>> after weeks of negotiations, we have come to an agreement in principle. we have a lot of work to do but i believe it is worthy of the american people. ♪

>> good morning. president biden and house speaker kevin mccarthy came to a late night agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut federal spending. the agreement would raise the debt ceiling for two years putting it out of play for next year's election season and cap nondefense spending and expand work requirements for aid programs. the deal is only between mccarthy and biden. each have to convince republicans and democrats to accept it before the nation runs out of money june 5. our question for you, what do you think about president biden and speaker mccarthy reach debt ceiling agreement? we open up the regular lines. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

you can text us at 202-748-8003. we are always reading social media and facebook and facebook.com/c-span and twitter @cspanwj and follow us on instagram @cspanwj. president biden house speaker mccarthy came to a late night agreement. on raising the debt ceiling and capping federal spending. rollcall has a story that is going to talk about what is in the story -- the deal. house gop leaders reach a tentative deal with president biden saturday night to lift the debt ceiling. could avoid economic crisis if congress passes it next week. details have not been made public we're starting -- it is

described as sources familiar the nation's borrowing cap would be suspended until january 1 2025 avoiding another market rally during election year. we have come to an agreement in principle. speaker mccarthy announced we still have a lot of work to do but i believe the agreement is worthy of the american people. we brought you mccarthy comments at the top of the show but we want to bring you his full comments he made after reaching the agreement. [video clip] >> i just got off of the phone with the president. after weeks of negotiations, we have come to an agreement in principle. we have work to do but i believe it is an agreement that is worthy of the american people. it has a reductions in spending.

consequential reforms and will lift people out of poverty into the workforce, rein in government overreach, no new taxes, no new government programs. we have more work to do tonight to finish all of the writing of it. i want to take a moment to think garrett and patrick mchenry were there work on this in the work we are going to continue to do tonight. i know you have questions. i'm not taking them tonight. i want to brief our members about where we currently are. i expect to finish the writing of the bill, checking with the white house, speaking to the president again tomorrow afternoon, and then posting the text of it tomorrow, then voting on it on wednesday. thank you for your time. i think this is worthy of the american public. host: 21 of the authors of the story in roll call -- we are

going to talk to one of the story in roll call. aidan, good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: before we get to what is in the agreement, tell us about how biden and mccarthy caps off the negotiation session. how did they come to agreement? guest: it is a lengthy conversation. maybe not lengthy. biden had been refusing to negotiate on the debt limit up until a few weeks ago when negotiators are the white house and republican caucus sat down and talk. the past week has been essentially nonstop negotiations. occasional pause trickled ins were under the time -- but both

sides were under the exit date. treasurey yellen updated for it to be june 5. it was clear we were approaching a potential default of the debt if it was not moving. host: gives the top line on the agreement. what are the major points biden and mccarthy have agreed to and they're going to ask the members to vote on? guest: the biggest piece is the spending agreement. we are still waiting for additional information about what exactly is in the bill. the seat when the text comes out, but the white house is saying this takes the president budget requests for defense and veterans, which is they are happy with, they are saying nondefense discretionary spending is roughly flat. house republicans are saying

that spending is being cut significantly down to the fiscal 2022 levels, the previous fiscal year. we'll have to wait in the text/-- we will have to wait and see the text. there are six years laid out but only the first two are poseable so the presidential election of 2024 and new congress have to make spending decisions after the initial years of cap. this a variety of other issues addressed in the legislation including calling back billions in covid funding, cutting funding of the irs established in a bill last year, increasing the age for work requirements for snap and other benefits,

some changes to permitting, and ending the pandemic era student loan the biden administration had been keeping in place. host: is either side portraying this as a win or they both saying this is the best we can do? guest: house republicans, speaker mccarthy seem happy with this deal. president biden and the democrats are stressing that it is a compromise a have to govern. i will point out there are house freedom caucus conservatives who do not like what they are seeing out of the deal and they are vowing to fight it in the house this upcoming week will we start moving forward. host: what is speaker mccarthy doing to get those conservatives, who have already said they hate this agreement what is he doing to get them on his side? is he having to turn

to house democrats to get this bill through? guest: anytime there's a major agreement like this, it does require both parties. i am expecting mccarthy will need democrats to get on board with this, -- it does seem like he will be able to get democrats support. i would say it looks unlikely that many of the freedom of house caucus members, who are already slamming the deal, would back it even though public look team will make an effort to talk to them. it is very likely they would need between a small significant number democrats to get on board. host: the one group no one has talked about is the senate. are we assuming the senate will go along with this and not ask for its own changes? guest: typically the senate --

it is widely expected the senate will get on board, especially since both majority leaders chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell were initially in the conversations but both agree to take a step back and let biden and mccarthy work it out. it is a bipartisan deal. it is expected to pass the senate after it passes the house. the house is more interesting? -- the house is a more interesting question at this point. host: walk us through some of the roadblocks we see coming ahead. secretary yellen said january -- june 5 is the deadline. it will congress be able to push this bill through before joining fit? -- before jay murray fit? guest: june 5 in deadline. the house will be called back next week and is expected to

vote on this wednesday or thursday. we expect to see text this afternoon. it will be worked on through the night. they have a seven to hour rule in place. -- 72 hour oral in place. they expected to vote on monday. they be able to check these out to bid. that there is a fault -- the threat of the default hanging over their head of the senate, i would expect there be sometime in the agreement to move this forward and becomes clear it will be having the votes to pass. host: how long do you think you think it will be before this bill is on president biden's desk? guest: i think we will see it on this desk june 4, sunday before the june 5 x-date, or next week

where secretary kelly said he will be playing with fire if you get to that week. expectation is the markets will see this deal and realize the united states will be -- the debt ceiling will be dealt with and not too much to worry about. host: final question for you. who are some of the house members we need to watch this week to see how quickly are how efficiently mccarthy gets the builder? guest: i'm interested in washington republican study committee trying to be more conservative, group of house members. it is one of the largest caucuses in the republican group. moderate republicans will vote for this.

mccarthy can keep rsc on board that is a group i am watching to see if back to the agreement. they have been fighting to get a deal so i'm looking forward to seeing what they have to say. host: we would like to thank aiden of world call for coming in with us this morning and helping us figure out what is going on between the house and the white house. thank you so much for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we want to know what you are thinking about the late-night deal that was struck between president biden and speaker mccarthy -- how speaker mccarthy. let's look in what is actually in this bill. what are some of the provisions we see that could be coming out in the agreement that is being sent to the house that was

agreed to by president joe biden and how speaker mccarthy? according to cnn, he is what we will see. it would raise the debt ceiling, increasing the debt limit for two years, which would taken past next year's election. it will cap nondefense spending, which means spending with remain relatively flat in fiscal 2024 an increase by maybe 1% in scal 2025 after certain unspecified adjustments to appropriations armada. the agreement would protect veterans health medical care. it will expand work requiments which means it will d u temporary bargaining work requirements for certain adults receiving food stamps. it would call back unspent covid-19 relief funds. it would cut internal revenue

service funding meaning it will cancel the total fiscal year staffing funding requests the house gop says it will go for a irs agents. it will restart student loan payments. these are some of the provisions that cnn says are in the new debt ceiling bill. this will go to the house this week. how speaker kevin mccarthy says he will have a house on this wednesday. what do you think about this deal? let's start with and calling from greensboro, north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: ok. i am glad president biden was able to come to an agreement, however, this is a republican made up crisis. republicans past three clean

debt ceiling agreements under trump. no questions or tax -- attachments. the republicans will try to say they had to do this now because of the deficit but that is not true. they did the same thing under president obama in 2011. that cause u.s. credit rating could be downgraded. they are trying to come up to a reason that is not making any sense when they did it before. like i said, i am glad president biden went ahead and came up with the agreement, but i hope those people who will be affected, republicans will be held accountable. there will be some people who will be affected in terms of services and hopefully, people

understand it is the republicans that created the problem in the first place. host: john calling from new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. you for taking my call. i've watched this and i tried to follow. i watch fox. i watch cnn. i read up on it. it never ends. what we are doing each site has the discredit the other side. spending is out of control. we are spending too much. it is having a negative effect on our economy. it politicized this. they took it to the very end. they get all the dire warnings.

i think we need new leadership on both sides of the value. we really do. -- leadership we see right now is tearing the country apart. we see this tribalism, polarization. the american people have to educate themselves, offer candidates, and seek solutions. this is starting to get out of control. if i can add to this, i know you are short on time, now is not the time to just open the border. i do not want to sonic and politicizing it myself but have serious -- sounds like i am politicizing it myself when we have serious problems and this is further creating more financial uncertainty. we need leadership and we do not have it. host: juliet calling from rockport, massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. caller: hey, jesse.

how are you? host: just fine. caller: that last caller was right on. our u.s. government is indicative of our checks and balances and i was reading the fine print in an article in new york times this morning. snap benefits will only be cut 18% over the course of 10 years. it is almost negligible and then at some the other things like irs funding is going to become 80 million down to 70 million. everybody listening and i hope they are many listening we should probably are not which is why i always get in, i was studying the u.s. debt clock last evening, it is a quick study.

you do not have to be mark sandy to understand it. if you look down to the bottom right-hand corner where you see a section called unfunded liability in u.s., it is 187 trillion dollars. to reiterate -- look at medicare and medicaid -- if you look at medicare social security liability it is trillions of dollars. we cannot keep printing money out of thin air. that's to a breakeven point. i think you very much for washington journal and have a super day. host: elizabeth calling from randall's town, maryland on the democratic line. good morning. caller: yes. i'm so happy they reach an agreement because i'm a disabled senior and have been worried

about losing my medicare, social security, my food stamps. i've been so worried about that. i think that is terrific. if we need more money, tax them multimillionaires, if we need more money cut more aid to ukraine. i'm so sick of that. all the money going to ukraine. i agree with finding ukraine to a certain extent -- finding ukraine to a certain extent. that is all i want to say. i'm so happy they came to an agreement. they are terrific. i love biden. thank you very much. goodbye. host: after he spoke with his house members, and speaker mccarthy came out and discuss what is next steps would be in the dress potential defense from his side the gop. [video clip] >> i thought the call went

really well. we're working through the night to get all the language and i would talk to the president again tomorrow afternoon. as his granddaughters graduation and will finalize. it will not be a long probably be one of the pages. -- it would not be a longer bill. probably wiser 50 pages. i've a lot more excited than the price. what people read the bill, they'll decide the most important markets waiting on this one. >> you need democrats to help get this passed? >> any time you negotiate a bill, yet they have both parties. >> thank you. host: let's see was some of our social media followers are

saying about the agreement reached between president biden and speaker mccarthy. here is one tweet. but the huge tax cut are in place. corporate socialism lives on. but righties hate socialism. looks like they love it like there mistress. another tweet. just wait until former president chimes in. have we heard from him yet? another tweet. negotiating our debt is outrageous. it is not something we do. looks like biden caved in. using the 14th amendment would have been better. one final tweet. what about reversing tax cuts for mliaires? we want to knowhat you think about president biden and speaker mccarthy using an agreement. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-800 independents, 202-748-8002.

