along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: coming up on "washington journal," we look at the approved debt limit bill with the american enterprise institute's michael strain. spending priorities and congressional news the day with california democrati representative judy chu. also, ohio state law pross bridget dooling on the congressional review act, which can errn final rules issued by federalgencies. "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, june 6, 2023. we are with you for the next

three hours on "washington journal." we begin with a question on when we allow americans to fully participate in the electoral system. 2023 has seen calls to raise and lower the voting age in this country. we want to know if you think the voting age should be changed. phone lines are different for this question. if you are 18 to 25, the number for you is (202)-748-8000. if you are 26 to 55 years old, you can call at (202)-748-8001. if you are over 55-years-old, (202)-748-8002. you can also send a text, (202)-748-8003. if you do, include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media on twitter @cspanwj and facebook at facebook.com/c-span. good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in. on the presidential campaign trail is republican candidate

ramaswamy who made raising the voting age a key campaign issue. last month he released his proposal to call on congress to raise the voting age to 25 for young adult, unless they had completed a service requirement or passed a civics test. here is him talking about that proposal. [video clip] >> we are a constitutional republic. that means it comes with civic duties. in 1971, when we lowered the voting age to 18, we did it in the context of a draft. we had a military draft that said if you are 18-years-old and you're old enough to serve the country, by god, you should be old enough to vote, and i stand by that. i do not stand by the draft

today but it was civic duty back then that tied the privileges of citizenship to say if you want to play the game, you have to have skin in the game. when i think about young americans today i see a deficit of national pride because i see a deficit of duty. you do not value the country you inherit. that is why today i'm announcing my support for a new amendment to the u.s. constitution. that amendment would raise the voting age in this country from 18 to 25. but still tell you that you can vote at 18 if you either do service to this country -- six months in the military, or six months as a first responder --

or at least pass the same civics test that we make an immigrant pass to become a voting citizen in this country. host: that was the republican campaign trail. he has talked about that since. we are asking you, should the voting age be changed? one of those who disagrees is opinion columnist jonathan bernstein writing for bloomberg opinion and "the washington post." here is what jonathan bernstein had to say. he asked about the specifics of the proposal. to the extent it is not just a plan to disenfranchise democrats, it is rooted least two false premises. onis the way to get good decisions is to restrict participation to the best of us, leaving aside those who get to choose the best. the notion is flawed.

there would be hierarchy among those selected as the best, the best of the best, so the incentive will always be to impose more restrictions to further improve the eleore. enally only a handful will remain. in other words, this is an aristocratic, or even authoritarian, proposal. asking you this morning your thoughts on changing the voting age. phone lines this morning are different. (202)-748-8000 if you are 18 to 25. (202)-748-8001 if you are 26 to 55. if you are over 55, (202)-748-8002. ed's up first this morning, ocean city, new jersey. your thoughts. caller: yes. the voting age should be down to 15. my middle niece when she was eight-years-old was qualified to

be president. if it was changed to 15, they would be voting against all guns and all wars and for a place to live for every homeless person. and a guaranteed job. it should be changed. host: do you trust all 15-year-olds? caller: no. i do not believe in the perfectibility of human nature but the majority would vote for more loving, humane, progressive policies. host: thank you for the call. this is brandy from illinois. caller: i think we should go lower. these older people are getting old and it is fine to get old but if you cannot grow when you get old, it is not going to do you any good. they think we need nato and we do not really need nato. some of them think george soros

is some kind of evil person. it is time for the new buds. we have to live with this. you do not get to undo what they did for a very long time. you need to stop and understand we should lower the voting age. it is not going to harm anybody. young people have lived in this country. old people are going to be on their way out soon and they need to respect this. sooner or later they're going to be in the old folks home. host: this is bethany here in washington, d c over the age of 55. you think the voting age should be changed? caller: i do not think it should change. i think it should stay at 18. we allow them to drive at 16. however, we stated a person becomes of age, meaning they can sign up for their own apartment when they go to college.

i think the voting age should remain at 18. thank you. host: bethany in washington, d.c. the first callers called for lowering the voting age. that was part of the discussion of the recent forum at the sxsw festival in texas. it included jocelyn benson asking about the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16. this is what she had to say. [video clip] >> we are working in michigan on legislation to around preregistration of 16 and 17-year-olds. we have automatic voter registration so that when you get your license, you are registered to vote. a lot of people get their drivers license at 16. things like that will help us address and ensure people are able to vote right away. one of the other policies we have implemented in michigan is election day registration. in every election, whether it is

local, state, or federal election, the vast majority of people who take advantage of that ability to register are 18 and 19-year-olds. i think elections need to be built to meet people where they are. his citizens want to be able to vote at a younger age, i think michigan will see that and build out. but we are focused on making sure we have reducing barriers for young people in this young generation that will be inheriting our democracy in the decades to come. host: that is michigan secretary of state jocelyn benson at the sxsw festival. the federal voting age is 18. some states allow 17-year-olds to vote in local elections that they will be 18 by the time the general election comes around.

one third of the states allow those who are 17 but will be 18 by the general election to vote in the primaries. 18 states and washington, d.c. allow 17-year-old who will be 18 to vote in primaries. you may see some 17-year-olds ahead of the 2024 election. bruce in arlington, ohio, over 55. should the voting age be changed? bruce, are you with us? caller: i'm here. host: what do you think? do we change the voting age? caller: i don't believe so. host: why not? caller: i do not think we get enough people to vote now. we are only getting 20% to 25% of the people to vote. host: if lowering the voting age could bring more people to vote,

with that address your concern? allowing more people the opportunity to vote? caller: it is a possibility, but i just do not understand or think young people would even be interested. host: what if they say they are? there are groups of young americans who advocate for exactly this, lowering the voting age. the national youth association is one of those groups. caller: i do not believe in those big organizations. they put out so much crap you cannot hardly trust anybody. that is the trouble nowadays. you cannot trust anybody over anything. the news, politicians, everything. how can you trust them? all they do is lie. host: that is bruce in arlington, ohio.

