host: this is "washington journal" for may 17. president biden, speaker mccarthy, and other congressional leaders met yesterday to talk about that debt limit.

after that meeting, both sides admitted they were a long way away from a deal, but expressed optimism from keeping the u.s. into going from -- from going into default. your comments on the current state of play on the debt ceiling. here is how you can call and let us know. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003 is how you can do that. the leaders met at the white house yesterday afternoon. many of them go to the cameras to talk to the state of play. president biden talking about his upcoming trip. he also took some time to give his perspective on the current state of negotiations. here is a bit from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: we just finished a

good meeting about making sure the u.s. does not default on its debt for the first time. [applause] there is still work to do. i made it clear to the speaker and others that over the next several days, the staff is going to continue meeting daily to make sure we do not default. i am scheduled to travel tomorrow to the g7 summit in japan. we work together with other countries to support ukraine and take on challenges like tackling climate change and the global economy. the nature of the presidency is addressing many critical matters all at once. i am confident we will continue to make progress toward avoiding default and fulfilling america's responsibility as a leader on

the world stage great however, i am cutting my trip short. i am postponing my trip to australia and pop on new guinea in order to be back for final negotiations on the debt ceiling. host: no deal yet when coming up with a plan to keep the u.s. from going into default and raising the debt ceiling. both sides wanting different things from the discussions recall us and let us know what you think as these talks continue. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can also text us that (202) 748-8003. new stocking about those directly involved in negotiations going forward. two will now represent the white house in talks with kevin mccarthy. one top ally, republican of

louisiana, initial discussions again yesterday. full-scale negotiations set to kick off this morning. also, it says in this "punch bowl news" article that a lot of it will fall on steve buscemi -- they have to take control of a process for many things that have gone awry. they always knew this pair would play a role. speaker mccarthy, for his part, keep saying a deal is hard to put together. there is some truth to that. both democrats and republicans finally agree that there could be spending caps and reform. let's hear the perspective of speaker mccarthy from yesterday. [video clip] >> i did think this one was a little more productive. we are a long way apart. but what changed in this meeting is the president has now selected two people from his

administration to directly negotiate with us, steve ricchetti and the director. i will have garrett graves and my staff meet with them. we have a short timeframe here to figure out how to come to an agreement. i wish we had done this back in february. i requested then, let's sit down and meet. it took the president 97 days. me and schumer thought people wanted to raise the debt ceiling without looking at it. this is giving your child a credit card, but they keep reaching the credit limit and you have to, year after year, keep raising the credit limit to the point that you now cannot afford it. shouldn't you look at how you spend your money? host: if you want to hear more on those congress and more from other leaders, you can go to our c-span now at or c-span.org. people are growing considerably

more jittery as president biden decides what concessions to make. or democrats or boys and worried that what can be on the chopping block to keep the united states from defaulting. "every now and then, the president has moved to the right to acquiesce to the voters. the american people want to be bold and stand form -- stand firm." we want to make sure we are following through on promises. that is that "the hill" if you want to read it there. several legislators going to twitter. this is representative bryan steil. america's out of -- out-of-control spending must end. we must save taxpayers money and grow the economy. senator bill cassidy saying that

until last week, the president refused to meet on the debt limit for 97 days. now, there are 16 days left and he plans to leave the country tomorrow. the country deserves better than the lack of total presidential leadership. every house democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling. also adding emanuel cleaver. the gop makes clear this is not a negotiation, it is a hostage situation. holding our economy hostage has nothing to do with the dressing debt or fiscal responsibility, it is forcing their agenda on the american people. this is a viewer this morning, adding comments, saying -- this is a viewer from kentucky. mccarthy has no authority to negotiate on this. congress will not agree to anything until they have hurt the american people. the radical congress is holding america hostage. if you want to add yours to the mix, you can text us at (202)

748-8003. thomas in texas starts us off on the democrats line. good morning, you are first up. caller: i am worried about social security and medicare. i am a senior. i am 79 years old. i depend on that social security and medicare. if they cut social security, it will be bad. if they cut medicare out, you'll see a lot of folks out of jobs. host: cuts are not currently part of this process, though there could be a slow in some payments if treasury has to decide on those issues. but go ahead and finish her thoughts. caller: i just hope they don't mess with social security, is all. and medicare either. social security is keeping this country rolling right now. these hospitals, medicare, all that dr. stuff, they depend on medicare.

i hope they don't mess with that. host: that is thomas in texas. this is steven in michigan, adding his thoughts saying, if we let them hold us hostage, what will they want the next time the debt ceiling comes up? adding in the democrat from pennsylvania saying, i sure did not come to washington to take benefits away from people. we crashed the economy to let people get off scott free. i cannot in good conscience accept a debt proposal that pushes people into poverty. that is the thought from some legislators on this process. "the hill" talking about a blame game, depending on who gets blamed in these talks. our lawmakers on both sides are preparing for that favorite pastime, the parson lane game --

partisan blame game. they're not taking this seriously, flaunting that republicans have already passed a bill. democrats have rejected the argument, accusing democrats of holding the country hostage. on a separate track, it quotes the head of the republican messaging arm. in the past 24 hours, we have heard plenty from speaker mccarthy and other republicans. the only people in washington threatening a default our house republicans, no one else. let's hear from colleen. she is in florida, fort pierce, democrats line. caller: hi, i just want to say

one thing because it gets too convoluted. let's stop using social security scare tactics 10 not coming to some kind of agreement and control of the budget. we pay separate taxes for social security, people. they are using it for other things. they have got to wake up and we have to wake up. we have to look at everyone we vote for. i don't care what side of the party you vote. i have voted both ways and independent. i am 74 years old. if they keep easing medicare and social security, it is ridiculous. host: exactly how do you think that comes into the mix in this debate over the debt ceiling? caller: that's all we hear about. in the military. military, social security, and medicare is what they threaten us with every time. let us start getting rid of all the fat. how about some of those outrageous pensions they pay several employees, including hotshots?

who gets $350,000 pension? will workers are lucky if they have a 401(k) to pay into. we have to wake up. host: that is colleen in florida. when it comes to the republican debt ceiling plan, the negotiation document that passed in the house is the basis of discussion between the house republicans and the white house. it would include raising the debt ceiling into 2024. it would limit future spending growth to 1% annually over the next decade. as part of that, it would recover unspent covid-19 funds, impose those few work requirements for recipients of federal aid, block debt cancellation -- student debt cancellation, and repeal green energy programs. how much of that ends up in the final package in negotiations between house republicans and

president biden, no one knows. but that is on the table as far as negotiations are concerned. you can give us your perspective online. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on our social media sites to facebook and twitter. in new jersey, this is doug, republican line. caller: i think this is all on the democrats. like you just pointed out, republicans do have a plan. we have to stop the spending at some point. we don't have the money. we are $32 trillion in debt. with unfunded liabilities like pensions and federal health care, government health care, it is more like $110 trillion or $120 trillion. quite frankly, i don't know how we are getting out of this. outside are to blame. but the democrats played the power game on the spending.

a handful of nonconservative republicans voted for that. they talk about things that have nothing to do with it, like the inflation reduction act. three quarters of that had nothing to do with reducing inflation, it probably increases it. they put these bills in that our 2000 pages or 3000 pages long, they put things in for themselves. host: when it comes to the debt ceiling plan, do you think republicans should hold out for everything they want or do you think give-and-take will happen? caller: they have to have some give and take. but at this point, we are going to default one way or the other. if it's not now, it's probably going to be in a year or two, or three years. we have to take this head-on. host: ok, let's hear from a bid in early know, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning.

how are you guys? host: i'm fine. you are on, go ahead. caller: i have a question -- really, a statement. if you think back to the election, we would not be where we are at right now if somebody that got elected hadn't gotten away with everything and now we are where we are at. who is to blame? the commander-in-chief. host: when you say that, what do you mean by that? what do you look to as evidence for that? caller: well, was your life a little bit better four years ago? mine was. you have to put the book where the hat lays. it lays on the commander-in-chief. he said it himself and he cannot back it up. that's all it got to say. host: david they are in virginia. if you go to a website this morning, they have an article.

mccarthy calls biden's bluff is the title of the piece. republicans are taking an early victory left after house speaker kevin mccarthy got to the table. efforts to peel off vulnerable republicans failed. none openly opposed the strategy of trying to cut spending. they say washington insiders continue to bet against mccarthy and they continue to be on the wrong side of that that. if you want to see that, that is the piece on axios. we are asking what you think about the current state of discussion going on over the debt ceiling. democrats line in texas, billy, you are next up. caller: thank you, good morning.

i would like to say that america is going to get through the things we're going through. it may looks like we will shut down under president biden, but we will make it through that. we made it under president trump , who did a very, very hard -- i won't say it was good for america, what he did. president biden and vice president kamala harris are doing great things. we will win. just like we're are doing with russia. america is a great nation. we are not going to quit because we have problems with taxes. president joe biden has done a very significant job in all manners. host: when it comes to the debt ceiling, should the president agreed to spending cuts? caller: i think the president is going to work whatever's best for the people of america. america is not going to go down. we are not a nation that is going to be pulled down and become an inspirational. host: but should spending cuts

be part of that? caller: say again? host: should spending cuts be part of that? caller: i don't know. i'm not really that deep into the information on it. but i know this much, president joe biden does the things that are best for america. if you are doing research on his career since he has been president, he has done things that are very significant to america. host: ok, let's hear from carol in orange, california, republican line. caller: yes, i have a question. i would like to know if we are paying pensions to the ukrainians. that would be a way of cutting the budget. host: as far as the overall debt ceiling, or about the current situation? caller: i think we are in terrible shape. host: why is that? caller: we are handing down terrible debt to our kids and

that's not good we need to figure out ways to cut more spending. host: if speaker mccarthy does not get spending cuts on this debt ceiling, do you think that the debt ceiling default should happen? caller: i hate to say that because our gis and some of the poor people will suffer, but maybe so. host: carol they are in orange, california. you have the chance to call in if you want, to give your thoughts on the debt ceiling if you want. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents at (202) 748-8002. you can comment on our website or social media pages. facebook or twitter is how you do that. let's hear from peter in new york, independent line.