you can text us at 202-748-8003. back to our phone lis. alvin calling from zanesville, ohio on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran. i get disability payments for agent orange. i will vote for trump as seven times. the stronger your military is, the less likely you will ever have to use it. one of the things -- and the spending bill, the billions for the new greendale, what does that have to do with the current problem created by president biden? like inflation.

host: let me stop you there for a second. as far as anyone can tell there's nothing in the agreement about the new greendale. we'll have to wait and see the text come out but does not been part of negotiations. caller: no, but i have heard that is a part of the spending bill. host: speaker mccarthy says the text come out later today but as far as anyone is saying, so far, there is nothing in the bill about the new greendale, which is never passed the house at all. caller: ok. the one thing on inflation -- biden was walking to his helicopter and was asked what are you doing about high inflation, he looked at her and said i inherited it. what was inherited was 1.6.

in side panel of my car i found an old gas receipt under president trump, $1.88 a gallon. these are the crisis -- crises created by president biden. please call this calling in and calling the republican crisis, that is wrong. -- these callers calling in and calling it the republican crisis, that is wrong. host: darrell from michigan on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. when you came out on what agreement comes to the -- at the final adjustments they'll come

out for a vote. there 62 million social security recipients who by law get cost-of-living adjustments. are those suspended for the next two years? host: will have to wait for the final text to come out for speaker mccarthy later today. as far as any think we have seen so far, no one is said about suspending increases in social security. when we get the final text from kevin mccarthy i'm sure you have be able to find it at c-span.org. had tea coming from franklin, louisiana on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i will like to say that we're

complaining on the president for little and everything. he is the president for all people and i believe he's doing a good job. if you look back and go back in time when president -- when the other crazy president we had in office, he began to spend money. he went into the money that was not supposed to go in but he never explained what he did with that money. nobody called or asked what happened. they always say this one and that one. we do not have time to complain. we need to be gracious and thankful that we do have the president in their with understanding not because of money in the pocket.

i watched c-span all of the time and i appreciate you all. thank you very much. host: call calling from folsom, louisiana on their public and law -- republican line. caller: good morning. i think we have a problem with this country. the partisanship is off of the charge. i did not know if your colors have been educated got to high school. this is a simple mathematics. when you sent 30% more than when

you take in you go bankrupt. it started back in the 1980's but we had billion dollars then -- now we have trillion. the democrats coming in like this president is good? he was corrupt when he got in offices. he is a liar. his son is a horrible person. i feel sorry for the guy. the news media is the problem. we have news media people that are not news media, they are democrats and socialists. they believe everything they hear out of the white house and the bad stuff going on in the white house, you can check all the stations and did not report. there are so many things going on. the border -- not one station has been down to the border. this is a crisis in our country.

we have too many people that keep -- they keep saying tax the billionaires. the top 1% pays 50% of the taxes in the country. they are brain-dead from listening to the democrats who cannot help themselves and lie and lie. host: frank calling from cincinnati, ohio on the independent line. frank, good morning. caller: hello. take you for taking my call. john adams said -- [indiscernible] congress has put us $32 trillion in a hole. we know inflation is caused by printing money. trump and biden and every other president print to get. but we came up and now interest

rates are going up. in order to stop inflation we have to -- [indiscernible] at the same time we take $5 trillion a year and spent 6.5 trillion this year and at the same time we are trying to stamp out inflation, you got -- it is irresponsible. how much is a trillion dollars? if you to the treasury department, you see how much it is, it is .003 inches thick. 43 inches high. he take that and you waited down -- you take the distance and weigh you down and multiply it.

they want to spend more. democrats and replicants have sat down at the table. now it is time to pay. they cannot pay so they say let's order dessert. let's order wind because they cannot get up and pay the bill. that is already. -- that is our predicament and we are near economic collapse. if you look at the debt clock we owe $175 trillion in unsecured future debt. in addition to that $32

trillion. thank you for listening. host: barry calling from new york on the democratic line. barry, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and a thank you for taking my call. i have noticed a pattern in the calls regarding these kind of issues of the debt ceiling where a lot of people who call in, forgive me i think they are very christian people, i'm not bashing that -- i'm kind of religious i guess. what is kind of funny to me in the bible there is a passage, king solomon, the passage talks about two women, both of which had a baby, one lost the baby they then both claim the baby as

their own. solomon said i will cut the baby in half. you each get a half. one woman said no, let her have the baby. i cannot help but see this a parallel to our current situation. the baby is our economy. our well-being financially and the two brothers are the democrats and republicans. solomon, if you remember, determined who loved the baby most. it was the mother who was willing to give the baby up in order to save it. in my mind that passage is something to think about when you think about who loves this country demos. ok. in the bible they talk about wealth -- we wealth becomes an idol. i keep hearing you cannot

tax the rich because -- the last caller said the top 1% pays 50% of the taxes about the problem with that is the top 1% owns 90% of the wealth. you would think they would pay 90% of the taxes but they do not. i believe people are seeing the wealthy in this country as their idols and they should not. they should see them as parasites, essentially on the rest of us in there sucking us dry and the real answer to our country's problems is we tax the rich. as a side note we spent way too much on our defense. it is become apparent see how crappy the russians are doing in ukraine that we are

unnecessarily fearful of a lot of these adversaries. that made it plain they are not worthy as spending as much as we do. -- as spending as much as we do to defend against. host: president biden and speaker mccarthy came to this agreement together last night at the white house. it has to be sold to both house and senate members. the new york times in their story talks about some of the opposition the white house and speaker mccarthy will face from their members about the agreement. i will read from the story. on private policy brief members of the conference on the emerging deal, speaker mccarthy so the agreement as a victory. saying there is little in the package that democrats supported. hard right lawmakers in freedom caucus who for days have been venting frustrations with the

emergent contours of the deal made the displeasure known. everything they fought for in the bill were emitted from the agreement. according to a person familiar with the remarks spilled to the condition of anonymity. mccarthy and deputies defend the deal citing several winds including rolling back money for the irs. progressives vented their unhappiness. lindsay elements executive director of liberal groundwork collaborative in washington criticized the deal for forcing budget because in domestic programs and reducing enforcement money for the irs. it undermines important initiative, drains good source revenue and requires caucus to vote down a policy that is

incurably popular with the public. this is from the new york times this morning. speaker mccarthy and president biden face opposition from their own aside on the agreements they struck last night. speaker mccarthy who is supposedly to release the text of the deal says it will be up for a vote in the house on wednesday. we want to know whether you agree with this deal or not. we you to call in. -- we want you to call in. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. brad calling from maine on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to know where it says in the constitution that the american taxpayer should be force to bankroll a foreign countries war.

that is what we are doing in ukraine. the ukrainians are never going to pay that money back. they may not even be a country in another year. there may be absorbed into the russia. president eisenhower, republican president, warned americans about beware of the american military industrial complex. that is exactly what we are seeing today. these billionaires everybody is talking about, that is who they are. they know they will get paid regardless. the foreign country did not pay for the equipment we send them, the american taxpayer will be forced to do so. i do not think that is right. i you for listening. -- thank you for listening. host: patrick scully from pittsburgh on the independent line. caller: good morning. when we can engage in

overthrowing governments without any type of democracy whatsoever, you're going to see reality for the american people that is in the future going to be truly horrific. you are looking at unfunded liabilities over $100 trillion. you're looking at the military industrial complex sacrificing nothing. we caused this war with nato. we put in a puppet who is being investigated for engaging in scams involving diesel fuel, hyperventilating it, and turning around and making huge sums of money. what kind of nation are we that we blatantly violate the constitution allowing endless wars to be created? a military industrial compost calling for the complete weaponization of space? you are talking trillions of dollars in

order for these realities to be made so that a minuscule portion of our country make enormous sums of money. everything is rigged. the stock market is rigged. our banks are rigged. they are destroying people's crypto accounts. janet yellen talks about equity towards our brothers and sisters of color she does everything imaginable to destroy their crypto profits. my friend got me into the crypto industry. i made a huge sum of money and then they began to scare them. the bank started implying they will take our crypto system down. now what are we looking at? where looking at a direct financial feature that is about to implode us. host: joe calling from indiana on the democratic line. good morning.

caller: yes. i've been following this forever. whatever happened to $5 million on the wall? as for joe biden, i feel he did backpedal. he should not have done that. republicans want to crash the united states. that is what they have always been about. i am 66 years old. this is ridiculous. america needs to wake up. social security is an entitlement. you play into it. anybody says different, they are wrong. you need to wake up. i agree with what joe did. he had an essence to do nothing else. there is nothing else he could do. he is being held hostage. america is being held hostage. i want to thank the united

states military service. i'm from a strong military family and it asked me to know i have people dying in wars -- irks me to know we have people dying in the wars and be happy vote they do not believe in the united states. god bless united states of america. host: jerry from ohio on the independent line. good morning. are you there? caller: yes. i look at the debt ceiling this way. we should not have a debt ceiling. we should be spending. all these countries the government spends and to the other countries billions of dollars and we suffer for that. now the republicans are -- want

to take oil from us with a debt ceiling comes up. we should be spending just like anybody else. thank you. host: georgia calling from el paso, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, hi. i am calling on the republican line. my name is georgia. i'm trying to figure out what is the point of us voting republican if once they get in a tight squeeze they will follow d'arco if you notice -- once they get in a tight squeeze they will fold? democrats were not followed by the republicans they get in their and we gave them the house with paul ryan and they did not do nothing then either. we get in the house this go

around and now they are folding on the thing. they still wants to take care of these people that is coming into the united states. what is the point? what is a body in republicans in office if they're going to act like the democrats got the --? like the democrats? i do not see what the point is that they're going to fold all the time. host: the hilton's paper information about some of the lighter moments in the last second push to get a deal. i want to read a couple of paragraphs to you from the hill newspaper. despite the high and evidence exhaustion in face of negotiators, light moments in the final stretch. representative mchenry north carolina on the top gop

negotiators reporters updated on the birthday party his kids were attending. the kids had french toast he said when the capital. several hours later all three gop negotiators left the building to pick up lunch at chipotle. it included bags of chip's and queso sheila for the reporters -- which they left out for the reporters. later mccarthy stoppers had ice, soda and bottled waters for the reporters. then never severed a few setbacks. -- the endeavor suffered a few setbacks. two respected clean. with a restock, sprung a lea --

tourist picked it clean. when they restocked, it sprung a leak. this is as they were waiting to see their we -- there would be a deal from the white house. want to know what you think about the deal from the white house and the speaker's office. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. clarence from michigan on the democratic line. caller: good morning. as a retiree i am concerned of the social security and the health care plan they're going to bring about. this is my main concern. as far as a young woman who spoke about being a republican, she seems like a woman of color

and she said re-examine what party she is backing. does not seem like they are interested -- [indiscernible] it seems like they're not concerned with the common people. thank you. host: paula calling from charleston, south carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. this whole thing is ridiculous. should of been taken care of. it keeps a country divided. -- the country divided they're never going to vote for term limits so the only way we get things changed is to vote the incumbent out whether it is republican or democrat. need to vote against who ever in there. it is only way things will change. host: jonathan calling from new

hampshire on the republican line. good morning. caller: i think the debt ceiling estate or for the democrats to try to use it for election -- is theater for democrats to try to use it for the election. it is a bunch of campaign strategies that democrats use. also a smokescreen to keep hunter biden out of jail. host: ok. diana calling from north carolina on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been a long time listener, first time caller. i'm 61 years old.

