♪ host: good morning on this thursday, january 19th. today the country is expected to reach its debt limit, which

currently stands at $31.4 trillion. reuters headlines say the looming fight on capitol hill for raising the debt fight is the debt limit, starting to worry investors. cnn reports that every american can feel the pain of washington's next showdown. republicans want to put conditions on raising the debt ceiling and this morning we want to know if you agree or disagree with that. republicans -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, dial in at (202) 748-8002. you can also join us by texting at (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city, and stayed in that text. or go to facebook.com/c-span. you can also send a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. good morning. before we get to your thoughts on this, joining us is john help

morass, senior writer with "the wall street journal." how is it that we have a debt limit and why did we reach it? guest: the united states, the federal government has had a statutory debt limit that's written into the law by how much it may borrow. for more than 50 years, really. the debt limit has been increased 77 times since around 1960. the idea is that congress puts restraint on how much the government borrows and what happens routinely is the government commits to spend more than it is capable of raising and revenue and it keeps raising the debt limit. occasionally we have these

showdowns where lawmakers and the federal branch have a fight about whether to raise the debt limit and whether to impose some new restraints on spending to slow the growth of debt. that's what's happening right now. host: one lead sentence of a news story this morning is that the u.s. has been in debt and has been arguing about it for its entire existence. we have been here before. guest: we have been here before and i think that might actually be a source of complacency. in fact i think it was a source of complacency last year. the treasury secretary, janet yellen, has been very worried about another one of these showdowns over the debt limit. because it routinely gets raised, there's an expectation on wall street and in expectation in washington that this would get out with at some

point down the road. well, now republicans are in charge of the house. they want to have a debate, an argument, a fight, whatever you want to call it over whether there should be restraint on spending. the debt limit has been reached. the treasury is now taking unusual measures that it occasionally takes to keep funding itself. i should say that what is at stake here is the government routinely spends more than it can and revenue, running large budget deficits. needs to borrow to keep running itself. kind of like if you take a lot of vacations and you spend more money than you bring in in income, you run up the credit card debt. that's what the federal

government does. if it doesn't keep the debt rising, then it stops spending that it has been committed to. it potentially stops paying interest on the debt. which is a huge risk for wall street. it stops paying the faa employees. and a whole range of government payments and responsibilities are at stake. host: when cnn writes a headline that every american could feel the pain of washington's next showdown, how is it that the average american feels the pain? guest: i just gave a few examples. an obvious one is social security. i should say again that every penny that the government spends is at stake because it spends more money than it brings in and revenue. we run large budget deficits. if they don't agree to continue

borrowing, there is going to have to be some stopped, some slowdown in the spending. might be social security, might be interest on the debt. might be payments to the military. it's a very difficult question for treasury to manage. there is an idea in some quarters that treasury can prioritize payments. say that they are going to pay people a social security check, pay bondholders the interest on the debt but not other things. it's trillions of dollars. it's very hard to choose to pick and choose what comes out and what doesn't. the path is in or mess. really what's at stake is it's a question of is this done in a manageable way, in an orderly way, restraint on spending. or is it done in a sudden and catastrophic way. if it's resolved does it become

a sudden catastrophic stoppage of spending as opposed to doing it in some kind of orderly way. host: how does it get raised? guest: well congress has to agree to do it. this gets the goat of democrats. with republicans in the white house, the debt ceiling has been routinely raised. democrats have cooperated. when democrats are in the white house, republicans have often put up a fight over raising the debt limit. there were routine fights during the obama years about doing it. i think the democrats take it somewhat personally because they feel that republicans increase spending just as aggressively as the democrats do in the democrats cooperate on raising the debt ceiling. but when it comes time for them to be in the white house, the

rules of the game so to speak change. i should say it's a very gate -- dangerous jame -- dangerous game of chicken being played by both sides. the white house wanting to bludgeon republicans and label them as being irresponsible over this and republicans want to have a real discussion about spending restraint. the irony is that republicans have not restrained spending when they have been in power but there is a real discussion to be had in washington about the limits of how much the government is prepared to spend on an annual basis. host: what conditions do republicans want to put in place? guest: this is a tricky question. the vast majority of money the government spends is on programs that are popular and/or necessary. social security. medicare. it affects millions of elderly

americans. military spending. and interest on the debt. those categories, those four categories cover more than the majority of government spending. republicans tend to want to talk about discretionary spending, putting limits on discretionary spending. but that really isn't going to have a big effect on deficits. it's those big categories that i just mentioned that have the big effects on long-run spending and deficits. people don't want to cut that. they don't want to touch that. a lot of americans feel like they paid their payroll taxes all these years and they want to keep eating the social security check. it comes down to whether this is done in an orderly way or a disorderly way. there are solutions that can be put in place over 50, 60, 7500 year timeframe.

it all gets politicized in washington and it becomes very difficult to have an orderly, civilized debate. right now we are heading a fear for one of those games of chicken where both sides are pointing fingers at each other and it becomes a dangerous game for wall street. the reason wall street in particular gets worried about this is the entire financial system has at its bedrock u.s. treasury securities. trillions of dollars that banks and foreign governments hold as investments. if the government stops paying interest on the debt, that's a default. it's like you not paying your mortgage. it causes all kinds of disruption. wall street has had its eyes

closed, eyes are opening, you will see changes as a result of it. host: in the meantime, what is the treasury department doing and how much time is left on the clock? guest: they have got a few months and it has become a part of washington ritual dramas. they call it an extraordinary measure. it's been done so often over the years. they use funds that are built into federal government pension programs to fund themselves rather than borrowing through the treasury market. they use the funds and cover the spending with that. what happens is after the debt ceiling is raised a few months down the road, they pay back the pension programs.

well you know, those programs and other short-term measures it's like in your household if you have a little bit of money tucked away in an envelope for emergencies, you might have it and then if you can start borrowing again you put the money back in an envelope. it's only going to run a few months and it's not a long-term solution. host: to follow all of the reporting on this by john hilton ross, you can go to wsj.com. appreciate you. guest: thank you so much. host: harold, king street, thanks for hanging on the line. what do you think it, should there be conditions for raising the debt ceiling? caller: i don't think it should be raised. host: why? you just heard what could happen.

caller: we might as well have the problems that come with it now because down the road it's just going to be harder. host: what about, that could trigger an economic crash in this country. you think it is worth that? >> it's worth whatever it takes. i heard the taxes bring in about 13 trillion per year. anything above that is a deficit. i'm not in favor of raising the limit. host: all right. here is justin on twitter. they have got to quit spending money we don't have. david, independent line. what do you say? caller: how you doing?

host: morning. caller: great. every time the debt ceiling is held hostage in this comes around, why do we all need to bring up social security and medicaid. things that don't even mean anything. stopping corporations from paying anything. rocket ships to the moon. it's always attacking the little bottom feeders when it comes to trying to balance everything. if we could not spend money on the military in just one year, we wouldn't fall far behind if we did that and give it back to social security when they put money out back when reagan was put in charge, we could get all of that money back into our coffers and bounce it back up again. host: so what about this looming

fight? those are long-term actions. what do you do right now? caller: that's not ever going to change. it's a ploy to keep fear going. to make the people afraid. it's only the gop that does this. i don't really care about any one side or the other, but they only want to give rich people money in this country. i don't understand that. we all have to live here. host: all right. this from pennsylvania, i applaud republican attempts to rein in spending and debts but many of these newly converted budgeteers voted for the giveaway programs. if we could tax hypocrisy, we woulbe flush now. ed, philadelphia, let's go to you. good morning. caller:hank you for taking my call. host: you bet. caller: i'm extremely

disappointed to see someone tweeting under a paper like the wall street l just come on and say such completense. i understand it's a hot button sue for people. stuff from the media, not y'all but people in general. however the idea that you're going to put the toothpaste back in the tube with the current majority, slim as it may be in the house, is absurd. the idea that you will selectively make payments to social security recipients, it's blood boiling. people have real needs. there are real things going on right now and we need to stop playing. that's as simple as i can put it. host: let's listen to kevin

mccarthy of california about what republicans want. [video clip] >> i don't see, when you talk about past behavior with a clean debt ceiling, does that mean we wouldn't even do an omni budget? it's off the table. we've got to change. i don't know if you have any children, but if you had a child and gave them a credit card and they kept raising it and hit the limit, you raised it again to a clean increase again and again, would you just keep doing that or would you change behavior? six months away, why not six -- sit down to change the behavior? we could put ourselves on a fiscally strong position. we would make the future generation make our nation stronger and make the economic stronger for this country. i think that is why we should sit down and i would welcome,

it's the first conversation i had with the president and the speaker on things i want to sit down and talk with them about. put the nation under threat with the debt ceiling? no one wants to do that. that's why we are asking about changing behavior now. sit down. he's the president, we are the majority in the house, democrats are the majority in the senate. exactly the way the founders designed congress to work. find the compromise, find the commonsense compromise that puts us back onto a balanced budget that i believe every household, every state does this. every city, every county. why would the democrats sit back and say just raise it? no one else does that. host: he says he wants talks to start now with democrats over raising the debt ceiling. the treasury secretary will take what they call extraordinary

measures when the debt ceiling is reached. that's expected today. giving congress time to act. republicans are saying let's start talking now. listen to what the white house is saying about negotiation. [video clip] >> the debt ceiling has happened three times. just looking at the last administration in a bipartisan way, it's something that should happen and be done without condition. they should not be negotiating around it. it is the, it is the duty, the basic duty of congress to get that done. so we are not going to, we are not going to negotiate about that. again, under the last president it's been three times, again in a bipartisan way. there is no alternative to congress and their responsibility here to address the debt ceiling. treasury makes millions and payments each day.

they are supposed to pay the bills of this country on time. there is a reason that treasury secretary's from both parties if you think about it, and if you remember, rejected this risky and dangerous idea that had never been tried before. it's essential for congress to recognize that dealing with their debt ceiling is a constitutional responsibility. they should be happening without condition. host: former president trump is urging republicans to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to play tough. saying that some want to use it to force spending cuts on the conditn r raising the debt ceiling. do you agree or disagree with that? mary, cherry hill, let's hear from you.

caller: absolutely they should raise the debt ceiling. it's about paying for money already appropriated. parties voted for the money needed to be spent and we should raise the debt limit that we can pay for it. host: stephen and michigan says they need to raise it to take in more than we spend. janice, michigan. democratic line. caller: congress, stop borrowing money. get out of ukraine. make the wealthy people and corporations pay their taxes. become social capitalistic and

be as the constitution says. have a government of, by, and for the people here. don't have children you can't support. vasectomy rather than abortion. i like bernie sanders but socialism is not communism. that's all i have to say. host: ed, ocean city, independent. caller: yes the main cause of our financial problems is the bloat of the pentagon budget. costa rica and 20 other nations have done away with their military completely and their financial situation is much better. there is no greater supporter of the arts and humanities than im but we don't need the national endowment for the arts and humanities because they have a lot of private donors. we don't need 435 members of the u.s. house. cut it in half.