youthrights.org, on that website there are 10 reasons why the voting age should be lowered. one, they say young people have adult responsibilities but are denied the same rights. people under 18 are active members of society. millions are employed or volunteer in our communities. many under 18 also have adult responsibilities, like being the primary caregiver or making contributions to the household, and yet they cannot vote. they are expected to follow the law but cannot have a say in making it. they are expected to follow adult laws, experience adult consequences if we do not do so. it is possible for a case to be transferred out of juvenile court into adult criminal court. in certain states, all those committed by 16 and 17-year-olds are automatically transferred, and yet people under 18 do not have the right to vote. the top 10 reasons for lowering

the voting age is the national youth rights association. asking your thoughts this morning. if you are 18 to 25-years-old, (202)-748-8000 is the number to call. if you are 26 to 55, (202)-748-8001. if you are over the age of 55, (202)-748-8002. we want to know if you think we should change the voting age in this country. it would require a constitutional amendment to do so. let us know if you do and which direction you think it should go, or if it should stay the same. richard in alexandria, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think as far as the lobbying changed, i do not think -- if it is going to go any direction, it should go up. we have laws in washington and oregon where a 12-year-old can walk away from their parents and go change their sex and mutilate their sex organs.

i think people who want to allow for kids who have not properly matured to be voting in our country -- and i also like ramaswamy say having a stake in the game. i come from military background. i have a stake in the game. my father fought in the wars as well. there was a book called "a more perfect union," about how we teach disinformation to our kids, we teach that this country is inherently bad. this country is not inherently bad. the founding fathers had a great vision. the problem is we do not enforce the laws as they are and you have kids raising kids nowadays. they never really grow up. host: are you ok with raising it all the way up to 25? caller: i am not sure 25 is the number.

but i think having a person be a first responder or serve in the military for not six months never solves anything. i think two years. but let them pass the civics test. let's teach history as it was instead of teaching this garbage we teach our kids nowadays. host: kelly clemens in virginia for those over 55. good morning. caller: the age thing is so hard. i think they should do what ramaswamy says. it is a problem with our kids. they are not being taught about civics. they are not being taught what they should be taught in schools. if you have ever seen any of the interviews the man on the street and he goes around and talks to

children -- i say children, they are in college -- and they do not even know who their vice president is. some of them do not even know who the president is. it is sad and they really need to grow up. not to mention the fact that people do not develop their brain all the way until they are 25. and i agree completely. we have got to have smart people voting. i do not mean smart, smart, but people who know about their government. if you do not know about it, how can you vote for people? host: what would you say to the high school student who would respond there is plenty of adult whos do not know the name of the president let alone the vice president of this country and they are allowed to vote? caller: yeah. i say that we should all have to

take the citizens test every so often and make sure that we do know those things. i think the citizens test would be great for every voter to get the registration. host: how often would you have to take the civics test in this country? caller: i would say every four years. host: that is kelly's proposal. finish your thoughts. caller: i think it has gotten to the point where all we do is watch stupid game shows and that is all they put out there for us. it is all a plan to keep us dumb. i think it is important that we all know our government and what is going on. host: that is kelly in north carolina. george in louisiana. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think this whole conversation

is absolutely ridiculous. of course we should let young people vote. i think at least lower it to age 17. all of these things we keep talking about, adult brains have not grown up. when people reach 50 cognitive decline occurs. therefore, people who maybe get alzheimer's, are you going to take away their vote? people who break a leg, are you going to say they cannot vote? we are all broken people. what way to get a young person involved is by getting them the vote. this whole thing about whoever this guy is, that is a form of elitism. oh, you have to be 27 to vote. that is nothing but contracting our democracy. it is the first step toward something more devious.

of course, the whole question about not being taught civics. come on, man. that is a problem with everybody. that is the school system. what better way to teach people civics but first getting them involved in the voting process? this is america, man. it is all about expanding democratic rights. we are all about teaching our young -- host: what do you think about the caller who proposed every american take a civics test every four years? caller: come on. what is this? are returning into world war ii? this is what we fought on june 6. we fought against that type of attitude. taking a civics test? come on, man. all of us have to work together to make the country better. we all have to work to improve our schools.

we are all in this together and i will tell you something, that is another ridiculous idea. i'm sorry. each and every one of us in our churches, our mosques, synagogues, temples, and secular institutions, we have to work to educate everybody. and we have to work on promoting our civics. it is not just something that is done in the schools. that is a regressive statement, in my opinion. host: you mentioned today, june 6. the 79th anniversary of d-day. a day of remembrance as the washington times puts a picture of the american cemetery in normandy. the remembrance ceremonies happening today over there. carter in shreveport, louisiana

for those between 26 and 55-years-old. caller: good morning, john. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i would say it, absolutely, let's drop the voting age down to 16. if you want to trust somebody to drive a car, that is a reasonable responsibility. we can trust that person to operate a voting booth as well. while we are at it, let's implement the maximum voting age. i'm sick of living in this geriatric democracy. let's implement a maximum voting age of 80 and carry that over to our politicians as well. host: what would you say to the first caller who said his 15-year-old niece knows more

about civics than most people he knows? he would be happy to see her vote at 15. caller: i think the kids are all right. i think the kids are all right. host: are you optimistic about the future? caller: well, when it comes to the views and concerns of the young people, yeah. but on that note people say, oh, we ship you off to war when you are 18. we are literally sending our children into schools where their lives are at risk of being taken by somebody with an assault rifle. i think the times have changed and i think -- i should not even say kids. these young people should allowed to have a stake in our democracy. host: do you mind if i ask, democrat, republican,

independent? caller: a little left of the dems. host: to folks who say lowering the voting age is a plan by democrats to try and get more votes at the voting booth, saying that kids lean more democratic and this is just part of a plan -- and they will point to statistics like this. this is the share of those that voted democratic in the 2022 midterms from the new york times. 64% of those between ages of 18 and 29 voted democratic in the midterms. compared to that 65 and older, just 44% voted democratic. caller: i think that just means their brains are working. before i go, i will say when you are having friends over, you do not let someone pick a movie to

watch five nights before they leave. i'm sorry to go a little dark but i think the kids have a stake in this country and they should be allowed to vote. host: thank you for the call. anna in chicago for those over the age of 55. caller: hi. i think the voting age should be put back to at least 21, preferably 25, but at least 21. you experience the responsibilities of life before you vote. a seven-year-old can pick up a gun and shoot somebody, so that is not the test. anybody can do that. a 10-year-old, in some places, can drive. that is not a test. getting out of high school, out of the classroom, with the teachers telling you to do and

somebody prepares your food for you or buys you clothes. you need to experience getting up and going to a job every day instead of going to school. knowing that that paycheck after taxes, you have got to pay your bills. you have got to keep the lights on. these are different life experiences you get when you are finished with high school. get a couple of years under your belt. you will see the world a little differently. the way you are going to see it the rest of your life. and then you have more experience to vote. letting children vote is absolutely ridiculous. it does not make sense. host: the arguments that has advocated for lowering the voting age, what would you say to those folks that say there are those under 18 who take home a paycheck and contribute to family finances?