i've never seen so much hate and division and partisanship. all the incumbents need to be voted out. the american people need to come together and get corruption out of our politics and our government. from local school boards right up to the supreme court. they're all corrupt. they're all in it for power and money. it is not working for the american people. thank you for taking my call. host: jordan calling from houston, texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say -- it is all about agreed. it is what it boils down to. i'm disappointed in how they do

the veterans. you will be able to serve the country but on the backend you neglect them -- you want people to serve the country but on the back and you neglect them. they should be term limits and you keep the cycle going and you cannot get back in office. this is the only way the country will get better. put term limits and only serve once in any political office. host: lita calling from ohio on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call. my question -- we are all one family. the president we got now, when he was running he said he wants to bring everybody here, but the border was closed.

he knows we do not have any money. the government has no money. he could do something to say we're in a recession with the sickness, border closed and stay away until i tell you to come prete know he does not care prete people say on the border. i did not think this is a normal thing to do as a president. president is like a good father or a better father or mother. it should be for everybody not just for the democratic or the republicans. i do not look democrat or republican. host: jean calling from beaufort, south carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? host:

just fine. caller: ok. i'm a disabled veteran. we give money to all these other countries. billions of. dollars but we did not take care of the american people and veterans. we always have so fight for what we deserve. a lot of people in united states did not going to the military -- did not serve their country. we veterans who serve the country so we can be free is a problem. we have to fight to get our benefits and we could give money to the foreign countries, billions of dollars that do not

appreciate what we do for them. thank you for listening. host: randall from washington dc on the democratic line. morning. caller: the topic is the debt ceiling agreement? host: yes. caller: the thing about the debt ceiling -- i'm so disappointed that biden was forced to negotiate with kevin mccarthy considering the debt really exploded under trump. we are paying for tax cuts from bush and tax cuts from trump and it trumps mismanagement of the economy in which is -- he almost

threw us into a recession. of course, covid came. no one can blame anyone for that. i think we should have held on a little longer. host: ok. ron calling from pennsylvania on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yeah, a little bit on the debt. i'm not a financial guy but i want -- balancing the budget. your budgeting and you stay within your limits. you try to sustain some stability and that is not come up but my point is our tax codes, trump tax laws and changing the tax codes to accommodate the economy, we should have a balanced budget.

we have a tax code that will attain a balanced budget over the course of time and stick to it. i do not know why we cannot do that. also, we talk about republican-democrat from the standoffish tone in washington, but we call washington journal we have to recognize our political affiliation i think is an irony of it all. we are talking about the standoff between republicans and democrats yet we are recognizing the fact that we do have different opinions and we are not on the same level and that goes for this whole thing that we are dealing with. one other think on immigration. we are spending money -- people are getting free things. i'm 63 years old. soon to retire. it paid my taxes.

their tax and my social security and pension. i do not know where everyone's heads are but there's a high level of resentment for the fact that people are getting things are free and when they say people are coming here because the streets are so dire in their country, they do not look best like they're moving well -- they like they're moving well and are not suffering anything. america is a land of opportunity and if you want three things, you will get them here. host: ellen calling from new hampshire on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am heartened by this potential compromise. the spirit of it. i think what goes a long way in wiping out the picture will

refill -- richard gault refill is to be grateful. it's memorial day weekend. there is a lot of us who have ancestors who have fought in a war. we have ancestors who have done things they do not want to prete we can have a better life. we should take time to memorialize them and be grateful to them. in new hampshire, liquor store sell those red poppies for donations. i think everybody should invest in those to show that we are people who are grateful. thank you. host: bob calling from illinois on the democratic line. caller: hello, sir. i want the black republican and

especially other republicans to understand a couple of things. it is horrible -- i would pass this debt ceiling in a minute the way biden says it because -- but it is a shame that billionaires pay as much taxes as your secretary. not only that, that not only tht trump from february of when covid came out all the way to november when governor cuomo brought his state out of covid-19, and bidens said it was his number one priority to bring covid 19 down and between

february and november when cuomo got involved and was president for 2 or 4 weeks, thousands died because trump would not tell people or warn people. we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for that first segment. coming host:, -- host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for that first segment, coming up we will speak to our all third -- our author devon. stick with us. we will be right back. ♪ >> monday, memorial day we will

bring you live coverage of the annual wreath-laying ceremony and observance program to honor america's fallen. during the ceremony president biden will lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier, followed by remarks by lloyd austin. watch live coverage from arlington national cemetery beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, online at see spun.org -- at c-span.org. >> 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the vietnam war. tonight on q mandate, we will discuss -- q and a, we will discuss the war with daniel weiss. his book tells the story of michael o'donnell who went missing during the war. the helicopter he was piloting was shot down over cambodia. >> o'donnell made the decision

immediately that he would rescue his men. he went down into the landing zone area. he hovered for four minutes, which is in a battle condition and attorney. it is a long time -- condition an intern eddie. -- condition an eternity. the men came. >> daniel weiss with his book "in that time," this memorial day weekend on c-span's q and a. you can listen to q and a and all of our podcastss on the c-span now app. host: we are back and we are joined by evan thomas, whose new

book looks at the roles of war secretary carl spreads had in the ending of world war ii. with memorial day coming up, this is an appropriate conversation to have. guest: good morning. host: what made you decide to write "road to surrender"/ guest: i grew up scared of nuclear weapons, and i am still scared of them. i have always been interested in the first time we used these things. i had always wondered, did we really have to use that bomb, and did we have to use both of them? wasn't there some way to avoid all that? i got into it and started reading. i concluded, a little bit to my surprise that unfortunately the

tragic answer is yes we did have to drop those bombs. the clearest reason was japan just was not willing to surrender in the summer of 1945. they were hopelessly duggan. -- hopelessly dug in. we would have to invade them. my father was a junior officer on a landing ship tank, a landing ship that was scheduled to go to japan for that invasion. the myth in my household had always been doubt we were alive because of the atom bomb. i think that is actually a myth. we can get into that. a a lot of children of world war ii veterans know what i am talking about. the bomb saved their fathers' lives. host: why did you say that? why do you think that myth exists? do you actually think it is a myth?

guest: it is true that we were preparing to invade japan in 1945 with a massive force. it is also true that the japanese were building their own forces. when president truman signed off on that invasion in june of 1945, the japanese had half a million men waiting for us. by august of 1945 the japanese forces had increased to over one million men. he also had 7000 kamikaze planes waiting for us, kamikaze swimmers, and divers, also it's of suicide forces. that invasion was going to be a bloodbath. in 1945 in that winter the united states take you would yuma -- too iwo jima.

iwo jima is the size of nantucket. okinawa is not that big. the japanese islands were defended and ready to die. i is a vast area --it is a vast area. by 1945 the navy and air force didn't want to invade. even if we had not dropped the atom bombs, it is more likely that we would have blockaded japan, starve them. it would have been horrible. it would have killed millions of lives. the idea that my father was going to die in an invasion, that might not have happened. it would not have been the kind of bloody frontal assault.

i think that is a myth. the real point here is the pen was just not going to surrender. japan was defeated. their fleets were sunk. we had burned 60 of their cities. their government was determined to fight to the bitter end, and would have welcomed an invasion to lead us and force us to settle for terms they wanted, i .e., no occupation, they get to keep their emperor. that is what they wanted. that was not unrealistic until we dropped those atom bombs. both of them were necessary. host: you focus on three people in "road to surrender." why are they the key characters in the book? guest: you might think the key

characters were president truman, maybe robert oppenheimer the scientist who invented it. truman -- it is interesting. truman was once described as the -- described as "a little boy on a toboggan." for the atom bomb decision he was like a kid on a toboggan, sliding down a hill out of control. there is some truth to that. the atom bomb was something of a foregone conclusion before he became president. at the same time it is also true that truman was president. he made the decision. the thing about truman that is problematic for a historian like me is that he made up a lot about his own role. he exaggerated it. he had this whole thing about

harry truman the president, the buck stops here. that was ultimately true but in the summer of 1945, two men was going along with others. it would have taken a massive effort for him to say no. i don't think the president was a central figure, a more central figure to me was the secretary of war, henry stimson who had been sort of the chairman of the board of the project from the beginning. president roosevelt put him in charge in 1942. he ran the show. when roosevelt died in april of 1945 it was stinson who goes home and briefs him. "w have this weapon and we are getting close to usinge he is telling truman what he is going to do. two minutes president, the

person really --truman's president the person really running the show is general stinson. i chose the air force general who ran things first in europe and then in japan. he was the guy who got the order to drop the atom bomb. i was interested in him, that was like for him. my book is an attempt to understand what it was like for the people who have this unbelievable responsibility do use a weapon that is going to kill thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, and i was interested in him because he had been responsible for killing thousands and thousands of civilians in germany in 1943, 44, 45 and now he is tasked with killing hundreds of thousands of japanese people.

when he was verbally given the order to drop the atom bomb, he said if i am going to kill 100,000 people, i went to see that order in writing. secretary of war stinson had to write an border to general's box to drop that bomb. even though the responsibility was obviously shared, he was badly troubled by this. as any human being would be, he was terribly troubled by what he was doing. he wrote in his own diary, "i was against the atom bomb because i had always been against bombing cities to kill civilians." he had been doing that in europe for 2 years, but he had been convinced that it would ultimately save lives. this was the essential tragic dilemma of these war fighters. this is why you don't want to get into wars because they push

you into these dark corners, where in order to save lives, you have to kill people, you have to kill more people on the others then you are going to save. it is a horrible moral dilemma into these were men who had to deal with moral ambiguity. i was fascinated by them, and i wanted to try and write about what it was really like for them. host: you also chose to focus part of the book on the japanese fine mode -- japanese foreign minister togo. why is he a major character in this book? guest: the most important part of this book is in japan. japan just would not surrender. they were beaten but they would not give up. i begin looking at the japanese side of the story. what it showed to me pretty quickly was that japan is essentially run by 6 men, a supreme war council.