we just need one senator from each state. host: you are saying yes let's have negotiations and put the conditions you just laid out onto raising the debt ceiling? caller: yes to negotiations but massive cuts in federal spending. host: all right. jim, missouri. democratic caller. jim, you said yes to conditions. where would you cut? caller: well conditions? yes. repeal the trump tax cuts and the bush tax cuts and the reagan tax cuts. we don't look at that as spending but it is. we are giving money away before we even see it. doing away with the military spending. the military got more than they asked for. what's up with that?

republicans give the rich a tax cut. if we are worried about our children and grandchildren paying our debts, why not bring in enough revenue to where we can start paying our debt now? thank you. host: mike in orlando said republicans have no problem with raising the debt ceiling under trump, calling it the right thing to do, adding 2 trillion to the debt every year. calling it more republican hypocrisy. another viewer on twitter saying let's cut the bloated military budget in the pork going to the wealthiest by 50% first. only after that begin talking about social security. bernie, columbus, ohio, democratic caller.

caller: we could do a lot by taxing those people who have the money and tax equally everybody else. moran buffett called at 15%. here i am in columbus, ohio paying 20%. we need to tax the rich. tax the rich corporations. tax those who are not paying their fair share this is, this is a, it should have been done years and years ago. host: we got your point. pamela -- pamela, bloomington, indiana. caller: i love some of the

comments here. i cannot believe the republicans would risk the world economy with this gamesmanship. that's all it is. to always vote for when a republican is in the white house and then say only when a democrat is in the white house do we have a concern, that's idiotic. that's spending for the irs, as all the callers said. i worked for the irs under ronald reagan. the cheating then before the computer technology, we need to invest in that. they are absolutely right to repeal these tax breaks that have only been for the rich. spending, we need more spending. the need is great. what are you going to give up. the faa, ready to go to the airport and have no air traffic controller?

this is why your vote matters and why the republicans cannot be trusted. it's all about gamesmanship and not about doing the work that needs to be done to keep this country running. thank you for all the great comments and thanks for this comment today. host: nathan, independent, michigan. caller: yes, good morning there. i just want to get something straight. democrats and republicans overspend. no if's, anne's, or but's about it. i think they should hold this up. why not find out where the billions of dollars went for covid that is just sitting around? why not put that back into the economy? why not get rid of this fat and spending on nonsense? shrimp running on treadmills. all i see is vitriol from people. democrats and republicans, democrats do this, republicans

do that. why not work together and fix it for the americans. that's who's suffering. they are all rich. who cares about them, right? host: more of your calls coming up here. in this morning the museum -- new zealand prime minister made an unexpected resignation announcement. here's a little bit from her remarks. >> i will not be seeking reelection. my time is prime minister bettel conclude no later than february. this has been the most fulfilling five-and-a-half years of my life. but it has also had its challenges. i'm not leaving because it was hard. had that been the case, i would have given it up two months in.

i am leaving because with such a privileged role comes responsibility. responsibility to know when you are the right citizen to lead. i know what this job takes. i know i no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. i believe and i know that there are others around me who do. host: the new zealand prime minister was the youngest female head of government when she was elected prime minister in 2017 at the age of 37. dealing with a series of disasters, including a terrorist attack in christchurch and the volcanic eruption there. should there be conditions the debt stands right now --

conditions for raising the debt ceiling? republicans are saying that we should not -- we should not just haven't on raising the debt limit. peggy in washington state, democratic caller, what do you say? caller: i just want to say that there was an article intro public cut in 2021 that said that trump promised to reduce the national debt and his tax cuts made it surge. add in the pandemic and he oversaw the third largest deficit increase of any president. "the wall street journal" said the federal budget deficit hunter biden fell to 1.4 trillion for fiscal year 2022. the largest one-year drop in history. so yes, we need to do what we have to do.

thank you. host: independent line, let's hear from you. caller: this is the height of hypocrisy. ronald reagan tripled the national debt. war criminal george w. bush added enormous amounts to the debt with his illegal war. and then trump added like a trillion dollars to the national debt. every time the democrats get in the white house, republicans scream about the national debt and they run it up enormous amount when they are in power. also with the social security, they could raise the cap. i think it's 150,000. these multimillionaires and billionaires, after $150,000, they don't pay into social 30. that would be a solution to that problem. host: listen to republican senator, john kennedy from

louisiana. he expressed concern with what he's hearing from his colleagues on the others out of the aisle, the house republicans. [video clip] >> congress had a spending party. more specifically, the house democrats, not the house republicans. the senate democrats and a lot of senate republicans had a spending party. i didn't vote to do it. i would have been happy with a couple of beers after work and they wanted to have a spending party. at not just democrats, they passed with a lot of republican support. the so-called infrastructure bill. the chips big tech bailout bill. even the gun-control bill that passed with republican support costs $15 billion. that's the unvarnished truth.

are the house republicans correct? absolutely. they've been consistent. their principle is that when you run out of money you don't get to spend anymore. i agree with them. i agreed with them in the senate. here's what i feel will happen, republicans in the house will pass a bill raising the debt ceiling with cuts to spending. i'll support it. but when they send it to president biden and senator schumer, those two gentlemen won't even pause their videogames to look at it. they will say no, we will not negotiate. default if you want to. i'm working on a bill. i don't know if it senator schumer will bring it to the floor. don't even know if mcconnell will support it. to try to force the parties to negotiate. i don't know if it will work.

i don't know anything else to do at this point. i know this, i am not going to vote to default on the debt of the united states of america. even though i didn't run it up. i'm not going to do it. i have a fiduciary obligation. host: from foxnews, senator john kennedy. back to all of you, what do you think congress should do here? raise the debt ceiling condition or a clean vote? andrea, maine, democratic caller. caller: yes, i can't help but comment on the fact that we have got an argument against spending but we have with the republicans also an argument against collecting taxes that have been owed for many years. hundreds of billions or probably more in taxes that my brother

formerly with the irs knew about for many years. if they fight collecting what is due the american people, maybe that should be a part of whatever the negotiation is. r. host: dave, independent line, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the debt ceiling holds, the whole prospect of a debt ceiling is idiotic for probably exactly what congress needs. it shoots them in the eye. i think that what we should do is gold cross -- go across all ranches of government, everybody has to cut 10%. -- branches of government. everybody has to cut 10%. cut across the board everything. defense. social security. different departments.

political people are always spending money, throwing money at everything. as the solution to the problem. why can't somebody stand up and start cutting and help our grandchildren? for the prime minister of australia to have given up her position because she didn't feel capable of doing it anymore, maybe our congress should learn from that. to be more interested in serving the people honorably rather than looking out for their own donors. thank you. host: camp hill, pennsylvania. democratic caller. caller: yes, ma'am. i think we should think outside the boxes. how about a national lottery with revenue coming in from a national lottery? have taxes on the american companies that

abandoned the country and went to china for cheap labor? why not take money for them -- from them as far as taxation? remember during world war ii, we had scrap drives, things like that. take aluminum cans, get the kids out there. have special bank accounts set up across the country. all the money they can take, put it in that. if we want to cut, also, let's cut military spending. we are spending a tremendous amount on the military that we shouldn't be spending. even the pentagon doesn't know where the money goes. i think that if we could get more people calling in and have ideas like i have just given, these are just a few, maybe we could generate more revenue and we wouldn't have to have a battle over the debt limit. we could make small cuts.

but we have to bring in more revenue. that is my opinion. thank you. host: here is one of our viewers tweeting in. sanders insisted on pentagon and fed at the party nomination debates where they work brought off the stage. neither party wants to see the truth. washington, independent. hello, mary. caller: greta, i don't want to see the united states go into default. they need to call it what it is. it's not a ceiling or anything like that. the one thing i was trying to make a point on, it's hard to talk, i get upset and i don't want to say anything wrong to hurt anybody's feelings but the one thing they should have thought about for those five

days when the house speaker, you know, they had days of votes and votes. i don't know, what was it, 15 different votes? they should have thought about it then. the one president from the last one is putting in his two cents. the thing is, everybody in my family was military. they don't know, people don't know what's going on with the military. we don't know what's coming in from the borders. there is war going on. it's cyber. it's probably really expensive. i've never had a credit card for that reason. my dad taught me if you don't have it, don't spend it. make sure you make enough to pay your mortgage, to pay your utilities. and then if you want nor, -- want more, get another job.

the thing is, i don't want to see the people, unless you have ever, a lot of these people what i'm trying to say to other people i know, a lot of these people in congress, not congress, but the whole, i'm not calling congress or senate. but they don't understand what it's like. you know they spend 40, $80 on food and don't think nothing about it. host: i will leave it at that. more of your calls on this discussion on whether to raise the debt ceiling in the united states. likely to be hit today, triggering so-called extraordinary measures by the treasury department to keep paying our bills. so should congress just raise the debt limit without debate and have a vote? or should there be negotiations and preconditions on raising the debt limit?

we will get to your thoughts, more of them in just a minute. yesterday, though, in maryland, the state's war in its first black evan or. "the washington post cover that, "hands on a bible once owned by abolitionist frederick douglass, sworn in to become america's first black governor and only the third elected in u.s. history. an author, combat veteran, former chief of a nonprofit took the oath of office at the statehouse in indianapolis just blocks away from the dock where africans were forced into the slave trade and arrived in america to be sold. we cover the inaugural ceremony yesterday, his remarks. here's a little bit from that ceremony yesterday. caller: as we stand here --[video clip]

>> as we stand here today you can see the memorial to justice thurgood marshall. it's impossible not to think about our past and our task. we are blocks away from the annapolis docks where so many enslaved people arrived in this country against their will. and we are standing in front of a capital that was built by their hands. we have made uneven and a map -- unimaginable progress since. the history has been created by generation after generation of people whose own history was lost, stolen, or never recorded. but one thing we know is that right now we are standing here in our history, our shared history, our collective history made by people who over the past century regardless of their origin story to the state,

bought and built a state and a country that works for everybody. and there are two people here today who embody that spirit who are sitting right here next to me. two extraordinary women named jema and joy. [applause] jema came to this country from india. joy from jamaica. yeah, man. they immigrated to america with hope in their hearts. it's not just for themselves but for future generations. now they are sitting here together at the inauguration of their children. to become the governor and lieutenant governor of the state

that helps to welcome them. host: sworn in as the first black governor of the state of maryland. oprah winfrey introduced the new governor. his children were there. those are the gold stars at the bottom of your video player. mary and martinsville, virginia, let's hear from you on the conditions for raising the debt ceiling. caller: i think the republican party on the congress side has good ideas, we don't need to do anything to raise it. don't need to build restrictions. we don't need to pay for things we don't need.