and of those over 18 who cannot hold the job or keep the lights on. caller: there are exceptions and anomalies to everything. anything. you look at the norm. the norm is your parents take care of you at least until you are out of high school and you are forced to go to school and make sure you get a good meal. but when you are out of high school, it is more responsibility. you see things differently. you cannot say, oh, well, i had a part-time job. i had a part-time job in school. but that is different. that is not the norm. if you are going to drive a car, well, i learned driving lessons in school but you have got to

get out and start driving. you have got to get out of high school and get a couple years of life experience and vote at 21. host: plenty of comments via social media and text message services. i want to highlight a few of those. chris in illinois saying, i have less concern for 18-year-olds voting that i do for the millions of voters who vote straight party ticket in every election, which happens at every age. i do agree every single u.s. citizen should have to pass the same test given to immigrants who seek citizenship in this country. this is paul in kansas city missouri saying, those under 18 are permitted to openly carry semiautomatic rifles. why not give kindergartners the right to vote? those who survived childhood will then change government to protect and serve the citizens. vicki writing on facebook, yes, it should be raised.

young americans today are the most mentally immature. this is bill king, independent for michigan, it is fine where it is at. however, i would like to change other things like when and where we vote. those are the real issues. mark in hempstead, maryland, for those between 26 and 55. what do you think? caller: good morning. i snuck in by one year. host: are you 55 or are you 26? caller: 54. [laughter] i would not be opposed to raising the voting age to 21 or 25 is also reasonable. we took civics out of our public schools in the 1960's. every generation thereafter has been more and more oblivious to the founding of our country and

the constitution. i think it pretty evident from the callers this morning -- i listen to c-span every morning. every other caller that calls in -- you had one a few callers back who kept talking about democracy and saying, let them vote. that is our democracy. i think he made his own argument as to why everybody should have to take a civics test. i think it might interest the listeners to know that the word "democracy" is nowhere to be found in the constitution or declaration of independence. and yet, we have generations of people who think this country is a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. we have representative democracy but we are not a democracy. that is the message they have been drumming into these kids. to the previous caller who mentioned the immaturity is staying with young people later

into their years, if you go back 100 years, people into their 20's were going out and starting businesses, starting families, raising children. today's young people are staying home later and later. it is like we have this fixation with keeping them in permanent adolescence. i would not be opposed to 21 or 25. host: that is mark in maryland. it is coming up on 7:30 on the east coast. we are asking do you think the voting age should be changed in this country? having this conversation in large part because presidential candidate ramaswamy has made part of this pitch, announcing his support for an amendment to change the voting age and raise it. he has been talking about it on the campaign trail sense.

here is fox news. [video clip] >> voting is not guaranteed in the constitution. they knew what they were doing. you can restrict the vote based on criteria, but there is no guaranteed right to vote because we do not live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. that comes with civic duties. against that backdrop tying the privileges of citizenship to duties, i think that is closer to the flame of the american way. last week i said if you want to vote in this country before the age of 25, let's start with that. you at least have to have served the country or, at minimum, served by learning something about it and pass the same civics test we require of naturalized citizens. i think we need to think outside

the partisan boxes to get there. host: the phone lines split differently this morning. (202)-748-8000 if you are 18 to 25. (202)-748-8001 if you are 26 to 55. if you are over 55, (202)-748-8002. we will head out to hawaii. john is up early this morning, over 55. what time is it in hawaii? caller: let me look real fast. it is 1:34. host: thank you for being up late at night. what you think about this age change to vote? caller: well, i mean, i think this is just another way the republicans are trying to suppress the vote. to me, if they want to raise the

age -- when you get too old, let's hit it that way. sorry about that. i'm kind of nervous. if you are too old and you start to lose certain cognitive faculties, well, you know, maybe you should not be able to vote if you are around 75. i think it should be lowered and if it is not lowered, you know, leave it the way it is. thank you for taking my call. host: what would you say to the republicans who say lowering the voting age is a plot by democrats to try to raise the vote, as young people tend to vote more democratic? caller: it is what it is. you got to let the people vote.

if the kids think their representation is on the democratic side, let them vote. the only reason why the republicans want to do that is because they are scared. they are scared to lose. they want to win. that's it. they are chicken and they are scared. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you for calling late at night in hawaii. those who voted in the 2022 midterms ages 18 to 29, 64% of those voted for democrats. david takes up the issue in his column in today's new york times. older americans still vote higher than younger americans. many younger voters have become politically active because they fear about the country's future. those on the left worry about climate change, abortion access, the extremism of the republican party, and more.

those on the right worry about political correctness, illegal immigration, and more. what seems to be driving unger voters to the polls is not love but anger. he quotes amy walter as saying, younger voters have not automatically been liberal. in 1984, those under 30 strongly backed ronald reagan's reelection. in 2000, they split almost evenly. but for four straight national elections democrats have won 60% of the vote among 18 to 29-year-olds and that is the longest run of success for a party since the 1970's. that was today's new york times. this is clayton in indiana. go ahead. caller: first off, the guy that says kids who are going to school and afraid of school

shootings that they should vote? what about all of those getting shot by the gang bangers? the age should not be changed. i was forced to sign up to the draft when i was 18, it should not be lowered because a 16 or 17-year-old should not be drafted into the military. the draft may be active but it is not being called upon. no, the voting age should not be changed. thank you and have a good day. host: ken in michigan those 18 to 25. caller: i'm 25. thank you for having me on. people around me -- we are mad. we are mad at what we are being handed. but i do not think it should be lowered. most people -- my friends are kind of gullible. every time the government offers a freebie, they do not understand how that works.

our votes are being purchased. from the history lessons i learned that is how societies were destroyed. rome was destroyed as soon as the government becomes a treasury for the people. you are trading vote for dollars and things collapse. i think 18 is fine. i know i am a little older heading into the category, but i think my friends are with me on it. host: you say younger people are more gullible. what would you say to the callers that say there are older people who are gullible or could be taken advantage of in the same way as they get to advanced years? caller: i think the older people have seen what they have done and experienced their life during multiple governments. they at least have the background and the knowledge that they are going to consciously make these decisions. i cannot tell you when someone's

mental decline takes away their decision-making process, but i think a lot of the older generation were a lot more frugal. they were a little more value driven. today, it is not quite like that in the 20 somethings. they are a little different. there is more emotion on things. there are just different principles. i would rather give the older and the wiser and not drive the voting age down. 18 his fine. that is when we all -- the gears in our mind are working enough we can do something. lower than that i think the hormones and other things are settling down and people make emotional decisions instead of logical decisions. host: that is ken in michigan. less than 50% of 18 to

