♪ host: in two cases being argued this morning the supreme court will consider biden administration actions in

federal communications. at stake, the student debt relief program, clearing up $20,000 in debt for many borrowers. also at stake is the reach of federal regulatory power, the ability of states to challenge that authority. whether states have the legal right to do so, the legal standing one of the key issues in the first of today's cases. good morning and welcome to "washington journal," for tuesday, february 28. we will ask you about the court cases coming up today and your view of the president biden student loan forgiveness plan. if you support that plan, the line is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you yourself have student loan debt, we would like to hear your views, (202) 748-8002.

you can text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003, tell us your name and where you are texting from. post on twitter and instagram, @cspanwj. we will hear from president biden about the forgiveness plan, in just a moment, but we want to let you know about our planned coverage of the two cases today. 10:00 eastern, biden v nebraska, the case of six states challenging the order at 10 a.m. eastern. following that on c-span3, the department of education v brown, individual borrowers challenging the plan at 11 a.m. eastern, so back to back on c-span3 and available online at c-span.org. we will have it in the c-span now mobile app. joining us to help us understand

what the cases are coming up before the supreme court is a reporter who covers the court, john fritz e will be at the court later today. good morning. guest: great, how are you. host: doing just fine. one of your pieces leading up to today's cases has the headline that biden will be playing defense on student loans this week at the supreme court. tell us why the headline says that. guest: a lot of us to cover the court on a regular basis are looking at the previous cases that are pretty analogous. there's been a lot of skepticism from the conservative majority of the court over actions that administrations take where the law is not explicitly clear they have the authority to do that and a good example of that i always think is the moratorium case where an administration sought to pause evictions.

during the pandemic. the loss of the surgeon general can do what he or she thinks is necessary to block the spread of communicable diseases. the administration, two of them read the law to say that they could block evictions. the supreme court said no, no, it doesn't say anything about that in this law and while it is a broad authority, you can't read these specific authorizations into these broad laws absent explicit words from congress giving you that power. i think the other side will argue that this law is different but there are a lot of similarities in terms of the broad authority in the laws. host: what was the president's announcement last august? how many will be affected by the loan program and why are the six states in the one case challenging that? guest: yeah so as you noted, the president announced this plan in

august. by october it had been shut down by the court. it has been on pause for a long time. the supreme court put it on pause on a temporary basis when they decided to hear these cases. the white has estimated that some 40 million people are eligible for this plan. 16 million people have already been approved for some portion of relief. just in terms of the loan program, it's potentially enormous the number of people affected. the six states that have sued are raising a number of different standing claims. and really, the standing issue is a big part of this. i know it's the legal, wonky, hard to grasp part of it, but it has huge implications. one thing the state is arguing is that there is a loan servicer that services these loans that takes revenue from the work and they give it to the state of missouri and the state of

missouri says look, if you cancel the loans we lose out on revenue. i think that while on the merits the biden administration is going to be on defense, a place they may have a better shot is the standing argument. to get in the door at the supreme court you have got to clear the standing piece first. we are going to see a lot of debate about whether these states and individual borrowers have standing in the first place. host: seems like courts have been friendly to both administrations, more friendly and the recent decade, to giving states standings in challenging federal regulations. guest: i think that's right and as you are alluding to we have seen a spate of the opposite of the president's party bring lawsuits and all sorts of contexts. immigration comes to mind, but there are other areas where

states have managed to shut down a presidential policy indefinitely and sometimes permanently. i think that this, though, both sides, no matter how you come down on it, will argue that how the court rules in standing here could either open the floodgates to more of that kind of litigation, allow states and reasons to bring these lawsuits and really hobble an administration possibility -- administration's ability to do much of anything and say look if you don't let them in and give them the ticket to the supreme court door, it will hobble the state ability to challenge the policies that may, that are controversial and may harm states. host: one more thing, the element of timeliness. the covid restrictions, the pause on student loan payments and that the end of june, the

court hears the case today and will likely make some decision by june. correct? guest: that's most likely that it will take until the end of the term. a big part of this fight is whether there is still a covid emergency on. the one piece of that puzzle that you left out is the biden administration said they would end the emergency declarations and may the 11th. these emergency declarations are a part of what the law rests on. the administration says look, it doesn't matter. the law says adjacent to an emergency, if there was an emergency and you have alone loan and were affected by that, you continue to be affected even if the emergency has ended. the other side says you know, that's crazy. if the emergency is over, the relief, you don't need anymore. in another context, different law, different statute, title 42

they pulled the case off the docket. same sort of idea, based on an emergency, it will be lifted. i think you will see some debate around that although i think that the administration probably has a better argument in that context. host: viewers and listeners can check out usa today.com. john and his colleagues will be updating throughout the day. thank you for the update this morning. the preview this morning of today's cases. guest: thank you. host: we are filling the first hour with conversation about the biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan and hearing from you. if you support the plan, it's (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the plan, it's (202) 748-8001. for those of you who have student loan debt, we would like to hear from you on this line, (202) 748-8002. let's get to calls. got a bunch waiting.

james in elwood, georgia. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i'm calling to just oppose that. i don't think the federal government has the right to do that. i paid my student loan off in august of 2012. when i got my student loan, i had to sign a promissory note pay. it's about responsibility. i think that if everybody say that they are going to pay, they need to pay their loans. what would i get for paying my loan off and giving somebody else free reign to not pay there is off? i think it's unfair and the federal government needs to stay out of it or make sure they write better laws. host: all right, stephen is on the support line calling from lexington, kentucky. caller: yes, good morning, bill. thanks for having me. appreciate the time.

i should be on the support line and the one that is affected line. i'm a young 30-year-old male with a young family who has student loans at the moment and there are so many reasons this should be pushed through. student loans should be forgiven. economic stimulus that could be provided, it's an immediate economic stimulus to the individuals who need it at the moment, reducing debt word and. reducing income inequality. there is so much of that out there. addressing racial disparities, it's one way we could bring back allen's. there are so many reasons. host: what's the level of debt you have? guest: i've been paying my diligently for 10 years, graduated in 2012. i have $12,000 left, which is manageable of course. there is so much more out there for other individuals. but i'm trying to buy my first home.

if that got forgiven, my wife and i could buy a nice home for our baby girl. host: would you take advantage of the fact that the loan payments were paused during covid but are set to resume by the end of june? correct? caller: absolutely i took full advantage of that, my wife did as well and it's been helping out tremendously, putting extra income in our pocket during these moments of high inflation. it's been helpful, yes. caller: appreciate your perspective. you can call on any line for that but if you have student lou -- do loan debt, you can call (202) 748-8002. to give you a broad look at the presidenti pn that was announced las august, it would nc upo 0,000 in federal student loanebt for those making under 120 $5,000 or households under 250. rant recipients would get an additional $10,000 in

forgiveness. 43 million would be eligible in illion could have their debt erased entirely. the congressional boffice as the program will cause 400 billion in thet decades and studtsill qualify if there loans were this first before july 1. aaron is in texas and opposes the plan. caller: can you hear me? host: we can, karen. go ahead. caller: i'm against canceling the debt. a, my get fell behind in the 90's when i was extremely sick and in the hospital, in and out for about three years. i called them, told them what i was going through and they said don't worry about it, don't worry about it. fast forward a few years later, early 2000's, late 90's, suddenly they start sending me

bills. ok, fine. i called them, i made arrangements to make a payment because they said unless you literally cannot do anything, as long as your arms are moving, you can do something, even if it is sitting, you can work and pay this back. ok? at the same time i paid it back with a mince, i was also raising two disabled little girls that were in the age range of two years old to 10 years old. i had made payment arrangements to pay it back. i did not get food stamps. i raised two handicap schoolgirls on my own with no help. the only help i got was from housing. if i can do it, anybody can do it. i think we have just raised a bunch of lazy kids. i'm nearly 70 years old and it embarrasses me. host: can you tell us how much

you had to pay back of that student loan? caller: by the time they added all the interest and penalties and all that after telling me not to worry about it, it was up to $50,000. here i was in my 60's. but i paid it back, every cent. host: appreciate your perspective. let's hear from robert who has student debt. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. [indiscernible] uh [indiscernible] pay my student loans. at any rate, years later i

started receiving letters. the interest rate was just out of this world. one key thing was i was adding my forgiveness, november of 2021. i got the original government letter that said it's been expunged. at that time it was like $7,000 so i said ok, that's well and good. then i got another letter a month later saying the government sold a lot of loans to third parties so a lot of third parties, now they want their money. whoever they sold the loan to, they want their money. host: what's the figure that you owe? caller: right now the last part

of it is about 7000. host: are they demanding money now? has that also been paused due to covid? caller: i received another letter about a month ago from the third party, tail net. they said that because you are still on disability we will hold this delay until we receive further word on your condition. but that was november of 2021, 2 years later. it was probably the program last year when it started in 2021. host: have you tried to go to your pc delegate, eleanor holmes norton, or someone else to get some federal or legislative help or assistance in resolving your issue? caller: no i have not but at the time they didn't even know, i left when i was in new mexico and went to you and am.

-- unm. previously i was in a science expedition with the coast guard, exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation. that was in high school. years later in college when i have my first job, towards the end of my third semester i got extremely sick. i was unable to work maybe from 84 close to 89. by that they sent people to knock on my door. host: robert, appreciate your perspective and i hope you can resolve your problems. we have been showing cameras across the way here at the supreme court with cases set to get underway at 10 a.m. eastern in the first of the two cases

that 10:00 a.m. eastern, followed by the second case at 11 a.m., all live on c-span3. a number of obviously media organizations are there and we should see throughout the morning as the morning goes along more protest groups and support groups throughout the morning, we will show you some of that. writing about that this morning in the times, the headline in their piece, stuck in limbo, justices faced a case for forgiving student debt. two dozen advocacy groups plan to bus in hundreds of borrowers to rally outside the court on tuesday. aligning labor unions and youth activists with groups as diverse as the hip-hop caucus and national council of jewish women. that is from "the new york times co. we will have to pull out wider, this is half of a full-page ad in the times opposing the forgiveness plan.

why is the biden administration giving american universities a blank check? a coalition of organizations paying for the ad. (202) 748-8000 is the line to call if you support the forgiveness plan. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose the plan. if you have student debt, (202) 748-8002. john is in spring, texas. john, spring, texas, on the support line. thank you. caller: yeah i'm in favor of it. these other industrialized countries, they give free education all the way through college. i don't understand why this country doesn't. it needs to change. it will probably be decades before it does. anyway. like germany and france. most of the european countries

give that free education through college. host: all right. mary opposes the plan and is calling from pennsylvania. hi there. caller: i oppose it because it is not fair to the ones that paid. it's going to bring up a whole new bag of problems, the people who paid their lot might be going to the supreme court to get their money back. you take a loan out, you pay for it. thank you. host: one of the protest lines there the court, cancel student death is what they say. one of the media organizations in their day in, day out, scotus blog. "in a pair of challenges, big questions about agency authority and the right to sue, she writes that while campaigning for president in 2020, candidate joe biden pledged to cancel at least $10,000 in federal student loan

debt for each borrower in two years later he announced a debt relief program that would forgive up to $20,000 in loans or borrowers who qualify. february 28, today, the supreme court here oral arguments in a pair of challenges to the program, with a price tag for the program estimated at 400 billion the justice ruling will have a significant, practical, and economic effect but it could also have a legal impact beyond this case as the justices weigh issues such as when states can go to court to contest federal policies and how courts should interpret laws giving power to federal agencies. here is the president last august, announcing the plan. [video clip] >> like millions across the country who want to help their kids get to school but there is no way to be able to do it. you know, because he believed as i do that education is a ticket to a better life.