these were the war ministers, heads of the navy, all military people. there was one civilian. his name was togo and he was the only one of the top group who wanted to surrender. he had to be a very brave person because in japan in 1945, the top government people were not even allowed to use the word surrender. t japanese were just determined to fighthe to the end -- the japanese were just determined to fight to the end. in their mythology japan had not surrendered for thousands of years. it was true enough. in battles japanese soldiers fought to the death. if you look at the death totals, if you look at japanese units it is the entire unit. a 600 man battalion would lose

everybody, or almost everybody. the military code of conduct of japan, you were not allowed to surrender. it was against the law. togo is a singular figure and brave. in japan for a top government official to advocate surrender made him a target for assassination. it was not an idle threat. in japan 3 prime ministers of japan were assassinated by hotheads who were always wanting to fight. that is the reality of japan. i decided to look at togo, what was he like, how did he succeed? host: i would like to take a second to remind our viewers they can call in. if live in the eastern or central time zones, you can call

in at (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8000 -- call in at (202) 748-8000. for mountain or pacific viewers, your number is (202) 748-8001. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on social media. what were some of those key events that led up to the decision to drop the atomic bombs on japan? were heroes shimmying -- were hiroshima and nagasaki the original targets? do think the events would have been the same if president franklin roosevelt had lived, if truman were not in charge?

would roosevelt have also agreed to drop the atomic bomb on japan? guest: absolutely. there was no choice here. they needed to end this war. america was exhausted. americans had sacrificed an awful lot of lives, and soldiers were willing to do their duty. a lot of air force people were coming to europe on their way to the pacific, and he knows they will do their duty, but he does not want to send them into what would have been the ugliest battle ever fought. for any policymaker whether this is president roosevelt or president truman anybody would have to strongly consider using these weapons and i don't think there really was an alternative. if you look at their discussions, it is not like there was a big debate in the government. "should we drop this bomb or

not?" there were conversations about what it would look like after we drop the bomb, where to drop the bomb, but there was no debate over the need to actually drop it. we spent $2 billion on it. what really drove the train was the only alternative to dropping that bomb was either this bloody invasion that would have killed hundreds of thousands of americans or a blockade of japan that would have starved to death millions of japanese, and may be opened the door to civil war or famine or terrible outcomes. horribly, the atom bomb was really the only choice. host: where the cities of hiroshima and nagasaki the original targets from the very beginning? guest: no. the original target chosen by the planners was kyoto, the

ancient cultural capital of japan, a very beautiful place. i have been there. thank god we did not destroy it. it was also a target in that it would have shown off the bombs strength, which is something we wanted to do. it had military people there, about one million people. it was a good target except that it was the ancient cultural capital of japan, and would have been horrible to destroy it. henry stinson takes it off the target list. 3 times general groves the chief military guy, involved in building the bomb 3 times he puts it back on the target list. stinson keeps taking it off. finally stimson goes to truman and gets it taken off for good. that makes the primary target her oshima, which is also good target -- here oshima with --

target hiroshima, which is also a good target. it is the southernmost island. it is a port city. it is a military target. the main point of the bomb was dropping it in the middle of the city. they were not taking any chances of missing the city. they wanted to put that bomb smack in the middle of the city, killing a lot of civilians. host: you talked earlier about stimson and the work he had done in europe. and the decisions he had made. was he a large advocate for using the atomic bomb in japan? was it for him the final resort, the last resort other than that invasion that could have killed

billions of people? guest: my main american character, stimson the war secretary and the american general, they are both in the same boat. they both have a lot of experience. we have been dropping bombs on germany and killing a lot of civilians. we had to do that. now we will do it on an even greater scale. both of these men were deeply troubled by it. stimson could not sleep. in his diary he referred to the bomb as the terrible, the awful, the diabolical frankenstein. they know how awful it is. the general who had to give the order to bomb dresden in europe in february of 1945, the worst atrocity -- i guess you can call it that --of 1945 is when

british and american bombers destroyed dresden with firebombs. in later years this has been seen as a terrible tragedy and a mistake. he was running the air force. two nights after bombing dresden he blew two months' salary on a gambling game. he did this to relieve stress. someone had to write his wife "sorry, your husband lost 2 months' salary on poker," and she understood. host: how did general gerald

responded specifically when he received the orders to drop the bomb? guest: he took them -- this is a small detail, but i love these human details. he took those orders and he went to the pacific. he put them in the back pants of his pocket. he lost them. he is a military officer. he has to do it, but it doesn't mean he wants to do it. he has the cold comfort of a soldier's duty but he writes in his diary that he is against it, but he carried it out because he saw ultimately that it would cost a lot of lives, but it would save more lives. host: let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with lewis calling from new jersey. host: --

caller: good morning. hello, mr. thomas. i think why the general wanted to go after the cultural capital was a would have more effect on the elite. they did not give a dam about having their people killed. what i always worried about, if they dropped the bomb in the harbor somewhere just to show them if they did not surrender what what happened, -- that is all i have to say. guest: there was some discussion of doing a demonstration, and telling the japanese government "watch this!"

the discussion was fairly brief because if you tell the japanese you will demonstrate they may shut -- shoot down the plane carrying the bomb, they may put american pows there, the bomb may be a dud. this was a brand-new thing. they were not sure it was going to work. while they considered a demonstration, they rejected it. general spaatz also suggested "why don't we drop it in tokyo harbor?' that idea was rejected because that probably would have just created a radioactive tidal wave which would have been as deadly as dropping the bomb. there was no easy way around this. they had to use the thing.

how much did they know about the radioactive host: power of the bomb host: -- host: how much did they know about the radioactive power of the bomb? guest: not much. they.knew it was deadly they did not -- they knew it was deadly. they did not inquire too far into how deadly it was, these are the scientists. we drop this bomb with not full exploration or examination of just how deadly radioactivity was. when the bomb went off a killed 70,000 people in hiroshima. these numbers are rough. another 70,000 died slowly of radioact -- radiation poisoning or cancers over long periods of time.

radiation is a horrible killer. this is the way human beings work. it was as if l didn't really -- if we didn't really want to know. host: this person on twitter says "i was taught in high school we drop the bomb to save lives because we were killing more civilians with the firebombing of cities. the truth is we drop the atom bombs is a show of force to the ussr." do you agree? guest: what is taught in schools are a couple of things, one is that fire bombing was worse and that we did it to impress the russians. that is called the revisionist view. in most colleges and schools

that is what you learn. that is what i thought when i began this project. there are a couple of problems with it. one is the firebombing was terrible, and it did kill more people in tokyo in march when we firebombed tokyo down in august when we bombed hiroshima. deep down, general spaatz was glad to use the adam bomb just to stop the firebombing. the firebombing had stopped or was going to stopped by august. we had burned 60 cities and we were switching over that time to more precision bombing. it would have created starvation like cutting rail lines delivering rice. the firebombing was about to stop. on scaring the russians, the

secretary of state burns wanted to scare the russians, intimidate the russians, so that is a factor, but i think the scholarship today shows that it was not the main factor. it was a factor but not the main factor. the main factor was ending the war was, making the japanese surrender when they were not willing to surrender. intimidating russia was a factor. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talked to tom who was calling from birmingham, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. fascinating discussion. happy memorial day, if that is appropriate. i have heard the arguments why 2 bombs? why couldn't one on hiroshima been the test and waited to see if we really needed 2? how precisely did we drill down on the estimates of deaths?

it seems like there was a lot of imprecision on understanding the power of the bombs, how many would die. did we get any estimates close to the 70,000 -- probably not. and really drill down on whether a blockade would have required one million deaths before the japanese would have surrendered when they clearly surrendered at much lower deaths than that after two bombs. guest: those are all good questions. on the two bombs, i always wondered that. here is a story that suggests we needed to bombs. the first bomb was august 6. we drop the second bomb on august 9. the supreme war council, at a meeting they were discussing what to do. a second hiroshima type bomb has

just destroyed hiroshima, and the war minister says wouldn't just be beautiful if the whole nation were to die like a flower, like a cherry blossom? let them drop 100 bombs. they were crazy suicidal at the time. he is bluffing for affect to show off for his hotheads, but the japanese, the rulers of japan were not ready to surrender. the supreme war council was deadlocked, a tie 3-3. that was after the second bomb. american policymakers anticipated this. unfortunately, i think that was necessary. that did not secure the surrender 2 bombs right away. it when back-and-forth -- it

went back and forth for a few more days. truman had signed off on dropping a third bomb on tokyo. he told the british minister right before the japanese surrendered a third bomb on tokyo. the japanese were not going to surrender. host: the other part of the question was about whether they had intended to use one of the bombs on one of the islands instead of using it on hiroshima or nagasaki? guest: i addressed that earlier. they talked about doing a demonstration. the other question was about casualties, did they know. oppenheimer, the guy who was responsible for designing the bomb, he estimated 20,000

deaths. there were 70,000. it is a new weapon. they don't know. they underestimated the amount of deaths. this is a little grizzly. later oppenheimer said they assumed that the japanese would take cover, there would be air raid sirens in the japanese would take cover. that did not happen. there were air raid sirens and they saw the planes overhead, but people do not take cover. hiroshima had been spared from earlier bombing attacks. only a few cities in japan were spared because they wanted to keep a few cities untouched for the atom bomb, to show off how deadly it was. the japanese did not take cover, and many of them were looking up when the bomb went off, so that increased the death toll. they just didn't know.