good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i'm well. go ahead. caller: i have seen offices through terms and i've been through big banks. this is important and we need to address this. the average age of americans is early eight years old or 39 years old. biden is 81 years old. the debt a commotion is not just hurting me, but the people i consider the older generation and the younger generation. the united states needs to gets -- needs to get its finances in order. you have places like russia, china, india working collectively together to not only get their finances in order, but create a global currency that competes with the united states. at some point, we have to address this threat head-on and address the issues facing middle class and lower class. host: if that's the case, speaker mccarthy's plan would

roll back spending 2022 levels and limit future growth. do you think that is too aggressive? caller: looking at this year by year, what we need is a five year or 10 year plan. these negotiations are something that is needed, especially when you have midterm elections as well as presidential elections. pressure needs to be put on politicians to it together and develop a five-year year or 10 year plan that's good for all american citizens, not just play politics year after year. host: a twitter feed commenting on these talks going on between the president and congressional leaders, saying that democrats cannot give ground on work requirements in the debt ceiling talks. all work requirements do is limit the ability for food aid for families and hurt poor, marginalized communities, the very people we were elected to defend. that is representative jayapal from her twitter feed. the tear from jimmy in

baltimore, maryland, democrats line. caller: here's a couple problems i have with this whole thing. the republicans passed a bill. i listen pretty carefully two different things that are happening in politics. i wish you guys would have somebody on to talk about the bill they passed and what are the specific cuts that they have in that bill. i have heard general things about that. that's one thing. the other thing is, republicans raised the debt ceiling without a peep three times in four years under trump. so, what's with that? then, yesterday, i heard biden give a short little summary before his other speech where he

said that the republicans have already put taxing increases -- tax increases off the table. when trump was president, he increased tax breaks by $2 trillion. $2 trillion! 85% of that went to rich people and corporations. if i were in debt, heavily in debt, yes, i would come i spending. that's one thing i would do. but when i also did is i took a second job. in other words, the government could raise some taxes and that would also help the debt. you don't hear anything about that. according to biden yesterday, that was already taken off the table. host: that is jimmy in maryland. let's hear from judith in youngstown, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have just one thing to

say. i'm a senior citizen. if they don't pass this debt, us seniors don't get our checks. does anybody think about that? we won't have any money to pay our rent, to buy food, pay our utilities, pay our car insurance, anything. in other words, people care about the seniors. the house and the senate should grow up and start acting like adults instead of two-year-olds. thank you. host: that is judith in youngstown, ohio. the current state of talks between the parties say starting tuesday, democrats had the chance to round up signatures for a special discharge petition. that automatically prox a vote on the debt ceiling. democrats would need at least five republicans to join them to reach the necessary threshold of 218. winning them over will be extremely difficult.

lawmakers also said there was increasing talk about raising the debt ceiling unilaterally, and treasury secretary janet yellen has question that, but it would still avert economic disaster. that is just some background as things go back and forth between the two parties. rosanna in new jersey, republican line you are next. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i totally agree with what that woman just said. if they cut money for the seniors, how do they expect us to live? if they cut food stamps or anything like that, seniors cannot live. i am totally low poverty. i died twice to live. i take a lot and a lot of

medicine. if i have to pay these things, i am better off dead. and yet biden is spending -- is sending billions of dollars out of state and all these people from mexico are coming in day in and day out. why can't their own country help them? host: that is rosanna in new jersey. a story taking a look at the topics of social security, saying that millions of seniors across the country "would seasick -- would see social security benefits halt." the article adding he is probably right, but no one needs to talk about disaster yet. they are trying to raise or suspend the debt limit. even if they don't, there are some politically risky ways for the 66 billion beneficiaries to

continue. treasury secretary janet yellen has said the debt limit could be reached sometime around first. if that happens, the government would be default and be unable to borrow or pay its bills. this goes on to quote the government relations and policy director of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare. if they have not enough cash on hand, there is a good chance social security benefits would be disrupted. that is, again, some scenarios playing out. jim in new mexico, democrats line. hi. caller:hi. all i have to say is -- well, i won't use the language of want to use. what they are doing is just black male, it is extortion and blackmail.

people are going to get really sick of it and keep -- and kick those stupid bums out of office. that's all i have to say. have a good day. host: from tony in long island -- i'm sorry, this is page in virginia, democrats line. hello. caller: hi. c-span needs to have someone on to discuss what the budget is and what the debt limit is. the budget is one thing, but the debt ceiling is dealing with things we already accrued. people just don't understand the difference in that. c-span needs to have someone on. host: caller, we have plenty of people on over the last several weeks and months for issues on the debt ceiling and related issues. if you go on our website, just type in "debt ceiling" and you will see all the various not

only segments on this program, but various hearings and so forth when it comes to this topic. that is all available for you for your education there on our website at c-span.org. as part of that, over last few weeks, to talk about these issues, we have brought on members of congress. joining us next on that is uncle lawler, new york republican from the financial services committee. he will discuss current issues over the debt ceiling related topics later on in the program. we will get another perspective from democratic representative mark pocan. ♪ ♪ >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors 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 interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8 p.m. eastern, and cnn supreme court analyst details the political and traditional transformation of the u.s. supreme court during and after the trump administration with her book "9 black wrote." 10:00 p.m. afterward, oscar munoz shares his book "turnaround time," where he talks abt his efforts to turn around the company. he is interviewed by a usa travel reported.

watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> visit c-span shop.org, c-span's online store, and save during our father's day sale going on now. save up to 20% on your latest collection of c-span apparel, home decor, bobbleheads, puzzles, and more. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right to shop. shop the father's day sale going on now at c-spanshop.org. ♪ (202) 748-8000 -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is republican representative michael lawler.

thank you for giving us your time today. guest: thanks for having me this morning, pedro. host: one of the issues we will talk about is the debt ceiling. but our audience does not know, so tell us a little bit have -- a little bit about how you got to congress. guest: i served as a registered lobbyist in new york and a consultant, previously's -- previously executive director of the republican party. i read last year and i won by just under one point. it is a district that is pretty suburban. there are about 70,000 more democrats than republicans that live there. that is 19% of the district that is latino. there is a large irish community, haitian community, orthodox jewish community. it is a pretty diverse district.

interestingly, about 50% of households have a law-enforcement officer, firefighter, or veteran living in it. a lot of people committed to public service. a great district. it is just north of new york city. host: when you got to congress, did you expect on one of the first issues you had to deal with was concerning the current debt ceiling talks? guest: yes obviously, it was not dealt with at the last congress. i certainly anticipated we would be dealing with it pretty early in this term. certainly serving on the financial services committee. it is of great interest to me. i want to make sure we do not default and we do lift the debt ceiling. host: talk a little bit about that. from your perspective on the committee, what is the potential outcome if a default happens, potentially -- particularly on the people you represent. guest: i have about 30,000

financial services employees that live in my district. wall street is located just south of new york city -- just south in new york city. i have certainly met with rating agencies, bank ceos, and others. they have expressed their concerns and the consequences of what a default would mean, with respect our ratings in the full faith and credit in the united states. certainly, i think everybody understands the significance of that and the importance of avoiding default at all costs. but as i said throughout this entire discussion, i have had three parameters. the president and senate majority leader us negotiate with the speaker. we must cut spending. we cannot continue to borrow and print new money at these levels going forward. and we cannot default. i think most americans agree with that.

when you see where we are with nearly $32 trillion national debt, that is unsustainable. 15 years ago, we were at about $9 trillion. we have added a lot of debt in the last 1.5 decades. both parties are responsible for it. both parties need to work together to solve this. host: the debt ceiling bill that was passed in the house, going back to 2022 levels, cutting future spending as well, is that aggressive and do you think it is a realistic expectation that the white house would conceivably do? guest: every democrat voted for it. i'm not sure why they are so outraged by returning to a spending level that we just had in effect five months ago. the reality is the biden administration has increased spending by over $5 trillion just two years. that is unsustainable.

we cannot continue to accrue debt in the manner that we have to pay for it. we need to be realistic. everybody needs to be an adult here. put your big boy pants on and negotiate. i think, unfortunately, the politics of this it's in the way sometimes. -- gets in the way sometimes. we have to look at the reality of it. cbo came in and had a bipartisan meeting with all members of the house and walked us through where we are over the next 10 years if we do nothing. it is cataclysmic. we all need to recognize that, for the long-term, debt is one of the biggest challenges that we face. we need to bring down our debt, we need to close our deficit spending, and we need to get ourselves on a good fiscal path. obviously, part of that includes

growing the economy, increasing revenues. there is a lot of opportunity here. people are willing to work together and negotiate. i think, finally, we saw some progress yesterday at the white house, with president biden agreeing to a 18 to negotiate with the speaker and his team -- a team to negotiate with the speaker and his team. that is after months of time being wasted with no negotiation. obviously, with about a little over two weeks left, the date that janet yellen has given, we have finally made some headway on getting a negotiation started in earnest. host: our guest is with us until 8:00. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

text us at (202) 748-8003. a lot of things listed in the debt ceiling bill, do you think you will get everything from that and do you deem that necessary? guest: anytime there's a negotiation, you are not going to get everything you want. i think everyone needs to be realistic about that. but i think there are things in their that certainly former senator joe biden supported, such as having a 1% spending cap going forward. that was an idea brought forward by joe manchin. in terms of clawing back and spent an unallocated covid funds, the pandemic is over. the president signed that into law. why would we continue to have those funds sitting there if they have been unallocated and unspent? we should call them back and provide savings to the american taxpayers. i think there's a lot of opportunity to find agreement

here. it is just a question of willingness before the deadline. i think if everybody puts the politics aside and focuses in on the task at hand, we should be able to come up with an agreement pretty quickly. host: republicans in the house make up a lot of different philosophies, and a lot of different things. do you think all those groups will be satisfied enough to keep the united states from going into default if a deal does not emerge? guest: i cannot speak for others. but i know that in speaking to most of my colleagues, everybody understands the challenge with a default and we cannot do that. i think everybody is interested in finding agreement, moving forward, avoiding default for the long run, and making sure that we get our country back on the path of fiscal sanity. that's what this is all about. you cannot continue to print

money and borrow at the levels that we have. we have seen the results. it created a 41 year record high on inflation. inflation is directly tied to the reckless and out-of-control government spending over the last many years. yes, there was covid and we had to deal with that. but you are now on a path where you see the results and you have to rein this in. everybody needs to be realistic here and work together to get us on the path to fiscal sanity. i am part of the problem solvers caucus. 32 republicans, 32 democrats. we agreed with a backup framework that would create a commission to look at long-term spending reforms. there are democrats that acknowledge, as do we, that we need to have a long-term spending reform conversation and discussion. i think as parts of this act,

that's exactly what we were doing, by putting a topline number, by capping at one person, by putting in work requirements that joe biden supported as a senator. these are common sense things that i think most americans agree with, despite the rhetoric around saying this is being cut or that is being cut. have not even gone through the budget or appropriations process. there is nothing in that bill that actually cuts anything, other than to set a topline number. host: this is our guest, representative michael lawler. in new jersey, republican line, you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: thank you. our economy is based on essential workers. we need safety nets for people. that being said, if you want to have a realistic approach, why don't you cut paying these private health insurance companies?

they make $20 million per year for a job people could do for $200,000 per year. why and i subsidizing private health care companies in the administration fees that cost millions of dollars? guest: i certainly appreciate the need for a social safety net. we have as a country in states like mine in new york, and certainly years in new jersey, we have a rather robust social safety net to provide for the neediest among us and those who are vulnerable and cannot necessarily take care of themselves. it is our responsibility as a society. we will continue to do that. but there are limitations on the total spend that we have in this country. it is always, to me, about prioritizing what is most important.

