public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. this morning on washington journal we continue our coverage of the house republican commitment to america plan. washington times reporter jeff mordock and then later we have julie rovner. "washington journal," starts now. ♪ host: good morning everyone on friday, january 20. the annual march for life rally

will take place two days before the anniversary of roe v. wade in the first anniversary since road was overturned. our coverage of the march for life rally beginning at noon. or online at demand at c-span.org. before we get to that, we want your thoughts on abortion policy. more restrictions on abortion access. if you support that (202) 748-8000, if you impose restrictions (202) 748-8001. you could also text us your thoughts include your first nam e, city, at (202) 748-8003. joining us this morning is the

national health care reporter with the washington post. the anti-abortion activists has participated in the march for life for 50 years but this year they are taking a detour, why is that? guest: first off, thank you for helping me. they are going down constitution avenue but they are taking a detour to walk past the u.s. capitol. what they are saying is they are telling members of congress that they see a goal for federal government and abortion policy in they want to see lawmakers in congress pass national limits on how early in pregnancy and abortion can be performed. host: they have been marching

for decades and this is the first time since roe was overturned, what is their message now? guest: i talked to the head of march for life in their message is essentially they are commemorating this victory which is how they see it but the theme this year is next step in a post roe era. i have spoken with a lot of people in the antiabortion movement, republicans in congress and there are divisions on the next steps for the movement. host: why are there divisions? guest: we saw some of these

divisions come out during the few legislative sessions post roe. in several states, there were intraparty fights within the caucus in terms of exceptions over rape and incest. one key question, is what republican leadership will decide to do in terms of would they put a bill on the floor that has some kind of national limit on abortion. host: what do these folks want to see from now, a republican-controlled house of representatives? guest: that's a great question. there was a letter from

antiabortion leaders and conservative leaders and they have a list of bills that they would like to see for them to vote on. one is called the heartbeat protection act which would essentially ban abortion after fetal cardiac activity has been detected which is around six weeks. that is one of the acts from last year. centre de lindsey graham introduced a bill that would ban abortion after 15 years. they say they plan to reintroduce that into the house. but he has not gotten a yes or no on whether it will go to the

floor and i think it's important to note that whatever does pass the house with the republican majority it will not pass the senate which is still democratic. host: what is the other side of this debate planning for sunday to commemorate the anniversary? guest: from the abortion rights movement, they want to use this moment to kickstart some of their organizing and volunteer training so that their organizers can be on the ground fighting abortion restrictions like, during this state legislative session. it is the first state legislative session for the majority of the states since the

overturn of roe. vice president harris will be delivering remarks in her remarks will focus on fighting in state-level restrictions and pushing congress to pass national protections for abortion. host: national health care reporter with the washington post, thank you. host: let's turn to you who opposes more restrictions on abortion access. from brownsville, texas. caller: i don't support more restrictions on abortion. i support women's rights and their doctors. politicians are not doctors,

they are just politicians and corrupt. i am a catholic and i believe in a woman's right. i believe in a woman's voting rights. we need to treat women as human beings and not property. host: paul in alabama also opposing. good morning, thank you. caller: i am opposed to laws that they are trying to implement on abortion and one of the things that concerns me is the double standard on the way they are looking at things. in prisons right now, they have women signing their tubes and removing their uterus of they can have babies.

this was called eugenics. why are these abortion people who say they oppose abortion, why are they not doing anything about the doctors doing this in prison? host: youay you did not support more restrictions. let me show you theoll that was conducted in support from the knights of colums. this is what they found. 21% of americans support abortion on demand that mns available to a woman at any te e wants during an entire pregnancy. whh you support that time of restriction, limiting the window in which a woman could get an abortion or should they have access throughout their entire pregnancy? caller: you can have access through the entire pregnancy. but after a certain number of months, you can have an

abortion. they are coming up with six weeks and sometimes she doesn't even know she is pregnant and they say she can't have an abortion. once a woman finds out she is pregnant and the family cannot financially support that child. the republican party wants to take away all the benefits, giving people access to food. why do they say you want to have a number of babies but we will give you any means of supporting them? st: more for this pole. 21% of america said y, abortion access during the entire pregnancy. 25 percent only during the first

three months of pregnancy. another 26% only in cases of rape or incest or the life of e ther. a percent say never under any circumstances should there be abortion access. that is from the marist poll. then you have the support for congressional action. this is fr the umass amher pole. 42% sa congress should pass a law ming abortion legal in all 50 states. 20% id they should pass a law making abortion illegal. 39% said they should be left up to the state. this morning, we are getting your thoughts on whether or not you support more restrictions on abortion access. kathy and arkansas, you support more restrictions. good morning. caller: i support no abortion at

all i will tell you why. i had an abortion and if it were not for god almighty i would not have made through it. the lord had shown me that baby was alive and i hope there are people listening to me. i know by experience, it is murder. you have a good day and thank you for letting me speak. host: kevin from cottonwood, arizona, also supporting more restrictions. hi kevin. caller: i was just thinking, abortion goes like this. if you're going to kill the baby why don't you go ahead and give birth to it and then if you don't like it you can abort it then? host: you oppose more

restrictions? caller: any democrat that wants to abort themselves, more power to them. i think that's what america needs most anyway. i support less restrictions would be better. host: republican congresswoman nancy mace has been critical of her parties approach to abortion limits. she spoke to the washington post yesterday and described other ideas to garner bipartisan support. caller: barry our hands in the sand which i represented a swing district. the vast majority of people who i represent were not happy after roe v. wade was overturned. i am a pro-life member of congress.

i have many exceptions and i'm willing to meet in the middle and i common ground. they are not doing anything for women. we need to be compassionate, especially for women who have been raped or are women who have been incest or have fetal abnormalities and if they were forced to, the dangers that poses to their life and reproductive future. i guarantee you that every woman has access to birth control. that's a simple idea, we have entire counties in south carolina that do not have a single ob/gyn doctor. we need to be thoughtful about women's rights if you're serious about it. if you experience unwanted

experience, if you experience rape. there are thousands of rape kits that have not been processed. let's focus on that for women. another issue we are discussing, a third idea would be regarding foster children. there are a lot of problems with regarding this children. what happens when these unwanted children are born? who will take care of them? we need ideas that are forward facing because this issue is not going away and it affects women every day. host: do you agree with her that there is middle ground and i am curious to your reaction about those items that she

listed off. matt in colorado, good morning two. tell us what you think. caller: bottom line is, you can't be callous about a decision like this. no woman would be. to take the decision away from a woman is not the government's place. it is a decision that a woman needs to make for herself. those who keep complaining about abortion or the religious right, we have a separation of church and state. if you wanted teach abortion is important to keep it to the pulpit. host: greg supports more

restriction. how do you respond to that previous caller? separation of church and state. caller: there are hardly any women calling in. i think it's between a woman and her doctor. host: but you called in on the support more restrictions line. caller: oh i got that wrong, sorry. host: we have juanita from california. caller: i am a religious person but i don't the that abortion is necessarily murder. if it was, that would make god the biggest murder on the planet because there are so many miscarriages. my daughter had two miscarriages in a row. one at her team week and another at nine weeks. these are baby she wanted.

this whole idea that it is murder. that would make god the biggest murder on the planet. i believe in separation of church and state and i happen to believe that life begins with breath. because god breathed into adam and then he became a living soul. there should be a separation of church and state, those who believe this it is murder, do not get an abortion but leave it up to individuals to decide. i watch the congressional hearing where they had a doctor on who was in ob/gyn and she said that if a woman has an abortion that late in pregnancy then something terrible has gone wrong. either with the woman of the fetus itself and they still call

it an abortion when a woman is carrying a dead fetus. this idea that someone wants to have an abortion just before the baby is born, it's never happened. that is something that people are pulling out of their --, it doesn't happen. host: as we said at the top, the march for life rally taking place today. the first time it is taking place since the roe decision. we will have coverage at noon on c-span. on our free local video out cause c-span now or you can go to c-span.org and watch it later on demand. here is jonathan that says they are ready to steamroll and abortion bill without any restrictions.

but they feel they can make commencement to our gun rights. abortion is not even a constitutional right. betty, you oppose restrictions? caller: my name is betty, i am a 90-year-old woman. they are going to have all these bills about abortion. killing is killing, that is what i said. why assume people to the electric chair? thus not doing any good. they could be out there walking and supporting the family that they hurt. host: the new york times has been tracking this issue on the

state level. this is what they have found out. this was updated january 6. most abortions are banned in 13 states. as laws restricting the procedure, georgia banned abortion at about six weeks before many women know they are pregnant. in many states, the fight over abortion axis is taking place in courtrooms where advocates have sued to block enforcement of laws that would restrict this procedure. you can go to the new york times and there is an interactive map on their website to find out more about what is happening on the state level. let's hear from joe in new jersey. you support more restrictions, tell us why. caller: i support it in a way.

after a while, i consider the baby alive. the fetus, alive. as far as they say with women having the power over their own body. but they also have the power to say they're going to have intercourse or not. they are the ones that are responsible for their bodies or they should take care of it. host: do you support abortion access in the cases of rape, incest? caller: right, thought to. they talk about women's rights but they have the right. how much does an abortion cost? who is paying for that? the government. host: mike in michigan who says we always are instructed to follow the science.

then logically you cannot support unfettered abortion access. i want to share with you what president biden had to say about how those classified documents have been handled. [video clip] >> they found a handful of documents that were filed in the wrong place. they immediately turn them over to the archives and the justice department is fully cooperated to resolve this quickly. i am following what the lawyers have told me they wanted to do, that is exactly what we are doing. there is no there, there. host: that was president biden in california. he was in the state because he

was touring damage of the region. he left washington dc yesterday and spent time with first responders and others in the state looking at what happened when they had that big storm and all the rain that dumped on the state there. you can see the president touring a home that suffered damage. dwight in harrisburg, pennsylvania. back to our conversation about abortion access, you support more restrictions. caller: i support more restrictions. we live in an age of grace. people will do what they wanted to. it is hard for me to think support or oppose.

a lot of people have forgotten the word forgiveness. god will forgive you. we live in an age of grace. all you people who were trying to play god, you ought to check their own eyes to see what is going on. host: eli, in florida. imposing more restrictions, why eli? caller: god has already judge thought. when judah had a son and he died, he told daniel to bring the child to him.

before that, he poured seat on the ground and god killed him. if you refuse to bring a child into the world, [indiscernible] . host: before the decision by the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade public, a draft of the opinion was leaked. the supreme court conducted an investigation of that we. the report is now out. it says it has not identified the leaker. the report is 20 pages long.