something we understand deeply. i'm certain the vast majority of you as well. over time the ticket has become too expensive for too many americans. an entire generation is now settled with -- saddled with unsustainable debt or an attempt at a college degree. the burden is so heavy that to graduate you may not have grad yes you may not have access to the middle-class life once promised. many cannot afford to buy a home because of the debt to continue to carry. the debt they carry is too high, they can't come up with a down payment anyway. a lot of folks are putting off starting families because of the costs. the dream of starting your own business is just way off in the distance with a debt like so many are saddled with. many of you found the financial strain to be much too high.

one third of the borrowers had that but no degree. the worst of both worlds. debt and no degree. the burden is especially heavy on black and hispanic borrowers who on average have less family wealth to pay for it. they don't own a home to borrow against to pay for college. the pandemic only made worse. host: that's president biden, president biden last august. live here on "washington journal," outside the supreme work they are set to hear two cases considering the legality of the president's plan. two cases getting underway this morning at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. that's our live coverage of the oral arguments. some reactions to our comments and questions this first hour about student loan forgiveness, this one from social media saying it's a shame that millions of youth will never see the american dream while the elderly in charge who got a college education refused to fix

this. william love fort washington, new york, supports the plan. student loans buoyed my life. the interest charge relief, the quiddity, scholarships, kept me going when regular good paying work for professionals is lacking. joe, kentucky, i support college forgiveness. education is what is really needed in this country. the lit -- red states are the least educated in the country and are the ones fighting this in they would rather have a good tax break for the rich. they have never gotten -- never done nothing for the regular working people in the uneducated poor will vote republican. mark on twitter says this is an election stunt to get votes in the president doesn't have the power. allow the house and senate to vote on this massive spending program. beth is calling from illinois. she also has student loan debt. good morning. caller: i always kid that i'm

going to be in the nursing home, 70 years old, still paying back my student loans. i agree with this, it would help me out immensely. i have had loans since i was an undergrad. just because you graduate, i graduated in education to be a teacher, jobs were not that readily available. it was a struggle and i had to put my loans on hold until i got a teaching position. and then the interest just accrued unbelievably. during to have my payment lowered as a retired person. i was told that i could take $500 a month, which was a lot of money. this would help out and i have read, can't remember at this time where, but i have read that

there are a lot of seniors involved in this that have student loans they are still paying off. host: you are age 70, how much are you still paying off? caller: $7,000. which works against my credit. in a way. because it is still debt. it is still listed as debt. host: right. caller: i would like to take more classes now. not just free classes but classes at the university. at the doctoral level they are so expensive that you can't even afford to do it. it's really a shame that higher education is so costly. i feel bad for the younger people trying to buy homes. my student loan worked against us when we bought our first home.

host: thank you for the call. next up is lucy in atlanta, georgia. go ahead. caller: thank you for accepting my call. host: you bet. caller: i support the president and the forgiveness plan. the society that we live in today is not the society that many of these people coming in lived in years ago. when i was coming up and got my degree in 1970, it wasn't a problem. i went to school, friends of mine went to school. they were able to go a semester, work a semester, pay a semester. it took time to finish but they didn't alone because the amount was not so expensive. school is so expensive and the government has let these people really ripped the students off. it ripped you off.

you go into school and the thing that bothers me the most, people criticizing, giving them the money, they are not even giving them serious money. $10,000 for a lot of those students will only pay for, pay for, will only pay for the interest. that's not even going to contribute to most. my children, one of them is 37 -- not 37, 36. 36 and 34. they haven't had their bachelors degree more than 10 years but they never benefited from it because even though they were good students who did well in school they have not been able to get jobs that would give them benefits. they work full-time, but they are not getting paid the amount they should get. they've got all of these money invested in these degrees without getting any money back for it. host: how much student loan debt do you think they owe, lucy? caller: i would say both of them

together, more than $50,000. my daughter, she was in biology, honors student, high school in college, she went back and was never able to get a job in biology, she's tried many jobs. she's worked 35 hours a week. but she don't, she don't get those benefits. she decided when they gave her that money back for, back for the covid money, she decided well i'm going to go into something else. nursing. she took the money she had gotten from covid, the stimulus money, and went and got and enrolled in a cna program. and then after that she's now working on a degree as a resident nurse. host: on to austin, texas. roy has student loan debt as well. caller: good morning, how y'all

doing this morning? host: fine, roy. caller: i'm a semi retired person who has gone back to school to get my degree. i got to say, i come from a era where we were taught that if you have a debt, you pay the debt. you sign a note, you pay the note. i agree with the lady that just spoke. what they are offering to give is not enough to really help. but what you have to turn around and look at is how are we going to pay for the student loan forgiveness? what taxes are we going to be hit with? the problem isn't the money. the problem is universities doing things like for me for example i'm getting my degree in consumer science. my endgame is cybersecurity forensics but i'm being required to take classes that don't require -- don't apply to my endgame. that's $5,000 per class, $15,000 i don't need to spend.

we need to, we need to really flatten out the universities as far as how they are doing things and making kids take classes they don't need to take. we need to teach our young people that when you have an obligation, you fulfill your obligation. you don't, what's the next thing going to be? forgiveness for their house or car payment? we need to get back on track teaching people accountability where their actions. i appreciate you letting me have my time. everybody have a great day, i tell everybody to have a great day, smile and pass it on. host: mitch daniels is now the former president of purdue university. he spoke in the fall of last year, the american enterprise institute here in washington. mitch daniels had this to say about the president's plan announced last august. [video clip]

>> bad idea. they turned and twisted into pretzels trying to find a formula that wasn't, that didn't give benefits to people who don't need them, aren't going to need them in their life. they never did. there's that. to me it is grotesquely unfair to those who honor the obligations and commitments. we feel this acutely at the university. our graduates have paid back their student loans historically. i'm not sure how to explain to them that suddenly a cohort has come along that will not be asked to live up to the obligation they took freely. i think that, by the way, i guess i put this at the bottom of the hierarchy but it is important to me, i think this is a bad moral lesson. to send it to people, even those

who are not involved or don't have a stake in it. the moral hazard question has been well developed by others. the problem, the base problem, as treacly pointed out to people, don't want folks to be so indebted, don't charge so much in the first place. seems not to have occurred to people. but since that is, as our friends of a slightly different persuasion like to say, a root cause, this is likely to make it worse as it has been described. this was identified in 87 or so and has been validated over and over again. the infusion of more subsidies, maybe two thirds of it has been captured by the schools at higher prices. now future students may have the

sense, why wouldn't they be excused from some of the debt they are taking on? host: the former president up her new university, mitch daniels, opposing the presidential forgiveness plan. later today the supreme court will hear two cases regarding that plan. we will have complete coverage of the oral argument beginning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. for the first hour we are asking if you support for oppose the president's plan. if you support the plan it's (202) 748-8000, if you oppose the planets (202) 748-8001 -- plan it's (202) 748-8001. if you carry stone -- student loan debt, call (202) 748-8002. tweets from social media, steve says whether or not i must finish this $58,000 left on my daughter's undergraduate student loan. this one says does a 25-year-old

making 120 $5,000 per year need help from those of us to cades older that have never made that income and paid our loans by ourselves? here's one that says i should say most debts, utilities are often hard to afford, groceries are sometimes hard to afford. i have been there and know it well. some expenses don't have to be the level they are. we all have times of hardship. no interest lower payments. one more tweet, if these students were ripped off by universities in were sold worthless degrees, let them sue the impending -- the offending institution and leave the taxpayers alone. mike supports the plan from somerville, massachusetts. caller: i do support it. i think it's a band-aid solution. i think the real issue here is that the wealthy have hijacked just about every corner of our

society and sucked to the life out of us in every way they can and we need to fight them back and take back our society. so that we don't have issues like this where we are squabbling over whether to give pennies to students because we have a broken system in every way. if i hear one more boomer bootstrap story? i'm good to lose my mind. it's so inapplicable. it's not even an argument. if people's salaries went up with the cost-of-living, productivity and every thing else over the last 40 years, we didn't pay ceo's 400 times the average salaried worker, we wouldn't be talking about this. but we are and we have two start talking about it. it's pretty bad. host: on to dave in florida who opposes the plan caller:. hi there, dave.

thank you for taking my call. i oppose the plan one because i don't think president biden has the authority to do this with a stroke of a pen. i think congress in the senate should debate this. two, i'm 62 years old. i'm a disabled veteran. i come from the generation of you make a deal, you stick to your, you pay for it. this is public money we are talking about. john q public bus money. you know? you take your loan, you pay it back. it's the right thing to do. plus these loans are way below the prime rate. they are paying, you know, paying less percentage rates than a standard loan would pay. plus we are talking 400 million dollars of the american public's money. plus the root cause of the public hasn't -- because hasn't

been debated. the costs of education. why does it costs so much. why are these universities able to charge so much for their degrees? how come that hasn't been a part of the debate? why is education so darned expensive? why are these professors getting millions in salaries? host: mitch daniels raised the issue. in a state like florida what do you think the government should do, particularly for state schools, to reduce the costs of colleges. what can they do? caller: we need to reduce the costs of tuition. make it affordable. i mean enough is enough. there comes a point where you are over here overcharging people for the degree. it's called greed. i cleave in capitalism but there is a limit to everything. i don't believe in free education, that's a european

model and we are not socialists, ok? our economy is based on capitalism. some people take advantage of it in certain instances and in education i thickets a prime example of the mighty taking advantage of the week. host: let's go to the line from those who have student loan debt. thomas, horsehead, new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i oppose the plan, definitely. because i believe that the university, the colleges, they are the ones responsible for most of the loans these people take. first of all, it's way overpriced. tuition is very high.