social safety net is important. infrastructure investments are important. public safety is important. national security, our military, that's important, our veterans. and our seniors. that is where, as a government, when you go through this budget process, you want to prioritize what is most important. that is where i think we need to focus our efforts and work within a realistic framework of what we can afford as a nation going forward. in terms of health care, i think there is broad agreement that the cost of health care in this country is way too high. the cost of prescription drugs is way too high. we need significant reforms to look at how we reduce the cost of health care. i think the covid-19 pandemic certainly showed us the challenges ahead. it is something i think,

collectively, we all need to be looking at. certainly with respect to subsidizing private health insurance companies and ceo salaries, obviously that is not something we should be doing. host: peter in new york, republican line. hello. caller: good morning. mike, pleasure to talk to you. you are my congressman. i go back to henry deal men. that is how long it has been since we had a republican. in fact, i called your office regarding a few issues that are important to me. this idea of modern monetary policy, or you can spend as much money as you want without any consequences has proven again over history that it does not work and creates inflation. but what we really need is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. nobody really talks about that. we play this kabuki theater every time the debt limit comes up.

it gets increased and we go through this whole big hassle. i think the speaker needs to push for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and only pre-spending went it is an emergency. we have a mutual friend. i work with rob in the town of clarkstown. he is a really good guy. i just wanted to mention that to you. host: that is peter in new york. guest: rob is a great guy. i worked with him over in westchester county. i know he has moved on, but he is a great guy and constituent as well. every nation that has overextended itself and spent well outside its means has failed. i think we need to be cognizant of that as we move forward. we do not have unlimited funds. we need to be realistic, responsible, we need to prioritize within the budget

what we need to be spending on. i think a balanced budget amendment is something i would support. all of our states have to have a balanced budget when they pass their budgets. our municipalities have to have a balanced budget. there is no reason the federal government should not have a balanced budget. obviously, when there is emergency spending or need, you would deal with that. but i think the reality of where we are today in washington is that we spent too much. we spend too much and we are borrowing and printing new money at levels that are unheard of and have created the inflation that people are dealing with. when you go to the grocery store, when you pay your gas bills, when you pay your home heating bills, that high cost is directly tied to inflation. the lack of domestic energy production and the excessive spending in washington has

driven that. you have to look at this from the standpoint of, how do we get america back on the right track? that is why it is part of the limit, save, and grow act. it would unleash american energy independence to help grow the economy, bring in revenues. that is what we need to be looking at, a comprehensive strategy. how do we limit the use of taxpayer funds, say the taxpayer money, and grow our economy? that is what we need to be doing collectively. host: if you are on twitter ask this question. i do these issues of spending only matter, particularly when it comes to the debt ceiling, when there is a democratic president involved? guest: i don't think they only matter. go back and look when joe biden was a senator. he voted against raising the debt ceiling when george w. bush

was president because of the spending. i don't think that is a fair assessment, frankly. i think nancy pelosi had reservations about raising the debt ceiling while donald trump was president. she wanted a negotiation, they negotiated over some stuff. the bottom line is this, most spending reforms have been tied to the debt ceiling over many years. it is a lever of power congress has had to really rein in the executive branch. under this administration, they have increased spending by over $5 trillion in two years. that is unsustainable. we have to look at this holistically. as i said earlier, both parties have been at fault when it comes to spending excessively. but joe biden is president right now. republicans in the house were elected to serve as a check and balance on the biden administration. i, for one, ran on raining in

the reckless spending that occurred over the last two years. this is a function of the american people recognizing the need for balance and a more commonsense approach when it comes to spending. that is why we are having these discussions right now. host: from stephen in ulster park, new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: yet another $3 billion subsidy for oil companies. you are going to put the full faith and credit of the u.s. and dollar as the top currency in danger and stop social security payments? guest: nobody is stopping social security payments. host: let the color finish, sir, please. go ahead, caller. caller: do you support taking $120 billion from the irs increased revenue, which would balance our budget?

new york especially, your district, knows the debt ceiling is not affected by these silly cuts you want. it is paying the bills for money already spent. this is just holding the u.s. hostage to get republican cuts. you cannot get through the normal negotiation process. isn't it? host: that is peter. guest: respectfully, yes, we have to pay previous debts incurred. yes, lifting the debt ceiling will help us do that. but the problem is going forward. do you want to continue borrowing and printing new money at these levels and increasing our debt, so that when we come up against the debt ceiling again, we have the same problem? you have to bend the curve here. that is the whole point of this discussion. with respect to energy, the partum line is this -- the bottom line is this. we need to be independent.

we need to increase domestic production of energy. we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world in the united states. why are we relying on foreign governments, who do not have anywhere near the level of environmental standards, for our energy? why are we relying on opec? prior to the russian invasion of ukraine, russia for gas. this is insane. we need to be increasing domestic production of oil, of gas. we need to increase renewables. i strongly believe in solar and wind. but reality is, you need dispatch people energy. when the wind stops blowing or the sun sets, you still need energy. there is still demand on the grid. you look at two simple facts. 70% of electricity is generated by natural gas. as we move to electrify the grid, how are you going to have enough electricity produced to fill the demand?

second of all, in new york, 67% of new yorkers rely on natural gas. you are shifting everybody over from gas to electric. you turn off that spigot and then everybody has to convert their home to be electrified for heating, for their stove, for their evan. -- for their oven. they would pay about $345,000 to do that. who is paying for that? is it about having clean energy? yes. it is not having affordable and reliable energy. though should be parameters of moving forward toward the goal of reducing carbon emissions to net zero. we need to do it responsibly. paste on the science and the technology, that's not what's happening. you are starting to see the challenges here in california,

in new york, with just setting up policy that is not rooted in reality. host: jeffrey in north carolina, independent line. for our guest, representative michael lawler, republican of new york. he serves the 17th district. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. going to the statement in regards to the debt ceiling thing. i'm just a little confused on all the money that is now being negotiated on both sides and to president biden negotiation with the republicans on making this compromise. trillions of dollars, you see another space exploration or whatever you are doing up in space p.a.d. keep sending satellites to the mars, to the

moon. what is the point of that money in prioritizing the need on earth are people that are struggling with jobs or education? that is money that could be used for that debt. there is no reason that when i am gone, or whoever is on that list to go up there, whatever that is designed to do, what is the point of that money? we are talking about money here, a debt, bringing down the deficit. can you explain to me, what is the point of all that money? there is never any issue on having congress decide, do we have enough money in the budget to have these projects done? host: got you, caller. thank you. guest: when you are going through the federal government in comparison to a state government, there are certain responsibilities that the federal government has.

national security is obviously one of them. when i think about what we are doing in space with respect to satellites, that is a national security issue. you see what china is doing right now, not just here, in terms of their movements in the indo pacific, middle east, south america, central america. what they did flying a spy balloon over the entire continental united states. they are playing a long game here. they are our greatest geopolitical foe. certainly, the space aspect of this is critical in the united states being able to defend itself, protect itself, and its allies. it is a priority within the budget to make sure that we have the resources available. does that mean it should be at the expense of other things?

no. again, we continue to have a very robust budget. we continue to provide for so many different programs, entitlements, and the like. and we continued to send money to the states to support their efforts on what they do to help their residents and the neediest among them. there are always going to be challenges. sometimes, we are not going to be able to do everything we want to do, including in space or with the military, or with some of the programs that we fund. but we have to make sure that we are prioritizing and fully funding to the best that we can within a budget process that is rational ball -- rational, reasonable, and focused on the future ahead. host: next caller on the democrats line. caller: i have just one

question, then i will hang up and listen. and regards to the people being in fear of their social security payments being cut or stopped because of the debt ceiling not being raised, why is nobody bringing up law section 1145 -- i'm sorry, that is 1145 from 1996. the event of a default of debt, social security payments must be made until the trust fund is depleted i will hang up and listen to your comment. guest: i think it is a wise comment. the reality here is that social security payments will not be cut. social security payments will be made. host: you don't think they will be delayed or there is a possibility they could be? guest: we are not going to default, number one. number two, in the event that that happens, i know everybody

would make every effort to make sure those payments were made and made timely. and that we avoid any impact on our seniors and those on social security disability that rely on those funds. nobody is looking for a default. the question is, how do we avoid it? the president sit down with the speaker yesterday. they agreed to a smaller negotiating team. they are moving forward to get something done over the next two weeks. that's the objective. i think the fear mongering on this, primarily by congressional democrats and at times the white house, is wrong. it is not helping matters. everybody should focus on getting a deal done so we can avoid default. remember, republicans are the only ones that have actually lifted the debt ceiling. we have had a limit, save, and

grow act. house and senate democrats may not like that, but they have done nothing to lift the debt ceiling. chuck schumer can say until he is blue in the face that he wants a clean debt ceiling, but he does not have the votes to do it. if he did, he would have already done it. i think people need to be honest about this and realistic. senate democrats have not passed a plan of their own. the white house has not offered anything other than to say they want a clean debt ceiling. house republicans have actually voted to lift the debt ceiling and save taxpayers $4.8 trillion over the next 10 years. let's find a compromise and move forward. host: before we let you go, president biden traveled to your district recently for an event. at the event, he said about you, "mike is the kind of guy that when i was in. -- when i was in congress, he is the kind of republican i was used to dealing with." what do you think about that? guest: i will let his comments

speak for themselves. for me, i try to be rational will -- rational, reasonable, and fair. i try to find areas of agreement and move forward. we are not going to agree on everything. that is the give and take of a democratic republic that we have . we are all here to represent our constituents, voice our opinions and concerns, advocate for the things we want. but that doesn't mean you have to be disagreeable and not find compromise and areas of agreement. i have always been willing to reach out across the aisle to find ways to work together and to move the country forward, which is what i think we are elected to do. host: first time on our program, representative michael lawler. he serves the 17th district. thank you for giving us your time and we hope you come back in the future. we will get another perspective

on current debt ceiling negotiations and issues with representative mark pocan, decrat from wisconsin. he will join us in a half-hour. until then, we will continue on with the question from this morning. the question on the rrent debt ceiling talks. no deal yet. talks continuing. you can make those comments at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, an(202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continu. ♪ >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern sees it -- c-span brings you afterwards, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed on their latest books. this week former united airlines ceo arthur munoz shares his book

turnaround time, where he talks about the future of aviation and his efforts to turn around the company. watch afterwards every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> watch video on demand anytime online at c-span.org, and try our points of interest feature, a timeline tool that uses markers to quickly guide you to newsworthy and interesting highlights of our coverage. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. ♪ >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your mind.

watch on c-span now or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app, featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on demand. keep up with the day's events with hearings from congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics right at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find the latest scheduling information for c-span networks and radio. c-span now is now available on the apple store and on google play. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: when it comes to the debt

ceiling talks, the washington times reporting that house democrats are prepared to force a floor vote by bringing a handful of republican lawmakers over to their side. they can do this through a congressional mechanism that forces a floor vote on any measure that gets 218 signatures. democrats and republicans remain at an impasse. they -- it quotes pay aguilar -- " pete aguilar. "we will wait for the outcome of the democratic conversations before we do anything." one of those participating was chuck schumer. he gave his own assessment.