i come from an area that nasa destroyed years ago. the companies overseas now sending products here are making money off of us when we should be making the money here instead of overseas. i wish that there could be something done where we could keep their products from coming back over here. they went to cheap labor with nafta. we need our jobs here. not overseas. host: all right, pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: yes. and i up? host: you are up, your turn. caller: yes, ma'am. i called up to mention the tax loopholes that we have in the system for people that make a million dollars or more. what we have right now is $60

trillion outstanding that could be repatriated that were measured under trump. whenever he was, he stated about repatriation. due to the u.s. government. host: ken from l.a. texting to say that when the debt limit is reached all congresspeople should be forced to resign and new elections held. that is responsible governing. ronald is watching and roxbury, massachusetts. independent. caller: good morning, ma'am. this is ronald calling from roxbury, massachusetts. there should be a national pride day where you are in trouble. if you don't make congress a representative term limits, you in trouble. i was drafted in 1963. i'm 82 years old area i'll be 83

next month, february 22. the united states is in trouble. why do you think i'm independent? host: all right, ronald. marina, new york. what hasn't been said is that the debt limit is money that has already been spent. if you bought something in your bill is due today and you don't pay it, you have default it on your payment. republicans are threatening to not pay past bills. mike in philadelphia, a republican. caller: are you there? yeah, good morning. i've got to say, it's disparaging to me, i live in a mostly democratic city, it's disappointing to me to see our suppose it speaker use this complete malarkey, a phrase from sleepy joe. i'm looking at mccarthy. who's he going to negotiate with today to avoid the shutdown?

right? after this imbalance? he was rocked. i've got five on the foot long if he negotiates with a five dollar foot long. host: ok. detroit, democratic caller. caller: yes. what's crazy to me is that trump was in there like the guy said. the republicans had no issue with raising the debt limit. they didn't say nothing about how it was going to destroy our country or whatever. on top of that, trump had the treasurer reduce the interest rate down to zero. nobody said nothing about that. nobody complained or talked about what that would costs. now that joe biden is in here,

they are attacking him from all sides, you know? it just doesn't make any sense. the people that called into say don't raise the limit? the u.s. don't care about social security or your neighbors. the people that need ssi, a lot of children who are dependent on these different programs. social security is the best program the united states has ever done, you know? it's just hypocrisy. it just doesn't make any sense. host: all right. dave in delta, georgia, posting this. if the biden administration cuts the deficit over the last two years, why do we need to raise the debt ceiling? our tax revenues are the highest ever. you heard the president take credit for that. cnn took issue with that and wrote this, smaller deficits before but eager deficits than expected.

a few more trillion in deficit in 2021 during which biden was in office for eight months, 360 billion lower than the roughly 3.1 trillion in deficit for fiscal 2020. a decline is certainly substantial. the congressional budget office however estimated that at the beginning of the biden tenure that the fiscal deficit would be a decline of more than 870 billion. if the biden administration didn't implement new policy. the biden administration did implement new policy, including massive pandemic relief packages. it's important to note that congress has the power of the purse for the presidential proposed budget congress habitually ignores it in favor of its own spending preferences. blame and credit should be shared. harry in georgia. independent. hello, harry.

caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. after working more than 50 years to secure my social security and medicare, i just want to point out a couple of juxtaposing facts that i find curious in amusing. first fact, my government has argued and passed laws to make it possible for me to open carry a firearm in public. now, the second fact is the republicans in congress are openly talking about perhaps denying me my social security. i just found those two juxtaposing facts curious. that's all i had to say. host: all right.

on twitter, the debt ceiling should be raised, federal spending should be cut massively. cut everything but defense, social security, medicare and national park. start by lowering salaries for congress, according to a viewer on twitter. we are taking phone calls, tweets, post on facebook or send a text with your first name, city, and state. should there be conditions for raising the debt ceiling? should they be spending cuts? should there be tax increases? grady in crazy berg, ohio. caller: hello. i was just calling to say that if they were cutting for an and they turned around and the politicians took a pay cut, we wouldn't have to worry about the deficit anymore. host: all right, remember to all of you calling in, you have to listen and talk through your

phone. mute your television so that we don't get that feedback from you . marcus in ohio. hello, marcus. caller: good morning. i just had a question. possibly a solution regarding the debt thing. i would cut the spending as far as like you know for different stuff. like that the american people don't need. i would say also that since biden has gotten into the white house, i don't really think my life has changed none. hasn't changed none when trump was in office. i mean hopefully america can get a president in there that's really going to, really going to do something for the american people. god bless america.

host: more of your calls coming up but first i want to show you what the ukrainian president glowed a mere zelinski had to tell world leaders and others gathered in davos, switzerland for the world economic forum. here's his speech to them yesterday. [video clip] >> life. security outpacing them -- democracy. we needed days to react. this is used by terrorist states to kill. ukraine has been doing this for almost a year.

together they take millions, millions of miles. not only in ukraine. not only ukraine but the whole world sees exactly the pace of confusion. the world walks ahead of time without hesitation, russia occupying crimea. without hesitation, made the walls. they must not hesitate today or ever. host: the world is hesitating, he told world leaders at the world economic forum and that tragedy is outpacing lives. if you missed his remarks, you can find them on our website, c-span.org. camille, spring valley, california, what do you say about raising the debt ceiling?

caller: thank you for taking my call. the debt, we already own the debt. they are making political maneuvers over this. they need to just approve the debt ceiling. it's already owed. they don't care about trump. all we care about is this country. we should be able to pay a debt. it makes no sense at all. thank you. host: chris, kansas, democratic caller. caller: yeah i think they should take a salary cut themselves before the debt and i swear to god we look like a bunch of clowns. that's all i have to say. host: what do you think they should do besides take a salary cut? what else is there? caller: this is ridiculous. there's all of this hate all

over the place. the lies keep gathering and gathering. quit wasting your time going after biden or trump. you know? that's the part that's got me. i don't understand. host: all right. chris thoughts and kansas. the democrats are united in putting out a joint statement. the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer along with hakeem jeffries, democratic leader in the house,ity, saying this aboutegislation to prevent a disastrous default, methe ligations to protect the full faith credit of the united states. a default from maga republicans leado higher costs on es fverything, mortgages, credit cards, interest rates.

the debt limit is about meetin the obligations the government already made, ensuring payments that are uninterrupted continue to be supported for veterans. the debt limit was increased in a bipartisan way when donald trump was president. twice when they were majority in the house. this time should be no different. floyd, west virginia, republican. hello, floyd. caller: hello? host: it's your turn, floyd. we're listening. caller: the money is there. it's just not spent right. you have to have somebody that does something and does the right things. you can't go around spending money on anything and everything. host: what would you cut, lloyd? caller: what would i cut? i would close the border. that is what donald trump was going to do and we wouldn't have to spend a lot of money on that with all of these people coming in.

they would do with the right way. we make these other countries pay their way when we help them instead of just having everything to them. this man that's running ukraine, he's a, yet it's all right to sit back and say hey gimme, gimme, gimme. but then, that's his problem. he knew what russia might've done. he should have prepared for it. a lot of that social security and things like that is not on right. people handing out money to people that don't really need it. let the people get out there and work. still paying taxes on social security. let all the states pay taxes on social security. the money is there but it is used right. we've got a president now, he don't care. he's done made his. he don't even think about, even

he don't think about what he did before. host: all right, lloyd's thoughts and west virginia. when we come back, we continue our series examining key policy proposals in the house republican commitment to america. we dig into education proposals, including a parental bill of rights with rick hess at the american enterprise institute. later, i guessed from the bipartisan policy center to discuss changes in health care policy house republicans are considering. stay with us. ♪>> over four days, c-span's cameras had on president access to the u.s. for the house as representative kevin mccarthy became the 56 speaker in the house. it was history in the making with unscripted moments from the

house floor. with complete, uninterrupted and unbiased, fridge. "the hollywood reporter'wrote that c-span is mayor cava's hottest tv -- america's hottest tv drama. from "the washington post" c-span has become must watched tv. on one thing you can be sure. c-span will be there, thanks to the support of these cable and satellite companies. c-span, your unfiltered view of government, powered by cable. preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress and it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member important information on congressional committees, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code to preorder your

copy for early spring delivery. it is $29.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase help support us at c-spanshop.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we are continuing with our look at key parts of the commitment to america plan. here to talk about the education portion of the platform is frederick hess, policy studies senior fellow and director at

the american empty prize -- american enterprise institute. let us begin with what republicans laid out when they talk about this commitment for america. they want to make sure that every student can succeed and to give parents aoice. they said they need to recover lost learning from school closures and expand school chce. let us talk about recover lost learning and we will get to the parents' bill of rights in a minute. recover lost learning and expand school choice. are these realistic and what are they proposing? guest: what they are actually proposing i think is a work in progress and we will see in the particulars. this just depends on what folks think is realistic for the federal government to accomplish. certainly, i think there was a lot of frustration across the

country without school closures played out and the quality of remote learning. the opportunity for congress to take a hard look at what was done with $200 billion in federal funds to ask hard questions about what shape students were in and if there was a need -- if there was indeed a backdoor influence asserted by teacher unions and the ability to ask if these dollars are being used in a way that is impactful for kids. that really helps and is entirely appropriate for congress. the idea that congress is going to somehow make school districts provide better support is a much bigger stretch. host: why? guest: in this country, by design, we have 40,000 school districts. school districts are creations of the state.

90% of school funding comes from state and local entities. in fact, the amount of federal funding for k-12 during covid was extraordinary and in a fiscal year washington spends $70 billion. so the emergency covid a was the equivalent -- emergency covid aid was equivalent to three years and that is because there is an understanding that when you are dealing with 3.5 million teachers and 100,000 schools that there is real value and making sure that these folks are accountable to the communities, parents, kids, and taxpayers that they serve rather than expecting the department of education to somehow run schools serving 50 odd million children. host: how has that money been spent? has it all been sent out? guest: the majority elevate has

not been spent, which is one of the things which has raised ire. the covid emergency funds were sent out and a big part of the rationale was that we need them to make sure that schools reopen and reopen safely. so there was a lot of talk of the need for air quality devices , for personal protective equipment and things like masks and way to help school socially distance responsibly. yes, the money got spent. but the other primary charge was to help kids recover and make up for learning loss because, as we saw a couple of months ago and the national assessment of educational progress that the states showed that kids took a huge hit in terms of academic learning during covid in addition to mental and social health. all of these were concentrated

on our most vulnerable kids. but, like i said the majority of funding has not been spent. districts have a couple more years disbanded but there is a concern that these dollars are being spent just creating new positions or getting raises rather than investing in things like tutoring or a particular curriculum, summer programs or extended hours, or other measures that might be more precisely calibrated to help kids make up for the learning that they did not get. host: let us invite the viewers to join in because we want to hear from you, especially if you have a child or grandchild in school and what is it like for you where you live and what is your community doing and what education policy do you want to see from washington. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. an independents, 202-748-8002.

