create the closure that we are talking about. host: if you would like to respond. ms. heinrich: there was a lot in there. many points made about where we are today and i think one thing i heard come through in multiple ways is the concern about resources for really serving our public school students well. in tennessee we are having a pretty big debate about the governor's plan to push more charter schools and having

vouchers. it is a complicated debate, but the big concern is whether or not in the way that it's implemented does that take resources away from the public schools where you pointed out 90% of kids are educated. that's the big fear. so one thing, every since that try to broaden how we thought about accountability, taking the focus off of reading and math test scores. we are still in a situation where, and i've worked with a number of the school district where the school district relies heavily on this title i funds to serve their students. and i see school district working very hard to do the very best for their students be continuously constrained. we might work with them and

identify them as effective and want to keep implementing them but find they are short in their budget and cannot continue the program. the one thing i heard is we don't have adequate resources. we are not paying teachers well enough to commit to a profession where they feel all these pressures and the pressures increased tremendously with the pandemic and all the challenges we faced about students, more students having fallen behind in their education. i don't know if i exactly got to what your question was but that's one of things i hear. without more resources for implementing effectively reforms of various types or ensuring public schools have adequate resources to serve many students who have greater needs now, we are not going to achieve or would like to achieve. host: it's our landmark legislation series here on washington journal.

we are focusing on the no child left behind law signed into law in 2002. caller: good morning. in the teaching field we referred to this program. as already mentioned with the increase in testing, the sad part is it wasn't used as a learning tool or opportunity, instead it was used as a punishment. teacher salary depended on the tests, schools were graded on the test. so teachers taught to the test. the irony is the thinking that was begin to emerge at the time was student directed learning with teacher guidance and not teaching by fear. the testing was beneficial, financially beneficial. two more observations, the program was supposed to increase

science teacher salaries, it did not. it also promoted bringing in foreign teachers to supplement the teaching population in the united states. what the standards changes that occurred every year by the florida republican legislature gave me a summer job every summer rewriting curriculum for the school district. thanks for listening. mr. hess: it's really interesting. the listener has some good points. tinkering with curricula always happens. before there was ever no child left behind, my first book was called spinning wheels because there's is endless churn around the school reform curriculum. some of what the viewer just shared was absolutely deeply believed by a lot of people in

education. there was nothing in no child left behind that messed with teacher salary. it tested kids, those results were used to identify schools and school systems. if you didn't make ayp, there was a cascade of remedies after the fifth identification your school was supposed to be restructured. when you talk with the people at the time, one of them was changing the principal of the school. the easiest trick they used was if you assigned the school and in number in the data system it counted as a reset. because they were so overwhelmed after certain point by the number of schools that were identified as failing, the

department of education couldn't handle anymore. the teacher pay was not affected directly. districts adopted some kind of bonus related test scores, but there was nothing in the law that did this. there was nothing in the law that paid science teachers differently than others, there was nothing about hiring. but if you go back and you read from the american federation of teachers of the time, you will see some of the stuff got shared. one of the complications that mark to this, nclb did some things that are good and valuable, a window into how kids were doing. back in the late 80's, a west virginia psychologist noted that every state in the nation

reported their average student was above average nationally. because they were using these tests that tended -- there were a lot of problems involved. but when we tried to debate what was working and what wasn't working among teachers, among parents, among folks out there, there was an interesting mix of confusion and fake news and the rest of it that it became fairly difficult. sometimes they would get so frustrated that stuff there were responding to was inaccurate that it was really hard to have debates. people retreated to their corners. if you were against it you thought it was a conspiracy to make the bush family rich.

and you still see a lot of that same divide very evident in education debate. host: did the whole focus on the stem curriculum, out of nclb? mr. hess: it didn't. it's interesting the viewer has mentioned student centered learning, going back forever. there's been a debate about how directed should be and you see the same thing with stem going back. and the national defense education act of 58. science, technology engineering and math program. it's understood it's important for the national interest. so we have engineers and students who are accomplished in math. again the viewer is fair to

point out there been several efforts to promote stem learning. but that was not in any way significant part in particular. host: let's go to paul in new york city. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: just make sure you mute your volume. go ahead with your comment. caller: here's my question. we spend more in the u.s. than most countries per student, the results is that we do very poorly. in new york, eric adams and his school chancellor of called out a massive increase for students