they are taking people who are not very qualified for the college. they come out of high school and they can't really get a higher education, really. they are just not ready for it. the other thing is president biden definitely does not have the right to for this forgiveness of the loan. i would go after the colleges and universities and make them give the money. not the public. not the people that pay their taxes. let them do it. they make millions of dollars from the government. they make millions of dollars from the television. now they make millions from the chinese. that's all i got to say. host: quite a lively scene

already outside the supreme court. we are showing that throughout the morning as we await the oral arguments getting underway this morning on student loan cases, 10 a.m. eastern, line coverage on c-span3 starting at 10 a.m. eastern, one right after the other, 10:00 and 11:00 eastern. a couple of callers have talked about college obligations. a comment from twitter says that universities have one point $7 trillion in endowments. students have $1.7 trillion in student debt. make the connection. elizabeth warren of massachusetts was on the pbs newshour last week coming out in support of the president's student loan forgiveness plan ahead of the two cases today. let's listen to what she had to say. >> one more question related to next week, the court will hear arguments on the student loan forgiveness plan that you pushed

to make happen. if it is struck down millions of borrowers for the first time in three years may have to start repayments on loans. is that something they should start preparing to do? >> i have no doubt that the president has the legal authority to cancel the debt. my concern is whether the supreme court is going to apply the law or play politics. when donald trump was president, he canceled billions and billions and billions of dollars of interest rate payments that were -- didn't for them, cancel them. not one republican or court lifted a hand and said it's a problem, they said of course he's entitled to do this. the president of the united states now is also legally entitled under the law to cancel this debt. keep in mind who's going to be helped by this. 90% of the people who will get

help from this debt cancellation make $75,000 or less. it means that if this goes through, half of all latinos are going to see all of their debt wiped out and about one third of african-americans. people who worked hard, who 40% of them did not end up with a college diploma but got out there and tried. the consequences of their having tried when they came from families that couldn't just afford to write a check to pay for college, it's that they are getting crushed by the debt. the president has designed a plan to help get people out from underneath that debt. i just hope that the supreme court and the republicans stay out of the way. host: senator, last week on the pbs newshour. gray but dry outside the supreme court. many supporters in the homeland of the loan forgiveness plan are

expected outside the court before the case gets underway and during or -- oral arguments, which as we mentioned to get ready at 10 a.m. eastern. on the support line, leroy in north carolina. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: yes, good morning. i'm a black male in his mid-70's and i want to set the stage correctly for your white audiences. in the days of slavery, blacks were forbidden to read or write and if a black person tried to help someone learn, they were lynched. i don't understand his argument about where the money is going to come from. the people now that benefited from those racists who enslaved our people benefited from that.

they could live off the principal, not even the interest, without touching the principal. it reminds me of black wall street and rosewood, where blacks were entrepreneurs and business people. lending the white banks money. these racist white people in that city, you can always include that with rosewood. went down murdered them, raped them, destroy their businesses. black folks are the last hired and first fired. the white teachers here are not even referring the black students to higher education. the superintendent even alluded to that. they are not referring our kids to advanced studies. elon musk is from another country, coming here, he's one of the richest racists that there is. black kids that could benefit

from a blue-collar tech learning institution -- host: all right to bob, next, in louisville, kentucky. caller: thank you for taking my call. i oppose it because i believe you are honor bound to pay your loan back. there is one thing i would like to emphasize on. they should not charge interest on them loans. because it's hard enough for them people to pay the loans back, much less pay interest. that's all. thank you. host: this from the supreme court student loan case, the arguments explained. a couple of things here, reading about how this issue wound up at the supreme court, the court is hearing two challenges to the plan. one involves six republican let's say that sood and another involves lawsuits from two

students. the lower court dismissed the lawsuit from the following states and said the states could not challenge the program because they were not harmed by it. but a panel of three federal appeals court judges for the eighth circuit, all of them appointed by republican presidents, but the program on hold and the supreme court then agreed to weigh in. the student case involves myra brown, ineligible for debt relief because her loans are commercially held, and alexander taylor, eligible for just $10,000 in not the full 20 because he did not receive a pell grant. they say the biden administration didn't go through the proper process in enacting the plan, among other things. the law that you will hear a lot about today with our guests upcoming and certainly in the oral ts morning is a 2003 law passed aer 9/11 called the heroes act. enacted afte 9/11 and intended

to financially protect service members serving infgnistan and iraq wars. it has been extended twice and allows the education secretary to wver modify loan provisions ireonse to national emergency and in this case the biden administration says it was the coronavirus pandemic. next up is lori and washington, d.c. good morning. lori in the nation's capital. you are on the air. washington, d.c., is this lori? caller: lloyd. host: sorry about that, lloyd. go ahead you are on here. caller: yeah i'm 74 years old. i am all for forgiving the student loan debt. more importantly, i have had 300 young people from all over the world coming here in the summer to work or do internships and

every single one of these countries give their students free education and free health insurance. my question really is with this government here in the united states is why are we allegedly the richest country in the world yet every other country out there gives their children free education? education is the key, we all know this. there's no reason why children shouldn't be able to get a free education. pre-health insurance in this country. it's just ridiculous. host: thanks for that, lloyd. amy is next up in jacksonville, florida, opposing the presidential plan. caller: hello? host: you are the air. caller: hello, yes. i don't oppose necessarily forgiving student loans, but i oppose this plan because i really see it has a band-aid, half measure. it does not address the

legislation that created this student loan crisis. student loans are the only debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. so naturally if banks can loan out money and not worry, you know, they have their loans guaranteed, the loans can never be discharged by bankruptcy, they are going to just hand out money like candy and that is but they have in for the last 20 years. they have -- they have been doing for the last 20 years. students don't have to pass background checks or credit checks to get student loans. they are young and they still don't really understand, you know, how money works, paying off debt when they take off the loans. i really feel like congress, our entire nation, has been done a disservice by passing the law and making it so that we could

discharge the loans in bankruptcy. so i think that everybody, if we need to, every person should be able to discharge bankruptcy if they need to do that. but right now as it is, everybody is just being crushed by this. all the young people, at least. when i went to school, i qualified for $9,000 in student loans. i got a couple of programs. i've paid it off in the 90's. it's a much different situation in the last 20 years. the student loan industry has been very predatory on our people. until we can address that, these small forgiveness, you know, 10,000 or 20,000, it's not addressing the real issue.

i think we should go to a free tuition for public universities. and also limit the amount that people can borrow. and also make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. host: thanks for that, thanks for that perspective, amy. plenty of cameras outside the supreme or to not just show the protest but as happens in many cases, the oral arguments, anyway, it's likely that attorneys on both sides will come to the cameras to speak to reporters about the oral argument. we will hope to have some of that for you later in the program scheduled on the c-span networks. one of the states challenging the biden plan is nebraska. the attorney general has an opinion piece this morning as to why they are challenging the biden student debt power grab, writing that nebraska has challenged the unilateral

unlawful discharge of hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt and the court will hear the case on tuesday and at stake is more than the $430 billion hole it would blow in the budget, saying the case poses a major test for the separation of powers under the constitution. alexis is up next, supporting student debt relief and the president's plan. north carolina. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i will be 75 this year and the lady before me recounted all the reasons that these loans should be forgiven. except that there is no follow-up plan to alter it. i say get out and vote, 2024. i still want, i still have, i just got it to under 10,000.

i'm paying money because they did, they did -- use me, they did the forgiveness plan. i'm paying the forgiveness plan. my daughters are on their, their loan has skyrocketed. the loans have skyrocketed. so when this forgiveness moratorium ends, they are really going to have to cut back. host: when you say skyrocketing, how much do your daughter's oh? caller: one owes $40,000, the other owes $35,000. no, they don't have 250 thousand dollars loans where they have gone to med school and then had

to, you know, concentrate on a particular interest. but if you can't pay it, they are at the age now where they want to start a family. where they want to buy a house. they've got good credit but the banks say that your income to debt limit is too high. host: mark tweets that i'm currently looking for a new home and i cannot believe the mortgage companies actually want me to show enough income to pay off the mortgage if the monthly payment with tax and insurance is $5,000 a month, they require $15,000 a month in income or you don't get approved. another comment, sat the people who have suffered the burden of student loan debt wished a hardship on others.

helen from huntington station, new york, on the student that line. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: i support with the president is trying to do in which there is more he could do. i wish they would talk more about who has authority. even if you move out from the heroes act and the specific language of it or say it's too broad, when you look at two important court cases from the 1920's, the court said you had to show actual damage, not imagined damage. the court seemed to double down and reaffirm that in the recent case of what was it, clock versus embassy international where they said again you have to show real, impending real damage.

not some likely damage. constitutional law, i'm really having a hard time of people not knowing the law, not understanding what's at stake here. there is more ahead on this topic here on washington journal. next up we will dig deeper into the legal questions with both cases today. with constitutional accountability center elizabeth wydra and from the heritage foundation we have giancarlo canaparo and we stay live at the supreme court throughout the morning with a reminder that the coverage of the student loan cases will be

live over on c-span3. ♪ >> live sunday from tucson festival of books, investigiv journalist will be our guest on in-depth. to take your calls on history d american outlaws. he has written books on bonnie d clyde, the mexican border wars in the 51 standoff in texas in 1993 before federal agents in the branch davidians. during the conversation with yo phone calls, facebook comments, text and tweets. in-depth with jeff quinn at noon eastern on c-span two. the name of america which

belongs to you and your national capacity fourscore and seven years ago, ask not what your country can do for you. >> throughout american history presidents delivered speeches during inauguration, times of tragedy, wars and farewells. watch our 10 part series, speeches that define presidents. hear the words of george washington, abraham lincoln, john kennedy, george bush and barack obama. this week will focus on john kennedy's inaugural address asking what you can do for your country. at the height of the cold war his speech to a divided germany. all three men wherever they live are citizens of berlin and

therefore, as a free man i take pride in the words ich ben ein berliner. watch on american history tv on c-span2. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 100 18 congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. information on congressional committees, scan the code on the right to preorder your copy today f early spring delivery. is 25s shipping and handling. there are a lot of places to get political information. only had c-span do you get it straight from the source.

no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues c-span is americans 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. "washington journal," continues. host: we continue our conversation on the two supreme court cases beginning at 10:00 on the consideration of the student loan forgiveness plan. joining us to talk about that is elizabeth wydra the president of constitutional accountability center and from the heritage foundation giancarlo canaparo thanks to both of you for being here. tell us what the constitutional accountable center is. guest: we are a public interest

law firm here in washington dc that seeks to make real the promise of the constitution. it is been amended over time by activist and abolitionist that of the our country ahead. there are inclusive, more equitable and has made our charter more just. host: we did this earlier in the program and i want to remind viewers of the plan that the president announced last august which would cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt for those making a hundred 25,000 year -- and 125,000 a year. million people i should say that