text us including your first name, city, and state that 202-748-8003. let us talk about the parents bill of rights. it is the rit to know what is being taught a schools -- in schools and the right to be heard and to see school budgets and spending, the right to protect their child's privacy and be updated on any violent activity at school. why do these rights need to be written into law? guest: so some of them are actually just are looking into things that nominally exist. no child left behind and one of its elements was school safety was supposed to be part of the school report card. part of the problem was what constituted a dangerous incident was somewhat ambiguous. and so schools got into the habit of not reporting these

things because if they reported them they showed up in the ratings and then schools were in danger of running afoul of federal accountability. one of the questions is look, do parents deserve to know when there are incidents, violent incidents and fights and other dangerous circumstances in schools? i think, sure. why is this federal? part of what is generally understood as washington's role in return for the funding it provides is insisting on a degree of transparency as far as the dollars are spent with those dollars concentrated on serving children with special needs and low income kids and certainly low income schools are the ones most concerned about student behavior. some of the other rights are really things that came to the fore during covid. we saw parents arrested at school board meetings, we saw

the national school board association send a formal request to the fbi asking that they investigate irate parents potentially as domestic terrorists. i think the republicans are quite appropriately saying that we have to have guardrails about what is and is not considered civil liberties. and, look, honestly the federal government requires that folks who make household appliances provide extensive information on use of energy or potential climate impact. when you buy a new car there are federal standards about what is to be reported about gas mileage and safety. the idea that public schools that serve children should not -- should make a good-faith effort to inform the public that these are the books we are reading, here is the curriculum

materials that we will be using so that parents can be informed in advance to make their educational decisions and so that we can have public conversations and debate when we disagree. it strikes me as wholly appropriate and after the last couple of years, a necessary response. host: here is a viewer in fort myers, florida who says "in florida they said to go in the school board meetings, getting the teachers' face and they did not have to take the abuse so they quit. now they are asking the military to help them with teaching and the military is in no way qualified to teach these kids, they will grow up ignorant." guest: i mean, the first part of it, if somebody told people to go get teachers' faces, i am not sure what that is referring to. obviously when teachers are being harassed and one school

board members are being threatened, that is obviously way beyond the bounds. we have legal mechanisms that should and can be enforced. this is for parents and for any community member who threatens a teacher or school board member. that is a given. i would like to think that we are in agreement that that is not a way that is healthy or appropriate to deal with this. i think part of what we are talking about here with the parent bill of rights is that are there since -- are there sensible ways to deal with the mistrust. and if we put these things into this bill of congress of public conversation that it will make it clear that they can speak and be heard at a board manning -- meeting as long as they acquit themselves in legally and appropriate ways. that is how democracy is supposed to work in our school community. host: lewis and brandon, -- in

missouri. republican. you have to mute your television, can you do that quickly, please? caller: let me see. we are listening to you for your question or comment. are you ready to go? caller: i am ready. host: go ahead. caller: my comment is that i do not understand the debt ceiling. congress seem to use the law that normal people understand. host: we are not talking about the debt ceiling anymore. mercedes, nebraska. independent. caller: thank you for having me. my comment is that here in nebraska there are a lot of things going on. we have one legislative body and they are trying to do away with our state board of education so that the governor can appoint a

commissioner to control all of the schools in nebraska from the top. there is a problem because we have other republican groups that have pacts, the protect nebraska children pac and they are using money to drum up republican support. we have had officials being threatened. i ran for office last year and in 2020 and i have received threats. i have seen them in real life. we have parents railing against crt and try to get books banned before reading them and my comment is that this is not ok and my question is how do we help parents not get pulled into that fear factor because the kids -- i get it. my daughter is going into school so what can we do as independent people in the middle to get people to just kind of think

more critically and ask the correct questions. thank you. guest: yes. i think the question is a great one. there are a couple of things. first off, this business of threatening public officials right and left, of threatening educators and school leaders or school board members is beyond the pale. we all need to -- all of us, the 80% or 90% of people who want to live in a country where we resolve these things respectfully, need to do a much better job of saying so on a regular basis. so no question. being threatened or harassed or being chased should never be part of attempting to pursue a role in the public service.

afar -- as far as what material is appropriate in schools comes under the label -- such as a things such as critical race theory or debates on how schools should approach the question of gender. it appears where i am sitting, one of the ways that when we talk about engaging parents and respectful conversation is that we have to make sure folks have the opportunity to get information which puts them in a position to talk these things through. a lot of what has been labeled book banning, i would disagree with the characterization. school libraries always make choices about what they will buy and what they will put on the shelves. you might have elementary and middle school materials that show sex acts that have things that offend the sensibilities of many parents. to my mind it is not book banning to say this is not

appropriate for a certain library. it is a part of a reasonable i -- argument two about what reasonable people can disagree about what is in libraries. and some of the debates about critical race theory. there are for instruments privilege -- for instance privilege worksheet that students learn that they are supposed to deduct points for themselves if they live in a two parent household or if they are white, and it strikes me that one can talk about jim crow and slavery and the trail of tears without believing that this kind of caricature is good or healthy and -- instructionally. part of what we need to do and what i want to say about the parental bill of rights is to try and get more information out there so we can have good-faith faith arguments to make, and

hopefully, the situations like what the listener is talking about come to go -- come to some good-faith resolution and agree to disagree. but in all of it in a way that honors our traditions rather than engaging in fear mongering or threats of violence. host: doug in florida. democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning and i have several questions. one, you are talking about critical race theory never taught in this country unless it is postgrad. another thing. i have never met an eight-year-old who knows anything about sexuality. how do you feel about the governor passing the don't say gay bill in the state of florida? which is all about that. guest: sure. so on the first point, it is interesting. as we have been talking about

critical race theory. one we realize that very few people mean the same thing when we talk about it. a lot of what is what going on is -- the listeners right at one level it is taught in postgrad about how do you read historical documents infection. in general usage it has come to refer to particular ways of thinking about race and racism. and for instance the federate -- the american federation of teachers within six weeks, the president of the aft announced that nowhere in this country is crt taught and then within the next six weeks they had launched a legal defense fund for teachers who teach things related to critical race theory. whether it is taught or not it is a definitional question. it is more important to focus on what is being taught and let us

disagree about the post -- about the specific. 90% of americans say that of course school should teach about jim crow, slavery and women's suffrage. of course there are disagreements about how schools ought to talk about notions of systemic racism and about whether or not they are in it -- a manifestation of institutionalized violence. look, that is one thing. on the gender question, what governor desantis passed in florida was legislation that said in grades k through three teachers should not be having classroom discussions about gender or sex. i am with the listener. i generally think, i have a six-year-old and an eight-year-old. generally speaking i do not think gender and sexual identity

are top of mind for most children in grades k through three and there are particular circumstances where children are wrestling with these issues. and there is nothing and what the legislation that would stop a teacher or counselor were talking to a child if it was raised as a particular issue. i think it is entirely appropriate to say that in matters of gender identity and sex, it is not appropriate classroom contests -- context for former class instruction. when you are dealing with public schools serving public children with public tax dollars it is appropriate for the legislature to put that in. host: holly, a republican in georgia. caller: hello. my question is i am confused why school choice -- i am not confused. it seems like the only faction standing in the way of school choice universally is the teachers' unions.

they should be a winning issue. when it is explained to people it seems like they are all for it. who would not want a $6,000 plus voucher for their kid to go to whatever school they choose. that is an easy win. it creates competition and would put pressure on public schools to improve academics. we have already discussed that we are struggling. one third of america cannot practically read. this is a crisis. we need competition. furthermore, homeschool and private schools are having better test results. my question is, and my kids are in a small, private christian school. part of that is i have a fear of school shootings, maybe that is silly but i am afraid of a school shooting and i do not trust the capability of the counselors to actually be able to see when a child is suffering and they can see that easier in

a school spoke russian a small school. how can i be involved grassroots. i'm trying to figure out what i can do to get another bill on the floor that they will pass. last year they did not pass the bill and i do not understand why six republicans did not vote on it. i would love to hear your thoughts on that. thank you. guest: there are a couple of things going on. one, quite practically the georgia -- called the georgia public policy foundation. more generally, there are two things. one that we talked about, about how that part of the house republican agenda is school choice. and one of the things that came to the floor during the pandemic was the power of making sure that families have options. for instance it was some of the struggling urban schools in places like san francisco in new

york city steve that the state close the longest and these serve kids that are academically vulnerable and these schools stayed closed half the year or more after schools across other parts of the country were open. it is not appropriate for what we talked about for washington to have made these schools reopen but there is a case important to these families who choose to have their kids back in a school environment to have those options. it is also the case that families are frustrated with the lack of offering of advanced science and math instruction in small rural schools or in urban high schools. there are questions about whether someone with special needs is being adequately served. part of the reason that the house majority has put so much of that front and center is that

because republicans generally embrace the notion that -- the power of the parents to make this decision far outweighs concerns about challenges of accommodating kids. and also because it will bring the spotlight on this. the other part on this is one reason that there are other searches of concern about this is that lots of parents and communities really like their public school. 70% of parents give the school an a or b including parents and kids of public school and when school choices talked about it has a chance to end zip code education and lots of family say that is not for us. they want to expand options not to impact public schools. part of the challenge with the house majority would be that

making sure the conversation is about expanding options. and not sounding like we are trying to go to war with the liked or loved public school systems. host: in minnesota, my credit collar. caller: thank you for the conversation, i am a retired schoolteacher and i want to know where the heck have you guys been all of this time? why now? for the last time that i have been there you guys have not given a crab. so i mean as a teacher, i worked in the middle school level. and i had parents come up to me and tell me that it was my job to teach their middle school child how to tie their shoes. how to be respectful. how to go to the bathroom by themselves.

that was not my job as a teacher, do you agree with that? i hope not. and then a couple of other places. kansas has banned charlotte's web because the main characters are animals and they talk. that is absurd, wouldn't you think? i am not sure. the other thing is that the only one screaming about crt or as i call it trip -- true history are the gop, not anyone else. i guess that is it and i am so upset about this. i would love to hear what you have to say. thank you. guest: number one, i think we started teaching at the same time. i started back in 1990. so you know as far as i'm concerned i've been training student teachers and teaching in the last three decades. so i have certainly tried to be

engaged in these in a way that seems helpful and sensible. as far as why do these priorities go to the house majority, i would not say these are new. going back decades, some of these priorities were what george w. bush talked about when he first rolled out his educational program in 2001. and some of this was debated during the 1990's. i would not say they are necessarily new. it is that when the party comes to power, whether that is the president or the house majority they sketch out the agenda of what they will focus on. and i would say, like i said. these are getting focused on because of the spotlight of the pandemic. "charlotte's web" i have not heard that. if that is the case i am skeptical.

i would need to see actual documentation. if that was the case i agree with the caller, that is ludicrous. that is exactly as much when people take issue with dr. seuss because they do not like the graphic representation of something on page 11. that stuff is mostly banned from the left, especially dr. seuss. critical race theory, look i think two things got bundled together and when we are talking about how as we americans wrestle with these tough issues. two things are true at once under the banner of critical race theory. one is that there is huge agreement that schools have to wrestle with the entire part of american history, good and bad. the great accomplishments that we have had, what we have done together and all of the failures. jim crow, trail of tears, the

greatest hits and everything else. it is also true at the same time that there are ways to talk about issues that a reasonable person will be healthy or toxic. there are school districts such as madison, wisconsin and massachusetts, they separate their children by race to talk about these issues. for my money, this is nothing more than jim crow brought back to life, it is racial segregation and it is defended as a manifestation of creative race theory. what i reject that characterization. for me it is bringing back to light some of the most reviled behavior in our nation's history. when we talk about critical race theory we do ourselves a disservice and we do better off to think about what are the things that we agree we want schools to teach about history

and where are their practices in interpretations that we think are problematic. host: frederick hess is the educational policy senior fellow and director for the american enterprise institute. thank you for the conversation. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take a break and when we come back a closer look at health care policies that house republicans are considering. that conversation with marilyn serafini. later we will take you live to the washington auto show where gabe klein of the joint office of energy and transportation and omar vargas will talk about the push for electronic vehicles. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.