they didn't know how powerful love a weapon they had. host: guest: let's look at this for -- host: let's look at this from the japanese side. what was japan's fundamental policy and how did it define how the nation fought back? guest: the japanese policy was called the bleeding strategy. their strategy was to bleed the united states, to force an invasion and greet that invasion with such overwhelming force that they would kill hundreds of thousands of americans until we agreed to terms that were favorable to them. they knew they were defeated. their fleet was sunk. there cities were burned. they believed they would get no occupation, there would be no war crime cost. these generals know they will

face more crime trials, as indeed they -- face war crime trials, as indeed they did, and they thought they could preserve their sacred emperor. they thought they could meet us bleed enough that we would give them their terms. that was not an unrealistic thing for them to think. what changed the equation were these adam bombs -- atom bombs. it gave the japanese government the face to surrender. they did not have to fight on. mostly, the most important thing it did, was it scared the emperor. the importer, even though he is divine -- the emperor were, even though he is divine his legitimacy is based on the military. when he starts hearing that the american bombing group of 500

men is flying around tokyo, he thinks the next bomb is coming for tokyo, and he musters the courage to force the military to surrender. he makes a sacred decision. he gets them all in a bunker under his library on august 9 and he says they have to surrender. there are another four or five days of arguing over this, but the emperor comes around because the emperor is scared for his own life. host: what was tog doing this whole time? what -- what was togo doing this whole time? guest: togo had been agitating to get a surrender for quite some time. he got the war council to meet in secret because they are afraid of their own staff. the generals are afraid their

own subordinates will kill them if they surrender. he has been working this trying to get a mediation going with russia, but there is a group, a piece party if you will among his subordinates -- a peace party if you will among his subordinates trying to convince the emperor's chief aid. the emperor, who has always been dependent on the military, he is supported by the military, but the military has been lying to him about how the war is going. he is mad about that. he is starting to fear that he himself might be kidnapped by the military, or he is fearing that the americans are going to bomb him. his palace was mostly burned down in may. togo and his allies were able to appeal to the emperor and get

him to do this very unusual thing of calling a meeting and declaring we will surrender. at the meeting the emperor, surrounded by his military chiefs, said i agree with togo, we have to surrender. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to debbie calling from south carolina. good morning. caller: thank you. what a wonderful weekend for this discussion. i appreciate this. in the 50's and 60's, the fear of nuclear war permeated my life as well from the drills at school to our neighbor building our neighborhood a bomb shelter. i hate the thought of ever having to experience this type of bombing again. my father fought with patton in the european theater in '44 to

liberate france. he came back stateside in june of '45 with instructions that they were to be sent out to the pacific theater to fight the japanese. i for one think that bomb kept my father and many more who were virtually on their way from being killed. that is my personal perspective. i thank you so much for this conversation. i think we should all remember this, especially this weekend. guest: i share your feelings about that. my dad was lieutenant jg. they were in the d-day

landings and now they were off to the pacific. my grandmother kept a diary, and my mother, the one who became my mother told my grandmother that when my father's ship arrived in florida, my mother told my grandmother, "i'm going down to see evan," my dad, and she said "i hope i get pregnant!" my grandmother wrote in her diary "i hope she does not get pregnant," because she was afraid he would die, that my father would die. everyone knew how awful this invasion would be. they had seen the news reports. they had heard about it would human and okinawa, and they knew that this -- about iwo jima and okinawa and they knew that this would be a bloodbath.

starving the japanese would have been worse for the japanese. mass starvation could have killed millions. there was no good outcome. these horrible wars, once you stop them they are hard to finish. -- once you start them they are hard to finish. these are the dilemmas facing these policymakers. the call mentionede remembering what it was liker in the 50's when we were all scared of this. i'm afraid we are entering an era where we need to be scared again. the arms race is on again into the russians are threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine. china is building up its nuclear arsenal. we are facing a confrontation

with the chinese over taiwan. i'm afraid we are back in a risky area. the threat of nuclear war has not gone away, as we had all hoped it had when the soviet union fell in 1989, 1990. this terrible fear we had back then, it is in some ways back. host: talk about the consequences for your three main characters after the 2 bombs hit japan. where did stimson sit, where did spaatz sit and where did togo sit after the bombing? guest: stimson brought the photographs of hiroshima to harry truman, and he presents him the photographs into, shows trim and hiroshima looks like.

it looked like the -- shows truman what hiroshima looks like. it looks like the inside of an ashtray. on that morning stimson has a heart attack. a month later he has a bigger heart attack. he tried to persuade truman to do arms ntrol to share the secret of the bomb with the russians, because he is afraid that if we do not have arms control, we will have an arms race and we could have a world ending nuclear war. at the very beginning, this is september 1945, he is trying to persuade truman's try to get arms control going, was trust the russians enough to share the weapon. the russians were pretty untrustworthy. i doubt that would have worked.

it shows how desperate stimson was. stimson was not a desperate kind of person. he was a very erect, strong, self-confident man, but he fears that the nuclear regime was out of the bottle, and we needed that the nuclear regime was out of the bottle. he died the about all of this. he is not the type of man you associate with guilt, but he was guilt stricken. he defended the decision to use the bomb, and did so very publicly, but privately he was troubled. general spaatz the same thing. he was made air force chief of staff, rewarded with honors and responsibility, but his granddaughter told me he and delayed in his - told me --

told me he was haunted by the bomb. he felt guilty about it. togo interestingly even though he saved japan into save the world really, save the world from disaster, he is sent to prison as a war criminal because he had been on the japanese cabinet during the time of pearl harbor. they should have given him a m edal. he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. he dies in prison. he head anemia. he is at peace -- he had anemia. he is at peace with himself.

host: let's talk to david who is calling from texas. good morning. caller: let me -- stalin was as bad. they were joint action against poland that started world war ii. after the invasion they're actually controlled more of poland than germany. they went on to take bosnia, all the balkans states. there is an interesting movie that shows at the end of the war as the russians were pushing back against berlin, they had drafted latvians into their service as they pushed back against the germans. the germans drafted men from those same states. we have thousands of latvians on the german and russian sides. sideline.

trusting the atom bomb? no thanks. you mentioned the starvation. i remember reading about mcarthur and japan into the reconstruction of japan. one of the things it mentioned, i think i remember the story fairly accurately. they had a breakfast bear. he asked why he was the only one who was served eggs, and he was told there were no more eggs in tokyo. they talked about the japanese had no navy, they had one or 2 subs, when that sink in indianapolis -- in annapolis coincidentally. there would be 200 japanese starved a month if we didn't get supplies in there. iwo jima, okinawa that showed what sort of casualties we would be facing if we had to land on

their mainland. i think they considered one of those two islands japan anyway. they knew they were not going to win the war at that point, but get some kind of terms. how many days does someone want to delay the war? you drop one bomb, you know they are not going to stop, you drop two -- i thought you would answer how many bombs we had. i did not know we had more than two. how many people are going to die? it's not just fighting the japanese. you have what is going on in china, all over east asia. anything that could bring that word to a stop to the people of america, the chinese had 54 00 had -- chinese had fought for

10 years. you had the rape of nang king. this war had to stop. you cannot blame the men of that time for coming up with any way to end that war. host: were there more bombs available after hiroshima and nagasaki? guest: there was a third bomb available august 20 so the surrender was on august 15. we would have had about 7 bombs by the end of september and, more as we got more plutonium. there was a pipeline to build bombs. the chief of staff was thinking of using atom bombs as tactical

weapons in and invasion if the japanese did not surrender. he was planning on using 7 or nine tactical weapons in november in november in an invasion. they didn't understand radiation very well. they were told to wait a day before going in. a good point about all the people dying in asia, there is very good research by richard frank who wrote a book called "downfall." he makes the point that 250,000 people were dying every month in asia from the brutal japanese occupation. i believe in vietnam there was a risa ferman because there japanese took all of -- was a r

ice salmon because the japanese took all of the rice to try and make fuel. many chinese and people in southeast asia died because -- asia were saved from death because the war stopped and american bounty began to flow. literally millions of lives, perversely, millions of lives were saved by killing a couple hundred thousand people on august 6 and august 9, it is a gross equation but that is what happened. host: recently president biden visited japan. he visited the hiroshima memorial museum. what is the significance of that visit by the president? guest: it is a good reminder.

it is one thing i worry about and a lot of people worry about. after 1945 there was a taboo on using these weapons. we were remember how terrible they are, but that taboo i feari is eroding. t has been a long time -- we remember how terrible they are, but that taboo i series eroding. it has been a long time since 1945. younger folks, it may be kind of distant. ii fear that they taboo is wearing off and that putin will use one of these things in the ukraine, or china will use one of them on us or on taiwan, and maybe we use one back. i don't believe in a limited nuclear war. i think once you start using these things, you keep using these things and it is

cataclysmic. those threats are real, and they are still, i'm sorry to say, still with us. host: what do you think the significance is that the president, and no president has ever actually offered an apology for the u.s. bombing of japan. guest: that is a morally fraught question. i don't know what i think about that. i don't think that the united states should apologize for that. japan started this at pearl harbor. they were brutal aggressors in china and with us. they were guilty of all sorts of war crimes. yes, we did use this horrible weapon, and it has the feel of an atrocity, but as i have been arguing for the last hour, it was necessary. i don't really think of united

states needs to formally apologize to japan. i think there needs to be a recognition on all sides that we will never. use these weapons again that is what needs to happen. host: let's see if we can squeeze in another call. let's go to robin who was calling from rochester, new york. caller: tenure guest give any details about what the dashcam your guest give any details -- can your guest give any details about what the aviators thought about when they dropped the bomb? for there any firsthand accounts on the ground when the bombs were dropped from any -- were there any foreign correspondents at the time when the bombs were dropped? guest: in the airplanes

themselves, there was. troubled by it -- there was some amazement. some were troubled by it. they saw themselves as being part of something necessary to end the war. it was an amazing achievement to be able to do it. tibbets never showed remorse about it. he felt he had done his duty. it was part of ending the war early. there had been reports that some crewmembers later in life or troubled. that would be understandable, and natural but i think by and large the crews felt ok about it as time went on. what was the other question? how did the crews feel and -- host: he also wanted to know about how, were there any foreign correspondents on the ground, were there were any

ground memories of the bomb? guest: there were fragmentary reports from hiroshima and nagasaki, not from correspondents, but from people on the ground. it took a while to figure out what had happened. the famous story is hiroshima written by john hersey year later. hersey goes to hiroshima and he tells the story of 6 people who were there. it is such a vivid, terrible story that it made people in america who had been accepting of the bomb start to think "did we really have to use that thing?" it changed public opinion. the debate has gone back and forth about this. most polls today show that two thirds of americans believe that we had to use the bomb. that is the state of public opinion today. host: let's see if this last

color can give us a quick question. patrick is calling for medicine, connecticut -- madison, connecticut. caller: i was wondering if you could talk about the atrocities the japanese performed on the island i read about in a book called "fly boys" where the japanese were eating are prisoners of war. guest: the japanese were -- the rape of nang king there was organized rape and murder of chinese people. 10% of our pow's captured by the germans died.

the japanese were something like 60%. the japanese were more brutal. they were horrible. lori hillenbrand wrote a famous book, "undaunted." life for an american pow in a japanese camp was horrible -- torture, starvation even cannibalism. host: we have another quick question that was texted in to us. very interesting topic, enjoying it very much -- "did the japanese end up facing the war crime trials even after the farm was dropped? if so -- after the bomb was dropped? if so what was the outcome?' guest: several people were home.