here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> it was a good and productive meeting. everyone agrees that a default would be a horrible situation for america and america's families. we agreed we need to pass a bipartisan bill with bipartisan support in both chambers. i asked speaker mccarthy if he agreed with that, and he said yes. his bill, of course, is not a bipartisan bill. the bottom line is that we all came to an agreement that we would continue discussions in the way that speaker mccarthy described. it was agreed on by everyone in the room. we don't have much time but default is the worst alternative and having a bipartisan bill in both chambers is the only way,

the only way we are going to avoid default. host: that was from yesterday. more available on the website and our app. we hear from linda first in waco, texas. caller: i am most concerned with the rollbacks to the debt ceiling. they want to go back to '22. that will cut my social security and my va back to '22 and we just got a decent increase on that. watching the house of representatives is like watching lord of the flies. they are such hypocrites. trump was spending like a drunken sailor during his time, and they didn't say boo about the debt ceiling back then. i don't understand how they can continue on this line. host: mark in alabama, republican line. caller: i'm calling about the

debt ceiling. i see where social security and benefits may be affected by this. again, the republican party, and i have been a republican like 30-some years. that will change in my next vote coming up next. host: you are a republican currently? guest: yes, and i am completely dissatisfied. host: why so? especially when it comes to the debt ceiling. guest: when it comes to the debt ceiling -- caller: when it comes to the debt ceiling, i am retired, i am low fixed income social security, and i am also -- if they do not get this thing covered, i will end up losing all my income, and it will be the second time i have had to file bankruptcy due to the

government taking away my money. it took me a year and a half to regain my income after they took it away for me before, and i had to go through a bunch of lawyers, and other information about my military history, and finally when they got that straightened out, they reimbursed me. i still had to file bankruptcy to get me through that time. host: let's hear from sam in syracuse, new york, independent line. caller: i have a comment and a question i wanted to ask the representative, but i will stated as a comment again. i have also asked of these questions and comments to my own house representative, and my two senators. a little bit of history, the trump tax cuts were supposed to save corporations and billionaires trillions over the next 10 years.

the economy was supposed to be booming based on trickle-down economic theory. no one is talking about reversing those tax cuts, which will solve, according to certain economists, will solve all these problems, nor is anyone talking about increasing the social security limit, which would solve the social security problem. i can't get straight answers out of any of my congressional representatives as to what is wrong with these particular means of getting rid of this debt issue problem. host: ok. sam there in new york. letter from jay also in new york city dem -- let's hear from jay also in new york city, democrats line. caller: i am also --

host: from james in arizona, republican line, you are up next, go ahead. caller: i would like to just know where we're at when it comes to consumers and businesses. why can't we give consumers 20% more? if you manipulate the numbers and try to have one through 10 to be one through eight, and make 8 10 for business, you can have more money. host: james in arizona. let's hear from the house speaker yesterday after those

talks at the white house. [video clip] >> i did think that this one was a little more productive. we are longa -- we are still a long ways apart. president biden has selected 2 people from his administration to negotiate directly with us. w havee a short timeframe here to figure out how we could come to an agreement, but look, i wish we had done this back in february. i requested then, let sit down and meet. it took the president 97 days. you on though, you have heard me say this many times, this is giving your child a credit card, but you keep reaching the limit, and you year after year have raised the limit, to the point where you cannot afford it. host: that was yesterday.

a lot of those comments you can find on our app at c-span now. c-span.org is how you can do that. lawmakers are considering changing their plans and staying in washington as a standoff over the debt limit continues. there are plans for the senate to reset next week. those decisions depend on part on the outcome of a meeting with the president on tuesday. the senate majority whip dick durbin said next week's recess is up in the air. let's hear from tim in washington dc, independent line. caller: good morning.

this is a great program. first time caller actually. i tried to call earlier when they republican rep was on. i want to make a comment. he talked about energy independence, and i would like to think that american electorate is educated on matters. when the politicians use that point, america is actually the largest petrochemical producer in the world. it is something the think about. we import some foreign oil because that crude is easier to process. host: how does that relate to the debt ceiling issue we are talking about? caller: the reason i brought that up is because that is a

talking point of there's. using these kind of talking points to hold whatever negotiations they are having hostage for the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling has been raised year after year by different administrations. if it is a question of, say, cutting done spending, we can have a sidebar and negotiate that separately, but the point is pay. host: would that be a straightforward negotiation? caller: i don't think so, sir. i think our senators were elected by the american people. they are grown folk, and they should do what is best for their country. sometimes what is best for you

ideologically may not be best for the american people. host: out of that meeting yesterday, the white house press secretary karine jean-pierre putting out a statement about itomes to those discussions,en saying president biden w return to the united sta sunday following his completion of the g7 summit. he will be back to make sure coness takes aion before the deadline to avoid the president a his team will continue to work with congssional leadership to reach an agreement that will to the president's desk. that trip was supposed to be extended to the pacific islands, but the trip was cut short with

the president returning on sunday. we can talk about what you have seen with regards to the conversations taking place, and those issues two. (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. gary graves, republican of louisiana doing the talking for speaker mccarthy has those talks continue. jimmy in california, democrat -- jamie in california, democrats' line. caller: joe biden is not the problem or his classified documents. it is that we have a ceiling. e should not evenwe -- we

should not even have a ceiling on our debt. we could print more money and have it done. we need to make sure that people on snap have to work for their food instead, and focus on other things like going to war. that is where we spend most of our money, going to war. why don't we knuckle down and fix it, and do like what federman said, make the bank do something about their around -- their own shit. host: watch your language. it does not affect us as much as it affects our radio component. caller: that debt ceiling, should have been taking care of a long time ago, and quit passing the buck. i'm so tired of it.

i don't know why they keep passing it. host: ok. callers, if you would as well, turned on that television set. there is a bit of delay between when we say things here and when it hits your television, so it can be distracting. mute or turned on the television. let's hear from voelker in minnesota, independent line. caller: good morning. yes, something that goes through my mind with the debt ceiling -- i cannot imagine the argument about the budget details, but the debt ceiling to my understanding is just a fixed post, and we cannot get around it with our credit rating and

everything. talking about the budget, and details, but debts, i do not understand that. host: the color brought up senator federman, the democrat from pencil -- the caller brought up senator federman, the democrat from pennsylvania. this came up yesterday. it is still available on the app and the website, if you would like to see some of the questions asked by members of congress to these bank executives. a pennsylvania television station picked up senator federman's comments, saying that "senator federman pointed out that republicans want to increase work requirements for the supplemental nutrition assistance program as a provision that is part of the

bill the gop passed last month. federman asked scott shea and eric howell, former chair of signature bank, whether work requirements should be in place for the ceos of banks given federal assistance as they collapse." from pennsylvania, democrats' line this is joseph. caller: i am kind of disappointed that i did not get to talk when you had your republican representative on their, because there were so many -- there because there were so many things he said that should have been challenged. you let him spout his story. my side of the story is i don't understand why we cannot raise a penny in new taxes. that is what the republican

position is, no new taxes, not a penny, and yet we can take from the least of us. it makes no sense to me. the other question i had, pedro, is you had the representative from new york, and i know i does not have anything to do with the debt ceiling, but i wonder why you didn't ask him about his position on george santos, whether he was going to vote to expel him as he asked him to resign. iy was a -- it was a good opportunity for a journalist to figure that out. i forgot to ask him that -- host: i forgot to ask him that, but i should have. our next caller's room california. -- our next caller is from california. caller: this is bringing up new

challenges like who gets gored. they are taking -- they have a lot of homeless and the aliens are outside of the city of san diego. they will protest or riot, and someone will get killed. if the police don't do it, then you will have vigilante groups going on. it is not a matter of who wants it. there will never be enough money for unlimited debt spending. that's it. goodbye. host: from luke. luke is from new york, kingston, new york. caller: i have two subjects i want to speak about. crude oil -- refineries in america are not set up to make gasoline with the energy that we produce here with the oil.

we take dirty oil from canada, from saudi arabia, we do not process our own oil here. the other thing i want to talk about on the debt ceiling is social security owns the majority of the national debt. then china . then a few other european countries. we need to have a clean resolution because the interest rates will fold. social security is the payments from our interest that we give for the debts of america, the gdp goes out and goes to us and keeps the circle of life going for the system. they don't pass a clean resolution, and they cause a default, social security, which owns the majority of the

national debt will be hurt. host: to the extent that the president is talking with these various groups of people, do think some compromise will be made on both sides? caller: small compromises. i think america needs an injection of energy, and renewables are good. i see why the president wants to give some tax credits to individuals who can help produce more energy for our community and help us be more independent, but as for the republicans they are fighting to keep the oil companies, their lobbyists, the ones who pay them happy. it is important to realize what is going on. host: that was luke here. let's hear one more voice from the discussion yesterday. hakeem jeffries spoke specifically about president biden's role in these negotiations. [video clip] >> president biden has done an

extraordinary job of bringing us together, setting in motion staff discussion that has been productive over the last several days, and bringing us back together to have another positive discussion with a clear path forward in terms of reaching an agreement. default is not an option. everyone agrees that that was the case. default would be a disaster for the american people. it would trigger a job killing recession, it would hurt retirement security for millions of older americans, and a default would dramatically increase costs on people all across the country, and it was a very positive development that everyone agrees we are going to work with urgency now, but in the next week or 2 reach an agreement, avoid a default, and continue our efforts to be there for all americans. host:. that

all took place yesterday -- from south carolina, independent line, this is kenny. caller: good morning. you know, just to talk about this is really hurting our rating. it should not even be talked about. not holding a hostage, we look like fools. i want to go back. if we do not see how we got here we will continue to make mistakes. if you go back, we had no deficit under the democratic president clinton. all of a sudden comes a republican, we start to wars that were really unnecessary to the extent they went, and that alone was $15 trillion. if you look at the studies we -- interest we have been paying on those wars, the veterans we have

to take care of because of it, you are looking at half of the debt right there. bush had tax cuts during those were times. then came trump. he put two more trillion dollars of tax cuts. the republicans do not talk anything about deficits. they run up the deficits. how much money, including military spending because you have that discretionary crap all over this money. please have the show, pedro, on who spend this money to, get us into debt and how we got into debt. host: let's hear from mike in north berger, new jersey. caller: good morning. i just got a couple of questions. i wanted to know if do congressman -- if social

security is going to be stopped, do congressmen still get their paychecks? host: i don't know if stop is the accurate term as of yet, but i don't of the second part of your question. caller: do they still continue getting paid / because basically what they're saying is they are holding our paychecks hostage until they get their way. that sounds like a bunch of brats to me that just want their way. i have an idea. why don't they stay here in august and take care of, everything then and rather than have a vacation for a month -- none of us go on a vacation for a month. host: mike in north berger, new jersey finishing off this half-hour taking a look at the debt ceiling and spending issues as those talks continue. stay close to the app, website and networks, to see what develops.

coming here to continue the discussion on the debt ceiling, democratic congressman from wisconsin mike -- mark pocan and then brendan pugh on artificial intelligence. >> listen to interviewers on the after words podcast. book notes plus episodes our weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics, and the about books podcasted takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews and bestseller lists. find all of our podcasts by

downloading the free c-span now app, and on our website c-span.org/podcasts. ♪ >> listening to programs on c-span3 c-span radio, just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily, important congressional hearings throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern catch washington today. listen to c-span radio anytime. just tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio." >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews.