-- a program costing 400 billion over the next three decades. there is more here at stake than just the legality of the president's plan. there is the consideration of whether the states in the first case have the legal standing to bring the case. tell us more about that and what's your view on this. giancarlo: standing is a legal doctrine that rises out of the argument three. it says you need to have an injury caused by the other side and it has to be a real injury. we have a number of injuries alleged here by states in the individual plaintiffs in the second case. you only need one plaintiff so i'll focus on each plaintiff in each case. nebraska and missouri has the strongest argument. it says that it has suffered harm or will suffer harm for

this debt cancellation plan because it operates as state entity that services student loans. it gets paid money for every student loan that the government issues. we invited cancel student loans, it will suffer the loss of that revenue. the student in this case has a weaker argument and he makes the claim that because he was not eligible for student loan relief. host: in the second case. giancarlo: he suffered a procedural injury and that he was not able to participate in the process. host: in the standing issue, the court has shown to be favorable to both republicans and democrats on standing. elizabeth: that will be a really big issue in the united states will be represented today by

elizabeth free longer. it's not an arm of the state, is a corporation. the individuals who are suing want greater debt relief. they declare the plan unlawful nobody will get relief. the court has seen over time this pattern with both republican and democratic administrations were state attorney general's come to the court seeking to invalidate the plan. there might be the opportunity this time for the court to say this political plan is something that is constitutional or will not be challenged by these particular plaintiffs. we will see if there are any

other plaintiffs that stand out. host: is not the president for giving the loan is a secretary of education under the heroes act. tell us your view of the act that was passed in 2003 and whether it applies here. elizabeth: you are exactly right. congress passed legislation that gives the secretary of education authority and discretion to waive or modify certain repayment obligations or regulations were generally related to generally -- federally held student loans. the heroes act discusses national emergencies. covid-19 pandemic has been declared a national emergencies since president trump made that declaration. in response to that, we have seen the trump administration secretary of education betsy devos made a pause on payments.

that was extended by the trump administration and the biden administration. in this instance, the secretary of education decided that they would stop that loan repayment pause and go with the two-pronged approach. it would stop the repayment pause but they would have targeted debt relief for low income borrowers that they determined were more likely to be at risk of delinquency and default on their loan repayment. the secretary and august 22 -- in august 2022, they argued on behalf of the co-authors of the heroes act that this is plainly within the statutory text of the heroes act. host: your argument against, why

should the heroes act that apply this case? giancarlo: the heroes act was passed shortly after 9/11 and was targeted for military service members deployed after 9/11. the operative language is waive and modify. the act is limited only to individuals that have suffered financial harm directly traceable to the underlying emergency which in this case is covid-19. only to the extent necessary to keep them from being made worse off. find and will be a lot of trouble with the supreme court, it's not the way to modify the language although there is reason to think that the language is at best ambiguous and it will be in the major questions realm. the necessary limitations is a problem for biden because he hasn't made any effort to target

the debt relief to the people who are actually suffering harm. his plan will give debt relief to borrowers including people who make income in the top 5%. elizabeth: is that too broad a target? the secretary of education looked at historical and economic data to determine which class of borrowers were more likely to be included in the heroes act. the one that was passed after the heroes act in 2001. they they look specifically to see who was more likely to be in delinquency or default on these federally held loan payments. i think there is no dispute that if we simply stop the repayment

clause without any type of relief that people would be in serious financial crises. host: elizabeth wydra as president of the constitutional accountability center and giancarlo canaparo as with the heritage foundation. we will look for your calls and comments. here are the lines republicans (202) 748-8000, democrats (202) 748-8001, independents and others (202) 748-8002. you started to talk about the major questions doctrine. tell us more about that and how it applies in this case? giancarlo: the major question doctrine was most recently used in the west virginia case. when they reinterpret an old statue in a way that it was not intended for.

that raises the court skepticism. the court looks at, does the policy at issue raised deep questions of economic or political significance. you have dollars figures and that and public debate. at that point, if the court can prove there is a major question involved with the public policy at issue. it will say congress must have authorized that inexpressibly clear language. they may delegated to the executive branch, but only if it does it very clearly. host: betsy devos used a pause payments during covid. did she use the heroes act as her basis for making that pause? giancarlo: yes she did. the major questions doctrine is a really important topic to talk about.

it doesn't even really apply here because there is this expressed delegation. giving the education -- elizabeth: the major question doctrine doesn't apply here because there is an expressed and broad discretion given to the secretary of education. going back to the major questions doctrine itself. there is no historical or textual basis for this doctrine. it is something that will be controversial for many supreme court terms to come particularly when we have justices on the bench who profess to be originalist, taking the original meaning of the constitution. there is no basis in historical or textual constitutional history for that doctrine.

host: is this something that has come about in the justice roberts court? giancarlo: there are traces an older case law. it is far from clear that waive or modify from the statute is clear. an mci telecommunications, the court says modify is to change modestly. it could be the case that adding waive or modify changes that. in west virginia versus the epa they said that there is not clear authorization. as to the point that secretary devos use this for a pause. it was a big rule. that conflates pauses with debt cancellation belies a basic distinction between policies that change the terms of repayment and policies that eliminate the rights to

repayment. host: the states don't have standing in this. what happens then? elizabeth: if there is no finding of standing in the courts don't reach the merits at all. then what would happen is you have to see whether there was some other plaintiff that wanted to bring this case who was able to show that they have a concrete entry that is directly traceable to the secretaries targeted. host: that seems to be the second case with the two students? elizabeth: except the case has standing problems as well. the united states makes the argument that what they are asking for is greater student debt relief and the remedy that the court would offer declaring the program unlawful would give them no relief and nobody gets relief. it would not redress the injury. host: one quick question i'll ask both of you, how does the cost of the program enter into

the arguments coming before the court? giancarlo: if the court concludes that the statute is plainly clear and plainly authorizes this action the no. if the court finds that is beyond the realm of the major questions. as far as i'm aware, no other major question case has had such a big price tag. elizabeth: the price tag is not the important factor here. going back to the founding, there has been delegations for major economic programs, trade and private conduct related to economic issues. we are talking about something, student debt, as most americans know has an enormous price tag on it. people feel the burden of repayment know that price tag. having this targeted student debt relief program is the focus. it is the lawfulness of the

program is not the fact that federal issues come with big price tags. host: let's get to our first caller from minnesota. bobby, go ahead. caller: good morning, good morning to your gas. this is a question both can answer or one could answer. i am in favor of this but i don't know if it's possible for the supreme court to modify this because i think when you go to college you are going to college to improve your status and you're going to learn some type of occupation. i might be wrong but i think there's a statistic that people who have a further education make $1 million more than those who do not. my other point is this, what do you ditto when elizabeth warren, when this all started.

she had a town hall. elizabeth warren could not answer this. i'm a parent, my wife works, i work. we have two jobs. we gave up all of our vacation time and we poured it all into our children's education. do you think they should get some compensation like a tax credit or some other thing? and also, does this apply for all students who are going into further education like trade school or any type of school, vocational school? you are focusing in on one group. what about the students who don't go to college. they are out in the world, they have a car loan, house loan, what will you do for them? giancarlo: the question at the beginning was whether the

supreme court can modify this. the supreme court could not. this supreme court takes it as the case comes. some of the other questions that the caller raised, the question of fundamental fairness. that's an important consideration. one that is debated in congress. it underscores the fact that by taking this out of the legislative branch and doing it through executive power, biden did not allow the people's representatives to debate it. elizabeth: the congress has already ran this discretion to the secretary. when they were coming up with targeted student debt relief they look particularly at data that along with the constraints of the heroes act, which show who would be worse off because of the covid-19 pandemic in relation to their student loan debt. so those because of their lower

income would more likely be in default or delinquency with their student loan payments and targeted it through the heroes act. it doesn't matter what school you went to. if you have a federally held loan it applies to you. some of these questions are policy choices. there were people who wanted the heroes act to go further and require the secretary of education to forgive or waive or modify loan debt for people who were struggling. there are a lot of americans who are struggling. there are policy choices that congress can take out. what the secretary did squares within the secretaries discretion under what congress had already passed. host: next up is maria in ludlow, massachusetts. caller: good morning.

i don't know if this is, how do i phrase is, if we can compare this. i remember when we bailed out the auto industry. we bailed out the airline industry. we bailed out the bank industry. can we compare that to student loans? because those were industries that make a lot of money. i'm trying to make sense of this. did we ever get paid back from those industries? i thought some of those industries did not pay back the money the government gave them. is this a fair question or comparison? thank you very much and have a good day. giancarlo: fundamentally different. the federal government did give these industries huge amounts of money. you can debate whether that was correct or not. but the question here is whether forgiving student loans through executive action, he complies

with the underlying statue. that is the question here. if he did not comply, waiver or modify forgiveness. he has not complied with the other statutory requirements. host: the target is 100 25,000 for individual borrowers and couples 200 50,000. why did the administration to those levels? elizabeth: they chose those because that's what the data supported. all americans know how difficult it is with the rise in inflation and the financial hardships that have come about as a result of the covid-19 pandemic. related specifically to economic stress put on the country by the pandemic. the fact that they looked at data that shows that these were the appropriate income levels. that might make someone more

vulnerable because of the national emergency to become delinquent on your student loan repayments. it makes a lot of sense of that resonates with a lot of people. i want to get back to your collar's point. one thing it does show that the national government has always reacted and continue to react to create national solutions to national problems. and those include economic crises. and here, the government pursuant to congressional authority is asking to help individual hard-working people in the face of a national emergency and economic crisis. we can discuss those politics but for a lot of people, they are really glad to see the power of the federal government used in that way. giancarlo: and no point in biden's legal memo justifying this policy position did he articulate why he picked who he

picked. the only justification they have is that some borrowers, are likely to default. the highest percentage i found her 50% of people are likely to default when repayments kick in. the likeliness of default is a harm, the government still has to explain why debt forgiveness applies to 90 5.5% of all borrowers. the statute requires a lot more assistance than that. elizabeth: it only forgets 10,000, or 20,000. you are not a racing the entire debt of all the borrowers. -- you are not erasing the entire debt of all borrowers. when an expert agency looks at all that data and is allowed to make a policy choice, that's a discretionary choice that is precisely given. host: let me get to our collar

here. janelle is calling from michigan. caller: i haven't called in a thousand years. anyway, first of all i agree with the gentleman on the left. biden did not take this to the legislative branch, they are in charge of the purse strings. that would've been a better route instead of trying to slip this into some kind of backdoor, i don't know what he's trying to do with this. if our taxes pay for these loans we are essentially paying the banks back. we should not be paying the banks back. the university already took this money. they paid their adjunct professors and took the rest off the top for their own purposes. i think the university should pay it back if they are in a forgiving mood. it's unfair to all other american students who went

through this repayment plan and students who would've gone to college had they known that the government was going to pick up some sort of tap on this. it changes the complexion of decisions that are being made by young americans. i don't know how this fits into the heroes act because these are students that are willing and wanting to go to school. this is not an act of a hero. this is a rite of passage where people want to go to school, they can go to school. host: we will give you both a chance to respond. giancarlo: what the collar hence that it is possible to support or oppose what biden has done. the fact that he took this by executive action after he failed to get it through congress supposes that this is political

judgment and not motivated by genuine concern for the pandemic. elizabeth: the heroes act was specifically passed, it made that political judgment already that discretion should be given to the secretary of education with respect to federal student loan debt. in relation to a national emergency like the covid-19 pandemic. what the biden administration did without discretion falls within the statute, that political decision that was already made by congress. i guess it's a view that this was pretextual and not about the hardships faced during the pandemic. the lived experience for many americans contradicts i. that. giancarlo: in february of 2019,

her organization put out a report on president trump's use of emergency powers. in that report she said there were three indicators that an emergency power. elizabeth: i'm glad you're a fan of my work. giancarlo: better than the pretax rule that they came out with later. if there is a delay is not a real emergency. we know that biden created the legal memorandum but he waited almost 1.5 years to do it and that came after nancy pelosi said that only congress has the power to do this. point number two was whether the president could get this through congress. biden could not get this through congress. the president's own words that this is pretextual.