from cns reporting, the supreme court issued an investigative report saying it has yet determined who leaked the roe v. wade decision but at least 90 people had access. they conducted 126 interviews with 96 employees who denied disclosing the opinion. they also ran of fingerprint analysis and scrutinize any contacts with anyone associated with politico. the report does not say if the justices or their spouses were interviewed but implied they were not. roy, opposing more restrictions. caller: oh yes, i don't like the

idea of an abortion. however, the thing i am talking about here the woman is left to shoulder the burden of what to do. what i am saying here, the man should suffer some kind of consequence. if you get a woman pregnant, you should be part of the decision-making. that's all i'm trying to say. the man should be responsible to. host: lily from california rights and i support abortion depending on the nature of the pregnancy. not all women have healthy pregnancies. the government is not qualified to determine these things. it should be between a woman, her doctor and god. colleen and pennsylvania, what you say on this question? caller: i support more

restrictions. the abortion industry is exploiting women and it has to stop. that's all i have to say, thank you. host: mike in orlando, florida. if the right to lifers are concerned about saving lives, why don't they use support more gun laws? more children die from gunshots and anything else. host: do you support or oppose? caller: this is not the first time i've called this year. i think as a man who does not capable -- who is capable of getting pregnant should not voice their opinions as much.

i feel like when you say women you doesn't always include trans women are trans men. but it makes my blood boil and people call in" picture. i truly do not care about your silly little book that talks about -- it is asinine that people continue to use religious institutions for why they support or oppose legislative action on women and people are able to become pregnant's health care. it makes no sense. any medical professional, it's a health care issue. especially at the american

college of obstetrician, their stances clear. those are the only people we should be listening to. abortion is health care. denying someone health care, sounds like the most american thing possible. we are the only developed country that does not guarantee health care. maybe that does make more sense. bottom line, access to abortion is access to health care and denying people access is wrong. host: this is what joe and kentucky says, i oppose this. republicans never learn. take away women's right and take yourself out of the picture. abc news house republicans passed to antiabortion measures. chuck schumer the leader in the

senate said they were doomed in that chamber. one of those abortion-related measures from house republicans required medical care for infants born alive after an abortion attempt. here ann wagner who sponsored the bill on the floor. [video clip] >> all children should be welcomed with joy and wonder no matter the circumstances of their birth. too many of these little ones are denied the medical care they need to survive and thrive simply because they were unwanted. this commonsense legislation will require health care providers to administer the same level of care to the babies who survive abortions that they would sit in the other child born at the same gestational age. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the break i'll

will again join me and supporting the born alive abortion survivor's protection act. some did when it passed the house in the 2015 and 2018 with bipartisan support. to that point, i want to be absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with the supreme court's decision to return abortion to the states. not a word of the act was to implement jobs as they see fit. i strongly believe estate should control pro-life abortion policy. but today, we are considering an entirely separate issue. we are considering the protection of infants that have been delivered alive after an

attempted abortion. that is it, plain and simple. i am for my democratic colleagues who put aside politics and standard support for life-saving care for these innocent newborns. host: this was one of the measures the republicans took of when they began their 118th congress majority. it passed with one democrat supporting the bill. one report from the cdc found that over a 12 year. there were only 112 incidences

where baby was born alive. from california, you support more restrictions. caller: incest and rape as horrible as it is, there is still a child inside. why do people have to wait? if you really believe that there is a beating heart inside, you can't differentiate whether it is a rape or whatever. host: how do you respond to dennis in austin, texas who says why do we support behaving badly, rape, incest instead of the results of the behavior on children like women and children. host: you support more restriction access?

caller: when it comes to the woman, i fall in between here. i would like to add something to the conversation with the incest and all that. that is terrible. i grew up around the and windows all life began. i used to chase frogs. and the frogs would lay their eggs on the side of the pond and those eggs would evolve into pollywogs and they had to swim underwater. they did not breathe but they evolved and changed into a living frog to develop loans and they crawled up on land. they were living under the water. i love to fly fish, you could use these eggs that turn into

creatures that would live underwater and they would reach the surface and then they would have wings and fly into the air. the fish would always go after them. i was around water a lot to see. the evolution of a baby, going through the mother's womb and developing the necessities to change into a thing that could walk out of a fluid into the air and start breathing air. you have to take that biological fact into consideration. i think a lot of that is missed. i thought about it. host: we understand your point.

in north carolina, opposing more restrictions. your turn. caller: good morning greta, good morning america. i oppose more restrictions because of the simple fact that the majority of people who want more restrictions on abortion, what are they doing for those who are alive? a baby doesn't say a baby forever. a baby grows. if you are pro-life, what happens to all the poor children in america right now? it's fine and dandy to stand in front of an abortion clinic. calling people are murdered and stuff like that. what are they doing for the babies in america who are homeless? host: from the floor debate, of

the other abortion measure that came up republicans. this time, it's democrats that called it one-sided for ignoring attacks on abortion providers. the republican past resolution condemned attacks on pro-life facilities. this is texas democrat sheila jackson lee. [video clip] >> there has been loss of life of innocent persons who are providing medical care. david dunham was shot and appealed by an opponent of abortion during a protest. george tiller was twice a target and killed. this legislation is an extreme initiative because it is not here to acknowledge the salinity

to acknowledge the constitutional right of a woman to be able to make the decision without fear and intimidation. but we have a state like mine that has vigilantes, they have bounty hunters that will intimidate doctors, patients and nurses. this is a day that we must stay against. we must recognize all of the doctors and nurses and patients that have been intimidated. there have been an increase in violence. increases in stocking, so i asked my colleagues maybe be can limit it altogether. host: the congresswoman from texas opposing one of two antiabortion measures that

republicans brought to the floor in his first few legislative days of the 118th congress. happening today in washington, the mantra for lifeally takes on t nation small. those who are abtion will be gathering. they will rally in speaking portion and then they will march up the national to the capital and the supreme court. our coverage beginn eastern on our mobile app, it's free and you can watch on the or you can go back to our website and watch on demand. we are asking you this morning two days before the anniversary of the roe v. wade decision in the first anniversary since it was overturned by the current supreme court. do you support or oppose more

restrictions on abortion access? caller: i was calling today because i really don't oppose and i don't support. i have a 13-year-old son that they said was going to be dead at birth or die shortly after birth. he just turned 13 last june. he will be 14 next june. the only way the ore to do an abortion is to say they were raped and they should go do a d&c after they have been examined. that would prevent having to have an abortion. if they do get an abortion, i feel once you have an abortion you ought to be fixed because if not you will continue to be having babies after babies and we will continue to complain about people having abortions.

host: mary ann arizona, opposing more restrictions. what is your state doing if anything? caller: they have restrictions on it. i don't know the rules now because the democrats got in there. i have no clue but i really oppose restrictions on it. i don't think men should be talking about how much they oppose it because they always talk to women to take them to the clinic and when you have the baby we won't support you at all. it's just horrible. host: peggy and pennsylvania, what do you say peggy? caller: i am calling to support all the restriction on abortion. the girls are not given proper information.

in regards to what is happening with their babies. they have a problem and they are given the solution that the government pays for and they suffer long-term effects after they abort their babies. with the pill that they are given, they will find their babies intact. they come out and have a nervous breakdown and have all kinds of problems moving forward. with all the information they are given in the correct way, if

they are in an emotional position, you fall prey to every body is being told to you around you. the voices supporting abortion are much louder than those in opposition to. that is why i am calling because we need to get everything out to these girls. and years later, when they realize what they have down. it is disabling. host: in other news, i want to share some stories from the national newspapers. in the washington post, the cia chief and the ukrainian president met about next steps. cia director traveled in secret to ukraine's capital at the end of the last week to brief him on what the military is planning. a comes at a critical juncture

in the 11th month war. they are mounting an assault on the eastern cities. they are preparing a major counteroffensive elsewhere in the country. there is this in the wall street journal. senators facing long odds seek border and immigration deal. a bipartisan group of senators are pushing ahead with efforts to reach an agreement about border and immigration policy after talks ran out of time. they visited the southern borders among sharp political divides on how to handle illegal border crossings. the lawmakers say they see an opening for a compromise. that is something to be on the

lookout for. in the business section of the wall street journal, the bank's chairman and chief executive received 34.5 one million for his work along with his retention bonus that he could earn for sitting at the head of the bank. jamie dimon is expected to hang around for at least four more years that would earn him that bonus. that bonus spurred shareholder anger. the 2022 compensation includes a salary of 1.5 one million, a cash bonus of 5 million. he was paid in restrictive stock units and depends on performance of the bank.

finally, the opinion section of the new york times, written by peter king. a former member of congress, george santos will not be able to fake his way through congress. they won't get anything done in the house without the trust of your colleagues. let's hear from joseph and capitol heights, maryland. joseph, good morning to you. let's talk about abortion access, do you support more restrictions or not? are you there joseph? one more time for joseph. ok fran from massachusetts, do you support more restrictions? caller: good morning, how are you today? host: good. caller: i agree with more restrictions. i believe that with the heartbeat that's a living human

being. we are all made up of water in cells. thus the human body. rape and incest, those are specific cases that i think you be allowed to get an abortion. a woman and a have made their choice if they decide to have unprotected sex. that was her choice. there are many things out there that could prevent a pregnancy. i am 68 years old. we have a down syndrome daughter. she is 43 now. she is the love of our life. we have two daughters, we love them both equally. according to the rules that they want to go by, if they detected this early back in 1980 when she was born, they told us she would be born with down syndrome.

simply because her big toe was separated from her next toe. there was a gap in between them. they were right. we never considered aborting that child. we love her to death. she is probably the best thing that ever happened to us. this willy-nilly, just don't want to have a baby, i don't go for that. host: one of our colors on twitter said you can have a fight over abortion but what you can't do is have that fight using the law to enforce religious doctrine. that is blatantly unconstitutional. donald, from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning.

i am listening to your callers. i am opposed to more restrictions. most of these people go out into society and see what these mothers and fathers are doing to some of these children. you may not agree with abortion, but who are we to force what we believe on these women? they are always bringing god into the picture. do we have to stand there and judge these people? is not like these collars will be standing on the gates. we as a society need to stop pushing our believes on these women. host: charlotte and st. louis, missouri, you oppose.

caller: the prior collar, they said it all. you should not be pushing believe on these women saying they should not have an abortion. it is up to god. you cannot force people to believe in something because you believe it. host: leah, cincinnati, do you oppose my restrictions? caller: i oppose my restrictions. just aside from health, religion , women have women's issues. some women cannot carry a baby.