there-- several people were hun. -- were hung fpr their atrocities. there were workroom trials and there were consequences. host: we would like to thank evan thomas, author of "road to surrender for coming on this morning." guest: thank you and thank you to the callers. host: coming joshua partlow will be here to discuss the new agreement between the white house and the western states. we will go back to our original conversation about the deal

between president biden and ken mccarthy over the debt ceiling. we want to know what yothk about this deal. we we'll be right back. ♪ >> monday bring you live coverage of the annual wreathlaying ceremonies honor america's fallen. president biden will lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier, followed by remarks by the president and secretary of defense, lloyd austin. watch live coverage monday, memorial day, beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. or online at c-span.org. live sunday, june 4 on in-depth, and author and journalist will be our guest to tk and take

calls about natural history and the origins of deadly viruses like ebola and hiv. a contributing writer a national geographic, he has written many books, including "the reluctt mr. darwin." his latest is about the race to defeat the virus that caused the covid-19 pandemic. join us with your phone calls, xts, and tweets. live sunday, june 4 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> shop at c-span shop.org. during our sail, save up to 20% on our latest collection of c-span apparel, puzzles, and more. there is something for every c-span fan andveryurchase helps support our nonprofit operation. scan the code on the right to

shop during the sale, going on now. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and want to know what you think about the late-night deal made between president joe biden and house speaker kevin mccarthy. they came to an agreement on the debt ceiling that would extend the debt limit for two years and halt or cut back some federal government spending. we understand house speaker kevin mccarthy will be speaking later this morning about the exact details of the bill. some of the details are sneaking out as we get closer, but we want to know what you think about the deal made between biden and mccarthy to extend the debt ceiling. let's start with james from fort

washington, maryland on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i am sick to my stomach. i have been sick because i think president biden has folded like a wet suit. the population of people represented in the freedom caucus. it is about 24 million people and we should not be held hostage by that amount of people, and those are the people they represent, 24 million people. i am disgusted with the democrats. they need to tell the truth -- sell the truth as well as the republicans sell their lies. i am caught between a rock and a hard place because i do not want to vote for president biden

again. i'm hoping they get someone else , a democrat we can rally behind because his expiration date has come. the republicans would have folded. there is no reason for the debt ceiling to be held hostage. that is money that has already been spent that we are obligated to pay for. the budget is supposed to be negotiated differently than paying our bills. host: let's go to market, who is calling from new york on the republican line. good morning. >> i am also against the deal. i think mccarthy is the one who is folding. this deal is going to add up to $4 trillion to the debt.

which is the whole reason why we are in negotiation and the problems that we have. we are already $30 trillion in debt and this debt agreement will add $4 trillion more, so as a republican i am against this deal. >> let's see what is actually in the debt ceiling bill. these details have been provided to us by cnn, so let's go through what is in the debt ceiling deal so r. house speaker kev mccarthy will release the exact details later, but here's what we know so far. the deal would raise t debt ceing, increasing the debt limit for two years. it would cap nondefense spending, ich means spending will remain relatively flat in 2024 and increase by 1% in 20. it would protect veter medical

care. it would expand work requirements. it calls for a temporary broadening of work requirements for adults receiving food stamps. it would claw unspent covid-19 really funds and cut irs internal revenue service funding and restart the student loan payments. when they will restart is not specified, but the agreement would maintain biden's plan to provide up to $20,000 in debt relief for qualifying borrowers, so that is what we know so far of what is in the debt ceiling deal. house speaker kevin mccarthy has said later today he will release the exact details of the bill and he should be speaking about it this morning. we will be covering that live when he speaks about it this morning, so we want to know, do you like this deal?

is this deal satisfactory? is this a compromise between both sides that should be agreed to to keep the debt ceiling from falling on the united states? we want to know what you think. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. independents, you can call (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. lawmakers in the house and senate are beginning to speak out on what they think about this deal between biden and mccarthy. we are getting texts from house members expressing their opinions. i will go through a couple of them for you. here's the first, from rep. dean: phillips. he says the economic hostage crisis is about to be over.

negotiations have concluded that prevents default and it is a good outcome for america. here's a tweet from representative ralph norman. this deal is insanity. a $4 trillion debt ceiling increase with virtually no cuts is not what we agreed to. not going to vote to bankrupt our country. the american people deserve better. here is a tweet from a representative. i look forward to reviewing the full details of the deal reached this evening, but this drama could have been avoided. republicans used debt default as -- debt default as ransom to force their agenda on the american people. one last tweet, ronald reagan said if you got 75% or 80% of what you are asking for i say you take it and fight for the rest later. speaker mccarthy's version, if

you can get 5% or 6% of what your watch -- asking for, you take the deal and claim victory. a bunch of different opinions coming out from house members about the debt ceiling deal between president biden and speaker mccarthy. what do you think? let's start with henry, calling from michigan on the democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. i would like to encapsulate this debate because i have watched it all week, with four phone calls i think are important to this debt ceiling crisis. the third call came from a gentleman in texas. his opinion was that president biden made a mistake by opening negotiations with what the gentleman called terrorists.

the second call came from a gentleman who said -- he criticize the media and especially c-span for carrying the republicans' water by normalizing a conversation about the debt ceiling that should never have taken place in the first place. he told pedro that he was carrying the right wing republican water by saying republicans have voted and passed the plan. well, that was not true. it was not a plan. it was a framework. the first call was important because the gentleman who called from georgia explained that joe biden won the election. elections have consequences, so when joe biden became president,

he had a duty to issue his idea what he budget should look like. the infrastructure bill was passed. the inflation reduction act was passed. joe biden submitted the debt cancellation for college debt. all those things were passed by the democratic congress, and that was the basis for the debt ceiling, so the whole conversation was manufactured -- the debate was many factored by republicans who wanted to repeal president biden's budget, investment in america. the fourth call changed my mind because i felt upset and angry. the caller made a point. he said, why dozens president biden go ahead, negotiate with mccarthy, come to an agreement?

because even if they make an agreement, the devil is in the details. when it comes time to make those cuts, they will be so ciccone and that the people will not want them. so i think president biden took that gentleman's advice and said we will make an agreement. if it passes, when it comes time to make those cuts, we will see with the american people do. host: let's go to dylan, calling from south dakota on the republican line. good morning. caller: we got a lot of veterans. and i don't think it is right that they took us hostage with social security too. but i am just glad they came to a deal.

it seems like every time it is v.a.. i sure appreciate c-span. thank you. i did two years in vietnam, so i know what it is about. i appreciate you guys. thank you so much. god bless you and have a good memorial day. host: thank you and thank you for your service. we just found out that house speaker kevin mccarthy will be speaking live at 10:00 a.m. from outside his office. we expect he will be addressing the compromise between him and president biden and how he is going to get that through the house speaker's office. we will be carrying that live at 10:00 a.m. at the end of "washington journal" so to see

what kevin mccarthy has to say speak with -- stick with us after 10:00 a.m. we will go directly live to the u.s. capitol to house speaker kevin mccarthy to see what he has to say about the deal being struck with president biden. we will -- we want to know what you think about the debt ceiling agreement. democrats, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. dendents, you can call at (202) 748-8002. ke in mind you can also text us at (202) 748-8003 let's go to david, who is lling from st. charles, miouri on the independent line. caller:es. host: go ahead, david. u are on. caller: the debt deal? the democrats always repair the

nation. we are a 124% debt per gdp debt ratio and republicans since 1981 have risen that by 80%. democrats only by 13%. even though they have raised roughly the same amount of dollar debt, the republicans just do not raise our gdp, and we always fall further behind. now it is affecting our economic growth rate. it is knocking it down. by almost a full percent. budd and would have had a full percent more growth rate if our debt would have been below 77% debt per gdp. that is the trigger point.

so that is what i had to say. host: let's go to kathy, who is calling from st. george, utah on the independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i want to talk about the situation our country is in regarding the debt ceiling. the record, about a week or so ago, our governor called the people in congress in brussels -- imbelic -- imbeciles. he later apologized. our governor is a good governor. we are doing pretty good here in utah.

what i want to talk about is the entitlement pendulum and is swinging here. it is going to attack the poor that is on medicaid and the food stamps fiasco. not a lot of money and the way united states funding is created. and the other way, to the rich, and those that have a lot of money, that are being protected and not paying their fair share of taxes. to go a little further, i want to talk about the previous administration and the massive amount of trillions that was funneled into our system through the banking system and it was on the merits of all tourism that

they would do great things for american people, meaning help when we were going through our pandemic. the bank did not send that money to us americans. corporations were able to buy back their stocks. to let you know, i am unaffiliated with either party. i watched a program, a four part series the goes back to the depression to where we are today. i had to watch it twice and it is fascinating. i suggest everyone look at this

piece. they will have a different understanding what is going on here. host: several people have brought up medicaid and work requirements. i want to bring a part of the article from the hill newspaper. i want to read these two paragraphs. it increases the age at which recipients of food stamps must seek work to be a little for the benefits from 49 to 54. a key request of republicans. it would also ease work requirements for certain other groups, including veterans and the homeless. the changes aside and -- change is designed to sweeten the deal for democrats. medicaid would not be affected, nor would biden student debt

relief program. that comes from the hill, which says medicaid will not be affected by the debt relief deal. we will be going live for speaker mccarthy at 10:00 a.m. after the show when he talks about the details in the agreement. jack is calling from maryland on the republican line. caller: we are going to hear from kevin mccarthy at 10:00. we need to hear from our president. who was running the country? i want to hear from our president. host: are you saying he was reading something on the inside

of his sunglasses? >> you can look at his sunglasses and see the piece of paper he was reading from. would you trust joe biden to take her dog for a walk? that is all i ask. host: let's go to jerry comic-con from indianapolis, indiana on the democrat line. >> i'm wondering caller: -- caller: i am wondering why we are always bumping up against this debt ceiling issue. why does it congress look and then create the spending numbers? why wait until it becomes a crisis? the one exception for the whole tap, the military. host: ok. let's go to fill this, who is

calling from kansas city, kansas. caller: my biggest problem with the budget is they can always find money to help the illegals but we have to put their kids all the way through kindergarten through college but we cannot do nothing for our american kids were the veterans or the old people. i don't care anything about the democrats or the republicans. i am sick of them all. i really am. i think the american people -- it should go for the american people, not for people coming in here illegally paying $10,000

$50,000 to go across the border. if you can pay that money, you should stay in your own country. and, like i said, i am sick of this government. host: let's go to britt on the democrat line. caller: excellent callers this morning. for both parties, the game is let me buy your boat with your money. both parties are in the business of buying votes. it is just who they are appealing to a. -- it is class warfare. republicans will buy your boat with a tax cut and democrats will buy your boat with a handout.