you can find about books on are free mobile app or wherever you get your podcast -- on our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> order your copy of the 118th congressional directory, now available at c-span shop.org. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every senate member, and important information on congressional committees, state governors. scan theon your right to order e day. its $29.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase goes to supporting our nonprofit operations. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is representative mark pocan, a representative from wisconsin. representative, thank you for coming back to the program.

guest: thank you. host: i have seen these headlines and i want to share one from the hill about the current state of negotiations when it comes to going back and forth. " jittery democrats worried about the president's confessions during this process." does that worry you? guest: you have two different sets of negotiations happening at once. republicans won't touch nondiscretionary. they won't touch defense. that means 20 2% cuts to everything else. it is such a ridiculous idea they cannot put it on paper, like the democrats have. this whole discussion about the debt ceiling, which we have done 86 times because that is the right thing to do, they are having discussions about the budget. i served on the appropriations committee. they only have a few little

bills because they do not know how to live up to the big claims they have made that they will cut spending. there are two tracks going on. there should be no negotiations about paying our bills. when -- the challenges they cannot put the ridiculous level of cuts they have proposed, on paper and because of that they have to have this parallel track to negotiate. host: back to the president, as far -- are you concerned about concessions he has made during this process? guest: it is part of the budget process we are talking about. when it comes, to the debt ceiling plain chicken with a period is a scary -- interest rates will spike overnight for people who want to buy homes, as this is who want to buy equipment. it means stock markets will have a big dip.

no one should want to put us in that situation. there is no way the house republican just becauses of their more extreme members should go there. host: governor mccarthy said we should -- caller: this -- guest: this is the problem. this is merely a demand because some people think we should take hostages right now. you do not take hostages over the nation's credit. we have to make sure to pay our bills. this is a problem kevin mccarthy has with his own members. if he were strong enough you would stand up to those members, and to say we will not crash the economy because you came to washington and you want to t-shirt that says you did it. i think he is hearing from many

other senate republicans. they seem -- the only ones who seem to want to play a game around the debt ceiling right now are the republicans. host: on those work requirements he spoke about those yesterday, but he mentioned your stay in the process. -- your state in the process. [video clip] >> when we talk about work requirements, they are only for those people who are able-bodied with no dependents. you can be going to school, no problem. wisconsin just past of this by 82%. the president of the senate voted for it. let's just turn it on its head. if you take a democrat position, what you are telling to americans is i need to go borrow more money from china to give to somebody who is able-bodied and pay them not to work. what you really want to do is

help them get into the workforce, give them a sense of pride, give them what every statistic tells you will help these americans. host: let's start with the mention of your state. could you expand on that? guest: in wisconsin, people have been building a referendum to the effective people should work to get benefits. he is twisting what is going on in wisconsin. i am an employer. for 35 years. even though half of my colleagues are millionaires, they have never run a small business. they inherited money. it is not as simple as what they are putting out there. snap, to get the supplemental

nutrition assistance program money, it is the number one program that keeps kids out of poverty. to mess around with that when there is no current problem with it, is not a good idea. if you want to help people get to work, we should help around the job training. as an employer it is hard to bring people in. you cannot just bring someone in with no training. that is a ridiculous idea. it does not help businesses. there is a lot of rhetoric that is red meat for the republican base, but not practical for someone who has ever run a business or signed the front of a paycheck. host: our guest is with us until 9:00. you can ask him questions on the lines. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. guest: this is trying to find five adults in the republican congress who will stand up to the stupid rhetoric about the debt ceiling enjoying every single democrat to make sure that we are lifting the debt ceiling. it is the only way the minority can get something on the floor, to have a petition signed by 218 people. 213 democrats can sign it. we need 4 democrats -- 5 republicans to join. it would take us into early june, which is about the time the debt ceiling date has been declared. we cannot just get people to do the right thing because it is the right thing. we have a vehicle to allow some people to be adults. host: do you have a sense of who those five republicans are who

are being targeted? guest: it should be more than five. it should be in no brainer. we should not have to extort or have hostages taken like the republicans are trying to do. hopefully, there will be dozens who are willing to break with this crazy wing of the republican party who think it is ok to default on our payments as a country. host: when do you think that might move forward? guest: today is the day you will see some action. it is by the time on the calendar that we have to get this done. there is a certain amount of time we had to get to in order to start this process. host: this idea of using the 14th amendment to bypass this, what do you think of that? guest: i completely support it. when i got to congress, i was on the budget committee and at that time i said, what a stupid

only in washington thing it was to have a vote on the debt limit. if you sign a mortgage, you do not get to decide every month whether you will send a check. it is no different for the federal government. it is stupid that we have a separate vote that does this. it allows handfuls of people to hold up the entire federal government. the 14th amendment is very clear. i think the president should evoke the parts of the 14th amendment that would get us past this. i think this is more about the republicans being unable to put a bill together with the language that they promised. it is impossible to put on paper. what they're doing is for something to distract people from the fact that they cannot do their jobs.

let's find every way possible to make sure we pay our bills, but that's also get the product we have to do, which is our annual budget. host: representative mark pocan joining us. our first caller is jay from florida. go ahead. caller: i think that you are either misinformed about quite a few things, or you just do not care, but i have been listening to you now. i wanted to talk about federman's comment, which ties into what you are saying. you used a dozen derogatory words in reference to the republican party. that is what is driving this country insane.

it would be challenged in the supreme court. you obviously have not read the constitution. should congress have to have a work requirement? we have had a work requirement. when i went on welfare back in 1982 they had work requirements, they had training programs. all those programs are still there. they just do not use them, anymore because they can sit at home. no one enforces it. guest: let me explain it this way. there are many people who would agree with me who are not democrats. a number of members of the republican congress are just here to be exotic. they are extreme. they want to get on tv. they want to be able to raise money. they are not here to actually govern. the problem is the republicans have a 5 seat majority, and there are more than five of

these people. it appeals to big chunks of the base, especially trump supporters, that make it impossible for the rest of us to govern. there are some people we should not listen to within that caucus, and do the responsible thing, which is paying the nation's bills. it is ridiculous to think that there will be 22% cuts across-the-board, for any discretionary depending that -- discretionary spending that is not defense. it is so ridiculous. we have to call that out. that is why we are having this problem. if they cannot put their rhetoric to paper, they have to find a way to change the conversation. it is a risky game to put everyone in the country's economic well-being at risk. having the stock market crash, having a lot of people lose their jobs, that is not worth

the games they are playing. host: jodi in pennsylvania, democrats' line. caller: hi, mr. representative, i have a couple questions for you. why are there so many staff members for the members of congress in the senate? that could be scaled back. that would save us a lot of money. the two republicans bush and trump, their tax cuts should be taken away. increase social security where you cut pay on the higher scales, so they pay more money. the last thing is will you guys read your pay raises every year, if you are talking to republicans are talking about taking away veterans' money and freezing social security?

they should come out here and try to live on what we get on social security. that's it. guest: there is a lot there. i we'll see how much i can remember. congress had a pay raise -- have not had a pay raise in 14 years. most of my colleagues are millionaires. it may not be as significant for those. we should lift the cap. it is a regressive tax. if we lifted that tax, we would extend the life of social security. things like dental, vision should be covered. the number of staff, a lot of the staff are doing constituent casework. we represent over 700,000 people in our districts, and they are doing everything from helping people with tax problems,

getting veterans problem -- getting veterans benefits. i am going to miss the fourth category. i knew i would do this. host: when it comes to the president's budget that he introduced, if the reporting is correct it would end some of those tax cuts put forth in the trump administration, but introduced new revenue to pay for those. guest: republicans are only saying we have to not do this, not do this, not do this that they do not want to raise any revenues. when we texted those tax cuts under donald trump, that added one quarter of our nation's debt. a lot of us would like to roll those back, but you have to talk about revenue as well, if you want to try and get us out of some of the deficit debt

situations we have. host: when it comes to rolling back, when you look at the covid spending that was done, one of the things we like to see is the clawing back of some of these funds. what do you think of that prospect? guest: i think it is a fair thing to say, if we have not used some of these covid funds by now. we should see if they need the funds for covid purposes are not. that is a fair question. we had the same question a year ago. host: from missouri, this is jamie, republican line. caller: hi, pedro. why are you referring to maga people in a negative way? i like to make america great again. iy is personally very -- it is personally very helpful. why don't you address the veterans in this bill? the bill is hr-2811.

the debt ceiling was extended. biden will not even look at it. there is nothing in this bill about hurting our vets. why are you so dishonest? please, work with us. pedro, i love you. have an amazing day. caller: -- guest: honestly, hundreds of thousands of people wear hats that say maga, if you will not -- if you do not like the term, you will have to take it up with the people who make the caps. your budget is like this, there are nondiscretionary funds that we cannot touch by law. it is your money that you have paid into a fund. then there are discretionary funds. about over half of that is defense. republicans have said they will

not cut defense spending, swell of the cuts they want to do will have to happen in one little area, and that includes veterans benefits, health care, law enforcement, border protection, so when they have a budget that wants to cut overall 22%, you cannot -- we can only assume that is a 22% cut across the board, which would cut all sorts of things. even outside of veterans department funding, there are programs in other departments, food assistance, housing assistance, job-training that would be eligible for cuts. i say it because it is true. i don't think we should be balancing any budget on the back of veterans. host: this is from ronald. ronald is on our independent line in south carolina. go ahead. caller: i just had -- stupidity

is what is the matter with the usa. we started out with republicans and democratss. now you have this red state and blue state. they do nothing themselves, fighting each other. in texas, right now texas is the worst state as far as crime, but you never hear about that. they fighting each other. republicans fight each other. we do not need this red-blue state, whoever won the last presidential election. i think we need to go back to grade school. host: got your point, caller. guest: ronald made a good

point. it should be a no-brainer. 86 times as a country we have lifted the debt ceiling to match expenditures already approved by congress, just to pay our bills so we do not jeopardize the country's economy. there is a partisan fight over this. we need to do the same thing we have done the last 86 times. that is where you hashed that out, in that process. having a high-stakes fight goes to ronald's point, fighting that is not necessary, that is based on people's political ideology. host: representative, the republicans want to see that roback. does the defense budget become part of that? guest: no. they have said they will not cut

defense. that is why we look at the numbers, and it is about 22% of everything else that is nondiscretionary -- that is discretionary spending. the reason you have not seen a budget put out is how do you determine that? they do not want to cut this part of veterans benefits, they don't want to cut this and that, and then suddenly the other cuts become 30%, 40%. you're going to cut what? education? health care? it is impossible to put that on paper. i think that is the issue. they put out the rhetoric they probably cannot live up to. it is fine just to walk it back, but we need to get a budget done. host: let me ask you about the spending reduction caucus. guest: we spend a lot of money

without almost any checks and balances. a they should have to pass audit -- they should have to pass an audit to make sure we have responsible budgeting going on. in the last audit they couldn't find something like 34% of their equipment. that is a problem. we no a lot of programs fail at providing the services promised to taxpayers, whose money they are spending. we put millions of dollars into amphibious vehicles that only sank. new airplanes have a problem with the toilets such that you have to flush hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemical acids down the drain.