some people get pregnant in their tubes and have an abortion to get the baby out of there before they die. when my mama was pregnant with me she had a prolapse. she made a decision and here i am. granted, you have mothers who are strung out on drugs and leave their kids out. but maybe they are pregnant and not want to have that baby. we are not the church. we have a lot of hungry that ba. we are not the church. we have a lot of hungry children and no one is saying anything about that. but they are telling a woman what to do with her body. i think it is sad, inhumane. we have older people telling what to do with their bodies, especially men. host:orthers, in case you

missed it. we saw some polling on these questions of supporting abortion restrictions. the knights of columbus condtethis poll and when asked what restrictions he would support, 21 percent support abortion on demand. that is any time throughout the pregnancy, a woman could have access to abortion. 21% said they would support that. 25% said only roh the first three months and 46% only in cases of rape, ies to save the life of the mother. an 8% said never. what they want congress to do, 32 percent said they would le lawmakers to pass a law making abortion legal in all 50 states while 20% sd that congress

shouldake abortion illegal in all 50 states and 39% said no action and washington. it should be left up to the states. paul in lexington, kentucky. you oppose my restrictions. caller: i am from kentucky and i am ashamed of kentucky's law regarding abortion. i am 70 years old and i am a minister and i think the separation of church and state should be followed. it is not governments place for a woman to decide what needs to be here chase. -- her choice. if we pass a federal law, it's a woman's choice, period. i would hope her partner would

have some influence in that type of thing. it is strictly a woman's choice. host: paul, do you say this argument it church? caller: i do. host: in what is the reaction? caller: mixed. it is mixed because half of the congregation is republican and half is democrat. it goes along party lines, i think. host: why do you think those that believe there should be restrictions believe it and don't agree with you that there is separation of church and state? when he say about the life argument? -- what do you say about the life argument? caller: they want to say that the bible says you are not to have an abortion. that is not found in the bible

any place. specifically, is that we want to have life. even in biblical times, it was a woman's choice. women have needed abortions are hot abortions throughout time. there are so many things that go into it today that make it even more convoluted as far as can you take care of it? is it healthy for you or rape and incest? that is not god's will. don't try to say, you have life in you. life is not a conception but upon birth. i don't feel that it should be

something -- definitely not up to the states. we need to pass a law, women can make their choices. i think it is ironic that republican politics goes to you should not have an abortion. we need to have every child born. we have a responsibility to support that. but as soon as i child is born, the republican party seems to abdicate health care or how is that child going to have a quality of life? we don't want to pay for care for that child. we argue about schools in caring for that type of thing.

maybe it is a single mother, how is she supposed to take care of the child? host: eddie from vernon, texas. you support more restrictions? caller: yes ma'am i do. i believe abortion is murder. that's pretty much all i have to say. host: rosetta in danville, georgia. caller: i'm just like the man who called in and got off the phone. i think abortion is murder. i'm an 86-year-old woman. i had one child. i wanted more children but i could not have more children. i think women should make sure before they lay down with the man and have intercourse. when i was coming up, if you don't want to have children keep

your torso. host: if you want to call in this morning and you could not make it through, we will have this conversation in our last half-hour. you can join us then. try to dial in for that. stay with us, the washington journal continues a review of key policy proposals and the house republicans commitment to america's pledge. we will take a look at the proposals for government accountability and oversight with washington times reported r julie rovner discusses proposals around social security and medicare. ♪

>> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 producer natosha discusses her attempt to launch a russian version of sesame street following the fall of the soviet union. in washington post columnist, author of the aftermath, examines how baby boomers have impacted the u.s. economy and political systems. he is interviewed by millennial action project president. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at book tv.org. >> 10 days after 9/11, defense

intelligence agency analyst was arrested by the fbi on espionage charges for passing along classified information to the government of cuba, a crime for which she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. she was released in early january 2023. sunday on q&a investigative journalist jim hawkins talks about the life and career. and the damage caused by her treachery. >> she did not take documents out of the building. very rarely would she take a piece of paper or a photo. instead she would memorize it. her date job is study and memorization and then she would go home to her apartment and now her night job begins, where she would type in what she had learned into her encrypted laptop, put it on a disk, and

day after day for nearly 17 years she is aggregating this information and passing it along. >> jim hopkins with his book codenamed blue red sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> listening to programs on c-span through radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker clay c-span radio app and listening to washington journal daily. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today for a fast-paced report on the stories of the day. listen to c-span any time. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio app. c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: this week we have been taking a closer look at key parts of the republicans commitment to america, what they unveiled before the 2022 election, including plans for government accountability and oversight. here to talk about that with us is jeff mordock, white house reporter with the washington times. there are several parts of this. the weaponization of government, which house republicans created a commite to look into that. you al have the biden famy business as part of these investigations. the origins of the covid pandemic. china competitiveness. in the withdrawal from afghanistan. along with border enforcement and the treatment of the january 6 defendants. it is a lot. guest: it is a lot and it is a lot they want to accomplish

through the seven investigations. the republicans have been preparing for this since long before midterms when it seemed clear they would retake the house they started sending preservation letters to different officials, to attorney general garland, asking them to preserve documents and hold onto documents because subpoenas will be coming and they will have to turn the stuff over to their committees. host: will we see hearings on these topics? guest: absolutely we will. republicans are gearing up. it looks like the first set we will see is on border security. after that we will start seeing hearings on the botched withdrawal of afghanistan. host: how do you think democrats are prepared to handle these hearings? guest: democrats are preparing for the hearing by labeling them as partisan witchhunts. what they will make the argument for is this is an attempt to embarrass the biden administration without

delivering anything for the american people. they will argue this is part of the republican ideology and not address any of the court issues facing america right now like inflation, like rising gas prices, like supply chain. host: we want to get our viewers to call in and react. tell us your thoughts about this part of the house republican agda. oversight and accntability. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. text is as well at (202) 748-8003. let's take the first one. the weaponization of government. we will oversee this and who will lead it? guest: jim jordan will lead this committee. they have not put anyone on this committee yet. it's vision is vague. what they have said is they will

go after the politicization of government. it will include whether the biden administration weaponized the justice department to target political rivals. it will look at the treatment of former president trump when the fbi raided mar-a-lago. it will look at the government in terms of the hunter biden laptop. did they suppress any evidence? did big tech suppress any of that evidence. they will look at federal government employees have worked to suppress free speech. we do not know who is on the committee. democrats have already slammed to this committee and compared it to the 1950's mccarthy hearings. they think it is a way for republicans to carry out vendettas against people they don't like. that is how they have been pitching this committee. i think this will be the most interesting committee to watch. subcommittee to watch. it will be a subcommittee.

it is still very nebulous right now. we will see where this goes. host: what it also include the muller investigation? guest: yes. that will probably be later. what the republicans are waiting on is the special counsel to finish his report and get it to the justice department. they do not want to interfere with anything john durham is doing. there are some he's running around. john durham is the special counsel appointed by former attorney general william barr to investigate the investigators and look into how the fbi, justice department, and intelligence agencies operated in hand like initial changes of the trump-russia investigation. host: how long has that work been going on? guest: that has been going on since may 2019.

he has brought several cases into court. one was a guilty plea to a former fbi lawyer. he admitted to doctoring evidence. he got a slap on the risk. the other cases as a former clinton campaign attorney. the other is a russian analyst who was providing information. they were both acquitted by jury in what were embarrassing defeats for john durham. host: do we know how much the investigation costs american taxpayers? guest: we have a slight view. before he was special counsel he was working as an independent investigator at the justice department. we do not have his cost from that period. we do not have a complete picture of how much has been spent on that probe. host: let's talk about the biden family businesses. this you are in florida says all

i want to know is what started the search, is a fact the republicans were going to look for papers of hunter? guest: is she talking about the document search? host: let's say yes. guest: what started the november 7 document search, the documents were found at the university of pennsylvania office in d.c. -- host: i'm sorry. i think they're talking about going to look for papers of hunter? we can take both. guest: to prime minister with the laptop? are they asking what sparked the republicans? host: i think so. guest: what sparked that is we still have a lot of outstanding questions about this laptop. we have a lot of questions about hunter biden's business dealers, influence peddling, there are still a lot of questions. how republicans will pitch this is they will use the same

tactics democrats did when they went after trump's taxes. they pitch this, it is not about trump, it is about the irs and how the irs is auditing public officials and other government officials. what the republicans are going to try to do is make a similar argument and say this is not about hunter biden, this is about the -- this is not about the biden family business dealings, this is about the tools of federal agencies to flag money laundering and overseas deals that might be shady. that is how they will try to pitch this. if they happen to hundred -- to uncover stuff hunter biden or his dad they are may not have done they will try to pitch this as a way of bolstering law enforcement's ability to flag business deals that might be suspect. host: the lines are lighting up. theodore in miami. republican. what is your question or comment about these investigations. caller: good morning.