in new york city entrusted for a flechette -- inflation. the results are very poor. when we talk about stem, it provides better opportunities. which is the whole purpose of education is supposed to be. it's was to give people better lives. it's not supposed to be a steppingstone to go to college at all bunch of trouble so you can get a college degree and work as a paris step. i guess my question is what do you think the answer is. why are we spending so much more. i heard when your speakers say there is an issue with resources. in many northeastern districts, their spending can be quite high and the results can be quite poor. what is going on. it'll most like health care

where we spend more per capita and get less. it seems to be a trend in this country. ms. heinrich: it is a complicated question because as we know, just having a certain number of dollars per student isn't going to necessarily -- depending on how that spend. there's research showing spending on infrastructure which is what many people think about building schools more up to date technology, resources, adding on infrastructure spending isn't well correlated with -- in terms of student achievement. my experience with some districts where there constantly short of what they need to do. for example pension commission mints -- commitments made. anything of the actual cost of the teacher, it's not just the salary, if the benefits.

those are eating up more and more school budget each year. in particular on things we think would increase student learning or like we said, if there are places where teacher salaries are still pretty low, how can we keep the great science teacher, the high school science teacher from going to the private sector because he can make so much more money there. it's a complicated question. research is not overwhelmingly consistent on whether or not school spending leads to proven student achievement. i don't have the specific answer for what's happening in new york, but i do know these days we are asking schools to bring

students to teach them. we have a range of services we are providing that they don't necessarily get in their communities. we have all kinds of things we are dealing with to help students learn, breakfast programs, lunch programs. afterschool programming. i would say that might be part of the explanation for why even if we still find her so short, really from district to district many more of those types of extra services host: next up is mike in ohio. caller: i think we did not mention on the teacher side how -- absolutely destroyed teachers. the scores were attached to teacher evaluation. so if you're a teacher and did not meet a certain standard now

you are a poor teacher. and after so many years they would fire you. i've seen teachers absolutely destroyed by test scores and they gave it their all. you cannot make students learn, you cannot legislate learning and it was a mass exit is of teachers. from the teacher's point of view and as far as charter schools are concerned, a lot of people believe students go to a charter school it will fix everything. the charter school mirrors the local school. if the local school is a certain standard and they are not performing, a nine times out of 10 the charter school will reflect that. host: we have more charter schools in the country here 20 years past the signing of no child left behind? mr. hess: the previous caller

mentioned minnesota past the first charter law in 91. usually in the country, the local school board runs that. what a charter said was the state legislature passed a law saying other people would be able to open. in some states giving the authority to universities, others to a particular charter board. we have 7000 charter schools today serving about 3 million kids. it is fascinating. the interesting thing, was a no child left behind? we talk to the beginning of the show about this era of -- that

emerged from the clinton years to the bush and obama years. in 2009 as part of the recovery and reinvestment, there was a program called race to the top that congress enacted. it gave about $5 billion for two programs. the race to the top rewarded states were doing things including teacher evaluations. so what happened was the tests that had been created in response to no child left behind , you could use those scores for teachers to look at how much of again these teachers kids had relative to other teachers. the obama administration did was then through those waivers was push states to adopt programs in which teachers were rated in

part on the test scores. and as the caller mentioned there's all kinds of issues that can arise when teachers start getting graded narrowly. there was a very complicated debate, but in the teaching ranks it very much felt like this was being done as an attack on teachers. when you talk to the people who were most excited about it, they sought is a chance to more objectively and fairly evaluate. all of the stuff we are talking about was really what contributed. host: let's hear from rachel in washington state, good morning. caller: this may seem like a detour, but ultimately it's all connected. what do you think of what bernie sanders had to say about college for all and canceling student

debt. those parents are the ones taking care of those kids. those parents in order to be able to afford to live somewhere decent and have their kids in a decent school, they have to have a profession, they have to do some and besides working at the store. host: either of you want to respond to that. i'll move onto the next call part we will go to judy in winston-salem, north carolina. caller: good morning. i have a comment more so than a question. it's in reference to the george bush junior slogan about education and no child left behind law. that was setting people up for failure and now we are dealing

with those students. this came in, it filtered into obama after he left george bush and after that time. i think he has two children, himself, one college -- one may have finished by now. one of the toys active middle schools there. leave no child behind. my question and concern and i was listening to this. that was a good message -- method of leave no child behind for what we call leadership in education.