24-year-olds are even registered to vote, let alone those who participate by voting. the numbers go up significantly as americans get older. those 65 to 74-years-old, almost 78%, are registered to vote. this is george in pennsylvania, over the age of 55. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i think we should raise the voting age to at least 21. over the years our students' comprehension and maturity has been increasing. we used to have the drinking age at least of 18. we decided they are not responsible enough to drink. if you cannot drink at 18, you are not responsible enough. you should not be able to vote at 21.

you do not have that life experience yet. host: what about those who argue we trust people to drive a car at 16? caller: we also allow them to drive vehicles on farms at 12 or 13-years-old. is that old enough to vote? i don't think so. our level of maturity has definitely gone longer on in age. we are living longer with our parents. we are not getting jobs. we are marrying later. our life experiences are starting later. i think the age should move appropriately with it. host: that is george in pennsylvania. to change the voting age as ramaswamy wants to do, it would require a constitutional amendment. that is because of another

constitutional amendment, the 26th amendment this is what has to say. the rights of citizens of the united stes who are 18 years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state on account of age. that is the 26th amendment. this is jd in columbia, maryland, age 26 to 55. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. normally i listen in and i learned a ton from all of your callers. today i feel like, for the first time, i may have something to add to the conversation. when i hear these things about raising the voting age or restricting voting it harkens back to me about what happened during reconstruction. how they restricted black votes. what they did to the black voters -- a north carolina, the

same mentality where they thought black voters did not understand, did not have enough knowledge, and they basically had a successful insurrection in wilmington. it really bothers me, concerns me, in terms of how people are thinking about this issue. i relate it back to crt. we cannot learn from our mistakes then we are doomed to repeat it. it seems we are in the process of repeating those errors. host: i do not know if you were listening about half an hour ago, but we talked about jonathan bernstein's response to ramaswamy's proposal in which he talked about his concerns about

restricting participation to "the best of us." figuring out who gets to choose who the best are, saying it is a path towards aristocracy or even authoritarianism. would you agree with that? caller: i do agree with it. i feel that we are increasingly on that path in our country. it disturbs me. the thing i value most about our country is our democracy. i think there is an interesting parsing of that term from other callers, but the spirit of this country is one of democracy. if you have skin in the game, in my view, that is if you are subject to the laws of this country, you have skin in the game.

you should have the right to vote in terms of how you are subject to those laws. host: what about the callers who called in and said they are concerned about civics education in this country? we are losing that and this could be a way to help get civics education back into more mainstream, to get more people to care about this country by learning more about it. and this is a vehicle we can use to do that. that is the genuine concern. caller: i hear that. i think civics education could be addressed in different ways than restricting the vote. to me the greater fear here is literacy tests, civics tests, tests that are designed and eventually enhance the future to limit the vote. we have seen that in the past.

fortunately, we are at a stage in our country where we want to learn about our history. that restriction really enables us to repeat those errors, repeat that history, and that concerns me. if we open up this pandora's box, i can literally see as the next 10 years debating the merits of the civics task, how stringent it should be, should be increase the difficulty of the test? it is going to get really bad. it is all about the votes and i do not think we should be talking about restricting the votes. the party should be looking to win voters over rather than restricting the vote. host: thank you from the -- for the call. ali is in bristol, virginia, over the age of 55. caller: good morning. for me ages ok, but i believe we

make a lot of generalizations. we are not all the same. some people are smarter than others. i think knowledge is what matters. a lot of people do not travel. they do not go to other countries. i would like to take somebody to my village in abu dhabi. the politicians beat the crap out of us because we do not support their politics. personally, the most knowledgeable people are diplomats or people that have been overseas. regardless of age. thank you. host: robin, columbus, ohio, age 26 to 55. go ahead. caller: i want to echo the

caller before the last how restricting the voting age is just a ploy that was used during reconstruction to restrict voting rights. we need to ask ourselves, why are we willing to give guns and automatic weapons with no permits or tests to anyone, but we are not willing to allow the vote to stay where it is at at 18? at 18 we are still knowledgeable. today more and more students are taking college courses, they are learning about the world at a younger age. we have high school students were taking college classes, gaining college credit. obviously, they are able to understand what is going on. if we can incarcerate someone at age 18, they should be allowed to vote at 18. thank you. host: before you go -- are you still with us?

caller: i am. host: on this issue of changing the voting age, it would require a constitutional amendment. it would change one of the amendments in this country, the 26th amendment, and we are having open debate about changing an amendment. i wonder what your thoughts are on how open people in this country are to debates about changing other amendments to the constitution. say, the second amendment. caller: exactly. they are not open to changing the second amendment. we are picking and choosing what we want to change about people's rights. we need to ask ourselves why? why now? host: that is robin in columbus, ohio. a few more of your comments from social media. annie writing this on twitter, i believe the age of 16 people should be able to vote. many are driving cars and holding down jobs and hunting with guns. if they are able to do those

things, they should be able to vote. this from copperhead saying, i endorse ramaswamy's proposal. mlb saying, the age to vote must be the same as the military. you cannot ask military to defend a nation they do not have a voice in the government. this from joseph saying, 25 to vote but you can buy a gun at 18? priorities, people, priorities. suzanne in cincinnati, ohio, over 55. caller: good morning. i have got a couple of comments. first of all, i do not think we should change the voting age because there are many people age 18 and over who do volunteer work, including volunteer work in senior centers and volunteer work in schools, and they are very responsible people.

i wanted also to comment on something a previous caller said. he felt like we should change the voting age for older people and have a maximum age of 80. once you are 80 or older you cannot vote. i disagree with that. yes, there may be some 80-year-olds who have dementia. just like there are some people that think president biden has dementia. i think we ought to be careful of making broad generalizations like that. you know? i disagree with that strongly and i think some people, regardless of age, be they 26 or 85, do not know a whole lot about civics either. and yet, we do not want to take away their right to vote. i read a column not long ago and the columnist advocated that

what we ought to do is open up primaries, like they have done in some states. he said there are some states where the political parties accept all comers, so you do not just have to be a registered republican to vote in the republican primary or registered democrat to vote in the democratic primary. you can be any to vote in the primaries. i think it is a valid argument that that would dilute the extremist voices in both parties and opened the primaries up to all voices, moderate and otherwise. it might increase our possible selections of candidates in the general elections. that would increase voter participation, because i think some people regardless of age are turned off about voting in

the presidential election because they do not like the choices. may if we expanded and every state -- and it would be a state decision -- maybe if we expanded the primary opportunities so that regardless of your party affiliation you can vote in the primaries, that would increase voter participation in the primaries and the general election, regardless of age. host: 15 states in this country have open primaries where a voter can choose which primary they want to participate in, regardless of party. those states that have open primary systems montana, texas, vermont, virginia, wisconsin. philip in virginia, you are next. caller: hello.