the oversight and accountability, is it meant just for internal oversight and accountability in the house gop and the house or is it oversight and accountability meant for the american people? guest: that is a good question. that is how the republicans will pitch this, that this is accountability for the american people. as i just mentioned with the biden business dealings probe. they will look at that as a law enforcement issue, a money laundering issue, increasing the ability -- increasing the powers of federal law enforcement. if you look at the burgeoning documents probe with the classified documents, they will look at that as a national security matter. if you look at the origins of covid investigation they will look at that as a way to review

research and function research which is specialized research involving viruses. some said that lead to a leak at a chinese lab that started the covid pandemic. they will look at that as keeping americans safe from future viruses. that is how the republicans will pitch this, as a way to protect the american people and provide oversight. host: bob in rhode island. what is an example of policy that could come from these hearings. are these more of a political strategy for 2024 or what are republicans hoping to achieve with these hearings? he says that is still unclear. guest: it is still unclear. what it seems republicans are trying to achieve is to come up with damaging information on the biden administration. that seems to be the goal. democrats have derided the

investigations as fishing expeditions. without more clear there is a point to their claims -- without them being more clear. there are two that will be worrisome for the biden administration. one is the botched afghanistan withdraw, hearings and oversight of the afghanistan withdraw. there are still a lot of questions that remain about that and it is going to reveal some decision-making that was not well thought out, including why this administration did not believe kabul would fall once the taliban came back into power, why they thought the taliban would not take over kabul. the other thing is the documents case. that will be a national security issue. even if nobody committed a crime committed as possible nobody did commit a crime, it still goes back to national security. you do not want national --

sitting in a closet in a d.c. office building where anybody could have gone in. it is easy for chinese intelligence to place a spy with the pleading crew or maintenance crew and get access to those documents. that is something else. those are the two most worrisome investigations for the biden administration. host: president biden in california yesterday to view the storm damage and he spoke about those classified documents found at an office in his home. they date back to his time as vice president. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> we found a handful of documents were filed in the wrong place and immediately turned them over to the archives and justice department. we are fully cooperating and looking forward to getting this resolved quickly. you will find there is nothing there. i have no regrets in following what the lawyers have told me

they want me to do. host: that was president biden in california. what do think about the president saying he has no regrets about how this was handled? guest: it is hard to believe he has no regrets on how this has been handled. this is been a pr disaster for the biden administration. from the white house press secretary insisting they had found all of the documents, and then other documents turn up. the fact they have not been able to answer why they sat on this for two months and then insisted they had the documents and then they discovered other documents. the pr messaging has been terrible. it has undermined -- he was on a winning streak, and it has completely undermined his momentum. the administration's really needs to be fixed. i have seen some people to call

for the president to go on national tv and deliver a primetime address addressing this issue. when you've had presidents and they have been involved in trauma, going back to kennedy in the bay of pigs through reagan in iran-contra and bill clinton and monica lewinsky, they have gone on national tv and issued a mea culpa. biden still has not addressed the special counsel. this white house press secretary is overmatched. she has been sparring with reporters for two meeting -- for two weeks. she has gotten visibly flustered and combative. they want the white house counsel spokesperson. he had a press briefing with us where he revealed no new information and stonewall us. on a personal level i will have been frustrated because i will ask the white house a question and they refer be to the counsel's office, the counsel's office refers bit of the justice department, the justice department refers me to the white house and it is a circle

that creates an information blackout. host: we have been covering these press briefings. the press secretary will hold another one this afternoon. you can go to c-span.org for more details about that. she is peppered with questions about these classified documents and her answer, jeff mordock -- guest: i will refer you to the justice department. host: mack in indiana, democratic caller. your question about oversight and accountability. caller: this is the thing i'm concerned about. it is going back to the mccarthy days. they say they have a lot of information and things they have found. look at what happened at the mccarthy hearings, they did not have anything. they want to make sure they have got something and ask what have you got and let us know what the heck is going on. they are chewing a lot of stuff that has been chewed in chewed.

the thing i do not like is first they found something with trump, then all of a sudden they find something with biden as far as the documents. i don't like the way -- it is a lot of money and they will keep rehashing stuff, and they're the ones talking about the money being spent, and here they go with a lot of committees. if they are worthwhile committees and they bring stuff that is true, that is good. as long as it is good stuff. a lot of it to be is just a bunch of crab. host: jeff mordock? guest: there are a lot of things we do not know that we will learn through the committees. the decision making in the chain of command in the afghanistan withdraw. that is something we need to know. with the documents, even if nobody committed a crime it is still a massive national security risk and there still a lot of questions the white house needs to answer.

as i said earlier, the documents were discovered november 2. they were not made public until cbs news broke the story on january 9, in the white house was forced to come clean. when they came clean they acknowledge the documents at the biden penn center but never acknowledge the documents at the president delaware residents. why was it that brought up? we get into the origins of covid. we are still not sure what we know about that, if we can trust what china has said about that. there is a lot outstanding. i think we will learn a lot from these investigations. i do not think it is there entirely. i think there is partisanship. i do not think it is entirely partisanship. host: here is the headline in the washington post. "presidential records are clear but oversight is not." what can you tell us? guest: in terms of retaining

presidential records, after administration is over the records need to be turned over to the national archives, the national archives then goes through the process of determining if they must remain classified or how long they must remain pacified or de-classifying them and making them available for public consumption. the oversight, there is no tracking of the classified documents. in both the trump case and the biden situation, the national archives did not know these documents were missing and that is concerning. they are supposed to have possession of these documents. there does not seem to be a lot of oversight of the national archives. this week the national archives told the house oversight committee that they do not want to cooperate unless the justice department clears it, and they will only share information greenlighted by the justice department, which is another way of stonewalling that investigation. host: angelique in vermont wants

to know will the afghanistan withdraw investigation include the timeline negotiated by the trump administration? guest: that remains to be seen. i think that would be a very good thing to look into. i imagine on a republican-led committee that is probably going to be overlooked. you can make the same argument with his document investigation that we have an oversight committee into why president biden had these documents but we did not have an oversight committee looking into why former president trump had his documents. host: democrats will serve on these committees. can we assume they will bring that up? guest: they will bring it up but because they are the minority they do not have the subpoena power, the investigation power. they can bring it up. minority parties are entitled to a witness. they can bring a witness to address the issues but they will not have the power republicans

will have because they've lost their investigation abilities. host: kerry in bellflower, california. republican. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. my problem is this thing with the fbi allowing white house lawyers to disseminate what documents are going to the department of justice. i have a real problem with that. that is where we need oversight. how on earth does the fbi play hands off in this? guest: that is a great question and something will be explored as the oversight committee continues its document investigation. biden's lawyers, when they had discovered the documents, reached out to the justice department and wanted to know if the fbi wanted to oversee the search at biden's residence.

they searched his rehobeth beach beach house as well as his residence. the justice department decided not to use the fbi and let buyers lawyers carry out the search themselves. the reason the justice department said they did that is they thought -- at that times biden's lawyers were deemed to be cooperating by the justice department, so you have his own justice department deciding his own lawyers are cooperating. they also thought they may need the fbi at a later time and they wanted to hold off. at that point to the u.s. attorney in illinois was running an investigation into the matter before we went to special counsel. there was a u.s. attorney looking into the matter and they did not want to interfere with his investigation. that has received a lot of criticism from the republicans who look at it as a double standard when you see the heavy-handed approach they took to president trump. at the same time former

president trump had also been subpoenaed for these documents and had not handed them over. there is a slight difference. i also see the republicans when they point to the double standard. host: james in michigan. independent. caller: hello. i am pretty interested in the twitter files investigation. where are the files? it is all just screenshots from journalist. a file is something you can look through. this is not real journalism. the mainstream has not covered it. i think we need to look into it but do not expect a full view from the gop. that is a problem on both sides. it is the deep state. chuck schumer said it. the cia or intelligence community -- six ways from sunday. i find that a compelling narrative, look into the

intelligence. this china thing is a bunch of bull. guest: two issues. the twitter files and we've not talked about china competitiveness. the weaponization of the house subcommittee and the judiciary, that will look into this. that will take a look at the files. twitter is a private company, they do not want to handle them over and if congress wants it they will have to issue a subpoena. on the china committee, that will be interesting, and that is a committee set up by the republicans, and it is going to be looking into china competition. our national security position towards taiwan, if that needs to be tweaked. shoring up the u.s. supply chain , which got devastated because of covid. china -- there has been a lot of cases with chinese intellectual property theft of u.s.

companies. it is going to look into that. of all of these committees and all of these investigations, this will be the most bipartisan. there is democrat interest, but at the same time some democrats worry it will increase asian xenophobia or scapegoat the asian community. they are pressing republicans to go forward with it but walk a tight line. host: republicans passed legislation addressing competitiveness with china and it did pass with bipartisan support. guest: both parties realize china is a threat to the united states. that is one of the few issues both sides agree on. host: the makeup of the weaponization of the federal government -- investigates exutive branches authority to investigate individuals including criminal probes. it will investigate private companies. there will be 15 lawmakers on this committee. nine republicans, six democrats.

it includes the judiciary committee and ranking member. jim jordan will be on this committee along with the ranking democrat of the judiciary committee, jerry nadler of new york. dan in woodbridge, virginia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. how are you? this is one of the reasons i dislike the republicans. they ran on how they are going to change everything, they are going to do everything, but you come up with all of these committees that are not pertaining to what you ran on as far as helping the american people now. deal with inflation now. some of these committees, who cared what happened with afghanistan. that has nothing to do with the situation we are in. the republicans acted like they were so against donald trump. why not have a committee against

the man who wanted to change the constitution of the united states of america? i just don't get these republicans and their mentality. it makes no sense. host: jeff mordock? guest: i think the republicans will argue they can do both, they can have these committees and they can pass legislation to help the american people. the democrats will side with the collar and asked what does this mean for inflation? republicans will come back like we just talked about with the chinese committee, the competition with china committee , and say we are shoring up the supply chain which was a key contributor to inflation. the afghanistan committee, we are shoring up national security, which is an issue with chinese spies, with ukraine, with taiwan. that would be the argument republicans will make. host: in philadelphia, conrad, a

republican. it is your turn. caller: i want to make a few comments. i hear them say donald trump and abided had documents classified in their homes. i think they should go back to the archives. there is no way in the world people can for top-secret documents and people can take them home over three or four years. i think we need to change the system. they are sending you subpoena letters -- it is not the democrats fault -- it is the democrats fault in the republicans fault. there is no way you can sign for them documents do not know where they came from. they need to get a normal citizens to put in the archives. you take a harry potter book and you do not take it to the library the next thing you know you have a $12,000 fine.

all of them need to be fired. democrats and republicans. guest: the caller actually makes a good point about the classified documents in the national archives. classified documents do not have any markings. i have seen, especially after what we have learned with president biden, classified documents do not have any barcodes or anything to stand, there is nothing to track that. there is a person in charge of that but there is no electronic system to track where they are or where they are moving to. that is a problem. that is why the national archives does not know what is missing which is a big concern for the american people. there are probably national security files all over this town that people are unaware they have. host: sandra in tennessee. independent. caller: good morning, i am very grateful for c-span. my concern is a chief of staff,

vice president, president, anybody on the cabinet, they do not do the filing, they do not put papers away. it is the staff were secretary. i worked in places where i worked for an attorney and went through the files. there were checks from five years ago, whoever did the filing, and found all kinds of things that were misfiled. it is the cleaning people. they leave papers, they do not know what to do, they put them in the box to put them in the closet. you cannot blame it on the particular person, the people who are in charge when there are any types of meetings or classified information. somebody cleans up the desk and i do not blame it on the individual or the resident and the people do not follow through. host: let's take those points. guest: that is a good point. even if it is just people that

through documents in a box and ship them out, it is still the mishandling of classified information, which is a crime. it is still a national security risk, even if it is as simple as a low-level staffer through a bunch of stuff in a box. it is still a crime. host: if president biden was not involved, there is no communication of president biden saying i want those documents in that box to take to my office. if the republicans investigate and do not find the president was aware or had anything to say about it, then watched? verse -- then what? versus will they find evidence that with president trump there was communication with him saying i want these things at mar-a-lago. there was one reference to him saying they were memorabilia. guest: keepsakes, he called them. it depends on the facts.