at 8:00 a.m. eastern time we detail our attempt to launch a russian version of sesame street the early 1990's following the fall of the soviet union. she is the author -- author of muppets in moscow. washington post columnist the author of the aftermath amines how baby boomers have impacted the u.s. economy and its effect on future generations. he is interviewed by layla's aiden. watch tv every sunday on c-span two and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at booktv.org. listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your spark speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important health affairs during the day and

weekdays at 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. catch washington today for the fast-paced stories of the day. listen to c-span any time and just tell it to play c-span radio, powered by cable. if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on your screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, book festivals and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span two or any time attv.org. television for serious readers. >> the -- be up-to-d the latest in publishing with the podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now our free mobile app or where

ever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: we turn our attention to health care policy and what republicans have promised in their commitment to america agenda. joining us is marilyn serafini, a health program executive director at the bipartisan center. let us begin with what the republicans laid out last year. their commitment to america in heth care includes personalized care to provide affordable options with better quality, lower pricethrough transparency, choice, and competition, invest in lifesaving cures and improve access to telemedicine. what is the impact on these priorities? guest: they are talking about a lot of issues that really are actually bipartisan. we have democrats and

republicans who have consistently been focused on lowering costs, specifically drug costs coming from the american people. the american people say over and over that they are just extremely concerned. they are concerned about prices and cost in general. there was a super interesting results that came out yesterday from gallup, nearly 40% of people said that either they or a family member actually delayed care in 2022 because of the cost. now, this is something that gallup has polled over a long period of time, but this is by far the largest percentage of people who had actually delayed care because of the cost. this is one of the reasons you should -- he will see republicans and democrats focusing on cost. a lot of the things you

mentioned will be tougher republicans really to get into and democrats, whether we are talking about the house since the republicans control the house, or the senate which is closely divided but run by democrats because of the cost. everything costs money. host: how does on that second bullet point, how do you lower prices through transparency, choice, and competition? guest: so, transparency is a big one particularly when it comes to prescription drugs. we at the bipartisan policy center are about to put out a blog on this topic because we, and we have had recommendations to this point. the process by which the drug gets from the manufacturer and then to the various middleman including the pharmacy benefit managers, like the caremark and

the others that you see on your prescription card when you take it to the pharmacy, there is not a lot of transparency. we do not exactly know what deals the fired -- the pharmaceutical manufacturer and the pdm are cutting. the pdms work for the health insurance, that is the employer, but we do not really know what is happening and what kinds of discounts are happening throughout that process. so by the time your -- you pick up your drug at a pharmacy we have no idea who has gotten what and what has gotten into the price we are paying. so republicans and democrats alike really do want to see some transparency in that process and maybe democrats more than republicans. again, this is something we have been talking about for a long time so i am not sure we will

have more progress this year. we have been trying. host: when republicans say they want personalized care to provide affordable options and better quality, what are they talking about? guest: here we are talking about, again, we do need to have better quality and affordability. and in terms of improving affordability they have been talking about competition. that is in everything across the board. again i will bring this back to transparency because it does go beyond prescription drugs. people need transparency in the prices they are paying for services. they need to know what it costs them and, therefore, what it will cost the insurance company if they go to x hospital to have their hip replacement or y hospital to have their hip replacement.

it is just something that they need to know. let us talk about competition. we have been very concerned about competition for a long time. one of the things that we are concerned about is consolidation in the health care marketplace. now, this has to do with hospitals buying out other hospitals and hospitals employing physicians and large groups employing physicians so that we have a real consolidation. we know that some of the health care markets in terms of hospitals that over half the markets in the u.s. are considered highly concentrated, which means that they are so built up and you have a major player and there are real concerns. we are not sure how this happened and how the power is in

the federal -- the powers in the federal government allowed so much consolidation. but it is here, and what we know about this much consolidation is that a lot of the time it results in increased prices. host: let us turn to our viewers and get your thoughts on what the republicans are proposing in their commitment to america and what your health care experience is like and how you want washington to address it. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. text us with your first name, city, states, and thoughts at 202-748-8003. let us hear from jeff, an independent. your thoughts. caller: thank you.

the nation just went through losing 1.1 million people and 6 trillion dollars in losses from the pandemic. i would like to point out that this was not something very often referred to as a black swan event. other countries like south korea more than 20 years ago especially after the 1915 pandemic and actually the best in the world have never had a national shutdown and basically had 1/6 of the mortality on a per capita basis in the united states. the problem i am having with this is that we recently passed a pandemic prevent act, which sends $35 billion to be spent over five years for this person -- for this purpose. that seems to be to be an incredibly small amount of money

to save $1.1 million -- lives and 6 million -- $6 trillion in losses and not at all commensurate with the military budget which have not saved 1.1 million lives and have not lost 1.1 million people and we spend 552 billion dollars each year on defense as of last year. this is completely unbalanced. how me lives to be saved and how much money to be lost. we talk about the debt and health care. this needs to be addressed. caller: your thoughts. guest: thank you. so you raised a very good point. and i have two responses. one is that it will be harder than ever to spend federal money in the next congress. this congress in particular, the new republicans in the house have committed to paying for

everything that they spend. or cutting other programs. they do not want the expenditures in the federal government to rise so that in order to spend more money they need to cut in other areas. it is not impossible and it can happen. the whole philosophy of that is not too different from what we already have. the point i am making is that it is hard to spend money. the need is great. we have a public health system that is severely underfunded at the local level. we have incredible work or shortages in the public health system. this year congress does need to -- they have a reauthorization coming up for the pandemic and all hazards preparedness act and that is one possible -- it is

going to be -- they are going to do that. it is very likely that they will be successful in doing that. it is not like the issue is disappearing. it will be up for reauthorization. host: here is a tweet. "anything river guarding -- regarding health savings accounts, maybe even the federal government putting $2000 a year for citizens of every age. who can afford paying off -- out-of-pocket health care costs after paying for the insurance? aca is largely insurance focused, not health care." guest: ok, you bring up an excellent point. i am sorry i do not support hsa for all, that is not what policymakers are talking about even though this is a part of our fabric now is having -- now

that employers are offering hsas as an option. what you bring up is the cost issue and this is cost of the individual. even insured individuals are having a lot of trouble paying for their medical care. and this goes back to the gallup poll where 40% of people had to delay care because of the costs. a lot of this has to do with high deductibles. so even if you are insured, and this does tend to go hand in hand with the hsas, they are typically high deductible plans, although they are in some tax preferred money going into those accounts so that the person had a lot more choice. the deductibles, or really they are anywhere from the high deductible, $2000 and some of

them go up as high as 6000 or $7,000 so people regularly need to make the decision about whether to spend the money out of their own pocket, to have medical services until the coverage actually kicks in. but the hsa does help with some of that. and so that is why we are seeing them growing pretty naturally in the private market. host: chris in maine, democratic caller. caller: i was just reading your website at the bipartisan policy center, are you -- my correct? caller: thank. so it comes from both angles. my comment is that here in maine , i recently lost my previously

only primary care physician working inside the two hospitals and they control 100% and that is almost literally impossible to get a new -- to get new insurance. the median is a court of a million dollars a year and that is pretty low income. the administrators make over 1 million and health care companies are seeing 8% profits and about 20 billion a year. we wonder why the cost is so expensive. there are pretty obvious reasons. doctors make staggering amounts of money. and there is no incentive to change that. because the incentive is to get rich. if i understand this correctly under the recent bill that passed they said a rule that said the federal government can negotiate drug prices with drug companies. i said republicans wants to repeal that and i'm wondering what the policy center's

position is and why republicans are so obsessed with getting rid of negotiated drug prices. guest: most republicans have been against this and play because they want to see the market competition play out and they fear that if medicare and medicare is such a huge buyer of drugs that if medicare gets involved in the drug negotiation that this will artificially tamp down the prices of drugs and therefore are you going to have research and development and drug industry. they are concerned about the governance having too much power in this respect. now this happened already a little while ago that congress passed this and certainly the house would have the numbers to

turn this over, but it is unlikely to turn over in the senate with a democratic majority. it is unlikely that this would happen. in september the administration will actually begin implementing these negotiation appeals. i wanted to bring something else. you are talking about the workforce and it would be terrible if we did not talk about it. that health care workforce right now is really struggling. during the pandemic we had problems with nurses and we are the direct care workforce, the people in the nursing homes and rehab facilities and coming into the homes. they are not nurses, they are --

they have less training at that. these are people taking care of people who need more care and we have a severe shortage of that. you talked about maine and we do a lot of work in the rural states and we work with both democrats and republicans defined common grounds and where they can come together to move forward. we visited maine with the former senator and we understand that in rural areas in particular that the ability to see providers is very difficult. now people in rural areas get most of their care through primary care because there is even more severe shortages of specialists, everybody from cardiologist to neurologist. there is a lot more in primary care. this is why refocusing on the

workforce --this is why the need to be focusing on the workforce and telehealth which is a bit of a problem in rural areas because a lot do not have broadband access. but during the pandemic the federal government allowed more flexibility for people to get services via telephone. and that is possible in rural areas. right before congress left for the year they extended all of those flexibilities for two years. while we do not expect to see action in congress this year on telehealth, we will the following year. so it is very important now that we are looking at water the most important pieces and cost-effective pieces of telehealth that should continue and i expect to see a lot of research coming out with

evidence this year. host: scott. billy marilyn. independent. -- bowie, maryland. independent. caller: i have been in the pharmaceutical industry and two acronyms. ipa when a group of doctors negotiate prices based on how me patients they are going to see. a lot of hospitals started buying them out so i am surprised that this is a shock to those in congress because the bigger these hospitals become, they need some type of legislative oversight. once they start partnering or dealing with cvs and walgreens and i only mention those two because they bought everyone else out. another monopoly that i am surprised that it is coming as a shock. it is more of a smokescreen. this is what the caller in maine

is mentioning about. it is not that the doctors are making x amount of dollars or medicare is making it cold. the population is aging so most pharmaceutical companies are focusing on the 60% of the pie. the idea that the cost is because we cannot get health care workers in order research and development does not hold weight. we have the best medical services. we have the best products. in terms of dealing with medication, the u.s. has the worst mortality rates versus other industrialized nations. so i just want to hear what your guest has to say because both of these issues or multiple issues are smokescreens. this is about making profit. unfortunately there are drugs that cost x amount of dollars here cost pennies and other countries. host: we will take your question. guest: so, the reason it costs

pennies as of russian other countries is because the government basically did hate the price. they say pharmaceutical company if you will sell your drug in our country we will only pay this price. that is not the kind of system we have in the u.s. and i do not expect that to change anytime soon. so it is really a struggle between competition and, you called it oversight, but the government stepping in to do something. this is what we are seeing with the medicare drug negotiations that will take place. this is why those who supported that wanted this to happen. they wanted large payer leverage to be able to bring down some of those prices. and part of the reason that our