we have seen the president walk it back and forth. there was a covid emergency, the pandemic protects from evictions. a claim standing under the loans. he cut people out of the program because it had a better chance to save his program. elizabeth: that is a totally different situation and standards apply to both situations. all of those factors do not apply to this case. the trump administration engaged as the supreme court itself has said, that some of the offered explanations were not the real ones behind it. what's different about this case is that congress has already passed the heroes act. it has already given this discretion and that's absolutely clear when you look at the

national emergency which no one is disputing that covid-19 isn't a clear national emergency by both the trump administration in the biden administration. certainly congress could have passed legislation. they could have passed legislation that went further and certainly a lot of democrats would have liked congress to have passed something that went further than what the biden administration did with their targeted student debt relief. that doesn't mean the bided administration using the congressional authority that has already been delegated by statutes did not have the ability to engage in these particular actions simply because you can have a congressional enactment that goes further than the discretion that they have already granted in a previous statute. it does not negate the fact that there is this authority in the first place. we are talking about, if you live in the real world. we are talking about political

realities of what policy preferences are out there. if you look at the constitutional question of whether the bided administration had the authority and followed the rules, that was within their discretion delegated by congress. host: the heroes act has been reauthorized to, three times. let's go to bruce in winter haven, florida. on the democrats line. caller: yes, how are you doing this morning? can you hear me? host: yes we can you are on the air. caller: i just want to make a comment about the student loan debt. if somebody could explain to me, how can we send millions of dollars to other countries, like ukraine. when it comes to american citizens in the united states,

we have a hard time helping other people and i just wanted to know because this isn't just the current administration. this is been going back decades across other administrations that we give aid and comfort to other countries but when it comes to us, it's a hard time because we have to fill out so many applications. they ask you a bunch of questions, how many people live in your household, do you own property? how much is in your checking/savings account? $20,000 is not that much to the members of congress had accepted and was approved to get reimbursement for their own businesses like ppp loans up in the thousands of millions of dollars. and they are screaming about $20,000? host: 1.7 trillion an

outstanding student loan debt in this relief program. it will cost $400 billion. do you care respond that? giancarlo: the collar is onto something. there does seem to be a disconnect of in funding priorities. elizabeth: i think there are a lot of people who are struggling because of the covid-19 pandemic and want to see the government use its authority to help them and that's what the bided administration is trying to do here. there is a lot of support for this program. it will be interesting to see how the supreme court either recognizes or does not the real world impact of this financial hardship on americans. host: you mentioned your organization constitutional accountability center has filed an amicus brief. so to have republican senators

and cnbc says republican lawmakers urges the court to overturn the student loan program. i want you to get to rpo to part of that brief that said congress authorized the forgivenes student loan debt only in specific narrow circumstances. this inoone of them. the biden plan threatens to deprive the nation of half $1 trillion. elizabeth: i think that's wrong on the constitutional question and the statutory question. the separation of powers allows and has always allowed from the earliest days of the republic delegations of authority through congressional legislation to the executive branch. that is what is happening here. what the bided administration has done is create a national solution to a national problem related to a national emergency.

that is something that is entirely constitutional and goes back to the state constitution before we even had our written constitution. i think that invocation of the separation of powers sounds nice but i think there is no there there. giancarlo: i was say, there is no constitutional question, is an issue of statutory -- when i look at the supreme court jurisprudence. i don't think the supreme court will say that waves and modify is as clear as miss wydra says. the statute imposes limits.

only individuals who suffered harm as a result of the pandemic. that can only be tailored to their needs in particular and those who have not gotten a sufficient answer from the government, that will be a sticking point. host: i will ask you both in a moment here, who you are listening to most closely in the court in the oral arguments coming up today? from utah, we have robert on the line. good morning. caller: it comes down to something very simple. take care of your dedham responsibility. back in 1997, i could not afford college so i joined the military. that was a major incentive for me to join the military. many people like me have now joined and lost their lives because of this. it's a simple thing, we take loans out for houses. we take loans out for cars and

we pay the debt off. be responsible, pay your debt off. host: we have heard that from a number of callers. elizabeth: i would like to think the collar for his service to our nation. that is the policy choice that the trump administration made when it put the loan repayment on pause in the beginning of the pandemic and this targeted student debt relief is choice that is within the secretary's discretion. i think there are people who feel like the caller does but there are many other people that feel like the student debt load that has placed on americans is too high and prospectively, there are things that can be done to ameliorate that issue. that is a question that is within the political preferences of the voters.

giancarlo: only to note that the key insights about whether or not the statute actually allows loan forgiveness is that it has not been used in the past and never has. it's been used for temporary relief. it relieves administration burdens and even some progressive activists right up to the moment that biden did this did not think the heroes act was the right way to do it. host: r2 guest are with us for the next 25 minutes or so i want to remind our listeners andiewers about the coverage of the supreme court cas. biden v nebraska, nebraska in the five other states that are part of that court case. it's live on c-span3 and on c-span.org and oure app c-span now. at 11:00, the department of education b brown and a couple ividuals in that case. that case will get underway by 11:00 eastern.

we expect our live coverage continues on c-span3. who are you listening to most closely in the oral arguments today? giancarlo: it'll be hard to say how the justices will come down. you have a lot of different approaches. i think the justices will pay most attention to is just as gorsuch, amy coney barrett to see, she tends to chart a course is not normal. and justice kagan who takes a strong view on textual cases. elizabeth: i think justice gorsuch is a person that we will be listing two. he has a long history of textual

interpretation that sticks to statutory language and he has ruled in ways that progressives like. he has also ruled in ways that conservatives like. when it comes to statutory analysis, i think also keep justice roberts wrote the major questions in the west virginia versus epa case. he used the word studded applies in extraordinary cases in that opinion. it will be interesting to see his view on whether that applies here. there are justices who will be interesting on the standing question. we will be looking to see both the conservative and more liberal justices on that particular question because that's a question you have to get through before you get to the merit. if there could be some cross ideological agreement on the

standing questions, then what might be a ideological divides on the merits would not come to pass. host: it sounds like the first case, most of that case a lot of the questions will be about standing. giancarlo: i imagine that the individual borrower cases will be involved in that question. host: we have paul on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. just a few quick points. with respect to the income allowance, there's a lot more that goes in to the ability for someone to pay. it's not simply their level of income. these income levels are actually pretty high. a large number of americans are below $80,000. why not stop there? that's one question i have. the second question i have has to go with the whole problem

itself. there seems to be no policy seems to be addressing how to fix this problem. i believe there is a student loan problem. i don't understand why higher education establishment got away with having people get diplomas that clearly don't have the kind of value that is worth the loan costs. you would think there would be some effort to change that. and elizabeth, you constantly make policy arguments but then when the argument seems to go against what you are saying you say that's a policy discussion. you should address the inherent unfairness of people who have car loans or lower income people who aren't getting these benefits. i understand the argument, but

there is something here that's fundamentally unfair when you are asking taxpayers to take care of this. as opposed to the institution that profit off these loans. elizabeth: there are a lot of issues out there related to the economic hardship that americans are facing. you talk about other loans that are taken out. we could talk about banks all day long and the way in which loans are given and treated. don't even get me started on the cost of childcare and the way that affects americans in these lower income brackets. there are lots of economic hardships out there. i don't in any way want to say that is untrue. this particular one with respect to student debt overrides any of

those other issues. we are talking about a particular congressional enactment that gives discretion on a very particular issue to the secretary of education. the secretary of education can't deal with a car loan issue. they can't deal under this particular national emergency waiver, can't deal with some of the questions of the cost of higher education. should someone look at those? yeah, i think they probably should. but that's not within the discretion given within this congressional enactment. there have been instances where the department of education has completely forgiven student debt. when there is a particular crisis that comes under discretion granted to the secretary of education, then they are able to make that

decision. that's what i mean by certain policy choices that are allowed by this act but other policy choices that are not within the scope of this act. that's what the question is. is this policy choice within the scope of the heroes act. giancarlo and i disagree about that but that is what the question is. host: did you want to touch on this? giancarlo: the point of the income threshold includes everyone outside of the top 5% of earners. it underscores the failure of getting the help to people who need it. i think that will come back to bite him. the fact that this applies only to a particular type of loan. this act only applies to student loans. we have not seen bite and move on any other demographic except

one that happens to -- host: giancarlo canaparo from the heritage foundation and elizabeth wydra from constitutional accountability center we will continue with calls with darrell. caller: thank you very much. these two guests, the history of student loans. it seemed strange to me that the banks are able to ask the government to carve out the closet student loans could not be something with no risk.

and how, when the student loan started, they have the clause that people cannot discharge these loans in bankruptcy. bankruptcy is a constitutional right. host: do you want to respond? giancarlo: only to say, you are probably onto something. there is history of lobbying that gave them special treatment. i have seen compelling arguments that the carveout would help higher education. host: from the democrats line, welcome. caller: yeah, how are you doing? we have made a difference, because the interest rates are ridiculous here. my daughter had a loan,

hopefully she was able to pay that off at the interest rates are beyond on regular loans. what the previous caller said about the institutions issuing degrees that mean nothing and you can't get a career. you spend millions of dollars on football stadiums. the other thing was what the previous caller set about bankruptcy. as such a hypocrisy and if the courts don't see that, i don't know. i think you very much. host: i want to go back to the issue of the state standing here. but broadly, the issue of states being able to challenge federal law. what happens here if the court does say that the states have standing? does that further bolster the view of the states in taking on challenging federal regulations? elizabeth: we saw a brief filed

by generally conservative scholars noting that this is an issue and they are noting it and lamenting it on both sides. both republican and democratic states attorney generals bringing these types of suits. it is something that we have seen increasingly. we saw during the trump administration. you see it with the biden administration. i think it started in earnest during the obama administration. i think the question is whether the supreme court finds that to be troubling or not? we will get a better sense of that with the arguments today. host: along those lines, the major questions doctrine espoused by don roberts -- john roberts in the epa case. is this a change in their originalist view?

giancarlo: there is some criticism with the major question doctrine is not originalist. one of the problems with the west virginia case, we don't have a clear sense of where the court is finding this power. is it a rule of statutory interpretation given new life? is it an outreach of a nondelegation doctrine? if the court decides we might see more explanation from where this comes from. host: let's hear from georgia, sandy is on the line. sandy is on the republican line from dalton, georgia. caller: hi, this is randy. host: my mistake. caller: no problem. i have a problem with this. we need to teach our children responsibility. they have an obligation to take

care of this. i go back to the vietnam days where everybody went to canada. the democrats let them all come back home with the rest of us went to vietnam. you have to accept responsibility. host: we will hear from karen in babylon, new york on the independent line. caller: good morning how are you today? host: fine thank you. caller: it doesn't make sense to me. i have two boys 35 he's an electrician. they should be going to school and have more electricians and plumbers out there. they pay a thousand dollars a week for a babysitter for two children. my second one is 30 years old. he has two children.