it is hard to pin that together without a lot of the facts. if it is found that the president or former president trump directed anybody that is a crime they will be held accountable for. if it is the mistake of the staff throwing stuff in a box, that it gets more confusing. it gets more vague about what can and cannot be done in terms of law enforcement position. host: jason in san diego. democratic caller. caller: good morning. my question or comment is about the afghan pullout. when trump released 5000 of the al qaeda and isis right before he left office, he made a plan and an agreement with them and even tried to meet with these guys in camp david. that is definitely not a good

idea. i want to know if the committee is going to investigate from the beginning, the entire plan trump had in releasing those people right when biden was in office. if you do not do that that will make the whole thing irrelevant. you have to start from the beginning of trump's plan when he released isis and al qaeda, 5000 of them. that is what you will have to address. guest: to the callers point, the republicans have been clear this will be a narrow investigation starting with abided administration's decision to pull out of afghanistan and the decisions going from there. as we said earlier i imagine the democrats will raise that point. they will bring witnesses to support that point. without control of the committee, that is only going to go so far.

host: we have lots of calls with people concerned about the border. the border enforcement, security, you mentioned those be the first we will see. what will they be investigating? guest: they will be investigating a lot of things. this is a key target for republicans. some republicans have keyed up articles of impeachment for secretary may or just. i think the last time congress moved to impeach a cabinet member was the 1870's. that is how long it has been. this is a key area. they will look into immigration policy, how it can be tightened, and who is coming over. we caught people and terrorists watch lists sneaking into the united states. fentanyl is coming across the border on record levels. people have not been tested for

covid coming over. a lot of chaos at the border plus the sheer numbers have been increased. all of that is fair game. host: mark in new jersey. republican. caller: how are you doing. i am originally from boston and is a pretty liberal crowd. i live in south jersey and its wings a bit more red. it is a nice change of culture. it is kind of a bipartisan issue. as far as i'm talking about the biden archives. kamala harris -- host: let's move on to new jersey. apologies to those who have heard what that caller said. caller: that was disgusting what

that last callers said. i am really offended by that. what this looks like to me and a lot of voters, and we do not operate in a vacuum. you cannot compare what happened with the trump documents and joe biden. these things happen in context. there is a trial that just finished in new york where the trump organization was deemed criminal. there are the documents. there is the insurrection on january 6. there is his dealings with the president of ukraine, the black male. we have rendered -- the black mail. the public has rendered judgment on trump. he was a criminal president. now the republicans seem to be trying to blacken joe biden's reputation and make the public think both sides are equally corrupt and therefore we should

not be voting on the basis of who is more corrupt. this is ridiculous. for them to act as if trump, to act as if joe biden has committed crimes, they are trying to plant the seed in the mind of the voters. that in itself is corrupt. guest: to the caller's point, there is still a lot we do not know. the documents, we do not know what is in the documents or why he has them. we have hunter biden who may or may not have been living at the house. there is conflicting information. he had listed it as his residence on a credit card and his tax returns and said he was paying rent. if you look at the biden taxes they do not list the rent as income so there is a lot of confusion. if he is bringing in foreign business associates to do business, that raises questions of criminal liability.

i do not know -- there is still so much on answered. it is hard to make those judgments about these cases with president biden. host: iowa, mike, good morning. independent. caller: i will call and say up on the hill there is harry and lloyd from dumb and dumber at the white house. he is as guilty as sin and no less guilty than this a donald trump is. i believe donald trump is guilty but i believe dumb and dumber is guilty. the border is a laugh. what border security do we have? there is no border security and there hasn't been since dumb and dumber have come into the white house. another thing, this host, you seem like a nice lady but it seems like you are defending the president when you're trying to say maybe he didn't know. he knew.

he got all that money from china. our president has sold out to the chinese like everybody said trump was to the russians but there was no proof of that. there is more proof dumb and dumber sold out to the chinese. guest: i think the answer to that question is the same as my answer to the earlier question. there is still so much we do not know, there are still so many unanswered questions. it is hard to say whether or not there is any claim in all liability -- is any criminal liability at all. host: the question i was trying to get out is is there legal distinction between what somebody knows and explicitly directing action. guest: there is no legal distinction. classified documents, you need to follow the procedure. if the procedure is not followed, there is no legal distinction. host: richard in marlborough, massachusetts. republican.

caller: my comment has to go to this green wave situation. the biggest polluter in this country is probably reusable batteries. people have been throwing away millions of batteries in all kinds of situations. host: can you tie this to our conversation about oversight and accountability by house republicans in the 118th congress? caller: if they were worried about the economy, reduce rechargeable batteries in this country. host: bend, oregon, independent. caller: i was curious. at the beginning of your statement use -- of your segment you stated it was easy to access the rooms biden was in for cleaning people or security people or both credentialed people or spies. i am curious how the republican

committee would handle it if they found evidence of trump on the documents, how would they handle that evidence, and how would they handle if the direction was turning to trump had someone plant the documents? the reason i say that is it was curious how trump a couple months ago stated check biden's home, checked his offices. it seemed to me it would be really hard to do that. like i said, it would be really easy. how do you think those committees would handle it? guest: that is a good question. the first thing we need to see is the visitor logs from the biden penn center.

that will tell us who has been there and who has not. there is nothing blocking the university of pennsylvania from releasing those records. they are taxpayer-funded institution. if i were the biden administration, i would put pressure on the university of pennsylvania to release the visitor logs. i think that would go a long way toward transparency. i have an article today about one president biden came in he pledged the most transparent and accountable administration in history. now they have circled the wagons with this document scandal, to the extent one way to project transparency is to push the university of pennsylvania to release the visitor logs. as for the theory about president trump planting it, we have seen no evidence. we have seen that floated out as a conspiracy theory. there is been no evidence to support that. again, we need an accounting of who has it has not been inside that office. host: linda in new jersey.

democratic caller. caller: i believe it could be planted by people working for trump. the other thing is nobody is saying anything about the documents in north jersey when the saudi arabians came. there is nobody saying anything about him having possession of confidential material when he had secret meetings with vladimir putin. nobody is saying anything about his meeting with north korea and his having those documents in his -- nobody in the gop -- as far as i'm concerned the gop is doing democrats a huge favor being just the way they are. i think we can guarantee there will not be another republican president for a very long time. host: what are the political

concerns for republicans of these investigations, if any? guest: in terms of whether or not it will come back to bite them at some point? host: or baby help them? -- or maybe help them? guest: the political concerns is if they do these earrings and nothing comes of them. we learn everything was aboveboard and nothing scandalous. then the democrats get the leg up and say look at all this time we spent on it, look at everything we have done. we have nothing to show for it. the best case scenario for the republicans would be they do this and they uncover wrongdoing, they uncover criminal liability or just in terms of the afghanistan, willfully poor decision-making, misunderstanding what the situation. all of that -- in 2020 president biden ran on restoring

competence to the white house. this would give republicans the political argument he did not bring competence back to the white house, that he botched the afghanistan withdrawal, that he has classified documents all over the place and he is not even aware of it. it gives them a lot of talking points into 2024. that would be the advantage. i think that would start resonate with the voters because voters will see these earrings, these earrings will be televised. newspapers will be covering it. talking heads on cable tv will be talking about it. it gives them a lot of talking points into 2024. host: jeff mordock with the washington times. you can find them online at washingtontimes.com. we will take a short break. when we come back, we continue our look at the house republicans commitment to america with kaiser health news

julie rovner who will talk about social security and medicare. we will be right back. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span 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 here or here or anywhere that matters america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 p.m., look at laws and policies regarding abortion with

professor. starting in the 19th century, she examines changes in medical practice and public opinion. she also describes abortion restrictions, access to illegal abortions, costs, and health risks in different times and states. then at 9:30 on "the presidency," a look at gerald ford during the 1970's. he served as house minority leader, vice president, then-president. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time at c-span.org/history. >> over four days, c-span's cameras had unprecedented access to the floor of the u.s. house as california republican representative kevin mccarthy became the 50 bit speaker of the house. it was history -- became the

55th speaker of the house. it was complete, uninterrupted, unbiased coverage. the hollywood reporter wrote c-span is america's hottest tv drama in 2023. the wall street journal says the drama has one winner, c-span. from the washington post, c-span has become must watch tv. you never know what will happen within the walls of congress. 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. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is julie rovner , chief washington correspondent for kaiser health news, here to talk to us about republicans commitment to america and what

they have said about medicare and social security. i want to start with the leader of the republicans in the house, kevin mccarthy. he spoke about what they want to do on medicare and social security. i will have you respond to it. [video clip] >> when republicans were in power those eight years, discretionary spending increased zero. i watched democrats take over and they increased it by 30%. they went from four chili dollars to $7 trillion. i watch the debt and inflation grow under their policies. we have to get our house in order. republicans will always protect medicare and social security. we will protect that for the next generation going forward. we will scrutinize every single dollar spent. it is the right of the hard-working taxpayer that pays it. we want to make sure it is spent wisely and not the way the democrats have spent it. host: you heard kevin mccarthy

saying they will protect these programs and yet we have heard from viewers since the beginning of the 118th congress that some republicans want any vote on the debt limit to include cuts to these entitlement programs. is that true? caller: yes -- guest: yes. kevin mccarthy has re-rated -- has reiterated the one thing republicans agree on. they do not want to be seen as doing anything to harm those programs. there are a lot of republicans in the house and senate who would like to make very big and probably very controversial changes as part of an effort to reduce spending, control the budget, and preserve programs which do need to be at least tinkered with if they are to withstand the retirement of future generations. host: what is the status of each

of these programs? guest: social security, according to the last trustee report in 2022, is expected to result -- to exhaust its trust fund in 2035. the medicare trust fund is not scheduled to be exhausted until 2028. that is longer than it was last year. over the many years, that is more years than the medicare trust fund usually has. there is some time to deal with both of these issues. congress at some point is going to have to grapple with them. host: how much federal spending goes to each of the programs? caller: i don't -- guest: i don't have the actual statistic but is a large chunk of the federal government and what we call mandatory spending. the speaker was talking about discretionary spending that went up under the democrats. social security and medicare and