this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. changing the voting age? this is because the republicans keep losing. this is why they keep losing. they spend more time complaining about rainbows at target or bud light and demolishing somebody they don't like that they don't know what is going on in the world today. they are losing because they do not have any idea what to do. they cannot even get anything done because they do not know how to reach across the aisle and get bills passed the senate. host: what did you think about the negotiations that brought about this debt limit deal that was signed into law by the president on saturday? in negotiation between house republicans of the white house.

caller: that is the most work both sides have done since mccarthy came in. but you know what? it is just this fabricated thing. do away with it. it does not matter. in 2020 republicans got so scared because the democrats were going to show up and vote by mail. they wanted to restrict that. and then they complained about women voting. it is endless. you just keep changing the rules because they keep losing. host: this is melissa in maryland. good morning. the line for those between 26 and 55. caller: good morning. i find this conversation very interesting because the same people who want to raise the age

of voting also seemed to be dismantling child labor laws and violating those. i mean, if someone were to ask me what was really going on, it seems there is a desire to have another disempowered class. like a way to reinstitute forms of servitude. it has been minority groups and now we are looking at kids. we do not want them in schools, we want them working. but we do not want them voting. that is very problematic to me and i think that is a recipe for disaster. that is all i have to say. host: maureen in pennsylvania for the line for those over 55. good morning. caller: good morning, john. host: go ahead. caller: i'm calling in defense of our veterans.

i am a mother of a son that had joined the military voluntarily into the army. when the orders came down he was ordered to go to the iraq war. he served and came home as a disabled veteran and suffered severely. i feel that in serving his country we send our boys to war, and i do not believe, at a young age, we should change the voting age. if they can go to war at a young age, why can they not vote? also, i had a brother. i was in my teens when the vietnam war was going on. i'm 70 years old. he was drafted.

i believe it was called -- you were entitled to register and he was sent to vietnam. i believe he had to register at 18. of course, he had to go to vietnam. i heard people say, let's change it to 21, 25. that is ridiculous. if they can serve in our wars and defend the country, why would they not be able to vote? i think it is also rather ridiculous the drinking age is 21. they went to war at 18-years-old to defend our country but they were not allowed to drink? host: we are running out of time

here. this is will in sturgeon bay, wisconsin. caller: good morning. a couple of quick thoughts that have been echoed already. this clearly is a targeted effort by the republicans to silence an area of voters that they are losing. another is people have been saying old enough to stick a gun in their hand, they are old enough to walk into a voting booth. my father was in vietnam and he was 18. i do not think he was able to vote yet when he came home. but he votes every time now. if they can carry a gun, they can walk into a voting booth. have a good morning. host: last call in this first segment. this is john in new jersey, over

55. caller: i would like to turn the answer upside down. if the public education system does not prepare students to vote by age 18, there is something wrong with that. yes, i believe the voting age should be 18. host: do you think the education system is doing well in this country? caller: not so great. i have to admit that i do not think it is configured now to prepare students to be good voters when they come out. on the other hand, they may have an advantage because their internet experience might prepare them to distinguish baloney from reality better than us oldsters can. host: what you think about the proposal to have an age limit on voting in this country?

caller: you know, there is some sense to that. i'm going to vote. yeah, i think the cut off age -- there could be a cut off age. but i will vote as long as i am allowed to. host: john from new jersey, the last caller in this segment of "washington journal." plenty more to talk about this morning. michael strain joins us next, director of economic policy studies at the american enterprise institute. we will talk about the debt limit debate and the u.s. economy. and later, judy chu of california will talk about her no vote on the deal at her legislative priorities in the months ahead. stick around, we will be right back.

announcer: c-span for coverage is your front row seat. watch coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail, meet and greets. make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now on the free mobile, video app or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> order your copy of the 118 congressional directory. it is your access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate member and important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. scanned the code to order your copy today or go to c-spanshop.org. it's $29 95 cents plus shipping

and handling and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. book tv every sunday on c-span two features leing authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, thomas baker shares his book the fall of thebi, where he argues that americans have lost faith in the bureau due to robert muller, james comey and others. then, formerrump administration secretary david bernhardt contends that the administrative state has amassed unaccountable power over the last 20 years in his book "the report to me." -- youreport to meet your cup -- you report to me." or watch online anytime at book tv.org.

a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly -- ever public drives. get informed straight from the source. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. host: michael strahan joins us now, a director at the -- here in washington, d.c. with the immediate crisis now pass, what do you think congress can and should be doing now to keep us from going right back in a crisis position 18 short

months from now? > the first thing congress should be doing is addressing our debt problem. the debt is expected to rise substantially over the next 10 years, substantially over the next 30 years. and the underlying drivers of that debt are projected spending on the social security programs, projects and spending on the medicare program, increases in interest programs required to service the debt and tax revenue that's below the historic norms. to address that problem, there's unfortunately bipartisan consensus that that is not something congress should be addressing. both republicans and democrats agree that taxes should not be increased on the bottom 90% of

households. democrats will raise taxes on the top 2%. republicans wouldn't, but raising taxes on the top 2% is not going to be nearly sufficient to solve all the problems. and both republicans and democrats agree that projected spending on medicare and social security should not be reduced. there's actually really strong bipartisan agreement that congress should not address the underlying problems for the underlying drivers of our debt and deficits. so the first thing congress should do is take steps to actually get the debt and the deficit under control. and then i think congress needs to look very seriously at the debt ceiling itself, and whether were not this is a mechanism that congress wants to keep in place. i would argue that the debt ceiling is simply too dangerous

of a tool to be used as leverage in fights overspending. so i would favor reforms that would automatically increase the debt ceiling when congress passes bills that would increase the deficit, for example. or other similar types of reforms, to take the debt ceiling as a leverage point off the table and prevent prevent -- potential future crises. host: if the debt ceiling were to automatically be increased in the future, what incentive would there be to get congress to do some of the things that you want congress to do? address these drivers of that, medicare, social security. it is one less tool to try to the congress to think about spending, some would say. guest: it would be nice if congress did need massive