it is just who they are appealing to. the republicans will take money from the poor but they will not touch the subsidies to farmers. republicans are always crowing about communists and socialists but probably the most -- closest to coming is in we have is the subsidies we give to farmers and oil companies. and everybody wants to game the system. like trump said, smart people do not pay taxes. host: i want to point out a story that talks about where the government actually fits when it comes to the debt ceiling. according to treasury secretary janet yellen. the u.s. government could be unable to pay all its bills on

time if the debt limit is not raised or suspended by june 5, treasury secretary janet yellen said. she updated treasury estimates of when it will run out of cash and a letter to speaker kevin mccarthy. she previously warned lawmakers the funds could run too low as soon as june 1, so the update offers slightly more breathing room as mccarthy and the white house worked to negotiate a debt limit increase. yellin said the treasury will make more than $130 billion of its scheduled payments, including social security and veterans benefits, and the first two days of june, leaving the department with a low level of resources. the treasury projects and within lacked the resources to satisfy all its obligations the week of june 5, which includes an estimated $92 billion of payments and transfers.

that is from the roll call newspaper with janet yellen saying they will make the first round of payments in the first two days of june, including social security, medicare, and veterans benefits, but by june 5 they may lack resources needed to make payments. let's go back to our phone lines and talk to david, calling from elizabeth city, north carolina on the republican line. caller: good morning. happy memorial day. i just want to say this thing with this debt ceiling is a total mess, something that could have been avoided long ago. the majority of the states have balanced budgets. there is no reason the federal government does not have a balanced budget when we vote for

these congresspeople to go on our behalf and do their job that we are paying them to do. all they have to do is serve one term and we take care of them for the rest of their life. that is one of the things we need to abolish. host: still there? caller: i am still here. guest: go ahead -- host: go ahead. caller: you need to make a balanced budget for the federal government and they have to have those budgets balanced by a certain date. there is no reason we should have temporary resolutions. if they can go and give away trillions of dollars in foreign aid that they need to put a 10 year stop to, that would save a

lot of money for this government. >> let's go to bill from northbrook, illinois on the independent line. >> caller: i'm always interested when people call up and the idea of the fair share. i do not think most people realize that only 50% of the people in this country pay income tax. there are many reasons for this, but it is startling when you realize 50% or greater do not pay income tax. our defense budget comes from the income tax, not social security or local sales taxes or anything. many people -- they think

everything can be skewed to the top and they should understand only 50% pay income tax. that is my only comment. host: let's go to eileen, who is calling from st. petersburg, florida on the democrat line. caller: people have to remember -- they do not have to, but donald trump added one quarter of the current debt that we have in a short four years. when he gave all the tax cuts to the wealthy corporations and wealthy people, that reduced our revenue, obviously. quit blaming the undocumented. they are not illegals. they are undocumented. quit blaming the poor. quit blaming the undocumented. i agree as a democrat that we need to tighten up the welfare

guidelines. maybe there are people out there that really could be working a little bit or a lot. i think we have to pay attention to that. let's put blame where it belongs, not on the poor. host: let's talk to robert, who is calling from greenville, texas on the independent line. >> let's take a look at this from a realistic point of view and start doing reporting on the actual cause of our deficit, which is not passing a budget. we are going out to 25 years of congress not be able to come up with a budget on time each year, so consequently we spend money we do not have and raise the deficit. i think a good solution to this whole situation would be if congress cannot pass a budget, their pay is suspended until they do and also some of the

things put on the table should directly affect congress first if they do not pass the budget. if you want to cut things, cut their pay. cut their benefits. cut their ability to have the free and best health care in the world, really, or the pension fund that congresspeople receive. host: we would like to thank all of our callers who called in for our segment. coming up next, washington post reporter joshua partlow will be here to discuss the new agreement between the biden administration and colorado state to preserve their water supply. we will be right back. ♪ >> shop at c-spanshop.org,

during our memorial day sale going on n. save up to 20% on her latest collection of c-span aarel, puzzles, and more. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps supur nonprofit operations. scanode to shop during the c-span memorial day sale cannot going on now at c-spanshop.org. >> 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the vietnam war. tonight, we will discuss the war with the metropolitan museum of art president and ceo his book tells the story of poet and musician michael o'donnell, who went missing in action during the war after the helicopter he was piloting was shot down over cambodia. >> because there was no one else there, he made the decision he

would rescue these men. he went down into the landing zone area and hovered on the ground for four minutes waiting for the reconnaissance team to arrive, which is in battle conditions and eternity. it is a long time to be sitting vulnerable to the enemy, but he waited. the team arrived, injured but safe. o'donnell began to pull the helicopter above the tree line and radio, i have everyone. >> daniel weiss tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all our podcasts on our free app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and joined by joshua partlow, a reporter for " the washington post," here to

discuss the new agreement between the biden administration and colorado to conserve their water supply. it was announced last week that the biden administration and the colorado river state had reached an agreement on water usage. what does the steel look like and is it just between the colorado river state or does it include other entities >> outside those states? the deal is between -- entities outside the states? guest: the deal focuses on arizona, california, nevada, known as the lor basin states. there are seven total states in the colorado river region. theeal calls for those three lower sin states to conserve 3 million acre-feet of water over three years, which is a little more than 10% of what they would

normally get during that period, and 2.3 million of that 3 million will be compensated by the federal government for about $1.2 billion. is a significant voluntary conservation of water. it is not as much at the biden administration and these states were contemplating a year ago when the reservoirs were in worse condition and the drought looked like it would continue and there was some really serious consequences on the horizon, but it is still a significant conservation of water. host: why is this still necessary? was the colorado river running out of water? guest: it was. 20 years ago, these big reservoirs that serve 40 million people in the west were nearly full.

lake powell and lake mead are the two primary ones people worry about on that river. and then a two decade drought started, a historic drought. climate change made the region hotter and drier and these reservoirs started drying up last year. they had been -- reached about a quarter full and were nearing these thresholds where water kept falling and bad things would start to happen, in particular water would not be able to flow through the turbans -- turbines, would not be able to produce hydropower. if it kept going and kept falling, would reach what is known as deadpool, which basically means the dam blocks the river from flowing -- what is left of these lakes from flowing out to the southern states. that matters when it is tens of

millions of people in the los angeles area who rely on that water for these big farming regions in southeastern california or arizona that supply a lotf the vegetables for the country, so it was a pretty dire sit las year and that is why the biden adnistration made this unprecedented demand to the seven states, that they needed to cut two to 4 million acre-feet of water, a third of the average flow of the river. that kicked off these negotiations about a year ago. host: how long has this -- have these conversations about conserving water in the colorado river been going on? is this a one-year deal that just popped up or has the conversation going on for a while? guest: it is pretty endless. they have had cutbacks before.

they have had compromises and negotiations along the way. there was a big agreement in 2007. it got updated in 2019. that negotiation ended and took six years to negotiate. these are complicated technical agreements. there are a lot of people that depend on this water and get a very precise amount every year, so it has been a long-running conversation, but the measures they have taken basically to try to cut back on usage have not been enough and have not kept pace with declines in these rivers and the consumption that people are using from this river is more to the river is producing and it has been that way for many years, so the trend is towards these reservoirs failing, and that is why people

are trying to wrestle with how to save these -- this water supply for so many people. this deal does that temporarily. i think everyone would agree it is just a temporary solution and there are longer -- there were more major renegotiations planned for 2026 of the rules of sharing this water and trying to get more in line with what the river is producing with this climate we are living in, so now with this deal the plan is basically to kick off those negotiations now and start working through those larger structural issues. this is kind of a stopgap to keep reservoirs from crashing below the standard thresholds i mentioned. that is putting much where we

are at, so the conversation will continue. guest: our viewers can take part in this conversation. we will open regional lines. if you live in the eastern or central time zones, you can call in at (202) 748-8000. if you're in the mountain or pacific time zone, the time zones the colorado river actually affects, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, your number is (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, your number is (202) 748-8001. keep in mind you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on twitter @cspanwj, and on facebook as facebook.com/cspan.

how did the biden administration get involved in negotiating this? don't these waters -- water levels normally get negotiated? state to state? guest: the federal government is involved because the bureau of reclamation, they operate the reservoirs along the river, so in effect they oversee the distribution of this water to the states. they are always involved in these discussions about how water is distributed to the states. one of the dynamics throughout this last year negotiation has been that the states do not want the federal government to impose some sort of solution on them, do not want to say arizona has to cutback this amount, california has to cut act this amount. through this past year, they have tried to work out a

compromise so they can essentially decide how to distribute those cuts. but the biden administration, by threatening to make these unilateral cuts on their own, that definitely pushed this negotiation along and resulted in where we are now. host: who was the winner and loser is the deal sits now? our farmers the losers? are cities the losers? can you talk to us about the winners and losers as the deal sits now? guest: i do not think it is that clear cut. part of the reason is the states have agreed to these topline numbers essentially of how much voluntary conservation water cuts they will get to, but

within those states those agreements have not been finalized or made public. we do not know exactly who is taking -- who is giving up their water. some agreements have been made public. a tribe in arizona has announced a deal to conserve a portion of their water supply. there will be many of those agreements that will happen, so some of that will fall on agriculture. in general, 70% of the river water is used by agriculture, so forms will be taking a hit, but from what people say, the scale of these cutbacks that we are talking about is not devastating and is not the kind of pain that would really be noticeable to a lot of people like the scale

they had been discussing last year before basically a very wet winter when tons of rain hit california, tons of snow in the mountains which changed the picture of how dire the situation was the short term. i do not think anyone thinks it has changed the overall trend of climate change and where these lakes are going long term, but it was a very dramatic turnaround in a short time, so people will definitely feel it, agriculture, some cities, but there is a lot of money now at stake and these entities giving up a portion of their water supply will be compensated by the federal government, so a lot of farmers will make a lot of

money off of this. it did not get to the point where the federal government had to step in and shut off the tap to large entities or cities. host: one of our social media followers want to know whether the supreme court's recent decision affects this at all. does the recent scotus ruling stripping away water protections affect the deal? guest: not that i have heard people talking about. i think it is not directly related. host: another social media question that came up, brings up a question that you just referred to -- something years referred to. they have a question about it. the question is -- it says

california has had record rainfall and snow and most of it runs out into the ocean. when was the last time california built a reservoir or lake? guest: that is a good question. i do not have the answer. if you drive around california and report on water issues, you will hear that a lot. there are billboards up in the central valley in california making that point, people frustrated more water does not get conserved in the wet times. i think in california a lot reservoirs did fill up this year because of the atmospheric river's and the snowpack cannot record snowpack in the sierra nevada mountains. it did do a lot to improve the

drought situation in california and i think would also has given some room to maneuver in these negotiations about the colorado river is exactly that, that california is able to supply its cities and farmers with water from its own reservoirs and that network of canals and all that. you can have some wiggle room in terms of making cutbacks from the colorado river because there are other sources of water now. host: we have a couple people from california waiting to ask you questions. kelly is calling from california. good morning. caller: good morning. inc. you, c-span for giving us this platform. -- thank you, c-span, for giving us this platform.