medicaid continue unless congress steps in to change them , unlike other programs that have to be renewed every year and appropriated for every year. these are programs that do not change unless congress goes in and makes changes to them. host: if you want to get the debt under control, can you do it without touching these programs? guest: probably not. almost certainly not. they are such a large chunk of federal spending and so they will have to be done to preserve the programs for future generations. it is always very controversial to touch social security or medicare. as we found out in 2017 when the republicans were trying to appeal the affordable care act, people are sensible about cutting medicaid because now something where people are on medicaid and medicare. we have called these programs the third rail of politics,

touch them and die. president george w. bush in his second term proposed a fairly minor program to privatize social security and basically got his head handed to him and republicans have shied away from that ever since. it is politically very risky to go after these programs. on the other hand, at some point the parties left to get together and do something. host: a republican on the house floor last week explained how entitlement programs like medicare and social security are the primary drivers of the national debt. [video clip] >> the vast majority of u.s. spending is what we call mandatory. it is entitlement. you get because you work 70 quarters, because you turned a certain age, because you are a certain tribal group, because

you are a certain level of poverty, you get these benefits and their automatic. it is a formula. over here, this green part, that is discretionary. this is what everyone thinks of as government. that is your fbi, irs, all of those things. here in the blue, that is defense. i will show you on shorts later, my brothers and sisters on the left will say cut defense, get rid of it. believe it or not, it is not enough money to keep us in balance. there needs to be an understanding of reality. your government is an insurance company with an army. i note that is trying to be on humorous but it happens to be the truth. host: julie rovner, insurance company with an army? guest: that is a pretty good

description. that was a completely accurate description of how mandatory spending works, how our entitlements work. if you qualified, you automatically get these. if congress wants to change them and the president agrees, you can do that. that is what happens in most of these budget reconciliation bills. that is what the bills are for, congress to make changes to the nondiscretionary part of the budget, which is the congressman points out is the largest part of the budget. we have seen many changes to medicare and social security. most of them have been small. some have been significant. in 2003 it was republicans who pass the bill to put prescription drug benefit into medicare and did not pay for it. both parties are guilty for letting things on that have made these programs more expensive and more generous. host: before we get to calls,

are there bipartisan proposals for adjusting these programs so that they can remain solvent? guest: probably not in congress. nobody wants to step out. there are a lot of bipartisan proposals on the outside. commissions have tried to come up with ways to shore up the programs in a fair way. congress has been loathed, it is politically very risky to tinker with these programs too much. i think this is probably not going to be the congress where we will see the republicans and democrats hold hands and jump. host: what are some of these bipartisan proposals by outside groups, by commissions? guest: one of the quick ones is to take the cap office social

security tax. right now you only pay a social security tax up to $147,000 of income. there a lot of people who make more than that and they do not pay their social security tax on anything above that. the reason is they want the benefits to be balanced with how much you paid in. that is why there is a cap. taking the caps off, people could afford that. that would be one quick way to bring a fair bill of money into the social security program. host: let's see if our viewers for that idea. bob in utah, democratic caller, your thoughts on these entitlement programs. caller: they are entitlements. your boss pays a much in from social security and unemployment and all of the other taxes. that is the cost of being an american, it is the cost of doing business. i've been on both sides of the

aisle. it is just being an american. we are the only country that is civilized, we have to have programs like this, safety nets. host: let's talk about us versus other countries. guest: we have a relatively skimpy social safety net and social insurance program compared to most other countries that have nationalized health insurance, nationalized paid family leave. earlier retirement. in france there having a big guest: artist security age is going up to 67 already without changes. medicare you do not get until you are 65. we do not have a generous social security net that many other of

our companion first world countries in europe and asia. that is something we have chosen not to do. we do not want to pay higher taxes so more people are left on their own to fund their retirement and if they get sick and putting their kids through college. host: are there bipartisan proposals to continue with raising the age you can retire and receive the medicare benefits? it is already region 68. is it automatic. are there proposals to make it automatic? guest: it is automatic and they did it in 1983. when social security was within a year of running out of money. it was an emergency. it was bipartisan but there was this thing hanging over their head. president reagan, o'neill was speaker of the house and they

did the deal therese slowly to over how many years it has been since 1983. it is not quite as 67. it is at 66 in a couple of months. that is something they try to do far in advance when paula bryant was the speaker had a lot of proposals to raise both retirement age and medicare age. bryant wanted to not affect people close to retirement who have been planning on retiring at a certain age so they would do it like they did it in 1983 over a longer period of time. but if you do that you need to start it soon. this is not been a serious discussion among democrats, republicans for a while. host: dave in wisconsin, democratic caller. caller: i would like you to

clarify something. medicare advantage is promoted as being medicare. i was led to believe it is not. medicare, the money you get from social security to medicare is given to private health companies wherever. basically medicare is self is being slowly privatized and people are led to believe it is medicare and it is not. for them to use that term medicare and -- in all the advertisements are always on tv saying get your medicare through this or that. it is not medicare. i'm stuck with it because it is cheaper but you are at the whims of the insurance companies. they decide to deny you coverage, that is the way they

make their money by denying things. tell me if i'm wrong. guest: we will do the quick medicare 101. medicare is three programs. medicare part a is hospitals and nursing homes. you and your employer each pay 1.45% of our the payroll tax. medicare part b covers doctors and other outpatient bills, it is voluntary and most people take it because it is a good deal. medicare part a and b together do not cover, they cover half of sears out-of-pocket costs right now. in the past people have bought supplemental insurance that covers the large deductibles in some of the premiums and co-pays . in two thousand three, the republicans added a drug benefit

, they created a new program called medicare part d which is voluntary which is run by private companies. right now you have a couple of choices. get medicare part a automatically. by part b and by part d and by supplemental insurance or go to medicare part c and that is medicare advantage. it is run by private companies. the deal with the government is private company says you give us the money you would us. all medicare part a and b we will provide those benefits and more benefits because it is more money than we need to provide suitable care to the beneficiaries. we can offer extra benefits like vision care that medicare does not normally cover, like dental care, hearing aids. things like the medical --

regular medicare benefit does not have. people like part c because they can get extra benefits. the trade-off you have to stay within your insurance company network which you do not in traditional medicare. that is the deal. she ago in department plans, the caller is right -- you can go in the private plans. we know more than half of medicare beneficiaries are offering a medicare advantage plan, medicare part c. you have a choice to stay traditional, go and buy your own supplemental coverage. going to medicare part c. you should know if you go into medicare advantage, you can change plans every year. it also go back to traditional medicare but if you go back from medicare advantage, you might not be able to by supplemental coverage. that depends on the state you live in. some states require it some people can get caught in

medicare advantage because they cannot afford the co-pay, deductibles of traditional medicare. host: julia rovner's kaiser health news chief correspondent covering health care policies for years. she wrote a book health care policies in politics a nz a review. of europe was the follow-up on united states versus other country -- a viewer it was the follow-up believe -- on united states versus other countries. guest: we do have the most expensive health care system in the world. mostly the government does not limit things like drug prices at least under the medicare population. they are just starting for medicare. we have a more expensive health care system than other countries. other countries have higher taxes to pay all of these social benefits.

it is a trade-off and he had decided they are willing to pay those taxes because they want the benefits. we have not gotten there. host: on twitter, there is an easy fix to ensure social security, remove the taxable maximum. if every american pays the same percentage of their income regardless of how much they make , funding social security would not be a problem. guest: it is not enough to fix the entire problem but it would go a long way. taking the cap top of social security tax -- off of social security tax. congress has taken the caps off of medicare part of the social security tax. social security tax is part three different programs, one is the old age program of social security. disability insurance program for people who have worked enough quarters and become disabled

before they turn 65. the medicare part a tax which is 1.45% both paid by the employee and employer. that 1.45% does go on now as a way to help shore up the medicare trust fund. host: in chester, virginia. jerry, good morning. caller: good morning. you answered all of my questions. i want to ask, you talk about medicare advantage, 50% now of all the people who are on medicare or medicare advantage. we got rid of medicare advantage and just went for single-payer, with the program become solvent and it would it be for the

payroll tax now and also social security tax, race at the 15% and raise the payroll tax get rid of medicare advantage. would that make medicare -- traditional medicare solvent? guest: it depends on how you do it. it depends on what kind of been a want to offer. how much you want to raise the tax. this has been the hard part. everyone can talk about keeping the program solvent, medicare for all or expanding access, but i depends on what your benefit packages is going to be and what your taxes is going to be. nothing is free. you're going to have to paper things. -- pay for things. host: kathleen in mississippi, democratically. what do you think? caller: good morning.

the whole united states -- i have social security, medicaid, and food stamps. but my medicaid card can i go -- when i go to another place like jackson mississippi it is three dollars. they could've $9 million coming into each state. by day and they keep president obama's care and help the poor -- why did they not keep president obama's care and help the poor? guest: the caller is talking about medicare expansion as part of the affordable care act. originally every state was required to expand medicaid to all people with incomes under a

hundred 33% of poverty. right now medicaid in many states you only get medicaid if you are low income and pregnant and located -- and low income. if you are simply low income, single adult who are able-bodied, you're not eligible as you did not meet the categories. i got rid of the categories and said if you are low income you can have medicaid. the supreme court of 2012 said that was to pour for the state and it was going to be voluntary. what we have seen his have of the state started out expanding and half of the states, run by republican, did not. in years ensuing we have had valid measures where voters in the more conservative states have said, there is a lot of money coming from the federal government. the federal government offered to pay 90% of this cost and a lot of republican states have

opted in but there are still about a dozen states that have not. south dakota just voted to expand it. many of those are large states, georgia, florida, texas and some smaller states which are read, alabama and mississippi. it is mostly states across the south and the conservative midwest and rocky mount estates. there are still some states that not taking advantage of the money. they have not wanted to for one reason or another. they do not believe as given health insurance to people who are able-bodied. host: darnell in texas, independent. caller: hello. i would like to see more income streams social security. for example, europe have lottery systems to help pay for social

security. they have a lottery. also, if your social security card for the first time in charge it to develop be -- and charge it to hundred dollar fee. guest: likely it is not my job to come up with how to fix social security but i have looked at other countries and a lot of them have value added taxes. they have different ways of raising the money to pay for their social insurance programs. the u.s. could look at those. we are not the same as other countries. we have different values. we are different that shows what we feel is fair to tax. that is something that does need to be thrashed out by legislature. host: in france in this debate, the process we are seeing over the issue of raising the age