leverage points in order to execute the basic path of government. we could have some leadership in congress, leadership in the white house that says look, we have a problem, and we need to solve. that's not as crazy as it sounds. we've seen that in the past, during the reagan administration. spending on social security was reduced, and those reforms have stuck. there's reason to believe that congress and the president don't need these kinds of points of potential catastrophe in order to actually reforms of these programs and address the structural deficit. but there are also lots of other

leverage points. the social security program and the medicare program are going to face funding crises within the next decade. that will create a situation where benefits paid out by those programs are going to be substantially reduced unless congress does something. that said, that is a good opportunity for reform. and of course, a potential government shutdown is another leverage point the congress and the president can use to push through politically difficult reforms. the thing about a government shutdown, the thing about a situation where congress may not be able to pay out social security and medicare benefits at the level that recipients expect, i that while those would be very bad situations, they

would not lead to the kinds of catastrophes that -- and potential default on u.s. treasury applications. playing with default is like playing with a nuclear bomb. especially with a government shutdown or plan with potential reduction in social security and medicare benefits. they are playing with a grenade. a grenade is really dangerous and you don't want a grenade to go off. but it is not like a nuclear explosion, if that analogy makes any sense. host: michael strahan, our guest from the american institute, director of economic policy studies. talking about the u.s. economy, talking about that debt ceiling deal signed into law by the president on saturday. and you can join us on the phone lines as usual. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. defendant, (202) 748-8002 -- independent, (202) 748-8002. let me come back to the issue of tax revenue that you brought up in your first comment this morning. biden addressed on friday that -- the push to raise taxes on the wealthy in this country. here is some of what he had to say. >> reduce the deficit and control spending. we also have to raise revenue and go after tax cheats and make sure everybody is paying their fair share. nobody making less than 400,000 dollars per year would pay penny lesson federal taxes. but like most of you and home, under the federal tax system isn't fair. nobody will pay penny moran federal taxes. that's why we secured more funding, more irs funding to go

after wealthy tax cheats. this bill would bring in $150 billion and other outside experts expect it would save as much as $400 billion. it's forcing people to pay their fair share. republicans may not like it. i've also proposed closing different special-interest tax loopholes for big oil, crypto traders, hedge fund billionaires, single tax -- saving taxpayers billions of dollars. republicans defended every single one of these special-interest loopholes. every single one. with your help, i'm going to win. host: on some of those comments, what were your thoughts about the money for the irs going to be used to make sure that the

wealthiest pay their fair share? guest: i think the president is right. we have laws in this country and those laws should be enforced. enforcement agencies like the irs, administrative agencies like the irs should be adequately funded. we don't want to over fund. over funding is also an issue. congress needs to determine the correct amount of funding that is needed, but the irs is operating on antiquated computer systems, antiquated information technology, and the irs could use more human beings in the industry. you can just look at what has happened to their budget over time and you can see that inflation has gone up, the amount of money they have has gone down. and so i think more funding for the irs is certain reasonable.

the president overstates the case. part of the last-minute deal that the president struck with the speaker clawed back some of the irs funding that slated to go relative to the president's budget. that would reduce tax revenue, but by an amount that is less. but as a general matter, i think the president is right, that we should be helping that agency. >> plenty on the lines for you already this morning. plenty to talk about in the wake of that deal they signed into law just this past weekend. independent, you are up first. caller: good morning, my name is steve.

i believe that the voting age should be 16. they are allowed to drive. i believe that the republican party is afraid of the young people in this country -- host: that with the topic of the previous hour and i appreciate your thoughts on raising the voting age. we are talking about the economy right now and federal spending. any thoughts on that front since we have michael here to talk about it? caller: well, i just believe that the republican party is afraid of young people. i'm sorry, i started my program over on my tv and i called in for the young people. host: appreciate your thoughts. michael, since we have you here, we were talking about raising the voting age in the past hour on washington journal.

what do you think? caller:i don't have -- guest: i don't have any real expertise in the appropriate age of voting. i do think it would be helpful for the united states to kind of harmonize the idea of when a person reaches adulthood. there is kind of a strange discrepancy in the legal limit to purchase alcohol is 21 years, you can join the military at age 18, and this sort of thing. i think settling on an age for all of these adult situations -- host: one of our viewers on

twitter perhaps time the conversations together here. no taxation without representation. tie voting to the collection of taxes. guest: sure. host: silver spring, maryland, democrat. caller: hi. i want to ask c-span a question first. c-span, you keep bringing in these people from institutes. can you also have somebody who has a different view than american enterprise institute? host: if you watch, you'll see people from institutes all around washington, all around the country. just keep watching, i'm sure you'll find somebody that you agree with. so go ahead with your question. caller: it's not that i disagree with him, but they only talk about one side, and as the

problem. you talk about spending, you want that spending. but you also talk about electing. we need more things. for example, if we look at europe and america, we essentially have terrible public services in terms of daycare, in terms of people taking vacations, in terms of retirement age. how does that happen? they tax more, they collect more. so what is the problem of finding ways to collect more to the we can make our population similar to what neighbor countries have? guest: in my introductory remarks on the program i tried to be clear that the u.s. needs to reduce projected spending on

social security and medicare, but it also needs to increase tax revenue and shares of gdp, and both of those things need to happen. to say more about that, the amount of cuts that would be required in order to put the data on a sustainable trajectory would be too substantial and i don't think the american people would abide by social security and medicare cuts that were that extreme. so we can only rely on spending cuts. on the others of the ledger, we can't solve that problem only through increasing tax revenue. there's just not enough tax revenue in that top 2% in order to solve the problem. i think we need to rely on both. we need to reduce projected spending on programs while making sure that programs still

provide a safety net for the most vulnerable seniors in america, the lowest income, lowest wealth seniors in america, and we need to raise tax revenue, preferably in a way that does not unduly reduce the incentive to work, save, and invest. a broader tax base rather than higher tax rates, taxing consumption rather than taxing income. these are the kinds of ideas that should be discussed. in terms of enforcement, i agree with the caller. as we discussed in response to president biden's remarks, we should be adequately funding. host: the washington times today in their op-ed sectiona previous speaker commenting on the deathat was put together by the current speaker in the white house. newt gingrich with the headline

today, figure kevin mccarthy's strategic victory, saying what people can't rebut is that the narrow house republicans majority as a historic achievement of leading the debate that has been dominated by democrats. what are your thoughts on the winners and losers here for the deal that came together? guest:guest: i think that there is no question. certainly in my view, there's no question that speaker mccarthy really is the big winner here in terms of the kind of political contest that has been happening. the entire deal happened on his terms. there are cuts to spending. there are cuts to the spending that he wanted to be cut. there has been a strengthening of worker violence, which is what he wanted.