prices are so much larger is that if the drug companies are not making their money and other countries than they are looking to the u.s. where they can get that money to do this. but also, again, this is just a matter of the medicare drug negotiation and getting leverage. whether you support the government doing it or not they will have that kind of leverage. so we might see some change. the overall statements about consolidation and competition, that train has left the station. we have, not we but the federal government, has allowed for this to happen and so we are where we are right now. and the question is how do we work with and how do we handle the systems in states that have

already become very large. and there are some ways to do it and here at the bipartisan policy center we have opposed looking -- proposed looking at highly concentrated markets and somehow eliminating -- limiting the prices they can pay so they are more aligned on the same level and -- as areas not highly concentrated. host: marilyn serafini, is there an opportunity for a disrupter into the health care industry that could up end the structures that have been in place? guest: i think we have seen the disrupter, technology. telehealth exploded during the pandemic. but it is not even telehealth. it has to do with other types of

technology, like remote patient monitoring and digital therapeutics. these are areas that are growing by leaps and bounds to help, one, people get access in areas that are underserved and that have fewer providers. this is a way to bring them providers, it is a way for providers to talk to providers. for example, a medical provider in a rural area to talk directly to a specialist. at the cleveland clinic or the washington hospital center, or anywhere to get the information that they need to treat the patient rights there in the community. so technology will allow providers to come to those areas virtually, but right now we are

struggling with how to make sure that we are doing this in a value-based way so we are really focusing on what is the most -- where we are going to get the biggest bang for our buck, and what will be the most meaningful. host: new york. bill is a republican. you are talking with marilyn serafini of the bipartisan policy center. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have enjoyed what the other callers have had to say. i have to say i am also disappointed to hear so much discursive kind of pr copy being offered as bipartisan policy. i would like to ask the guest what the gop plan seems pretty thin what it has to do with folks like me who have pre-existing conditions and how that might in the short term,

especially after covid have some -- how some of our pre-existing conditions would be covered in such a competitive marketplace, as one might say. i am sure the guest has pre-existing conditions that might not be covered with things like medicaid and such. host: alright. guest: so, look. what the republicans in the house have proposed is what they want to do. and this is through their commitment to america. you know, it will be hard to do anything this year. it will be hard to do anything beyond what we know are pieces of legislation that are not

controversial. some of the areas that they have listed in terms of telehealth and that is not really helpful until next year. so drug costs, we have tried to do that before and i know preparing for pandemics we have the one bill that really requires reauthorization. and something with a doctor/patient relationship. and proving affordability. these are really hard issues and we have been trying to do this stuff. let me just tell you where the areas of bipartisan interest are. and when i say bipartisan interest i really do not intere, i don't mean the democrats and republicans agree on how to do it, but they agree these are priorities for them. one area we have not talked about is behavioral health. i'm including both mental health services and also substance use.

there is an enormous gap in the need for services and what we have available. this is an area where i do expect we may see activity this coming year because the interest is so strong from both parties. the other area we have not talked about which possibly could get some action this year is the end of the public health emergency. this is happening. the question is what happens after the end of the public health emergency. you mentioned medicaid. this is one of the top issues folks are looking at because in april those people who have been on medicaid but no longer qualify after the end of the public health emergency because during the emergency they were able to be on medicaid because

the eligibility was expanded and they did not check on people regularly. they kept them on. there is going to be a question about what happens to those people. millions of people who received medicaid during the pandemic, or tens of millions of people, could find themselves off of medicaid in april. some of those people will be eligible for the affordable care act insurance through the marketplaces and some of them will get pretty substantial subsidies to help them pay the cost. these are some of the things that we expect to see some attention to whether or not we get bills passed and executive action, that is to be determined. these are the areas i do see the

democrats and republicans working together on this year. host: marilyn serafini with the bipartisan conversation center. we thank you as always for the conversation. up next, we will take you live to the washington auto show where gabe klein of the office of transportation and omar vargas will join us from general motors and both will be talking about the push for electronic vehicles. >> c-span now is a free mobile app between your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events with four events and hearing some u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. also stay current with the

latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now is your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> if you're enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals, and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span2 . television for serious readers. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book db podcast "about books" with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as

industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 eastern. important congressional hearings and other public affairs events throughout the day and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the annual auto show is back in washington, d.c. is an opportunity for automakers

and lawmakers to discuss policy matters such as the future of electronic vehicles. joining us to discuss that topic is gabe klein, the executive director of the joint office of energy and transportation. let's first talk about when you walk around the auto show, what do you see, and what does it tell you about the future of this industry? guest: thanks. it is great to be here. i've been watching the show for a long time. it is an honor to be on. it is great to come to the auto show because it is a different world that it was five years ago. the industry is shifting dramatically, moving towards electric vehicles, alt fuel vehicles. i say all fuel because there are vehicles moving towards hydrogen. for consumers is a golden time to buy new vehicles, to rent a

new vehicle, to use electric bikes, basically everything is shifting. whether you live in a city or a supper or a rural area, there are now options for you wish there were not a few years ago. host: what is the future of the electronic vehicle industry? what are your predictions? guest: we are iterating and moving fast in this space. the biden administration has stimulated significant change. once the market moves the market moves. whether it is the large automakers, the battery makers. they are seeing the future written on the wall and that is that the combustion engine, the fossil fuel burning of the last century is over. it is just a matter of how fast we make the shift, not whether we make the shift.

that is a significant change from how the district felt even five years ago. -- how the industry felt even five years ago. companies like tesla or ford or even gm are seeing success in this space. once you see that growth in a particular segment, very quickly everybody follows. host: what is your office and what role are you playing in this industry? guest: i am super excited to be the relatively new executive director of the joint office of energy and transportation. what is significant about this is it is the first time the federal government has started an office that spans multiple agencies. we harness the incredible resources, skills, intelligence of people within the department of transportation, the department of energy, and to some extent the white house. there are brilliant folks in the

white house working on policy and we work with all of them every day. it is growing the decarbonization -- the decarbonization blueprint for transportation was just announced last week at the d.c. convention center. that also expands to hud and epa. we work with epa on their school bus program. we work with fta on their transit program. our first focus is $5 billion for the national electric vehicle network that we are building, charging network. that is a highway based network some americans feel like they do not have to have range anxiety when they use an electric vehicle. then there is another $2.5 billion that will be discretionary grants for cities, indian reservations, towns, and

states that want to build fillon charging infrastructure or infrastructure within cities. host: what is the goal of the charging stations? what will the u.s. look like with this money? guest: there is sort of a macro and micro aspect to this. they picture, we are talking about reinventing the economy around renewable energy and electrification and alt fuels. that is huge. that is in all of government approach, and all of society approach. it takes wall street, it takes main street commented takes local, state, and federal governments. specifically what we are doing, we are focused on building equitable, easy to use, safe, reliable network, just as we have now for gasoline.

if you want to travel within your city or across the country within a rural area you can find gases easily. we wanted to be just as easy to electric charging. that means being able to do it at home. being able to do it in a multi unit building if you live in an apartment. being able to use it on the highway or arterial networks. we have to do it all and we have to do it quickly. that is the boulder president set of 500,000 electric vehicles -- -- that is the goal the president set of 500,000 chargers by 2030. we have a lot to do quickly but with the climate crisis the way it is we take the challenge very seriously and will execute on at. host: how many public charging ports are there currently in the united states? guest: it is changing monthly.

there are over 160,000 right now. that includes level two charges which are slower charges people have at their homes or often in parking garages. also chargers -- those can be 60 to 70 kilowatts, though could be up to 350 kilowatts and charger vehicle very efficiently. the goal we have set for the highway charging is four charging ports, 150 kilowatts, every 50 miles. that is the beginning of a network, we are ceding it, we think the private sector will also come in. there also federal and state funds to build that network in over the next 10 years. host: these stations will be able to accept all types of electronic vehicles? guest: yes. just so people understand, the

standard in this country and in europe is what is called ccf. if you google ccs ev you can see what a standard charging port looks like. that is the minimum standard for the u.s. charging network. there are various under standards -- there are various other standards. there is one used in japan. tesla has the -- with the minimum standards we are putting out, there is a rule in the next few weeks. it will be clear to the states and the cities for how this needs to rollout and how we will make sure we have not over a national standard but interoperability and the ability for anybody with an electric car to plug into the system. host: s&p global on ev chargers. "even went home charging is

ken into acc, to properly match rested sales demand the united states will need to see the number of ev chargers quadruple between 2022 and 2025 and bro more than eightfold by 2030. the transition to a vehicle market dominated by electric vehicles will take years to develop, but it has begun" according to this analyst. " with the transition comes the need to evolve and today's charging infrastructure is insufficient to support a dramatic increase in the number of ev's in operation." why should americans buy an electronic vehicle? guest: the fact is that by 2030 we will hopefully have over 2 million charging points around the u.s.. we are seeding that. the use case is little bit different. when you buy an electric

vehicle, and i have had a few, if you have the ability to charge at home, that is where 95% of your charging will be, versus going to the gas station. it is a different situation. i haven't been to a gas station in five years. we have to balance the needs of home charging, public urban charging, suburban and rural charging, and highway based charging. however, with the president's commitment and the $7.5 billion we are seeding this with and over $70 billion in other programs and the private sector ramping up with over $200 billion worth of investments very recently in this space, we think it will happen quickly. we think we will hit the tipping point in the next few years. the other thing is when you private electric vehicle, whether that is a bike or scooter or a car or truck, you

cannot imagine going back to a combustion vehicle. it is such a different experience. 60% lower operating and maintenance costs. it is a different world. we think the market will move, once consumers get a taste of it. i met with the ceo yesterday and they are buying hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles right now, and then people are getting trial usage when they rent them. once they try it we do not think they will go back. host: we are talking with gabe klein, executive director of the joint office of energy and transportation, talking about electronic vehicles and we are live from the washington auto show. we want to have you join in this conversation. take your questions and comments about electric vehicles. democrats at (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents, join us at (202) 748-8002.

remember, you can text with your city and state at (202) 748-8032 / here is a viewer on twitter. how long before american electricity prices start to skyrocket after americans are driving ev's. they will price gouge us, just like the oil does. guest: great question. on the supply side, there is a huge move towards renewable energy. we fit in the department of transportation and the department of energy. i am learning a tremendous amount about how we produce energy and what the forecasts are. we think that not only is energy eventually going to be much lower than it is now through solar and wind and so forth, but

the vehicles themselves can become part of the grid, meaning right now it is very centralized system where we produce energy, we distributed to people's homes, to businesses. these vehicles and their batteries can become storage facilities for energy, which means they can take energy in and actually put it back into people's homes. that means lower-cost for consumers over time. there is a transition period, but energy should not get more expensive, quite the opposite. burning fossil fuels is much more expensive than harnessing the sun or the wind. guest: another viewer -- host: another viewer. speak to the role of hybrids going forward and the pasta replacing a battery pack after seven or eight years of daily use. guest: yes. hybrids have played a very

important role over the last 20 years. they have saved millions of gallons of fuel and they continue to play an important role. one of our deputies at the joint office has a hybrid toyota rav4 and they have a very long trip they make up to the mountains on the weekends. for them, the hybrid is the way to go. as the charging network is being built out and there will be chargers in the mountains -- they just bought an ev last week because a charger went up. that is important to recognize. the lack of a national charging network is what is keeping most americans from buying an ev. as we go from early adopters to the mainstreaming of this technology, the charging network is key. what was the second part of the question. -- what was the second part of

the question? host: let me find that will stop the battery pack. replacing it after seven or eight years. guest: the technology in batteries is changing faster than i can keep up with, it is on a daily basis. there are entrepreneurs inventing batteries that need fewer raw materials, rare earth metals, and so on. there are also amazing companies that are recycling batteries. that is not only important for the environment, it is important from a cost standpoint. that is something i've always espoused, particularly in the private sector but also the public sector. we need to embrace change and focus on products, services, technologies that are good for people, that are profitable and good for the planet. that is what you see this administration during.