you make your bed and you lying in. he rents. his girlfriend just went and got an iud put in. host: let me ask both of you the ramifications if the supreme court strikes down the president's plan? elizabeth: the ramifications are going to be real. obviously, for the people who are struggling. the people who are struggling to manage their student debt load because of the economic hardship that have been caused throughout the country from the covid-19 pandemic. the real-world effects will obviously be on those individuals who are intended to be protected by the heroes act. obviously, for lawyers we will look at the impact that such a ruling could have on the state of the law.

if the court were not to look at the plain and clear text of the heroes act, that will be problematic for the body of text interpretation going forward. there has been lots of president about what the term wave means. there's a part of the statute that the secretary can take these actions when he/she deems necessary. there's a body of law about extraordinary discretion when you need it. that will have an impact on the way statutes are interpreted. i think the court does apply the major questions doctrine that could have an enormous impact on issues. we have seen it used an environmental protections case. the student loans will relate to

economic justice. it would have impacts beyond those real-world impacts. host: could the court announced beforehand that they agreed that the states have standing before they issue their final ruling? will they say that? giancarlo: that's unlikely. what's likely to happen the complete opinion that will resolve the standing question first and if it concludes that no one has standing it will end there. host: what do you think happens if it struck down? giancarlo: the first real-world application that people who took out student loans will have to pay for them. i am hopeful that we see a trend in republican and democratic administrations to abuse and expand emergency powers. if they made a decision against

this case it would reset the powers and make it less likely that future presidents stretch emergency powers. host: next step from virginia, on the democrat line. caller: i am a democrat and i support president biden's plan, student loan plan but, i also thought it should have pertained to first responders, doctors, nurses. people that the country need. and we need more of those kinds of people. i thought this program should pertain specifically to them. we don't need to be paying for people who want to do other things. they can pay for their own college. for doctors, lawyers and people that we need. my question to the guests, do you think if this program were

put in place for just doctors and lawyers and service people, would there have been a bipartisan agreement on that? would it have ended up in the supreme court? elizabeth: i'm glad the collar included lawyers in that group of people. the statute talks about taking these actions in response to a national emergency in order to make sure that impacted individuals are not worse off in relation to their student debt as a result of the national emergency. certainly a lot of the categories of people that the caller mentioned are included within that. that is the category that we are working with under the heroes act.

certainly, there could have been a congressional push to have something more specifically targeted to those categories of workers. but the heroes act, thus the criteria it's using. giancarlo: she mentioned the impacted individuals what the statute defines as affected individuals. the statute requires the president targets people who actually suffered harm as a result of the pandemic. the point about doctors, lawyers and first responders, we could if the president could show that they suffered financially as a result of the pandemic. what we have seen from the legal memos and briefs, the government hasn't done that for anyone. host: from north of atlanta, to georgia with john of the republican line. caller: good morning. my question is, what exist today

that would allow this to fall under the heroes act? that didn't exist prior to the pandemic? is it reflation or recession, are you suggesting that we should forgive student loans every time we have high inflation or recession? i can understand suspending student loan payments. but student loans last for years. why would you forget a debt that last for years over a situation that only last 2-3 years? giancarlo: this his at the fact that up until recently, people did not think the heroes acted this. when we saw previous administrations use it, it was for temporary, targeted relief. not brought relief that applies permanently to 95% of all borrowers. that will factor into the supreme court's analysis when it

decides whether this meets the statutory definition of necessary. elizabeth: it's important to remember the targeted relief plan. it's only $10,000 of relief. it's not forgiving all student debt. some people would've liked but that's not what the biden administration did under the heroes act. they targeted it under the specification of the heroes act to be related to income, because they determine looking at data that said people within this income bracket are more likely to default or become delinquent on their student loan payments because of the pandemic when the loan repayment pause is stopped. they looked at that and also determined that this level of relief, which is $10,000 or 20,000 if you had a pell grant.

it is not complete forgiveness of debt. host: one on the independent line. caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: thanks for joining us. i love the open forum because viewers from across the country have a chance to chime in. i guess my comment, i think i have a question as well, but my comment is, the $400 billion with programs like this, i went to college, paid off my loans. i sat down with my single mom and we made a tough decision and i got through. because of my decision i've been able to make more money over my lifetime. i recall my student loan rate in

the mid-1990's was around 8% and it was high but it got me where i wanted to be. the analysis on -- and i know it is not necessarily related to the supreme court case, but the program itself and it growing. i think a lot of callers touched upon the fact that there's a lot of easy money in higher education these days. what would be a great stat to pull off is how much college in 20 years has increased relative to inflation? the university can hike their prices every year and there's free money and then the government will say, we will repay some of it. i guess that's my concern. host: we can't call up that graphic right away, a lot of people brought that up. do you want to take some final comments on this? guest: just briefly, some of the

amicus briefs in the case mentioned what forgiving student loans does is create an incentive for colleges to raise prices, knowing that the federal government may be there to pick up the tab. host: elizabeth? guest: it is argued in the court, we are laser focused on the issue of the heroes act which gives the discretion to the secretary of education to enact the targeted student that relief the biden administration put in place. it will help many struggling americans. it is lawful, within the statute. it is constitutional, even if you are trying to say there's a separations of powers problem, there's not. we will look to the supreme court to see whether they follow the text of the statute. host: elizabeth is the president of the constitutional accountability center and

giancarlo is at the heritage foundation. thank you to both of you for being here. guest: thanks for having me. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: a little less than an hour until that supreme court case gets underway. we are live outside the court and will be all day. the first case coming up at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. here on "washington journal," more of your phone calls. it is open forum. you can weigh in on public policy. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats and independents and others, (202) 748-8002. we will also get an update in the preview of the first hearing coming up tonight, of the house select committee on china. ♪

>> start your day with "washington journal," your window into the nation's capital, the only televised forum for discussion related issues of washington. >> it gives people opportunity to speak for themselves. >> joined the three hour long conversation with a variety of congressional members -- >> the great institutions in this country where speech sometimes unpopular, will still be heard. >> and washington influencers. >> bringing a valid discussion to all of the policy issues, no one else does that. >> watch live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or c-span.org.

>> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the senate floor to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary, no interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> be up to date on the latest in publishing with tv's podcast about books. with nonfiction book releases, plus the summer list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our mobile app, or

wherever you got your podcast. -- wherever you get your podcasts. c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span.

powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is open forum, chance for you to call in and talk about the policy issues, news items you are following, whether it is the student loan issue and the cases coming before the courts, or other issues on capitol hill or elsewhere. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls momentarily. we want to get a preview of the first hearing coming up tonight of the select committee on china that was created by the republican leadership at the beginning of the 118th congress. joining us is max cowan, congressional reporter with punch bowl news. we also interviewed the chairman, mike gallagher. guest: thanks for having me on. host: the hearing is at 7:00

eastern and we will have live coverage on c-span two. what did you find out from representative mike gallagher, the chair of the committee on what they hope to accomplish not only tonight but in the hearings and proceedings at head that committee? guest: gallagher told me one of his main goals is to show that the threat of the chinese communist party is not just a threat over there, this is a threat to americans in the united dates. that's one of the main goals and the goal of the committee going forward. we will hear from a couple former trump administration officials to talk about the military and ideological threats posed by the cp -- cbd. host: krishna morphy, -- murphy -- murthy, does he share the views? guest: one of the moats notable

parts is a bipartisan nature. -- most noticeable parts is the bipartisan nature. this is a shared belief among most democrats and all republicans that the ccp poses a threat and kirsnhamuirth -- krishnamurthy has done a good job. host: what do you know of their intent in terms of eventual legislation that may come out of this committee after their hearings? guest: one of the main things gallagher told me is that he does not want to issue one larger report which no one will likely read. he wants to issue a number of smaller reports throughout the tenure of the committee and focused narrowly on things that can pass a divided congress. he's spoken to republican committee chairs who think this is a good idea they can endorse bills they hope can pass the

house and senate. focusing on narrowly tailored subjects, perhaps taiwan. host: in your interview, the congressman gallagher said, let's face it, most congressional hearings are boring. it sounds like he may be taking a little of a hit from the january 6 committee, one starting off with an evening hearing. in any other way, will the hearing tonight we can -- be different and congressional hearings in the past? guest: that is one of gallagher's goals. he hopes his witnesses can be charismatic and compelling, and the prime setting is unusual for congressional hearings. well some of the major cable networks like cnn, msnbc, fox news carry this live? we've reached out to a number of outlets and that that -- have not heard back but they will carry it. host: one of the lead witnesses

tonight is the former national security advisor for president trump, h.r. mcmaster. what do you know of his point of view on the threat of china? guest: he's going to talk about the military threat posed by china, h.r. mcmaster coming from the military background. he will talk about the south china sea, china's threats toward taiwan. you also have matt pottinger, deputy national security advisor to president trump who has long talked about covid origins, i assume the lab leaked theory will come up and his theories about how that might have come out of the wuhan lab and not a national source. he will be talking about the issues in the news, the chinese spy balloon will be another issue. host: as chair -- has chaired gallagher said anything about the pace or schedule of hearings? guest: he hasn't and to --

articulated much. tonight will be at agenda setting meeting of the ccp's threat. you have chinese dissidents testifying. you also have someone from a manufacturing interest group testifying about chinese manufacturers and the impact on the american economy. economic, military, ideological, human rights, and i expect the committee to delve into those individual items. host: is it your plan to be in the committing room -- committee room? guest: correct. host: max cohen is with punch bowl news. you can read at punch bowl. news. host: thank you. let's get onto your calls. jim is in texas on the independent line. thanks for your patience and go ahead. caller: am i on?

host: you are, go ahead. caller: i want to say what i went through, and i never took out any student loans, and i was so glad both my brothers, johnny and joe, they didn't either. none of us had to go under any kind of restraint because of that. i hope you understand that it's possible to do that if you just want to tighten your belt and not have to go under anybody's thumb, you can do it, but you have to eat a lot of peanut butter and ramen soup. host: carl on the republican line. caller: bear with me. this is my first time ever. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: my question is if they

are doing relief for student loans, which back in my day they weren't available, such a thing as student loans. if you couldn't afford it, you didn't go. that was at the beginning of the vietnam war. my question is, if they are going to pay off student loans to people today for things that happened in the past, why wouldn't they pay off seniors' mortgages so they can have a more relaxed lifestyle? i've never been able to have more earnings through a college education. i just don't see where it's fair that they are going to take from seniors to taxpayers to pay off the student loans for people that is going to make 2, 3, 4 times what we've learned in our life to get to what we are. host: carl, we so moments ago

the scene outside the court. coverage coming up at 10:00 a.m. eastern on the two supreme court cases. mark is in flint, michigan. caller: good morning. i'm basically concerned about social security. there needs to be some new legislation created that pertains to social security. all the years that you work, you put in a lot of money. a lot of people get the money and actually -- but once you die , your set amount is $225. that's not enough to even get a sweep of dirt. there should be a set amount for people who don't use up all their social security money so they can have a decent burial. that's my biggest concern. what happens to the money once that individual dies? where does it go?