and there has been reform as well. what is that part of the deal? that part of the deal is tax increases, which the president wanted and democrats wanted. this played out according to speaker mccarthy's terms. if you kind of look at the details of what happened, i think the president and his advisers did a good job within the framework that mccarthy sent. the level of spending cuts. speaker mccarthy wanted $4 trillion in vending cuts, it is going to be closer to $1.5 trillion. speaker mccarthy wanted spending tax rate decade, it is only for two years. speaker mccarthy wanted a broader, more bite to the work

requirement than there actually will be. speaker mccarthy set the terms, set the kind of parameters of this deal, and really kind of ran the table on the white house. then, when those parameters are set in place, the white house to the good job negotiating the particulars. i think that there are elements of this that both the speaker and the president can point to as political victories, but i think that the big winner here is speaker mccarthy. now, that's the politics. the real winner is the american economy, the american taxpayer in the u.s.'s standing as a global and political economic leader. that is i think the most important consideration. >> new york, this is anthony waiting in line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity.

to your guest, joe biden, the credit card capital of the world, bankruptcy bill joe, the men who single-handedly allowed millions to have their homes taken from them with low interest loans. now he is at the helm once again, back for more. this always plenty to steal, but never any for the solvency of this country. and you always shoot for the bottom as opposed to holding those at the top accountable for their ways. what we have here is a corporate-tocracy. there is no upside to any of this. we have destroyed many a civilization to the behest of the military-industrial complex, killing innocent the world over with no justification whatsoever. iraq war, no accountability. afghanistan, no accountability. it is mind-boggling.

$32 trillion in debt. we have a civilization, a population of americans that now owe $32 trillion and counting. when you do the math, these are children. the number is probably far lower than that. host: that is anthony new york. michael strahan, i wonder, we haven't seen a budget surplus in decades in washington. do you see that ever happening again, or even congress being able to balance the budget again? guest: i don't think that anybody really predicted the 1990's, at least not with confidence. i believe that we will put the debt because we have no choice.

something that can't go on forever will not do one forever. that is the situation i think we are in. the trajectory of the debt cannot go on forever and therefore will not go on forever. something will change. we will see a big increase in borrowing costs, we will borrow less. our ability to spend will be limited. something will happen to change the trajectory. hopefully, what happens is proactive action on the part of congress, on the president to address the underlying drivers of the deficit. that's what i think will happen. i think it will happen in a bipartisan fashion, but the stars kind of have to align for that. and the stars are not aligning at this moment.

post: gainesville, new york. kathy, republican, good morning. >> a very good morning to both of you. i don't like the idea of getting rid of the debt limit. i'd much rather see a balanced budget. it would take a super majority to go over that because i know a lot of people who are having a hard time with the increases from all the spending in inflation. it's not 5%, it added up. we are paying a lot more. that is a tax increase. unless they stop the spending, pulling more money. the fair share for the 2% to pay 50% of the taxes. i don't like that idea, it seems to always lead to we all pay more whether it is taxes or inflation. with the budget. we won't have to worry.

thank you so much. >> so i agree with a lot of with a lot of what the caller has said. i agree that thinking of inflation as kind of a tax is very reasonable. the purchasing power of wages and the purchasing power of income. and i agree with the caller that economic policy, this tendency has been a large contributor to the current inflation that we've been living with the last year and a half or so. but i also agree with the comment that we need to put the deficit and the debt on a sustainable plate. we don't need to eliminate the

debt in order to do that. we just need the debt to grow over time at a slower rate than the economy as a whole is growing. we don't need the deficit to be small enough such that the debt is on a downward trajectory. fortunately, we are just not in the kind of emergency situation where something is as dramatic as trying to wipe out the debt or as needing to balance the budget next year for the year after or something on that really short time horizon. post: one or two more calls here with michael strahan. director of economic policy, if

you want to see his work. on twitter, easy enough to find. this is eric and washington, d.c., independent. good morning. caller: enke for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. i'd like to ask two questions and two areas. when are we going to reduce imperialism around the world? we see that the world, and no other nation does that. number one, i think we can reduce that and come away from the military personnel, but from the weapons and things like that. secondly, i think we should take a look at increasing social security. to maybe a half million dollars.

i'll take my call off the air. host: just one note, i believe there have been attempts, they just haven't passed an audit yet. but michael strahan, go ahead. guest: i can't speak with any expertise to auditing the pentagon. i think all categories of spending should be on the table, and we should be looking at all categories of spending. my view is that given the war in ukraine, russia's brutal invasion of ukraine, given rising geopolitical tensions in southeast asia, it is unlikely that defense spending is going to go down. more likely is that defense spending needs to go up. of course, the pentagon seems to be approving taxpayer dollars and i think the caller is right to demand the pentagon the

responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. on the second question, i'm not sure i totally understood the second question, but i think one of the things we need to do with social security is make sure that the benefits of that program are going to retirees who need the benefits most, and if i understood the caller correctly, i think he was suggesting that senior that had incomes about half million dollars per year receive social security benefits from everything or not at all. that is the type of reform, that idea is in the spirit of what is the thing we need to do in order to get social security spending in medicare spending under control. host: one more call from james,

pittsburgh, mine for democrats. good morning. caller: i have two questions they want to ask we are using the debt. if we go back to making our own money in america, we could get out of debt and get rid of the federal reserve controls the money. if we could do that, i think we could get out of debt. i will take my question off the air, thank you. guest: i don't support abolishing the federal reserve. at the thing -- i think the federal reserve is an important institution. the central bank obviously controls the money supply, monetary policy. but different countries have different types of arrangements that advanced economies have a fiscal authority and monetary authority and in the united states, the fiscal authority is

the treasury department, which is passed by congress, so the monetary authority is the fed which also has laws passed by congress. we need sound and prudent monetary policy. the inflation that we've been experiencing as i mentioned earlier, certainly stems in part from actions that congress took, in part from fiscal policy. it also stems of monetary policy. one of the mistakes they made was purchasing government debt for too long, and that led to a stronger economy than was consistent with the 2% inflation target. we don't need to get rid of the

fed, but we need the fed to do their job. host: a longer conversation for another day, but we will have to ended there. always appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me come a great to see you. host: coming up at the top of the hour, will be joined by judy chu of california, a member of the ways and means committee. but until then, it is our open forum. any public policy, any issues that you want to talk about. the phone lines around the screen. go ahead and start calling in now and we will get to your call right after the break. announcer: fridays at eight :00

p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, when nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalts, legislators and others on their latest. former tribe ministrion interior secretary has amassed unaccountable power over the last 20 years in his book "you report to me." watch every friday at eight like p.m. eastern on c-span. if you are enjoying american history tv, sign-up for our newsletter using the qr code on your screen to receive the weekly schedule of upcoming programs like lectures in history, the presidency, and more. sign up for these newsletters today and be sure to watch american history tv every saturday or anytime online at c-span.org/history.