i worked in guilford county there in north carolina, now i'm traveling. students leave no child behind failure, you say why is it doing that. children learn on the same level. i was working with high school students, some were 18 years old in 10th, 11th and 12th grade and they could not read, they could not do math. swim looking kindergarten through middle school. host: thank you for the fall think you for the call. you really start to notice there were issues with the law that needed to be worked out. ms. heinrich: it did take a few years. states had to figure out they were going to establish their minimum standard in relation to

proficiency requirement. it did not take long. a couple years into it, you had to have under the law the system in place and before the consequences started coming and there had to be three years we were school did not make adequate yearly progress, so i would say as we look around 2006 and 2007, that's where we see more and more schools start, that's where the crisis is really hitting where there were some of the students not making those -- not making adequate progress under those challenging standards and that's also where we talked about already where again school systems within them.

we heard from callers talking about how they repeatedly tested. in this last point that was made , were we doing better in not leaving some children behind, we are not measuring where students were but the results and some of the research where the focus really ended up being windows students were close, getting them over the bar and less attention to kids who were really far behind and was also mentioned the kids who were well over the bar. we recognize that i think that's where it became -- many more children became affected did host: -- affected. host: an opinion piece, of the movement and homework is wrong, the debates over education obviously continue. let me give you less than a minute or so to wrap this up on where you would like to see federal education policy go next.

mr. hess: i think washington has an important role. we have 50 states, if every state is doing different tests and there's no framework for comparability, it's hard for voters or parents to really hold their leaders in their states accountable. the kind of framework no child left behind created around regular assessment and regular subjects made a ton of sense. i thought it did terrific job of keeping parts of that, the testing framework when walking away from this effort from washington to dictate school improvements for the school districts for 100,000 schools. i think there's an enormous federal role for investing in the kind of research that was alluded to.

it doesn't make sense to do the exact same state-by-state. i also think there's a role in protecting civil rights. what i think washington is not at its best and often gets in the way is when it starts trying for states and school leaders about the right way to improve. at the that depend so much on contact that it's just a normal sleep difficult for federal bureaucracy. ms. heinrich: i agree with all of what rick just said that i would add the importance of the regular assessment, this is mentioned buyer viewer, let's look at how we constructively use that information. when it's used to label schools, it's not really effective. it really does set up for

polarizing groups who all i think all agree that we care about whether students are learning. we now have more responsibility at the state level for the implementation. we have that with the information we are getting, understanding working and how we can move towards the goal we share and to learn more and succeed. host: landmark legislation, talking about it with carolyn heinrich, professor at vanderbilt peabody college and rick hass -- hess. thank you so much. that will do it for this morning's washington journal. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 and we hope you are as well. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> c-span1's washington journal. every day we take your calls live on the air and discuss policy issues that impact you. monday morning we look at the future of the republican policy -- party and ron desantis is thriving bro -- rising profile in the gdp. then, kevin jennings on legislative efforts to protect same-sex marriage and his group's other priorities when it comes to protecting the rights of members of the lgbtq plus

community. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern monday mornings on c-span or c-span it now, our free mobile app. join the conversation with phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. >> here is what is coming up. next, a hearing on the rise of fentanyl overdose deaths. then, a hearing debating grants for the u.s. computer chip industry and you -- representatives from the u.s. justice department testify on national security threats. the world's first general-purpose electronic computer was a top-secret u.s. army project during world war ii. it weighed 30 tons and took up 1800 square feet. tonight on q&a, kathy kleinman,

an american government expert talked about the six american women who programmed it and her efforts to get the work known to the larger public. >> john blockly was the visionary and worked to build it. but who were the women and what were they doing in the pictures? i wanted to know. if they did something technical, i wanted role models at that point. i took the photos to my professor. he sent me to the cofounder of the computer history museum. she told me they were models. but they were not in the captions because they were just posed. i did not think that was right and i went looking for the people in the pictures and i found them. they were not models. all six of the original programmers were young women hired by the army during world war ii. >> kathy kleiman and her book

proving ground tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span skewing day. listen to q&a and all our broadcast -- podcasts. >> kevin mccarthy gave the keynote address at the 2022 gala hosted by the south carolina gop in the state capital, columbia. watch the minority leaders remarks tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities victim small. charter is connecting us.