a number of us are concerned about that spending. host: let's hear from dennis in ohio, democrats' line. caller: i would like to respond to something you brought up earlier. the republicans keep saying they want compromise, they want cuts. why are the democrats demanding the same thing? why are they saying, if you want cuts, we want you to take back all of the tax cuts you gave the wealthy, and big business, and we will use that money to bring down the deficit. why are democrats not saying that? watch how fast republicans will stop wanting compromise. guest: 2 things. this should not be a negotiation. we need to pay our bills that we have already allocated. it is the responsible thing to do. for many of us we said the

proper place to have the debates they want to have about spending is in the appropriations process. some of the ideas they have said they want to do are not doable. what about revenue? the balance would be to have some revenues in place, but that is a nonstarter. it has been brought to them, but i think the bottom line is this should not be a negotiation about whether or not we pay our bills. you cannot negotiate whether or not you will mail your mortgage check. you will lose your home and destroy your credit. the same is true for the federal government. host: before we let you go, want to get your thoughts on the recent attack on the home offices of jerry connelly. what does that say about security? are you --

guest: we were just told yesterday that in the last six years, threats to members have gone up 400%. if you go back six years, that coincides with when president donald trump became president. we need to tone that rhetoric down. you can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. you could not have to get people to the point of wanting to carry a bat into an office and start hurting people. that rhetoric, especially for donald trump had to be toned down because the rise in attacks and threats is way up. host: i'm not sure if rhetoric was part of the attack in senator connelly's situation as well. guest: we have tracked a 400% increase in threats to members of congress in the past six years. host: do think as a result of

that, more money for security for these offices could come about? guest: they did give all members $10,000 for home security and not all members have taken advantage of that yet. republicans and democrats should be able to do that. i know my office in madison has a secure lab system and special glass. that was in place before i got there 10.5 years ago. i think some of our offices have that in place. toning down any kind of violent rhetoric has to happen. we lead everyone from the very top, presidents and former presidents to make that happen. host: our next caller israel -- caller is ray. caller: the debt is $5 billion a

year. every year republicans want to spend $3 trillion over what we pay in taxes. how long will this go on in the foreseeable future if you are left in charge? do you see a problem with that? guest: absolutely. we need to raise revenues, to match expenditures ideally. we are being told you cannot talk about revenue by republicans. i want to emphasize the point i made earlier that in our history as a nation, one quarter of our debt, 25% of our debt happened just during the trump presidency when he did the tax breaks for the wealthy. 83% of the money went to the top 1%. if you are concerned about debt, there are some other people you may want to talk to about that. the reality is a quarter of our

nation' history of debts occurred in the last administration. host: let's go to charles, independent line from pennsylvania. caller: my thoughts here is why are we waiting until the 11th hour to be working on this data raise -- debt raise, raising the debt ceiling? you had several months to do this and nobody was talking. the president dropped the ball, does not want to talk to anybody. i am a former republican. i am independent. guest: i think here is the bottom line. we have done it 86 times, 3 times during the trump administration. you are deciding whether to mail the check. this does not stop any spending. it is accounting in nature,

lifting the debt ceiling. it is something we should be doing period. if you want to reduce spending, you do it during the appropriations process. that is a process we started this. week in congress we have yet to see a budget from the republicans like the president and the democrats have put forward, because they cannot put something to paper that matches the rhetoric of what they said they wanted to do, which is cut 22% of all discretionary spending that is not defense. i think you need to call some of your republican elected officials and ask them why they have not put that budget together. september that is where the responsibility has to happen for spending less. host: our guest is a member of the appropriations committee. mark pocan, democrat representative from congress. thank you for coming back to the

program. coming up come up there are going to talk with r street's brandon pugh who will talk about the congressional interest of oversight of artificial intelligence. that was the discussion of a hearing yesterday featuring a company at the forefront of artificial intelligence. during the hearing, senator richard blumenthal demonstrated the power of artificial intelligence technology by delivering part of his opening statement using an ai voice generator. [video clip] >> this hearing is on the oversight of artificial intelligence. the first on a series of hearings intended to write the roles of ai. our goal is to de-mystify and hold accountable new technologies to avoid some mistakes of the past. now, for some introductory remarks.

too often we have seen what happens when technology outpaces regulation. the unbridled exploitation of personal data. the proliferation of personalization. the deepening of societal inequalities. we have seen how algorithmic ics can perpetuate discrimination and prejudice -- biases can perpetuate discrimination and prejudice and undermine trust. this is not the future we want. if you were listening from home, you may have thought that voice was mine and the words from me. in fact, that voice was not mine. the words were not mine. the audio was an ai voice cloning software trained on my floor speeches. the remarks were written by chatgpt when it was asked how i

would open this hearing. you heard just now the result. i asked chatgpt, why did you pick those themes and that content? it answered and i am quoting, " blumenthal has a strong record in advocating for protection and civil rights. he has been open about issues such as data privacy and the potential for discrimination in algorithmic decision-making. therefore the statement emphasizes these aspects." i appreciate chatgpt's endorsement. in all seriousness, this apparent reasoning is pretty impressive. i am sure we will look back in a decade and to be chatgpt like we

do the first cell phone, those big clunky things we used to carry around. we recognize we are on the verge of a new era. host: brandon q is with the r street -- brandon pugh is with the r street institute. joining us to talk about artificial intelligence and congress' interest. what positioning does it take and it comes to artificial intelligence issues? guest: r street is a nonpartisan think tank. cybersecurity, ai, privacy and all of this, but ultimately a limited government free-market think tank. we are pro-innovation and want to cai forest but not without guardrails -- to see ai floris but not without guardrails.

like yesterday's hearing around artificial intelligence, it is around generative ai which is what we are seeing with chapter bots like chatgpt. but ai is much broader technology. we have seen it used for years upon years to help sift through data and make everyday tasks easier. host: is there a layman's way of understanding how this works in every days life? guest: it is complicated but the way i like to think about it is there is a lot of data, how do we make sense of that data and had we make it more beneficial? we have seen over 20 federal government agencies using it to streamline and help profit data. on the others, we have seen chat ai though. host: for exclamation, what is that? guest: that is when people have conversations with a chat bot. you can ask it a question and it uses data to bond in real time.

it is almost like having a conversation with a human but it produces, in my opinion, helpful information. you can have a conversation. you can ask it to refine his answer, or give additional information. it can also help produce original music content, art, and everything in between. host: what are the dangers? guest: there are three main dangers that have been discussed on-and-off and off the hill between data privacy and security, cybersecurity risk, and potential bias. this is essentially a computer using data. there is obviously more nuanced to that but those are the three main ones. i don't want to downplay them but it is equally important to think about the benefits ai can offer. host: there is a gentleman who appeared in congress. there is a picture of him in new

york times. who is head -- he? guest: samp is the ceo of open ai. he is one of the leading -- open ai is one of the leading companies who has chatgpt. before two months ago, the average american was not thinking about open ai. it is because of his product that it became in the minds of most americans. he stood in front of congress to talk about open ai and generative ai. host: why were legislators interested in talking to him specifically? guest: i think it was because of his products. while there were others, he had one of the first we have seen for generative ai. if you were to ask an average american about a chat bot, chatgpt is the main name right now. obviously there are competitors between microsoft and google that his is the most common.

they wanted to question him and how his company is embracing privacy. host: the oversight of artificial intelligence and congresses interest. brandon pugh from r street. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independence. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. i want to play any opening statement. [video clip] >> should we consider independent testing lab to provide scorecards and nutrition labels or the equivalent of nutrition labels? packaging that indicates two people whether or not the content can be trusted, what the ingredients are, and what the garbage going in may be because it could result in garbage going out? >> i think that is a great idea.

i think companies should put their own -- hear the results of our test and model before. here is where it has weaknesses and strengths, but independent audits are important. these models will be more accurate over time. as we have set as loudly as anyone, this technology is in its early stages. it still makes mistakes. we find that users are pretty sophisticated and understand where the mistakes are or are likely to be that they need to be responsible for verifying what the bottles say. that they go and check it. i worry that as models get better and better, users can have less and less of their own discriminating thought process around it. but i think users are more capable than we often give them credit for in conversations like this.

if you use chatgpt, you can see the inaccuracies of the model are also important. i am excited for a world where companies publish with the models information about how they behave, where the inaccuracies are, and independent agencies or companies provide this as well. host: not part of his opening statement but there is an exchange with senator blumenthal. can you elaborate? guest: this is so inter blumenthal has a desire to come up with a solution for ai. there are a few options. whether we create an independent agency to regulate ai. whether we have nutritional labels to tell the average american way data is being used and how is it being. and third, should there be regulation? then we saw sam altman respond. while this technology has been around, it is relatively new.

and of the best comparisons by a member was i think this will be like the earliest generation of cell phones. the ai vc today has a ton of potential and will only expand. as one of the reasons it is important to embrace this but also not ignore there are potential risks. to open ai's credit and competitors, they are thinking through these. some others were there which was ibm. host: how savvy rv with dealing with technological issues over all and how do you think they are able to deal with these issues over all? guest: congress is very slow to act which makes it hard when it comes to technology, especially artificial intelligence. this is evolving by the day. staying within 100% government by both parties today on but it looks like, there is a potential it will be different by

tomorrow. second, this is technology. it is easy to talk through but there is a lot of nuance. we like to say artificial intelligence but there are different types and different risks. even if we think of a regulatory system and get the full agreement, there are differences between a health care application and a finance application. my concern with grading and a federal agency is it would be a general office versus the specific types. host: as far as the community, how open is it to regulation or oversight from a federal body? guest: it is mixed. yesterday, two of the three witnesses seem to embrace some kind of government office. christina montgomery was the lead for ibm and she was hesitant. that is where i fall as well. my personal thing is i do not want to see the development because orphans -- be paused or

constrained. we need to think about the positive applications, but is there room for best practices? we have actually seen this already. numerous players in the space have already generated their own responsible ai frameworks. we have also seen nonprofit organizations develop their own and federal agencies like nift which is a scientific research body is part of the federal government. it was kind of portray that this was the wild west and there is not a lot of regulatory practices. there is not a formal regulation but that does not mean that we do not have a bodies. host: are there competitors -- comparisons to the internet and when it was burgeoning? there was interest in oversight. are there parallels there is what you were seeing as far as ai? guest: i think so.