there, i do not know if you know this, is it because they are not collecting enough to support their programs? guest: yes. one of the issues in france, i have been following it a little bit, it is hard if you are a older worker in front it is hard to get hired. you have older workers who could not retire and cannot get a job. it is a big problem. what other countries do -- everybody has their issues with the balanced of how much do you tax the public and what kind of benefits do you give them and it is why every country does it differently. every country frights -- fights over it. we are not unique in that. host: al maryland, republican. caller: i wanted to find out how much to be spent on medicare yucca how much does the government spend and the people? guest: i do not have the total

amount in front of me. host: i will like -- look for that. guest: without supplemental insurance, it is about half of seniors, and covers half of seniors health care costs. sears are responsible for half of their costs because many of the things -- medicare does not cover eye care, dental care footcare, hearing care, a lot of mental health care that medicare does not cover even though we have gotten better about that. medicare has large deductibles there's a 20% copayment in part b that goes on forever. the drug benefits requires co-pays. it was one of the things that was made, i cap instituted that are starting this year that

people a medicaid part d the prescription drug plan will not have to pay more than $2000 out-of-pocket per year for their drugs. these to be a 5% co-pay that would on indefinitely. medicare does not have a lot of these caps that private insurance have we had to pay a certain amount out of pocket. congress tried to do that in 1980. 1988 they're going to have seniors pay themselves and there was a protest about it and congress rebuild it. to this day, traditional medicare does not have many out-of-pocket caps. host: from the kaiser website, key facts about medicare financing, in 2021 benefit payments total up from 541 billion in 2011. spending on part b services

accounts for the largest share of medicare benefits spending, 48%. medicare spending is projected to rise from 10% of total federal spending in 2021 to 80% in 2032 -- 18% in 2032. what is your reaction to those numbers? guest: i have seen those numbers before. it is a large substantial outpouring of federal dollars. on the other hand, it is a popular program. even to the people who do not realize it is a government program because they may have private insurance now. medicare advantage or a private medicare part d plan or the traditional medicare that is administered by a private insurance company. you often see people, lawmakers say all the time, people come up to them at town meetings and say

do not let the government get a chance on my medicare it with a medicare is already a federal government program. host: funding for medicare which totals 880 8 billion in 2021 outcomes from general revenue, 46%. payroll tax percent, 34%. premiums paid by beneficiaries, 15%. can you talk about that breakdown? guest: pare, hospital and limited nursing home and if it does not cover mostly traditional long-term care. that is financed by the payroll tax, 1.45 percent paid by employers and employees. that's what you are automatically eligible for. part b, the voluntary part, supplemental medicare insurance,

the beneficiaries pay 25% of the premium and the rest 75% cost that comes out of general revenue. the talk about medicare going broke -- when people talk about medicare going broke it can never go broke because it comes from general revenue. we talk about the medicare trust fund we are really only talking about pare -- part a. it is what you have this combination of tax revenue and general revenue and beneficiary premiums that fund medicare in general. host: amy in georgia, democratic caller. caller: good morning. we know republicans want to dismantle social security and medicare or privatize it. i would like to know, how you

approach your job as a journalist. you're covering a story from the aspect of health care and you need to interview a republican lawmaker about health care issue , how do you approach it knowing the person you are interviewing does not believe in social safety net as we have it and now after january 6, 2020 want to do not believe in united states democracy? how do you go into a room with a lawmaker who says, i do not want this form of government yucca how do you approach interviewing this person and getting real answers? guest: my job is to be a translator between lawmakers and the public. i will talk to anyone about anything. i have found there are republican lawmakers who are serious about health care but they disagree with democrats on

how best to deliver it. many republicans are stronger believers in private sectors that they think they can deliver care more efficiently on the cost effectively than government can. it is an ideological disagreement and we see that across the public. there are some republicans who would like to get rid of the social safety net who believe the federal government is too large and too powerful and more things should be handled at the state and local level. i am happy to talk to them about that and explain that to people. in a democracy it is up to the public to decide what they want and for lawmakers to explain to the public what they're going to support and what they might want to vote for you -- host: mike in massachusetts. caller: there are two root causes to all of this whether it is private or public.

the wealthy are sucking the life out of society and the real in them do it -- we are letting them do it. the people who are letting this happen as conservatives because of their ideology. we have cco paygo from hundred times the salary -- ceo pay go from a hundred times the salary the past few decades. we have watched our quality of life erode. i do not understand why people think this is acceptable. you know what i did today, i took a sick day because i am sick of my ceo making 50 k to a hundred k a day. it is 10 to $20 million a year. and for what? we are seeing every aspect of our life go down the tubes.

it is all because of that. we have health care industry -- host: i'm going to jump in. let's talk about the cause of health care. guest: it is a lot. we are by far the most health care inspect -- most expensive health care system among industrial countries. every other country limits how much of health care sector to cause -- health care sector calls. it is not that we are important the drugs from canada, we are important price controls. the conservatives do not want to do that. even some democrats do not want to do that. we got in medicare, we have price limits and in medicaid,

what hospitals and doctors can charge, but not that many and they are not that popular with the providers. we have a much more privately health care system than most other countries. not all of them, but most of them. it is something we have not dealt with. people complain if you talk and look at public opinion polls, health-care costs are huge issue in the red sea and the surprise bills congress tries to deal with and people getting other bills, there may have 5000 or $10,000 deductibles cannot reach. most people do not have $500 for an emergency. it is difficult to pay 5000 annual deductible for health care. host: karen in alabama, republican. caller: good morning. the call it before talking about

republicans believing in a democracy, it is not the case, it is the democrats. vaccination was perfect. the people in the country there plus to make laws based on what the people want. my point of calling in, without social security and medicaid, we pay taxes into the system, so they should never be a problem with it. we need to look at where they're spending money. ukraine, for example. barbie sending billions of dollars into ukraine instead of putting in social security? yesterday you had somebody on the spending billions of dollars for the electrical vehicle charges over the country. we do not need that. we need to look at the climate change and all of these things democrats are doing and where is the money spent in ukraine and fiber all the waste is going and

put it in social security and medicare. host: linda in florida. caller: i always thought social security came during the depression time. during the depression time when america collapsed in the body had money and the banks and this and that. that is the purpose of social security. depression time when america collapsed in the body hadif they get rid of social security, that depression we seen years ago would it take a bigger effect today. is that the true purpose of how social security came about? i do not think people realize without social security, if the country, which it looks like it is going down, if it goes down, like during covid, cannot work, that is the only safety net they

have to survive. is that the sole purpose of how social security came about? guest: that is where social security came about. there has been efforts to create a social insurance program before that but because during the depression there are so many people destitute and it still took franklin roosevelt almost a full term to get social security through. there were controversies about that. it was another 30 years until 1965 to get medicare and medicaid. there have been efforts to institute these programs there's also been opposition to them. they had been expanded over many years. medicare has been expanded. medicaid has been expanded. but it has not been unanimous. there's always been an argument over it. i think there will always be an argument over it over the extent

of the social safety net and how much people are willing to pay in taxes for how many benefits. host: from robert in mississippi. the talking with julia rovner of kaiser health news. caller: a couple of quick things. i'm trying to get my point here. as far as pay more taxes for better insurance, we pay twice as much for our medical expenses. right now, i am paying about $15,000 per year for insurance and that is including medicare supplement and a blue cross blue shield thing. that's a lot of money.

collegiate 200 -- i only get $239 a month for social security because i worked for the government and they penalize you if you are a government retiree, no matter how little your retirement check would be. with the issuance be so much, i pay $50,000 for insurance, i could easily pay -- $15,000 for insurance, i could be happy and have $7,500 left to my benefit. guest: that is the trade-off. those are the decisions that we need to make. are we willing to penalize -- pay the health system less, hospitals, doctors, less than they get paid now that will lower the cost of insurance and people would have more money in their pocket if they paid higher

taxes and the government will provide more of the benefits rather than private industry or private insurance? there are people who would like to get rid of the insurance -- private insurance industry and have the government take it over. there are people who would like to get rid of the government and have private insurance take it over. we are about the dvd in terms of government providing benefits and private provided benefits. we will have to decide which way to go. host: julia rovner chief correspondent with kaiser health news. thank you very much. happening today march of life rally is taken place in d.c. you can see supporters are gathering to begin their rally. they will have a speaking portion and a thin all of them are expected to march up the national mall to the capital and

supreme court today. this march takes place annually here in washington days before the anniversary of the roe v. wade decision. it is the first time the mark has taken place since wrote -- roe v. wade was overturned. we want to note do you support or oppose more restrictions on abortion access? you can start yelling in now. we will get to your thoughts in a minute. earlier this morning we talked with the reporter of the washington post about this year's march for life. i begin by asking, why participants are taking a detour today? >> there taking a detour going from the avenue and taking a detour to walk past the u.s. capitol. it is symbolic of what

abortion advocates of saying they are telling members of congress and they want to see lawmakers in congress pass subnational limits on how early in pregnancy and abortion can be performed. host: they have been marching for decades. this is the first time since roe v. wade was overturned. are they united behind one message this year? guest:guest: i talked to the hef march for life and what she told me there message is that commemorating this victory for the movement which is how they see it. the theme this year of the march for life is the next step in a

post roe v. wade era. i talked with people within the in congress, state lawmakers, and there are divisions on the next step for the movement. host: what do some want to do, what do others want to do? guest: we saw the divisions come out during the few legislative sessions post roe v. wade. there were in several states answer party battles of the republican caucus in terms of exceptions over rape and incest. one key question from some republicans is what leadership will decide to do in terms of

where they put a bill on the floor that had some kind of national limit on abortion? host: what do these folks want to see from now a republican-controlled house of representatives? guest: there was a letter from three dozen conservative leaders in the past few weeks and they had a list of bills they would like to see they could vote on and one is what is called the heartbeat protection action which would ban abortion, most abortion is after fetal cardiac activity which is roughly around six weeks. last year senator graham

introduce a bill to congress that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. a republican of new jersey plans to introduce that in the house this year. he has not got a yes or no firm leadership on whether that will go to the floor and i do think it is important to note whatever does pass, with a renewed republican majority, will not pass the senate, which is still democratic. host: what is the other side of this debate planning for sunday to commemorate the anniversary? guest: i talked to different leaders within the abortion rights movements. pro-choice america, they told me they want to use this moment to

kickstart some of their organizing and volunteer training so that the organizers can be on the ground fighting abortion restrictions that come up during the state legislative sessions. it is the first state legislative session majority says the supreme court overturned roe v. wade in late june. vice president harris will deliver remarks in florida and her marks will focus on fighting state-level -- remarks will focus on fighting state-level restrictions and pushing congress the past national protections for abortion. host: live on the national mall this morning our cameras are capturing those that are gathering for the march for life rally. those that are opposed to abortion will gather there and make their way up the national

capital and the supreme court building. we will continue to show those that are gathering. while we talk to you about whether or not you support or oppose restrictions on abortion access. in west virginia and opposing restrictions, go ahead. caller: good morning. can i explain why i am against it? host: of course. caller: i'm 76-year-old man and a baby of 10. four of my brothers and sisters died. two of them about two years old. 1, 2 months old. one, stillborn. at a fork i was the 10. -- when i was four years old, i was the 10. me and my wife, we have two great sons but when i was in the

waiting room and was in delivery waiting for the baby, we do not know whether a baby was going to be alive or not until it came out of the womb and starts breathing and screaming. i cannot understand -- baby is not alive until he comes out. he could be stillborn and i -- die. people do not understand that. it is horrible what these people are trying to do. if they do not live it, leave it alone. host: tim in ohio supporting restrictions. you support restrictions on abortion access? which ones? i will move on to barbara in tallahassee, florida. caller: yes. host: oppose or support? caller: i oppose.