the set amount of $225 is not enough to bury a person. they need to adjust the amount people receive once they die to help with the burial. host: there's a report and a publication this morning, the headline says a bipartisan group of senators is talking about raising the retirement age on social security. a right that a bipartisan group led by angus king and bill cassidy is considering gradually raising the retirement age to 70 as part of their legislation to overhaul social security. they have learned from two people briefed on their efforts. other options include changing the existing formula that calculates monthly benefit, from based on a workers average earnings over 35 years to a different formula based instead on the number of years spent working and paying into social security. you can read that. it is open forum here on

"washington journal." any public policy issue or news item you want to talk about, (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. we told you about our court coverage. the house is coming in at 10:00 a.m. eastern for morning speeches and legislative business at noon. the senate also coming in at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. if the senate is out this evening, we plan to bring you coverage of that select committee on china, coming up tonight at 7:00 eastern. we spoke with max cohen, and h.r. mcmaster is the lead witness in that hearing. that is over on c-span 2 and we will streamline at c-span.org and the mobile app c-span. now.

tomorrow, the attorney general will be back on capitol hill for the first time since 2021. attorney general merrick garland testifying before the senate judiciary committee, expected to be asked about the recent indictment of an fbi official as well as several other ongoing department of justice investigation. that's live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. rockaway park, new york, nikki on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to speak about a different story in the news. there are two stories that are somewhat connected. there are two individuals, both named murdaugh. one is on trial for the murder of his family. the other is on trial for the murder of the truth on fox news. so many fox news hosts, the evidence came out yesterday, and

i'm looking forward to the trial in april. and i'm sure, i'm certain that there are many fox news believers who are -- host: we lost all our callers. that caller was talking about the report in "the washington post." murdoch and some fox posts were endorsing -- posts were endorsing election falsehoods. they acknowledged some of our commentators endorsing the baseless narrative at the 2020 presidential election was stolen, and he wishes the network did more to challenge those conspiracy theories. "i would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing in hindsight," he said in testimony, as part of the million -- dominion voting systems defamation lawsuit. the post writes -- asked if

endorsed the claims, he replied i think so. he said former host lou dobbs did so a lot and sean hannity did so a bit. the 91-year-old media mogul emerged as a major character in the latest filing by the election technology company, which claims the network gravely hurt its business prospects when it allowed two lawyers for president trump, sidney powell and rudolph giuliani, to air wild claims of fraud on fox programs. murdoch denied fox promoted those views, saying the network was simply treating it as news, that the president and his lawyers were saying this. but dominion's filing shows murdoch was intimately involved in skewing the programming in the chaotic weeks as he tried to straddle the issue of election fraud in a way that would not

anger viewers or the president. it is (202) 748-8001, our line for republicans. (202) 748-8002 democrats and for all others (202) 748-8002 -- the democrats line (202) 748-8000. the supreme court case coming up this morning, two cases regarding president biden's lan on student loan forgiveness, and our live coverage will be on c-span three. we got a preview of that earlier today from john francie of usa today. one of your pieces leading up to today's cases had the headline -- "biden will be playing defense on student loans this week at the supreme court tell us why. guest: i think a lot of us that cover the supreme court on a regular basis are looking at some of the previous cases that are pretty analogous.

there's been a lot of skepticism from the conservative majority of the court, for actions that administrations take where the law is not explicitly clear that they have the authority to do that. a good example is the eviction moratorium case where the two administrations sought to pause evictions during the covid-19 pandemic. based on a law that said the surgeon general can do what he or she thinks is necessary to block the spread of communicable diseases, the administrations, two of them had read that law and said it blocked the evictions. the supreme court said, no, it doesn't say anything about that and while it is a broad authority, you can't read the specific authorizations into these broad laws absent some explicit words from congress giving you that power.

i think the other side will argue, but there are a lot of similarities in terms of the broad authority in these laws. host: what was the president's announcement last august? how many people will be affected by the loan program and why are they challenging that? guest: the president announced his plan in august. i think by october it had been shut down by courts so it has been on pause a long time. the supreme court also put it on pause on a temporary basis when it decided to hear these cases. the white house estimated, i think some 40 million people are eligible. 16 million people have already been approved for some portion of relief. just in terms of the loan program itself, it is potentially enormous the number of people who are affected. the six states that have sued

are raising a number of different standing claims and really, the standing issue is a big part of this. i know it is the legal, wonky part but it also has huge implications. one thing the state is arguing is there is a loan servicer entity that services these loans that take revenue from that work and give it to the state of missouri. it is very says if you cancel these loans we will lose out on revenue. while i think on the merits the biden administration will probably be on defense, a place they may have a better shot is the standing argument. to get in the door of the supreme court, you've got to clear the standing piece first. so i think we are going to see a lot of debate about whether the state and two individual borrowers have standing. host: seems like the court has been friendly to giving states,

more friendly in the recent decade to giving states standing in challenging federal regulations. guest: that's why this is so important, because you are alluding to, we've seen states the opposite of the president's party bring lawsuits in all contexts, immigration comes to mind. workplace restrictions and other areas where states have managed to shut down a president's policy indefinitely and sometimes permanently. i think this, though, both sides no matter how you come down on this bait, argue that have -- debate, argue that how the court could open the floodgates to more of that kind of litigation and allow states more reason to bring these lawsuits and really horrible and administration's ability to do much of anything -- really hobble an

administration's ability to do anything. if you don't give the states the ticket to the supreme court, it will hobble their ability to challenge the policies that are controversial and may harm the states. host: there certainly is an element of timeliness because the covid restrictions, the covid pause on student loan payments is the end of june. the court will hear this case today and will likely make some decision by june, correct? guest: that's most likely, this will probably take until the end of the term which is june. part of this is whether there is still a covid emergency on. one piece of that puzzle that you left out is the biden administration has said they will end the emergency declarations in may. these are part of what the law arrests on. -- the law rests on.

the law says adjacent to an emergency, if there was an emergency and you continue to be affected even if the emergency has ended. the other side says that's crazy and if the emergency is over, the relief, you don't get anymore. different laws, different statutes, the title 42 case, they pulled case off the docket the same sort of idea, based on emergency that will be lifted. you will see some debate on that but i think the administration probably has a better comment -- argument. host: check out usa today.com. john fritze and his colleagues will be updating all day. thank you for the update and the preview of today's cases. guest: thank you. host: we are back live outside

the supreme court, a little more than a half hour away from the start of the first case. our live coverage on c-span3 and c-span.org, and on the free c-span now mobile app. lots of protesters and others outside the court. our cameras will stay there and we will also likely hear from attorneys. here on washington journal, it is open forum. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. you want to talk about student loans, that's fine, but other public policy, that's fine. jessica is first up, in trenton, michigan, democrats line. caller: yes, hello. it's nice to be speaking with you. host: glad to have you on. guest: talking about student

loans, we are missing a very important perspective that back in the 1950's, 1960's, and i believe the 1970's, education was highly subsidized. we didn't have the rate of tuition we do today and also just completely unaffordable because the government did step in to subsidize education. that was an important part of being able to send people off to school. you could work a part-time job during the summer or even full-time, and be able to afford the necessary expenditures to a school. today, that's not the case. wages are far, far below where they need to be. that's also considering people that graduate from college who are unable to pay back those loans. that's not because they're irresponsible. that's an effect of capitalism and it's really unfortunate that people are being blamed directly, rather than it being

looked at as a way to uphold the middle class, help people in lower classes that do have various skilled labor and have these very specialized backgrounds in jobs such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, scientists, artists, everyone in between. they are valuable to our society. they provide a very important job. they uphold the economy just like trade jobs. trade labor, a million times important, electricians, plumbers, i love you. but we need to be able to help out the middle class. we need to be able to help out people that are poor. we don't need to help out corporations and fund more money into the military. we need to give that directly to citizens. host: two year point, in your view, where do you think the

trend started? you mentioned several decades ago, public education was quite subsidized. in your view, when did that change where the wages you make couldn't pay for the college and college got less public support? caller: i would say if you were to pinpoint where you started to see that more it would be in the 1990's potentially. where people that were going to school were more active in discussing their ability to pay for college was becoming harder. that should've been our warning sign. if we want to establish people in tech, in medical, in other valued career fields that again help support our entire society, i mean, it's kind of a no-brainer.

we should have been listening at the first sign. host: allen in arkansas on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, bill. always especially glad when you are on. i called once a year ago and brought up the point about republicans being a -- reclaiming their blue color. you are surprised by that right live on the air. i am hoping they will return to their blue historic color. do you remember that call? host: i do recall that conversation, yes, thank you. caller: i'm always glad to see one. i don't want to make the other folks jealous but you are an absolutely outstanding host and

i enjoy the program. i just wanted to mention that in the context of broadcasting history, i had 50 years ago, was a talkshow host. all of my listeners are probably gone on to heaven by now. add an interview with the brain trust of the clinton campaign. his name was jim, for an hour. i think it was his only hour-long interview he gave. had an hour long interview in his hotel room with his wife getting dressed on the others of some saloon door dividers. new could see her feet walking back and forth. -- you could see her feet walking back and forth. i have amazing stories about broadcasting, all to say i have

discovered the most incredible news reporter from ukraine that i wanted to mention to everybody to look her up online, follow her, and get her numbers up to 100,000 or more. she's right at 50,000. i started listening a few months ago and i think she's greta garbo's great granddaughter. now you just have to decide on that. she's a phd that never expected to be a blogger. host: what's her name? caller: ana from ukraine. she's on every day and she's developed the most incredible broadcasting history already when you go to see her online

website. host: what do you get from her that you don't get from other reporters -- reporters you may follow from ukraine? caller: she has the feel for the intensity and emotion of what these brave citizens are going through that as a retired history teacher, reminds me of what george washington and all the wives and women went through during our resolution, and the alarms that go off every day and such. i just wanted to mention her name that people could just freely add and follow her voice. she will be a foreign minister of ukraine, you will see, in

maybe five years from now. the president of ukraine. host: i appreciate the tip. maybe folks will follow up on that. glad to hear from you and your broadcast history. taro is in massachusetts on our democrats line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: on the student loans, the republicans are challenging the administration. if you look on the tv, they come here, they have the status to work, they pay tax but never collect. the estimate is 400 billion dollars a year. host: are you still there?

caller: yes, yes, it's $400 billion a year the goes to social security free. those people never collect the money. that's the money for the students forgiven the loan just in one year. i don't know why they didn't challenge it, the trump administration, when he gives out so much. host: we've got about 25 minutes in open forum, the u.s. house coming in at 10:00. a story from "the wall street journal," no covid origin consensus. there is no consensus on the origins of the covid-19 virus. a day after the disclosure of an energy department assessment that the pandemic most likely originated with a leak from a chinese lab.