one question i had for josh is what are his perspectives regarding saudi arabia and the large farms that produce alfalfa that is exported for cattle in their areas? apparent lease saudi arabia has strict restrictions on using water in the desert region but now they are tapping into ours. i had one comment that each and everyone one of us is responsible for conserving water, so if we do our part to conserve water it all works to keep us alive and well. thank you and have a great day. guest: what the caller is referring to -- there has been a lot of coverage in the last few

years about saudi farms in arizona and california, a company that operates their. in arizona in particular, it operates in an area where does not have to report how much ground water it takes. this is not so much a colorado river issue. this is more a groundwater issue, but to governor and attorney general in arizona have focused on that issue and discussed whether that is appropriate. that is an ongoing news story, that company, but it gets a lot of attention. the issue of alfalfa is central to this colorado river question because a lot of these major farming regions that take the largest portions of this river,

they make a lot of alfalfa. a ludvig is exported out of the country, so there is a big debate about how appropriate these crops are. it is a crop you can grow year-round and it uses a lot of water. i have been to the imperial valley and been out without thought the farmers. -- alfalfa -- with alfalfa farmers. they have efficient drip irrigation systems and all this stuff. even so, they are using more than one of these big commercial farms and some midsized cities. i think it is a debate that is not going to go away. obviously that alfalfa goes to feed cows, so milk, cheese,

beef, all that stuff people like to use. saudi arabia apparently did make some rules growing those water intensive crops in their own country. host: let's talk to another california resident, sylvia from coachella, california. >> i have listened carefully and i am concerned. i'm 86 years old now. i was born here in california, 1937. it was in those years that the aqueduct was built for metropolitan los angeles to be fed with colorado river water. to this date, the city of los angeles continues to take water

from the colorado river at a large amount. furthermore, the recreational use of colorado river water, and i am speaking of the many golf courses we have here in the desert -- we do not have rainfall, very rare and very scanned. therefore, the coachella valley where i reside depends on the water from the colorado river water. the recreational use to your get 100 or more golf courses -- to irrigate 100 or more golf courses and fill swimming pools that are very common here especially for recreational use and of course all the country clubs, those have swimming pools. that is colorado river water. forever cultural purposes -- for

agricultural purposes, it is necessary because we grow food. the coachella valley is the food bowl for the winter vegetables that we grow here that cannot be grown in other parts of the country duringhe winter season. so there are purposeful uses of the colorado river water but the recreational use for era getting -- irrigating countless golf courses, which at one time were sand goons -- sand dunes -- god made the desert, did not give us a river, therefore we utilize someone else's source of water. therefore, i say control should be made on recreational use of the colorado river water for the good of us all, the entire population. let's take into account population growth.

what do we do about that? birth control? host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time. guest: i would say it is interesting. the coachella valley, the issue of golf courses in particular has been a hot button issue. i have not been out there myself but read about it. each course along the colorado river has its own question about the best use of this water and how we should cut back now that there is less of it. host: who monitors or enforces water usage under the deal struck recently? guest: that would be the federal government and the states all

have water departments and agencies, so i believe it will be some collaboration like that. i am not sure the precise mechanism for how they verify if everyone is following the rules, but i am sure there is one. host: i will go through a couple quick questions from our social media followers. one was, is the use of ocean water an option? guest: there are desalination plants that exist. there is one that feeds san diego. there is one that the former arizona governor has been in discussions with an israeli company to build a desalination plant on the gulf of mexico and a pipeline through national monument to the phoenix area, so

that is still in the early stages but -- of discussions. unclear that will be approved, but this issue comes up over and over. one concern you often hear is the cost, but that is going to be -- i think it is clear all the states are looking at other, longer-term ways to input more water into their system and augment this river. desalination is one of those. host: has anyone looked at putting together for the colorado river basin a system like there is in the columbia river basin in the northwest? host: -- guest: i am not sure what system

they are talking about. there is more water here than there is in the southwest. so -- host: i have to look it up myself since i do not live there. what the federal government says is the columbia basin project serves about 671 acres in east central washington. the main facilities include three power plants, four switch yards, and a generating plant. guest: the colorado river definitely has all of that there is a large federal network of reservoirs and canals and dams, so that already exists. host: one more question from our social media followers. how much of an impact does the bottle water industry have on

the colorado river? guest: good question. i do not know. that is not one of the uses people are typically -- you hear about are concerned about. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to carol from florida. caller: good morning. i have ever been on here before, but thank you. i want to say the last caller was right on. he was talking about the recreational use of the water for golf courses and so forth. i wondered about that. that should be before the farms. you need the water. how much did the colorado river increase with all the snow they

had in colorado and rain in other areas? how much did that impact the river? guest: the last i read about that -- the reservoirs before about a quarter full last year. with all this rain and snow, well over average year, the runoff has a better idea of how much will make it into the reservoirs. you're at about 25% to 30%, nowhere near filling up. we are talking about being reservoirs, the key ones for feeding southern states. so it reversed a decline for the moment. things are going in a better direction, but these are the biggest reservoirs in the country so takes a lot to fill

them. one key dynamic people talk about when they are worried about what is happening on this river is the last couple years there have been decent snowpack but it has not translated into a corresponding amount of runoff. it will be 90% of average but only 30% of average runoff reaching the lake. that speaks to how dry it is in the west, water being lost to operation by this dry ground. so that is what people are looking for now, whether there will be a between the amount of no and how much -- snow and how much which the lakes. if that gets back to normal, i think people will be happier.

everybody we talked to on this issue reminds me of another dry year could put us back in the same situation. host: we will keep you on as long as possible, i want to tell viewers we are going to go to house speaker kevin mccarthy and his office live as soon as he appears, so stick with us. we will go to kevin mccarthy as soon as he appears to talk about the debt ceiling deal he made with president joe biden. more questions some of our viewers want you to answer, here is one from a social media follower. he says he drinks a lot of bottled water, big business shifts so much water around the globe for profit. can we move water within the country? guest: i think it is possible, but not cheap. there are lots of long-term plans to move big amounts of

water from one basin to another, one state to others. but those are not projects you take lightly. i went to a conference of the colorado river users last year, there are a handful of ideas people talk about for moving water from other parts of the country. it is something people talk about, but it takes a lot to make it happen. host: let us see if we can get a quick call in, from virginia. give us a quick question or comment. caller: i just have a real quick fact, good morning. i recently learned it takes 1.1 gallon of water to grow one almond. so all of you guys drinking

almond milk like my son and grandkids, you need to be aware of that. host: go ahead, joshua. guest: the omens would be another crop to put up with alfalfa -- almonds would be another crop to put up with alfalfa. host: let us go to dorothy calling from lexington, are you there? caller: yes. i think in national geographic, i read about the fact that lake superior is one of the greatest freshwater sources in the world. i guess my question is similar to what somebody else called in about earlier, wanting to get freshwater from lake superior and move it across the country,

supplying freshwater for people that live in the colorado river basin. is that a possibility? guest: i guess i would say i have not heard any details about that idea. what i said earlier about infrastructure projects taking many years to complete -- what i have heard -- what is being considered more in terms of emergency solutions to the colorado river problem in short-term are changes to the dams, lake powell and lake mead. considering whether it is possible to drill new holes at the base of the dams to let water out lower, so there would not be water stranded behind hydroelectric dams if levels keep dropping. in terms of emergency fixes, those are what you hear about more. host: is there any chance this

agreement that is being reviewed by the states and federal government is going to be the final agreement, or are there court challenges and other maneuvers we see in the future on this agreement? guest: the threat of lawsuits has definitely been the central dynamic through this whole process. the reason the federal government and state wanted to send an agreement among the states was to avoid litigation that could tie up the issue in the courts for years. reservoirs keep dropping and you might not be able to prevent some of the thresholds from being reached that we talked about earlier. for now, the states have not filed any lawsuits about this issue. that is definitely always hanging over this question, there are cuts that are imposed

that are not agreed to. for now, that is avoided. it is not the final agreement in any sense. the states have agreed to start their 2026 negotiation as soon as possible. they are going to have a more technical discussion about how to make -- have to cut back how much each state uses of the river so it can be sustainable. host: i want to remind viewers we are waiting for house speaker kevin mccarthy to come out and talk about his agreement with president joe biden on the debt ceiling deal. as soon as we see the speaker come out, we will go to him. joshua has been kind enough to stick here and answer your questions until we see speaker mccarthy come out about the important colorado river basin deal. let us talk to jeff from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: go ahead.

caller: i was wondering, i have not heard anything about any plants. guest: there is a question about that a little bit earlier. desalinization plants exist and are being used in california right now. the most concrete proposal i have heard about recently is one to pump and water from the gulf of mexico into arizona. so people actively think about that as a way to help with the problem. host: a question from a social media follower. can you have your guest comment on the ownership of fast water resources in the central valley? -- vast water resources in the central valley? guest: i do not know above --

enough about the issue. host: what impact will the deal have on farmers? guest: that is an interesting question. on one hand, there is a lot of federal money from the inflation reduction act, $1.2 million that is going to be spent. farm owners, a lot of the farmers that have toward the regions, big corporate farms, commercial operations provide large percentages of vegetables in supermarkets throughout the winter, because these are desert areas that can grow year-round. farm owners will definitely be compensated. seems like a lot for whatever water they voluntarily give up of their allocations. i think the bigger question is how this affects farmworkers,

suppliers. if there are fields being left fallow on a wide scale in california, arizona, then it is going to have to have ripple effects in the local economy. in the imperial valley, a lot of farmworkers come across the border every day from mexico. will it result in layoffs on a large-scale? that is something i'm interested in trying to understand. host: let us take one more call, let us talk to peter from washington. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i am interested in the great salt lake situation. i wonder what a good solution would be for saving great salt lake. guest: can you talk about that, joshua? guest: i have not focused on that, i have not been out there to write on that.

i do not know all of the details about what people consider the best idea for a solution there. i do not have a lot to add, but it is definitely a major issue for the west, as well. host: one last question on the colorado river, all residents who live on the colorado river face any personal water restrictions for their homes and businesses? guest: not that i have heard of. where this still stands right now, and i think it is one of the key dynamics about the deal, it is not imposed cuts from the federal government. it is voluntary conservation. so people who are willing to give a portion of their water supply and get paid for it -- the amount of money being offered is enough to entice a lot of people to do that. that is where we are at. not exactly people who live along the river being cut off. host: we would like to think

joshua from the washington post for coming on with us this morning and talking is through the colorado river water sharing deal. joshua, thank you for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure. host: i would like to thank all of our guests, viewers and callers for sticking with us there washington journal this morning. we are going to go live to the u.s. capitol, where house speaker kevin mccarthy is soon going to come out and start talking about the deal he struck with president joe biden on the debt ceiling. we once again have a great sunday, we are going straight to the capital where house speaker mccarthy will soon come out and speak about the deal he struck with president biden. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]