host: you oppose more restrictions? caller: exactly. when all of these folks sitting up there in washington, republicans decide they will figure out a way to take care of all these unborn children as they say, then i will be fine. they are not enough people to adopt them. it is ridiculous and a woman's body is a woman's body. thank you very much. host: a look at recent polling in this issue. from the national catholic register, even after roe v. wade, most americans support abortion restrictions. the poll found that 91% of america's support greatest -- pregnancy resource centers. 21% of america's say they would support aborti odemand. at any time during the

prnancy. 25% saidhe support abortion only durinthfirst three nt of a pregnancy. 26% only in cases of rape or ince oto save the mother's life. 8 percent never under any circumstances. there is this poll done by the university of massachusetts and they asked about what do americans want done on the legislative front 42said congress should pass a law across 50 states making abortion legal. 20% said the opposit congress should make a law maki abortion illegal. 39% said they should leave it up to the state. we are wondering what you think this morning? in california, you support more restrictions on abortion access. go ahead. caller: hi.

i believe a woman should be able to decide by the time she is 16 weeks pregnant it -- if you want to get an abortion or not. after that, if a woman is seven months pregnant that is not an abortion. that is having a baby. i do not understand why someone would want an abortion at six or seven months pregnant when they're having a live baby at that point. that is how i feel. host: we told you and showed you the march for life attendees gathering at the mall this morning. we will have coverage of their event today starting at noon eastern time right here on c-span. on our video app, c-span now just in case you're not near a television.

also on our website c-span.org. in arizona opposing more restrictions. what are the restrictions in the state of arizona? caller: i'm not sure at this point. i oppose more restrictions for many reasons. men just want to control woman. admit waste -- a midwest state where the meant want woman to cover their arms, there you go. there are too many complications involved when a woman gets pregnant. it is not always work, birth control. i can speak personally. when i was younger, i struggled with it.

certain types did not work for me. i cannot take the pill. i had other health issues. when you get pregnant accidentally, no part of their own, they can try very hard and it does not necessarily hurt. the medical complications from argosy are much too complicated -- pregnancy are much too complicated to say if europe has 15 weeks you have to have the baby. people are not educated enough about all the medical complications. no, i oppose. host: the new york times is tracking state actions. if you're interested you can go to their website, and interactive map. most abortions are now banned in 13 states. laws restricting the procedure take affect following supreme court rescission -- decision to overturn roe v. wade. georgia baz abortion is 16 weeks

of pregnancy before many women know they are pregnant. advocates have sued the apartments of laws that restrict the procedure. mary in south carolina. support or suppose? caller: i did not hear you. host: support or suppose more restrictions? caller: i oppose abortion. the gentleman said earlier the baby is not a viable until he is born. that is not true. there alive since conception. that is what starts the baby's life. if people decide they do not want to have the baby, they should not do the act. god said every life is precious.

if you do not want to have a baby, do not do the act. if you want to wait to you get married, that is fine. any type of conception, fortification, we are killing a generation of children. i oppose abortion even at any time. host: what do you say to people who say that are your religious beliefs and the government should not make laws based on religious beliefs? separation of church and state. caller: i was young once. i got pregnant before i was married. but people do not realize is that of those things we do that

we have to stand before god and give every deed we do and beyond that, putting aside the religious part of it, it is unlawful to kill. host: all right. president biden yesterday close to california to visit damage from the major rainstorm that the state had recently. there you can see him there. there is this front-page story of the new york times, through it all california is still in a drought. this is the way the state looks valid. the short-term view in green the more than average reign they have received. the long-term view the past three years show they have had

way less than average rain that they need. while the president was in california, he also spoke about the documents found at his private place of business and his home. the wall street journal headline from the president remarks is, there's nothing there. listen to the president. pres. biden: we found a handful of documents there are in the wrong place. we immediately turned them over to the archives, the justice department. we are cooperating and looking forward to getting it resolved quickly. you will find there something there. i have no regrets. i'm falling what the lawyers want to do. host: president biden in california. happening here today in

washington we will have coverage of the march for life rally. it takes place every year. our coverage will begin at noon eastern time today. gatherers are on the mall for their march, there rally, our coverage begins at noon eastern time here on c-span, on our video app, c-span now. it is free and online c-span.org. while we show you the gathering on the national mall, let's talk to rick in idaho and opposes more restrictions to abortion access. caller: good morning c-span. i oppose the release on abortion because the relink of roe v. wade was an all-male decision there were no women on the panel. to resolve the matter of abortion is let women of america

only rewrite abortion and whatever the woman of america say, let that be the law of the land for the next five decades. we are what we are. women are the resident export. -- women are the resident expert. thank you for your hospitality. host: sylvia in virginia supporting abortion restrictions. caller: hi. what mary before me, i agree completely and they said it is man that decide it, if god decides he knew as before -- thank you. host: morgan opposing, hello. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span.

these people who are so against abortion do not care about the children who are alive and breathing in kind of dire consequences. if we would socialize young men, heterosexual to stop going around raping women and getting woman pregnant with the life they do not want, abortion would not be an issue. that would never happen. it is never going to change nothing because you have to change behavior to put a stop to abortion. america would never have -- hold government accountable they will hold government accountable. thank you for c-span. host: barbara in west virginia, supporting more restrictions on abortion. caller: yes, i support more restrictions on abortion because i believe it should come naturally. a child, they have a

responsibility, they have sex to get pregnant and they should have that child. it is a breathing person and they should go to prison if they have an abortion. host: what about the responsibility of the male here? caller: both of them. they have sex. they both have sex. that woman come even if she is raped, she can have that child may be adopted out. it is not the child's fault she was raped. she may not want the child she can adopt the child. host: opposes more restrictions, where's the cry to reduce and prevent the pregnancy. abortion debate should includes pregnancy prevention for both individuals.

this discussion needs to include prevention before. the debate is always unbalanced in terms of responsibility. gregg in michigan, what do you say? caller: i oppose any kind of restrictions that would apply to a woman's health care, especially when they are going after doctors and stuff and make it a criminal suit against them for you it this is unconstitutional to me. you're taking away women's rights. i cannot get behind anything like this. i'm a liberal democrat and i'm proud of it because the blinders on the conservatives. any person who thinks they have control over another person's body, they are the criminals. i feel sorry for the young people coming up today, i see nothing of brainwashing with the

right wing religious agenda we are fighting against. it is very sad to see the way the country in -- is turning out. host: you can see young people and others gathering on the national mall for the march for life rally taking place as it always does in washington every year. richard in pennsylvania, what do you say on this? caller: good morning. i like the partial birth abortion were they killed the baby coming out of the womb. we always look at the symptoms instead of the calls. you would not have an abortion if you did not get pregnant in

the first place. there is a responsibility for the men and women to get prints of care before they go into that -- preventive care for they go into that an abortion would not be a problem. god assess murder is a sin -- god assess murder is a sin. god is going to be judge in this country as we go. people say climate change but i also believe it is the prejudgment of what is taking place now which is in revelation. host: chris in florida, what do you have to say? caller: i oppose the restrictions. the need to pass a lot that men should get a vasectomy at the age of 50 years old. let men take possibility. most women who have had an abortion state they do not

regret it one bit. for the bible thumper's not everybody believes in god. the price of the eggs and meat have gone up because the bird flu from the chicken. it is not biden's fault. we had millions million chickens worldwide put down because of the bird flu. host: a topic for another day. deborah in missouri, you oppose. caller: yes. the fact that woman did not get the right to vote until 1921 and we had to fight like hell to 1973 to get autonomy over our own bodies, we will never go back to where the government tells us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. host: rich in tennessee. caller: good morning. excuse me, i have a frog in my

throat. the think is, -- the think is when we have these discussions what i'm hearing and i'm on the supporting more restrictions, i'm thinking we often talk about with the rest the world thinks about us and yet, most european nations have much more restrictions on abortion limitations. we do not seem to be concerned about that. when you bring up the religious aspect and separation of church and state, it does not have to be religious argument. abortion is antiscience and anti-reason if you're looking at a moral component. when we are talking about taking a life because there is no

debate, they should not be a debate about this. this is life all people try to bring up when does life begin, we know when life begins. we can see, they have films of conception taken place. we know about dna and the belongs of the human species. we need to be talking about what the act actually does is that of the deflections. host: one more call to joan in tennessee. caller: yes, i oppose any restrictions on abortion because i think men need to think about this, abortion start with men and their decision and whether or not they are going to impregnate a woman. during the at, -- act, if they are just thinking about pleasure

they are not thinking about consequence. host: all right. on the national multinational march for life rally is taking place today. our coverage begins on c-span or download our free mobile app, c-span now. thank you all for watching. ♪ >> here is what is coming up live today on c-span. white house cabinet members including transportation secretary pete buttigieg and attorney general mayor garland will offer remarks at the conference of mayors winter

meeting. that begins 10:30 eastern this morning. shortly afternoon, we will be live from the march for life rally on the national mall, the first event since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade last year. at 2:00 him eastern, president biden addresses bipartisan mirrors of the white house. they are in washington, d.c. come at the conference of mayors winter meeting. you can watch these ovens on c-span and on c-span now, our mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. over four days, c-span's cameras had access to the u.s. house as kevin mccarthy became the 55th speaker of the house. it was history in the making with and scooted political moments from the house floor. we always have for the past 40 43 years with complete unbiased coverage of congress.