we heard from numerous members that we want to be out in front of ai right now because we did not want to make the same mistakes as we do when the internet came out. i do not fully agree with that. that is kind of putting the sense that we did a poor job with the internet being structured. but there has been a lot of benefits. i think some potentially want reforms, but largely speaking, this is technology that could have immense impacts for americans. i understand are some fears and they should be considered and work through, by do not see this as senator technology that many are making ai out to be. host: john in nebraska, democrat line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. but i think about ai, i think about the deepfake videos and i think about how the military may use this for operations or the media may use this to twist and

turn points of views from people who may not live in this country. instead of using a translator, they can just use ai and produce the voice. i was just kind of wondering the positives and negatives. i know it is hard to see into the future but also, semantically, i wonder how this will affect people's lives like couples. will it help them stay together or will this bring people apart? guest: phenomenal question. i have a lot of family in nebraska so glad to see never roster represented. you raise phenomenal points. one being the military nexus and the risks and benefits. let's start with the benefits. i recently wrote that we have a lots of old cyber protecting our weapons systems, critical weapon systems. we have seen a lot of research showing how ai can help better protect the weapon system and

utilize the data that they are presenting to help actually show where the threats are, what could be cyber intrusion that way we are better protect it. the reality is a lot of these conversations around what the u.s. is doing, a number of countries around the world including our adversaries are also acting and trying to surpass us. we have seen china trying to be the global ai leader by 2030 if not before. in terms of the risks, they are not unrealistic. we have seen some deepfake videos and fake photographs. you may have seen one floating around that was the pope running from law enforcement. obviously that did not actually happen but it is hard to say. is why a lot of companies and researchers are trying to get out in front of that and offering products that help show the average american and consumer to detect an real -- a realistic image or not. when senator that senator

blumenthal used audio that was not actually him but something that was artificially produced. host: nicholas, republican. caller: how accurate do you think the government is when it comes to deepfakes? host: ray in colorado, independent line. caller: good morning. i will try and keep it clean. i am a registered libertarian. that aside, a couple months ago, i saw an episode of nova where they talked about the use of ai in addressing criminal justice. what fascinated and concerned me was the use of ai. i was wondering if you have anything to say regarding the use of ai, particularly within

the judicial branch. guest: that specific application is not something i spent a ton of time on but a parallel application is how it lays out in cybersecurity broadly. that is where there is tremendous value. it is an analogy between how this can help other branches of government. trying to make this basic, there is more nuanced, but typically sever security networks are defended by any individual. there is automation by thing ai can help me does better and tufted type security incidents much quicker were something a human could not. artificial intelligence in cyber is not the 100% solution by think it could be an adjunct in helping defend networks, especially when we see massive cybersecurity workforce shortages, potentially up to one million individuals. i'll be automating tasks will help us. host: who had a recent op-ed

taking a look at -- you had a recent ad taking a look at ai and cybersecurity. hinton recently retired from google expressing concerns about ai. what did he say? guest: has been a number of tech individuals who left, i don't know if we because of this incident, but they raise flies about privacy and security -- flags about what privacy and security. on the cyber side, the concerns are really, could this be used by an everyday person to carry out a cyber incident that go with typically think of them being a sophisticated actor. i think there is a real concern by do not think we can is them. researchers are proactively thinking about how we address them. yesterday's hearing, around openai, they have heard privacy concerns raised. they have looked at ways of how

they can proactively alter their application to address those. one way is you can use the products anonymously. theoretically, it is not keeping information on the searches you are making. this has been a concern. if i am using this, will that now be something that is a potential answer to someone's future search, revealing sensitive and private information about me? host: mark, south carolina, democrat line. caller: good morning, i want to thank c-span for this discussion . i am optimistic about this technology. i hear a lot of fear and misunderstanding about what ai can do. what resources are out there that i can educate myself more to where i can explain it better to the laymen who may not understand this technology and

some fears surrounding it? what resources would you recommend? guest: three come to mind. programs like this are essential because it is really something that a lot of people, not like yourself, are dismissing. artificial intelligence, it is complicated, let's move on. i think that is a risk. as well as action on the hill. i realize most americans will not tune into a full hearing but they are a benefit. we saw one yesterday but there was also another one yesterday and an artificial intelligence hearing today. if there is a unique application coming out that interests you, i would encourage you to watch it. when i am watching for in the future is ai in national security specifically. that could be a long hearing itself but there are a ton of resources. maybe a little in depth for the average person but miffed --

nift has done a great network. i believe it came out in january area it makes sure technology is being done in a transparent way. even with the federal office burning regulation, there is active steps that can and should be taken. i enjoyed even just reading through some documents but i realize the ardennes's at times. host: -- realize they are dense at times. host: there is a new application that can replicate your voice. is this a case when ai is pushed on the consumer? guest: i think every tech company and even not tech companies are looking at how ai can be implemented in their products. they are taking products we have had for years and making ai complement it. we do see brand-new products coming out now they are pushing

what we use, how can they make it easier, or streamlined, and better for the consumer using ai? it is just one of them. when back to my roots as a security professional, something i really like, -- security professionals rely on threat intelligence. what are the risks to your network and how do we defend against them? that takes a long time to generate and step through. there are now automated products that show you what are your main risks and how do you defend against them rather than taking a ton of time. that is the encouraging side of ai. it can help and things more quicker and more versatile. host: back to congress, is there a case when the manufacturers or technology leaders will say we can sell regulators on the issues rather than having more oversight from washing? what you think of that? guest: i think that is the balance congress is trying to

strike now. generally, there was a lot of support for general enforcement rather than having a new agency. the other side is something i would advocate for. there is not an absence of best practices out here. we need to have these conversations with the industry and look at best practices and encourage them to be voluntarily and lamented, rather than a heavy-handed -- implemented, rather than a heavy-handed approach. i hate to see a scenario that makes our adversaries get to hear -- get ahead of us or the u.s. fall behind and we are not the leaders. i would like to think we are the only country interested in ai but we are not. that is the downside of taking to so of an approach by do not want to discredit the incautious. a lot of people said with my article about cybersecurity that i ignored the risks. i did not, i just wanted to show there are positive risk -- positive values.

maybe it's for pretension -- maybe ask potential for oversight but they did not dig into a lot of privacy concerns most people have. host: such as what? guest: the earlier conversation of what is being collected and what level of transparency we should have with ai zoomers noaa data is being collected and how it is being used on them. many countries around the world like the european unions privacy law and even china has a privacy law. they may not follow it at times but they have fun, whereas we do not. there is no law that shows how did data can be collected in the u.s. that is a critical first step and ties into ai. i cannot see a scenario where we regulate ai without action on privacy. i would be a fan of saying let's do privacy first and try to

engage with the industry and see how it pans out. host: jack, north carolina, independent line. caller: this is jack. i would like to hear some of the downside of ai, such as the data being put into it and how it is put in. who collects it, and to what extent can they use it? guest: thanks for the question. two downsides come to mind. you raised a data question which is a concern. we heard this race yesterday at the hearing. that is where the concept of a nutritional label comes in so a user would know precisely how the information was collected and what information is being collected on them. that way they can make an informed decision on that product.

in an ideal world, i think citizens should be able to make decision, versus government telling them what the concerns are. traditionally, would sever concerns, there are more sophisticated actors who will carry out cyber incidents and effects. his concerns of could ai be used to generate a bad code and allow a less sophisticated individual to carry out an attack? there is that risk. i think congress and entities need to be mindful of this. host: allen, republican line. caller: hello. -- host: because of ais and technology, there is the potential of it taking over and people find themselves without jobs because of it. guest: there is concern that if

ai automates too much task and does things at quicker speed, this could take away jobs, where as a human was sifting through data and taking comparisons and analysis. the counterpoint to this is it has been transforming jobs at the same time. christina montgomery was one of the witnesses yesterday and alluded to this. with ibm, they saw a lot of the jobs became more advanced and pertained to artificial intelligence. it shifted the skill set. for industries are very shortstaffed what the cybersecurity industry where we may have a million taken jobs, this can help streamline some tasks and help reduce the effects we see by having a shortage. i think this is where it is incumbent on the government to offer training and industry around artificial intelligence. we see some legislation on the hill looking at this in term of what does the -- terms of what

is the workforce need to know? how can school districts and breaks? host: a text saying "do you think the educational system shall limit the use of ai in the classroom where we diminish original people thought for submission of essays for example." guest: what i would say to this is technology in classroom is extremely important. some people are pushing to shield from all technology. the risk of this is this is the technology they will be exposed to as they go throughout life and students are generally more sophisticated when it comes to tech usage than by age and my parents a so i am fearful of limiting it too much in the classroom it is important for school district and teachers to be aware of the risk and for companies to proactively limit the risk. the systems are not fully in the

wild. there are programs that can limit data to be collected. in conjunction with their schoolwork who wants to limit the technology, that is an appropriate decision for them to be made at the local level versus a mandate. there will be different appetites in the classroom whether artificial intelligence or not. we saw this come up during covid. should students in second or first grade b issued laptops? host: you get a sense where ai becomes part of everyday life? a timeline? guest: it is hard to put a timeline. it has evolved rapidly than i anticipated. some witnesses yesterday alluded to there could be a scenario where ai gets out of control. on a daily basis, companies look into how we use ai. even when we have come up with

stuff over the last few months, it has significantly scaled at a quick pace. we generally talk about trap bots and generative ai base trap bots like chatgpt. ai is a technology has been used for years. the average american uses ai on a routine basis. they may not realize it. a common example is google maps or apple maps or whatever to get to work. most of those products use ai which is how it generates where travel time and can predict with the traffic. that is a case of ai most people do not realize they are using. host: eric, new york, democrat line. caller: good morning. my ears perked up when you said that we have to put mr. altman

has chatgpt. i have never heard of an american company on the precipice of a huge advance saying to themselves, wait, maybe this would not be a good idea even though this would put us way ahead of everybody else if we put our toe in this new realm. for them to actually turn away from the idea of making this huge leap and potential windfall profit, that makes me wonder. because, after all, my father, god rest his soul, used to contain everything in his head. he can do math in his head. he was a history teacher and could tell you dates, times, places and scenarios humanity

has gone through over the ages. he ran his life accordingly. he would -- host: got your point. guest: i think what you are getting at is sam altman embraced an approach for regulation and a new federal agent. i think this pileup people off guard because by what somebody developing this technology wanting bureaucratic system that could hurt their own company? not to discredit what he was saying but openai is a big company so they may have resources to engage in this regulatory approach that there is a con. there are a lot of small activists that may not have -- small actors that may not have this. i would hate to see a scenario where not everybody has an equal shot and only two or three big

players do. get the big players have done incredible work. i do not want to diminish that. even though they did not fully embrace the approach lichtenstein among governor yesterday -- like christina montgomery yesterday, she did not discredit the approach but i do not think she jumped on the bandwagon that today congress should enable a new law to limit ai. let's continue to develop ai, let's not pause it while lawmakers work to get ahead, but let's look at cyber concerns. we need to be aware of the applications of the technology. i hope congress will dig in the weeds and see value. and hopefully implement this further. host: brandon pugh of the r street institute curing of the policy director for emerging security and threats. hope you come back. open forum. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can participate in open forum and washington journal continued -- when washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: healthy democracy does not just look like this but looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republican throughout -- thrives. c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, because the opinion that matters the most is rome this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. announcer: fridays at 8 p.m. eastern, c-span brings the from book tv, a program where

nonfiction are -- officers are intest -- nonfiction authors are interviewed on their books. oscar menus shares his book turnaround time where he talks about his efforts to revive a company and the future of aviation. he is interviewed by a trouble reporter jack. watch afterwards every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cease and. -- c-span. announcers: if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletters using the qr code on the screen to see the schedule of upcoming programs, other discussions, book programs and more. book tv, every sunday on c-span two. television for serious readers. announcer: visit c-spanshop.org. c-span's online store.