it does not need to be a win lose. abandoning fossil fuels and moving to batteries and eb will be a huge business opportunity. recycling batteries will be a huge opportunity, and costs will fall like they always do with technologies as they evolve. host: we are live from the washington convention center just a few blocks from where we are here on capitol hill, where the annual auto show is taking place. we are talking about electric vehicles this morning. let's hear from audrey in alabama, republican. caller: good morning. number one, full disclosure i drive a suburban. the expense i have been fuel is not a big deal. this past summer i experience my first over $400 electric bill, and then christmas eve tennessee

valley authority did rolling blackouts on christmas eve in tennessee and alabama. i live less than three miles from a nuclear plant, and we have a dam. we also frack in alabama. my question is how in the world is our power grid in the southeast going to handle electric vehicles? i thank you very much. he does have energy in his title so i would like an answer to that because tennessee valley authority is giving no answers. host: turn up your television so you can hear the answer. guest: thank you for the question. it is a very valid question.

there is a macro and micro answer. we are dealing with the effects of climate change. that is one of the reasons we have rolling blackouts and some of the other issues we are facing. i imagine last summer that her fuel costs at the pump were dramatically higher to fill that suburban. right now the department of energy has $13 billion they are dispersing and there is many more dollars in total, but specifically for grid upgrades. also i noted she said there is a nuclear plant, there is hydroelectric, there is fracking. in this transition period we will need those things to get where we need to go. we will not have a fully renewable energy system overnight. having said that we are moving there and we encourage all of the states and local governments to move there with us.

we are talking about creating great jobs and having a more resilient system so you have redundancy with the nuclear and the hydro, and we are talking about long-term creating a more sustainable environment so we can bring down emissions so we do not have rolling blackouts, we do not have massive storms, tornadoes, all the things. we have to get the climate back into balance and unfortunately it will not be easy. over the last 130 years with the fossil fuel emissions, it has created the situation it is in and now we are in a situation where we need to undo it very quickly. i would equate this to world war ii, works progress in the 1930's. we need to come together to make this happen and we need to do it quickly to ease this pain. host: how much does the average electronic vehicle cost? guest: there is some great news there. over the last few years you had

car companies introducing high end vehicles, and a lot of that was to recoup costs in r&d or production. now you have vehicles like secretary granholm noted the other day she has a $25,000 chevy volt. with a $7,500 tax credit you're talking about $17,500. you look at that and the significant reduction in operating and maintenance costs and it a game changer. while the average cost might be $60,000 right now because you have high end vehicles like teslas and lucids, though some of those companies have rolled out significant price reductions because they want to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit, you have to have the vehicle under $55,000 if it is not a seven seater. we are seen evolution constantly .

the supply chain issues have impacted prices of new and used cars but they are coming down. there is a $4000 tax credit for used vehicles. if she wants to get rid of her chevy suburban and get an electric suv, she can do that and she can buy a used vehicle. host: you mentioned the charging ports is one of the hurdles for consumers to buy an electronic vehicle. how long can you go before you need to charge and how long will it take to charge that vehicle? when you go to the gas pump you spend a couple minutes filling your tank and then you are off. guest: yes. i was talking to an ex-coworker from my old days in the car sharing space and we were talking about how electric vehicles in the early to thousands would go 50 to 70 miles. my vehicle goes 400 miles on a

charge. i can drive almost to the beach and back from washington, d.c. without having to stop for a charge. that is a huge difference. if you're buying a lower cost vehicle that has 200 to 250 miles on a charge or more expensive vehicle with 400, if you are commuting 10 to 20 or 30 miles a day, you might charge your car once a week you might charge it at your home. you can charge a car fully and does go to three hours with a level two chargers -- you can charge her car fully in two to three hours. a faster charge you can charge in 20 to 30 minutes. for a lot of those people on long trips, stopping at a rest stop will take 20 minutes anyway. i find if i'm going from d.c. to new york, i might stop twice for 15 minutes.

people are doing that anyway if they have a fossil fuel powered vehicle. host: rome, georgia. kelly, a republican. caller: the lady right before me stole every one of my questions. i guess that was most of my things. i think as republicans we do want a clean planet. we are looking more towards nuclear and everything because we do have the dams. mostly we see that most of this is being brought about because climate change and we think it is being pushed too quick. i think this is where the problem lies. the people that are really pushing the climate change, i think we believe it, we would

just be on board with it -- it is kind of like a preacher. we want to see somebody walk the talk. if you're going to tell me how important the climate is, i need you to sell off a couple of your homes and everything. my last point is, we all share the same global climate. shutting down that keystone pipeline, until we fully get there, we are still going to have to use fossil fuels. host: gabe klein? guest: great points. i had a republican mayor in my office yesterday, democratic mayors, republican mayors, particularly the folks closest to their citizens. they want the same thing. they want clean-air for the

kids, they want a healthy environment, they want lower health care costs, which are tied to this, and they want jobs. they want an educated workforce that can do those jobs. we hear this time and again. some of the problem is the news, some of the dogma about what it means to care about the climate come and if you are caring about the climate it means you are antibusiness. i am an entrepreneur. i've spent my life building businesses. i can tell you that there is no question this is the future of american business and american jobs, and also it is the key to giving our kids the air and the quality of life we may have had, that that caller may have had when she was young.

i think we need to get the real message out. that is why i am on c-span. i love c-span. it is the straight facts. i get her point. we are going to be transitioning off of fossil fuels no matter how fast we move. it is important we are part of the paris climate accords because we cannot do it on our own. we need every country to be on the same page, every large country, and that is why playing apart on the world stage as president biden is doing is crucial. we need her and everybody else to have some faith and buy into this transition. every american will benefit. host: gabe klein, thank you ray much for talking to our viewers. we appreciate it. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: we continue with our program at the washington auto show this morning. coming up next, we will talk

with omar vargas, vice president and head of global public policy per general motors. a little bit about the auto show. it is the regions largest indoor event and one of the top auto shows in the united states according to yahoo! finance. the auto show has positioned itself as the perfect platform for exhibitors to present advanced electronic vehicles to consumers while allowing them to dive deeper into learning about the models, along with top manufacturers the show is set to host several manufacturers come experts, and experiences that cater to the electric vehicle market during it show this year. the show's ev pavilion is said to be bigger and better than ever as it looks to show off the growing electronic mobility market and its high hitting demand. we will keep talking about this industry, the electric vehicle industry, with omar vargas, coming up.

in the meantime we will continue with your calls on ev's. brenda is in myrtle beach, south carolina. democratic caller. caller: i wanted to speak to the gentleman that was just on because i want to know why they don't incentivize builders of new homes to automatically put in the type of 240 outlet which is really a dryer vent outlet and it plugs into that. if they automatically put them in garages when they build new construction homes, then when you buy the car you do not have to go back and pain electrician to put it in. i think more people would probably buy the car. go ahead -- host: go ahead. caller: why don't they put in the units when they build new condos and doing infrastructure,

why don't they have the biden administration incentivize the builders to put them in at construction? that would speed up people buying the cars. you drive more locally than you do long distance. i have a ford martini i bought in 2021. when we built our house in 2019 i knew the future was going to be electric so we had them put it in before i even owned the car. host: mike in north carolina, republican. as we listen to you we are seeing all the new vehicles at the autoshow in washington, d.c.. what you think about ev's? caller: it is too fast, too quick, and not enough research. you cannot do this overnight. it will take gradual.

stuff like steam powered cars to gas powered cars. the thing i wanted to talk to your previous guest, probably john kerry and al gore are does go his biggest heroes. the thing is these ev batteries, they need to discuss all of the minerals that go into them and the fossil fuels that mine them and refine them, and afterwards, when the batteries go dead, they are dumped in a landfill, how come they don't recycle that? i live in north carolina and we are night near a lithium vein under our property. look up piedmont lithium. we have it here. they would rather get all of their stuff from afghanistan and china. host: i'm going to jump in at that point. we will keep taking calls.

omar vargas is joining us. he is at general motors, vice president of global public policy. what is gm highlighting at this year's show? guest: good morning and thank you for having me. i'm a big fan of c-span in this program so this is a personal thrill for me to be with you this morning. what do i think about the cars? this is super exciting. if you watch the local news channels in washington they have visited the chevrolet exhibit with the lamp of ev's including the super exciting electric corvette that was just announced earlier this week, so it is a thrill to be here. i am happy to take the questions coming in. i was listening to the most recent two callers. critical minerals is an important part of the discussion and gm as a part of all that work developing critical minimal -- critical mineral resources

and bringing the process to north america so we are localizing the production and taking advantage of the technology and the american economy. host: how much does gm strategy depend on electric vehicles? guest: we announced a couple years ago and have made a commitment to going fully electric with our light-duty vehicles by 2035. the republican caller just shared right before i joined, this is a transformation of a product portfolio that will occur over the next several years. we are super excited with that. we are introducing new ev vehicle models every year and we will grow in that regard. how much does it depend on the transformation? this is the future of transportation. general motors started out with a wagon. then we transformed our portfolio to vehicles, to the

automobile, and then we grew. different propulsion units. being the best and for most manufacturer in the world today and introducing electric vehicles, introducing a lot of technology. america has always led the future of transportation and we want to ensure americans continue to lead the future of transportation. host: what are the costs of your ev models? guest: first we have the bolt. the bolt is the most affordable ev for sale in america today and incredibly popular. you can purchase a bolt for under $30,000, and with tax credits made available through the clean energy program, it is an incredibly great value. from there, and we have introduced this line up behind

me in the exhibit hall, our equinox affordable ev, our blazer, also the affordable middle-class family range. we expect those to be popular as they roll out into the marketplace, and then we will have an ev vehicle for every class, every buyer that is out there. host: the biden administration created tax credits under the inflation reduction act for those who by ev's but the treasury department to late on them until march. what does that mean for you trying to sell to consumers these brands? guest: under the inflation reduction act, the tax credits you mentioned, they will help advance ev adoption in the united states as well as developing the supply chains and

resources into north america and with fda partner countries to ensure we have a stable and secure supply chain to support this growth. that is number one. number two is with respect to the delay in implementation until march, what that means is there are certain reforms, such as income guidelines and msrp caps around sedans and suv and you have to work out some of the technicalities there. what it means is the guidelines or the requirements around the components of the batteries -- and when that kicks in in march we are certain gm will be competitive in this space. we will have vehicles that qualify, for example the chevrolet ev and the cadillac lyric qualify. we look forward to helping and

working with our consumers, our customers, and our dealers to be able to take advantage of these programs the federal government is offering. host: let's hear from john in roswell, new mexico. democratic caller. caller: thank you, washington journal, for having this topic today. i would like to make a few comments. one being the 1909 baker, the very first electric car produced in america. this is not a new technology. it has been with us for quite a while. jay leno's garage featured it a while back. for all of you naysayers and doubters, please, check out jay leno's garage and it will give you a little education on ev's. battery technology.