the energy department had previously been undecided and recently joined the federal bureau of investigation, saying it lightly spread by a mishap at a chinese laboratory. here is the national security advisor john kirby talking about that yesterday. [video clip] >> on the department of energy's findings on what most likely caused the pandemic, how should americans understand china's response here saying that this is politically motivated, it's a lie, there's no science to back it, swatting down this information? >> i can't speak for the chinese and wooden endeavor to do that. just let me back up. the president made trying to find the origins of covid a priority when he came into office and he's got a whole effort to do that. there is not a consensus right

now in the u.s. government about exactly how covid started. there's just not an intelligence community consensus, and i would add that the president passed the national labs which report to the department of energy to study this as well. it was not confined to the intelligence community. that work is still ongoing. the president believes it is important that we still work and find how it happened so we can prevent a future pandemic. the idea is to get ahead of it so should there be another one, we can better get ahead of it. >> pretty clearly to the biden administration, smearing them and trying to say this is baseless, people shouldn't believe it and it is politically motivated. >> i'm not going to get ahead of where we are in the process.

the intelligence community and the rest of the government are looking at this. there's not been a definitive conclusion for so it's difficult for me to say, nor do i feel like i should defend press reporting about a possible preliminary indication. the president wants facts. he wants the government to get those facts and that's what we are doing, but we are just not there yet. when we are there and we have something that is ready to be briefed to the american people and the congress we will do that. host: continuing on "washington journal," paul is in hempstead, new york, republican. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i did want to comment during the discussion about the student loans and i appreciated the well-informed information you presented, your program presented with those panelists. my point simply is the student

loan issue, it is like a three legged stool. we have the borrower, the banks, and yet we don't hear much about the universities in terms of their role what they can do with the forgiveness of debt. i happened to visit boston last weekend with my son who is looking at colleges, and we went to boston university in particular. i was struck at the amount they are looking for for tuition, $67,000 a year, phenomenal amounts of money. interestingly, right next door to the school is a used clothing store where we were able to meet students who had to buy their clothing there. the juxtaposition is lost on me. they talked about life as a student and the cost and how they are trying to bridge the

gap between those costs and reality. they were interesting young people and i was glad to talk to them. right across the street was the bookstore, barnes & noble is the bookstore for the boston university students. prominently displayed was this book by greta finn berg about the climate -- greta thunberg about the climate crisis. i asked the students, what about the book by steve coots who c-span had -- kuntz, who c-span had on, where was that book? meanwhile, a medical -- in middle school student's book was in multiple locations. i found it ironic. host: the cost of boston

university, 67,000 i think you said, is that unaffordable? are you looking elsewhere? caller: wait, way unaffordable, yeah. not even close. that included tuition and i think room and board but still. phenomenal number. host: good luck to your son in finding a school and one you can pay for. dorothy in ohio is up next on the independent line. caller: is it me? host: it's you, go ahead. caller: i'm glad for open forum because are you guys going to build the oversight committee hearings? the one that's happening tonight at 7:00? host: the select committee on china? caller: yes. host: the plan is that we will

have live coverage about tonight getting at 7:00 eastern. it will be on c-span two but if not, that's if the senate is not -- out. we will have that streaming at c-span.org and if you miss it, you can catch it in our video library and the c-span now mobile app. caller: here's the problem. host: ok. caller: i know i'm probably the only person in the universe but i don't use the internet a lot. so i have to rely on my channels and go to c-span. that's my question, i guess what i'm asking is do i have to search it out or can i just go to c-span at 7:00? host: c-span2 at 7:00. if the senate is out the plan is to have it on c-span2 and if not

, shortly after the senate goes out. i don't want to predict what the senate will do on any given day, but it is likely by 7:00 they will be out of session and that hearing will be live. does that answer your question? caller: and also, i guess i'm assuming, hoping you will show all the oversight meeting? host: oh, yeah. if you don't see it tonight on c-span2, it will re-air later tonight and tomorrow as well i expect. as they say, stay tuned. thanks for calling. oakdale, connecticut is next, alan on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. as far as student debt goes, the obama administration added to it significantly when they took over the student loan program

and raised the amount of money kids can have, and the colleges went to tuition and set up all that money. the other issue is you don't see trade school students complaining about student debt because they get out, have gainful employment where they can more than afford it, whereas a lot of these colleges have majors that don't prepare them for the real world. they give them no job entry skills to get decent employment and make a good wage. i suggest these colleges with these ridiculous majors, if a student graduates and can't get gainful employment within a week or two, they should give them free tuition to change their majors. they should be on the hook. host: the student loan case is coming up at 10:00 eastern on c-span. the house will be coming in. the senate over on c-span2

dabbling in at 10:00 eastern. this issue will be coming up in the senate, reported by carl holston, bill challenging d.c. law could become a soft on crime test for biden. republicans move closer to blocking changes to the district of columbia criminal code, potentially setting up a veto fight with president biden as the party works to capitalize on fears of rising crime in the run-up to the 2024 campaign. senator joe manchin, democrat of west virginia, told reporters he would join republicans in voting to overturn a new washington, d.c. sentencing law that reduced penalties on criminal offenses, leaving them just one vote short on forcing the bill out of congress and to the white house. "none of that makes sense to me," about lowering mandatory minimums. he added, offenders "know they

can get by with all over the country." senate republicans hope to marshal the votes as early as next week to send pb -- president biden the legislation that would block laws that lowered or eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes including carjacking. no officials have issued a direct veto threat. watch the senate on c-span2. jimmy is on the line from whitfield, maine, democrat line. caller: that's wake field. host: my my mistake. caller: finally got through.

[indiscernible] the constitution of 1789 is over and has failed. and we can sure see it in the way this country is trying to conquer the world and we have no say in what that goal would be. what a tragedy, what a joke, what a flimflam. host: washington, d.c. next, willie on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: great, great to have you. caller: been listening for over a year, this is the first time i've called and. i want to talk about tuition. i started working at 15, preferably will get social security at 65 so that's 50 years of taxes but i will be charged for borrowing my money back for four years?

does not make sense to me. it shows doesn't mesh well that i need my money back from the federal government so i can go to school and then i can't get it back and have to be charged interest on it that far exceeds the penalty? for 50 years i've been putting into the system but i can't get money to go to school and it's my money that i gave the government, that does not make any sense. host: next is edwin in atlanta. it's open forum, go ahead. caller: thank you very much. i've been wanting to get through. i love c-span. i wanted to tell you that i want every caller to be on the ball and when you hear your name, try to do better than say "can you hear me?" you have the hear your name and jump right in.

it would be a real help if the host on c-span would greet the caller by saying, go ahead, there are hundreds of people waiting on hold that of been trying to get through for years but they can't get through because the line is tied up with people saying good morning to each other and asking how are you doing today. and then the host will sit there and say, i'm fine, thank you, and thank the caller. please get beyond that. we have important talk hear from callers. host: i don't disagree with you. but it's also just a conversation so there is some of that civil -- caller: the show only lasts three hours. we have to fill every minute with important talk. not about what a pretty day it is in omaha or something. i love omaha but freedom of speech requires that we stay

focused on important talk, pretty please. host: edwin, thank you for your point of view. glad you got through. tennessee, william is next on the republican line. caller: i'd like to say it's not right for these people to have student loans. they let people pay for their school, they don't pay. it's just not right. thank you. host: a story in politico -- " doj urges congress to re-up controversial surveillance program the biden administration is pitching congress its opening offer on extending a long controversial program, asking congress to grant the same powers with virtually no changes . the department of justice and

the office of the director of national intelligence have held quiet conversations with senior members centered on reauthorizing the program known as section 702 designed to gather electronic communications of foreigners abroad. it has become a sense -- a source of controversy to sweep up the privacy of americans." the attorney general will be testifying and will possibly be asked about that, his first testimony in front of the 118th congress. we will have live coverage on c-span3 and it will be streaming on c-span.org and c-span now. south river, new jersey, anthony on the democrat line. caller: as usual, i would like to say thanks to c-span for everything because you are a great forum to get the voice out. i've been a registered democrat

for over 45 years but i'm pretty disappointed with the biden administration. i want to make three quick points. no need to put your finger on the button to cut me off because i'm going to be brief. the first one is student loans. if that's not divisive, i paid off my student loans and i'm supposed to feel good about giving people making $125,000 student loan forgiveness of 20 grand? i can't agree with that. that's very divisive. he wants to be a uniter. he's not doing a good job. i think it was to get votes for the midterm. second, the environment. why doesn't the epa allow them to burn all these vinyl chloride chemicals into the atmosphere when they have a train wreck? how could they get the ok? certainly they want to prevent an explosion and evacuate the

area but to do that will be a long-term disaster. in addition, there is no long-term plan to reduce the greenhouse gases. i know everybody buys an electric car, there will be no more bad storms or if we put up solar panels, and those are good things. but that's not going to bring it down. that's not going to eliminate china and india's impact on the earth. and they have windmills in new jersey now, which they think they are killing whales and dolphins coming across the shore. there's absolutely no evidence of that because they haven't looked into it, so they are still building windmills off the shore. all of that combined will not be reducing our carbon emissions enough to save the planet. there is really no definite plan and i'm really disappointed. the third thing -- and i'm going to get off -- is the daily white

house press briefings. just one thing, that's a misnomer because they are not really daily. secondly, karine jean-pierre, i appreciate her efforts but i think that's a good example of getting somebody who's in the most diverse cabinet. i don't think she's really a good person to think off the top of her head. the reason is she has to read off the binder and the cue cards for every answer she gives. she doesn't really think independently like the other white house people like jen psaki or even sarah sanders. so what she says, i think she's misreading that binder when she says joe biden takes classified documents seriously. i think she's putting the inflection in the wrong place. she should be reading it, and

the way it is supposed to be read is joe biden takes white house classified documents seriously. host: this is the text on the student loan message from lee in florida, palm bay. i do not support just paying off the loans, making community college free would prevent most future debt. let's hear from will in cedar city, utah on the independent line. caller: i just have one comment. after everything we've seen in the last two years with president biden, isn't it obvious, indubitably obvious to everybody that he is compromised? with afghanistan, everything that's gone on, he's sweet talking the chinese, the russians, the ukrainians, and we are getting nowhere. he has been giving help for the

ukrainians where we've taken everything we had and put it in. he is definitely compromised and it doesn't take anyone to figure it out. host: dolphin island, alabama, anne on the republican line. caller: the situation with the schools, the majority of people that do graduate and pay for their degree, say it's not even worth it. i went to a community college and received an rn degree and i was diagnosing patients before the doctors could do it. they were looking at me and wondering how. i applied myself and i didn't memorize it, i learned it. that is not a bill that should be going on. we need to deal with donald

trump's mega bill and what they are saying about vocational skilling. set up the borders and the only way the border will work as if there is a brick wall that is manned and we need to start putting manufacturing companies or automobiles on the mexican side and letting people go through high school and vocational training and go to businesses like that. those people will make more money than a registered nurse would make today in alabama. host: thanks for your just to let you know our cameras are live outside the supreme court and they will be today is the case get underway shortly under c-span3. the first of two supreme court cases dealing with the federal loan forgiveness plan. that is coming up here very shortly er