saved your our sale going on now. save up to 20% on apparel, home depot, bobbleheads and more. there is something for every cease and fan -- c-span fan. scan the scone -- on the right. c-spanshop.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: you can call the lines on open forum. the button that best represents you. if you called within the last 30 days, hold off on that today. you can also post your thoughts on various things on our facebook page. facebook.com/c-span and twitter @cspanwj. after the states republican-controlled general

assembly -- democratic and so we details tuesday, the house completed the second and final part of the overall vote after a three fest majority. the faction necessary voted for the overruled. there was a major victory and legislative leaders who need every dop member on board to enact a law over governor roy cooper's opposition. as from the associated press. looking at kentucky republic -- kentucky politics, they chose daniel cameron to challenge the democratic governor andy beshear. he is finishing his first term as the state top law enforcement officer. he is the first independently elected black statewide officeholder in kentucky and ran as a religious conservative, endorsed by former president donald trump who frequently challenged andy beshear and

their policies. there is more on the kentucky.com website. turning to pennsylvania politics , specifically philadelphia, parker, a democrat with a long history won the mayoral primary tuesday, like the setting her up as the city's 100th mayer and the first woman to serve in the role. she served as a state representative before the election city council in 2014. government experience allow her to address giving problems in public safety. she will go against republican david o in the november general election. that is what is going on around the nation. you can roll into open forum if you wish. from pennsylvania, carnegie, independent line, richard. you are first. caller: good morning, how are you doing today? i kind of want to talk about the previous debt ceiling problem.

it seems like nobody is -- i don't want to sound cruel, but --. i think stuff should be addressed there. like you have to have a male to make children. i feel that person should be responsible for paying for the children. host: why are you convinced that actually happens? caller: why am i convinced? because where i live, there are a lot of women who have no husbands or boyfriends and tempt children around every day or every week. years ago, my dad met a lady on a bus and said you have a beautiful baby.

you were talking and my dad asked, who is your husband? the lady says, if you get stung by a bee, do you know what bee stung you? host: ok, shay in annapolis, maryland. democrat line. caller: i would like to mention points about joe biden. when i think of the joe biden, i think he will be remembered as a empty calorie president. this is a man that has really failed younger voters but not only has he failed younger voters, he has failed his own party. i think you should not negotiate with terrorists. this republican party is on the downside democratically in which you have gen x and general y and gen z voters heavily voting democrat.

but you are negotiating with cold -- cult members are the others. i need to ask c-span, you need to do more for younger viewers. i do not hear a lot of younger viewers on the channel. can you explain that to me? host: people interested in politics ranges from a wide variety. being part of this program as long as i have, i have heard younger viewers. how old are you? caller: i am 31. the reason i want to bring that up is a loan forgiveness. y'all have brought this up a couple times. i think you do a segment where younger voters call in. when you have a lots of older voters call in, and a lot of them are already set. they do not care if student loan forgiveness is cut or not. but you guys have got to start pulling in younger voters because i do not really hear

them. host: again, from my experience, we have. we have a lot of ways of reaching out to people of a lot life different ages. represent a lot of colors that call in. i appreciate you calling in and giving your opinion. thanks for the input. we will see if we can make this into segments in the future. james in michigan, republican line. caller: this is on spending. if they let the 6 million illegal aliens in, if you give them a dollar a day, that is $6 million. that is $6 million a day. if you multiply that by 30 --

host: what are you trying to get at with the math? caller: that is $6 million a day . that is a lot law of spending for everyday. if you multiply that by 30, and money spending -- a lot of money to be spending. and a lot of debts we would have to take on. host: tim, arkansas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i appreciate the opportunity to speak. i would like to comment on both of the last two guests. ai is like a manhattan project. when you are developing something that can be destructive, it needs oversight. i would think senator blumenthal

would be scared because a day ai blumenthal iq is way above the real. on debt, taxes are coming in every day. we get $350 billion a month in revenue. when the time comes that we cannot borrow anymore, it means discretionary spending will be late. where last guest, -- your last guest, mark pocan, says they want to cut discretionary spending. this is unconstitutional from the beginning because you are keeping 78% of unconstitutional spending by the federal government. i say no debt ceiling. and the last call her spoke about younger people. younger people better wake up. this tax burden of paying $500 billion a year or $600 billion a year, or soon one trillion a year will fall on younger voters. i am only 63 years younger.

i will not be around much longer but i pray for the young people. when cupid imports new young people, and is republicans -- president biden is replacing young people by the millions. host: paul, missouri, independent line. caller: i was watching an assortment of proud boys and body armor clad bible counselors protesting drag queens reading at a library, and i wonder how many of those protesters had library cards. if they went inside the library, they could find out a lot about the things they protest. like just in the past couple of hundred years, any actor or reader or anything in theatrics

where men were pretraining women -- portraying women. this whole idea of grooming. i don't see these things as grooming. if you talk to your children, they make their own decisions. they realize these things are not dangerous. but what i do think is dangerous as far as grooming is anyone who would raise their child to believe that a political jew serves say 10. to tell your child that or say that dinosaurs are demonic or any of these things. host: who says that? caller: there is a whole

christian sect that believes dinosaurs are invented by people who serve the devil. it is the same crowd that will tell you and there are political opponents of theirs that eat children. host: that was paul in missouri. the wall street journal looked at former bank executives that appear on capitol hill talking about congress interested in discussing this issue. the story says democrats and republicans pressed the executives, the former silicon valley bank chief executive greg becker and two others, blaming both banks management for the rising interest rates. the senate banking committee yesterday had senator elizabeth warren who asked the board and cofounder of signature bank if he would pay the cost that occurred during the collapse of the bank. [video clip] >> from 2019 2023, while the

fdic identified an additional 45 liquidity risk issues, you racked up more than $20 million in pay. so, the collapse of four cost the fdic's fund $2.5 million. how much of the $20 million that you earned from loading up signature bank with risk are you planning to return to the fdic? >> i believe signature bank was a responsibly managed bank until the end. >> i am sorry. your opinion on what is reese possible is laughable so you are planning to return how much? >> the answer is -- >> none. >> i am not planning to do so. >> right now, the law says people like mr. becker and mr. shea can come to washington and

lobby for weaker bank regulations, load up their split risks, pay themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses and stock options. when the banks blow up, stir becker and mr. shea get to keep all the money. that is just plain wrong. host: were at the hearing available on the website and the app. taking a look at regional banks today at 10:00 which you can see on c-span3, our app c-span now, and our c-span.org website about failures and oversight of the regional bank community -- committee. also veteran affairs secretary general mcdonald testified on the 2024 budget for the v.a. which is live on 3:00 -- at 3:00 on c-span 3 pot. the house select committee hearing on u.s. and china is this evening.

7:00. remarks from the select committee on strategic competition. 10:00 a.m. on c-span 2. john in massachusetts, republican line. caller: good morning. there is a lot going on in the country and i think we argues -- losing sight of what is going on in your rain. right now, our oil reserves are down to levels from the 1980. we left billions of dollars worth of equipment in afghanistan when we left. have given ukraine hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight. when you ask not only the administration but all members of congress what the solution is, what the plan is, and they say whatever it takes as long as it takes, that is scary.

because does this include boots on the ground? if that is what it is going to take? or are we going to take on russia head-on? or are we going to go in and tried to bomb them? this is ridiculous and nobody is talking about it be because of all the silliness going on between donald trump and president biden. i wish they would go away. host:asngton -- highlights a trip to japan as part of the g7 meeting but also says it is aimed at bolstering support from ukraine in combating climate change and tackling global inflation. or than any other issue, it is to -- more than any other issue, it is meant to talk about china

will not be at the meeting. joe is next. democrat line. oklahoma. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say a word about kristin cinema and the alleging democrat -- mansion, both of which -- joe manchin, both of which played against the middle. kyrsten sinema got paid by the republican party to vote a law that the democrats wanted to pass. she took a big cut from the republicans to vote the way they wanted. then, she gets on the news and says, i am not switching from one -- i will not be republican

either. because she claimed to be an independent now. and saying neither one of the parties are functional. i happen to think that she is part of the reason it is not functional. she ran on being a democrat and then took money from the republicans to vote the way that they wanted so she could get to $1 million in her checking account. host: bill in michigan, independent. caller: good morning. i want to talk about health care. first, you are the best out there. i have been watching you -- i am not saying i like you but you are the best when here. health care. two years throughout the pandemic, 15 times my wife are in and out of the emergency room. my wife was dying of cancer.

i have seen the best out of these nurses and doctors. these people are wonderful. the patients, i would have shot half of them. host: -- ok. bill in washington post -- in michigan. the washington post had a story. they wrote the unknown man walked into jake sullivan's home around 3:00 a.m. one night late april and jake confronted the individual, constructing him to leave. they say there was no signs of forced entry. vic sullivan had around-the-clock secret service intel tell but asians outside the house were unaware that a man got inside the home -- intelligence agents outside the house but were unaware that a

man got inside the home until he told them. if you go to usa today, they say a whistleblower at the internal revenue service is investigating hunter biden for tax revelations -- tax violations. the irs criminal supervisory special agent was informed he and his investigative team are being removed from the investigation of the high profile controversial suspect. they sought to make whistleblower disclosures to congress and the justice and department -- the justice department informed the whistleblower about the changes. derek, democrat line. caller: good morning. just a message for all of my veterans brothers and sisters and the representative you had on their earlier. mark pocan. i really appreciated it. i think the republicans will have to do some research on their veterans because they

block benefits for veterans at every turn. you can go back to the pack act. jon stewart, thanks for his help with that. jon stewart did another interview about the discretionary spending that republicans are proposing in their bill. if you are a veteran, you may want to look at what party you are on. host: axios reporting that was democrats on tuesday offering a cut solution that expelled george santos on congress. the move triggers a vote within the next few days that put republicans into the difficult position of whether to protect a politically toxic college or break with gop leadership. darcy of california introduced a resolution and did so with the sport of -- garcia of california introduced the resolution and so with the support of the rats.

george santos was indicted by the justice department last week on account of wire fraud, and lying to congress and more. he pled not guilty to the charges. kevin mccarthy yesterday said he wants to see how the whole decision goes when it comes to the ethics committee. we will see how this plays out the next few days. a lot going on with the debt ceiling talks. the best way to stay close to what is going on with public in and democratic legislators is c-span.org. -- republican and democratic legislators is c-span.org. you can also go to c-span now, the app, and download it to see the latest videos when it comes to that. when the debt ceiling comes out, you can see what is playing out there. larry in minnesota. crack. caller: hello.

i would like to point out that if we do not pay our debt and we default on it, the u.s. dollar would no longer be the reserve currency in the world. if that happens, there is no bottom to how bad the economy will fall. 2008 and 2009 will look like the good old days. you're talking about a 1930's depression. anybody who thinks this is a catastrophic thing, that is putting it lightly. as far as the 13th amendment goes, the debt ceiling legislation is in violation of the 14th amendment and should be taken to court by the democrats and legislated. the case should be --

host: gloria, north dakota. caller: what is this about war? if they had even went to live in our state and tried to kill us in the summer, they would get killed in the winter. host: who are you talking about? caller: iran, china, everywhere. you can take an ice cube and put it on your arm and you would know what it feels like. host: gloria in north dakota finishing the round of phones. that is it. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house -- the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. cloips the speaker's rooms,