i hear this year they are coming out with a succeeded mile range battery before you need a recharge. any work -- a 600 mile range battery before you need a recharge. any word on that? guest: thanks for the question from new mexico. i love new mexico. ev's. i am reminded that in general motors articles of incorporation , the founders of the company more than 100 years ago talked about propulsion units, including electric, and flying cars. to think about the visionaries that launched general motors more than a century ago, technology has been available. it is there from the very start of mobility in the united states and the technology is wow, where we are today. our battery technology on some of our vehicles, we are looking at 400 miles, 300 miles.

it depends on the vehicle and the price range. one other important point is battery technology continues to improve. we are developing that battery technology here in the united states with technical paralysis we -- with technical paralysis we had intimate -- with technical prowess in america and we are confident the range for batteries will improve. host: here is -- why isn't bio fuel being explored? the contract -- the technology is there. it seems like a true path to energy independence. guest: there are variety of fuel sources for vehicles and that goes into the propulsion systems. biodiesel is a technology that has been around and is available , but when we look at a variety of other factors, including air

quality and emissions and where technology is today in transportation we want to be competitive. if countries and markets and auto markets are advancing the electric vehicle space we want to continue to lead that. another promising areas hydrogen fuel cells. the technology is robust and it works, but we have to get the technology right. at some point in the future you will see fuel cells as an option for propulsion but that is a long time away. we continue to work in that space. host: john in wisconsin, independent caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. we just got six inches of snow today and it is about 20 degrees. the previous caller from new mexico said you would have a vehicle with this absurd mile range. how heavy -- with a 600 mile

range. how heavy are these batteries to go 600 miles or 300 miles because i recently read an article that these electric vehicles are extremely more destructive because of batteries way so much more than the actual car. one other question, is your blazer and your trucks coming out four-wheel-drive or just a two wheel drive blazer that is electric. thanks are taking my call. i appreciate it. guest: sure. happy to talk a bit about both aspects. you are commenting on the weight of the batteries and of course dual drive versus four-wheel-drive. we will have those options available for our consumers, but i want to focus a little bit more on the battery and the weight of the battery. you mentioned snow in wisconsin.

i love a good snow day. the weight of the battery and the design of the vehicle with the battery in the center of the vehicle does make the car heavier, but what is important when driving in snow, you have great traction from that weight. i think you will find the ride in wintry weather to be secure. at general motors our engineers test our vehicles and all kinds of climates, including extreme cold and winter weather. we are michigan-based and we know a lot about winter weather and we are confident in our ev's ability to be able to get you through the snow. host: of you or from another cold state, michigan, just talking about -- he is asking about what the cold does to lithium batteries and he believes electric vehicles will never be a big seller in that part of the country because of

that. guest: we are testing and developing. our engineers are spending a lot of time in cold weather. i have not joined them. in these extreme cold temperatures. we are confident that coal does impact batteries, that is well known. we are designing the vehicle to be reliable for our customers. we are michigan-based. we understand the coal really well. host: tom in lancaster, california. republican. caller: good morning, america. here is the simple fact. here we have the tier system for electric. i use very little electric, but they put you on a tier system where they can charge you at the second tier, 400%.

i used $135 worth of electricity in the first year, but my electric bill was $550 because they put me in the second tier. charge an electric vehicle, i put new windows in my house, a new roof on my house, but i did it all myself. i am not entitled because of this new ponzi scheme that is set up through the electric grid , which is going through the whole united states. california was the first to do the tier system but now it is in oklahoma. i don't know if it is in washington, d.c. yet. it is criminal what is going on. the electric vehicle, if everyone gets put on electric vehicle, you will not be able to afford to heat your home.

host: omar vargas, how you respond to that? guest: a couple of points. first, we are producing vehicles for all purposes and all needs. that is important to note. we will have the electric vehicles available for those who want to purchase electric vehicles and we will make more of them available at a variety of different price points. that is where the caller is getting at, which is the economics of ev's has to be right, and the production of ev's is one thing, and we are doing our part. as a policy person what i am also engaged in is trying to understand what is next? how do we ensure ev's are affordable across the stream of commerce? power generation and power

distribution and power costs are really important parts of that conversation. i am engaged and we as a company from a policy perspective are engaged with utilities to have these conversations. we are going to need policymakers to pay more attention to these issues. there may need to be reformed and policies based. we may need to allow policy generation from multiple sources. if you have an ev battery and you want to push juice back into the grid or into your home, you should not be charged for that. you should not have to pay for it. you should be able to make some money off of that. those are the potentials where policy can go. host: might in virginia says my town has one charging -- mike in larae, virginia says my town has one charging station and several gas station. how concerned are you about charging opportunities in the united states? guest: that is a concern and

that is where we are also focused. we believe there is opportunity for public and private partnership in building out america's electric vehicle charging infrastructure. at general motors we have invested $750 million to help build out a network of charging stations in partnership with our dealers. our dealerships are located in communities all across the country in just about every neighborhood. i'm not sure about where the caller is calling from, but if there is a chevrolet dealer in his community there will be charging there. we are working with our dealer to identify those locations. eight chargers per dealer is what the number comes out to. we are working with the pilot stations to build a charging infrastructure across the united states. that is private capital investment from general motors. there is additional capital investment into a variety of

other businesses. they are sprouting up. it is exciting for jobs and the economy. of course there is the federal government investment. those dollars are through the state in terms of grants, state formula grants, as well as discretionary grant programs where there are applications by communities and local governments for that funding support. i think soon you will start seeing more ev charging stations in your neighborhood and in committees and around the commercial center and highways you travel. host: maryland, doug, democratic caller. caller: good morning. an idea i've been trying to see if people think is a good idea or not. right now we have to have our own battery, but if we had battery station where the battery is made available by the battery station, so you pull into a battery station, a pulls

your old battery out, slaps a new battery in and sends you on your way within five to 10 minutes. is that technology at all available or available in the future? guest: this is called battery swapping. i understand there is a company in china that provides battery swapping as an option. you pull up and then your battery is removed and you get a fully charged battery put in. i am not entirely familiar with how that works or how the market is taking it, but i understand that is available in china. the answer is the technology does exist. is it great, is it convenient, would be accepted by consumers? there is a lot more work that has to be done in that regard. the bottom line there is at least one car company doing yet. host: another question for you in a text.

is there on the go charging ability by embedded lane or guard rail charging? guest: that is a good question. i don't know. i am not familiar with that. i honestly don't know. i do not think that is possible. when you look at eb charging stations, i think where the goal of technology and engineering is to have you plugged in and fast charge it and get you where you need to go under 20 minutes, under 15 minutes and make that experience as convenient and routine as possible. host: victor in california. independent. caller: i want to know, is there any development in charging the cars. you have four wheels moving. if you put a generator for each one of those wheels, charge the battery as you go, anything about that?

i will take your answer offline. thank you. guest: in our vehicles, when they are driving, and i drove a bolt over to the convention center today. there is little indicator, little display that shows how you are regenerating your power as you are driving along, particular when you are breaking and help put juice back onto the battery. it is neat. sometimes i obsess about my little indicator. host: fred in port charlotte, florida. republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe we are putting the cart before the horse. we have charging stations that will be run by fossil fuels. i live down in florida. 300 miles on a battery will not

get me out of florida in case of a hurricane. we just had a hurricane. we had to remove electric vehicles because of the salt air and the saltwater intruding into the batteries, corroding them and starting them on fire, and it would start your house on fire. there's a lot more work that has to be done to get this right. thank you. host: let's take those points. guest: i think the caller's name was fred. he raises a good point about the safety of electric vehicle batteries. safety is a foremost concern at general motors, it is something we focus on at the engineering level. it is our top issue, maintaining safety in the vehicle. with respect to the incident in florida after the last hurricane, with these vehicles

we are trying to understand exactly how those fires started with those vehicles. at the end of the day, all vehicles have electricity in them, whether they are internal combustion engine or electric vehicles. anytime those are impacted or bothered gets in them, it is a dangerous situation. it is dangerous for water and electricity together in ev vehicles and we are trying to figure out where these incidents happen and how they happen and how to plan for it and do that in collaboration with local authorities to do so. host: we are talking with omar vargas, vice president and head of global public policy with general motors. he is at the washington auto show. we are live from there.

there featuring hundreds of new cars from dozens of manufacturers in an all new electric vehicle pavilion and indoor and outdoor test driving experiences. caller: i'm probably going to talk about something that you may be able to talk about two-year engineering friends or venture capitalist or whoever is handling this. the suggestion i am going to make, i am not sure if it's at all possible. i think we need to change the way we drive, the way we handle getting from place to place. i watch people losing their cars.

why don't we have much smaller cars just built for maybe 1, 2 people. with the idea that you could buy two or red. host: i think we follow, you are looking for a culture change? guest: i think that's the best way to capture is the culture change and how we move about. first of all i'm familiar with new britain, connecticut. i enjoy driving our puc around town but i am a small car

person. i hear you, i know. we have a range of vehicles that give you that opportunity. you have the volt which is a small vehicle to the electric silverado pickup. it's a large vehicle. you have cargo capacity. again, we are developing the visa people are looking for. host: what is your one message to lawmakers about the actions they need to take? guest: the one messages the clean energy tax credit is excellent policy. it needs to be implemented to the letter of the law.

we have had a long-established program for suv's and stte sedans. for credit space on the cost of the vehicle. i know auto regulations can be confusing but it is important for the white house in this administration get this right. we are making cars easily available and small suvs are part of that. number two, implementation is super important. you go back to the letter of the law and intent it's about on shoring american products, securing the supply chain. we need to bring the processing into north america.

there is more work to be done to get the inflation reduction act right and i'm sure this administration is working hard to do that in the industry is working with them to ensure proper implementation. we've talked about electricity reform, half generation, and electrical grid system that can help support ev transportation and hopefully, congress can bring that up for discussion. host: we appreciate your time, thank you. guest: thank you. host: we want to thank the folks at the washington auto show for allowing her program today. we would like to think are too guest and all of you for watching today's "washington journal," we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m..

♪ >> here is what is coming up live today on c-span at 1:00 p.m. nancy mace will join the washington post to talk about how she wants her party to govern and why she sometimes disagrees with her gop colleagues. we will be getting coverage from the conference of mayors starting with remarks from attorney general. in later a panel on the impact female leaders can have on communities. you can watch on c-span now or online at c-span.org.