c-span campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat. make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. our free, mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of products, peril, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org.

washington journal continues. host:host: time for the open forum this morning and public policy, any political thing that you want to talk. this is the part where we let you leave the program. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. as you are calling in this morning, this tweet from president biden from just about 30 minutes ago on this june 6, saying the troops who stormed the shores of normandy 79 years ago represent the greatest generation in our history. they answered the free world call and they kept the ultimate -- to our country, we must keep our obligations to them. his tweet this morning remembered in several stories and major papers today. dna renowned beaches face a new

onslaught, rising sea levels. rising beaches dissipate fast. one part of the beaches, lookout point which american rangers conquered and suffered have another three landslide this spring. inspections reveal that a cavity more than 2.5 yards deep. climate change is eating at the french coast property rights and safety and sustainable development. but along the beaches and cliffs in normandy, ready to confront machine guns and fascism. history and identity are at risk, too. alternatively, at what cost should they be saved? that story in today's new york times, if you want to read it.

now, your phone calls. this is justin in savannah, georgia. dependent. >> good morning. i had some questions in regards to this for c-span. i listen to it. it is always about the dances between republican and democrat, but why are we questioning -- that runs our country? so much of the russian oligarchs are literally taking her money and our currency from their country and taking it to other countries and living a lavish life. and why are we paying so much in taxes and ignoring the fact that the same people we are voting for art held accountable for things that are unjust like insider trading and stuff? we have senators and congressmen who are being regulated. this is a big issue in my opinion, also. host: this is jane in texas.

good morning, republican. guest: yesterday we talked about immigration and how it was going to help social security and medicare. that's just crazy. there are important people who work under the table for cash. but that's not going to help social security. host: florida, independent. caller: let me meet this, let me kill this thing. host: i've got the article to read if you need more time. caller: the batteries -- can you get back to me? host: go ahead and work on that,

let me focus on campaign 2020. plenty of news on that front including mike pence officially joining the candidates vying to be the presidential nominee for republican party, filing paperwork on monday with the federal election commission. expected to publicly launch his campaign with a rally on wednesday in des moines, iowa. expected host additional events in the state as well, and a townhall hall with cnn later. and also, we found out yesterday, one candidate not running in the gop primary, he wrote a color in today's washington post talk about it. chris sununu, governor of new hampshire. a path to winning was clear but i believe i can have more influence in the 2020 for nominating prospect not as a candidate but at the governor of the first in the nation primary state, a governor who is unafraid to bring about issues and the issues of a presidential

campaign and unleashed from conventional boundaries. the candidates should not get into this race to further a vanity campaign to sell books or on a mission to serve donald trump as vice president. that is just the beginning of his column. that headline, i'm not running for president, beating trump is more critical. caller: sorry about that. correct me if i'm wrong, but when people are talking about us getting out of debt, there is a difference between a balanced budget and getting out of debt. balanced budget just means not going out. host: we are talking the difference between debt and deficit. caller: we are talking about balanced budget versus out of debt.

i further that to get out of debt, in your previous segment, a balanced budget does not mean we are out of debt. host: exactly. this year, the budget deficit is about 1.5, $1.48 trillion. the national debt is approaching $32 trillion. that's a combination of all those deficits year to year together. $31.8 trillion. caller: so if it's balanced, that just means the government brings in that amount of money that leo -- that we owe. our bills, not the amount of money that we actually owe, host: if we have bouncing budget we are not adding to the debt. caller: yes, but that is some sick money. can you even imagine having 1/10 of that amount? in your checking account?

i don't think that amount of money even exists except on a spreadsheet. host: by the american taxpayer, about $248,000 by each taxpayer in this country. that's close to $32 trillion for the national debt by taxpayers. a good way to visualize the debt deficit revenues as well in there. west virginia, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, can you hear me? thank you, this is the first time i've ever called in. i listen frequently. i have about 25 seconds of comments. i'd like to go back, if this is open for them, to the topic of

voting. i believe 18 years old, that is an appropriate aid for them to vote. these young people are serious about the issues of our day such as climate change and removing ar-15 guns when appropriate so that these young people don't go to schools and kill off children. what i'd like to see is us concentrate more on gerrymandering, and particularly in the south, but all over the united states to stop this process of wanting to limit voting and lastly, i agree with the woman this morning who said they should the open primaries. i thank you very much for allowing me to share these comments. i wish everyone a good day.

host: before we go, what do you like about open primaries? about 15 states have open primaries at this point. what do you think that helps? caller: i think the lady that spoke earlier was correct. it would allow more opportunities for people to feel like they were in on it. i think that would make us more astute about wanting to go to the polls. i always go to the polls, but i do think that would have a great effect. host: quick question if you don't mind, what do you think about that system where all primary candidates who run together regardless of party, and in the top two voters, democrat or republican, some combination of independent getting in, the top two then go to the general election?

what do you think about that system? caller: the way the state of maine does it, one of the systems in california has instituted it. to be honest with you, the information, get a lot of it from lots of sides, do a lot of reading. i gleaned from other people and i think i would be better able to answer your question with a lot more time, with study and concentration. i do that on different issues. right now i'm looking at the supreme court issue and reading

that shadow docket. i have to really pray and meditate on these things before i would really want to get too many answers. your program is very serious and i would not want to speak off the top of my head. host: i appreciate that, you are welcome to call back once every 30 days. happy to have you back. hope you do call again. this is mark in new jersey, republican, good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing well, what is undermined? caller: i called to talk about the january 6 riot. i have finally figured out why it happened. because donald trump was talking on tv and he was reading the batter and everyone signed off on it and yet pelosi rips it up behind her back.

that aggravated millions and millions of people who saw it. and now, they all blame the republicans. have a nice day, bye. host: new jersey, this is mary, michigan. independent, good morning. caller: good morning. i have an idea for a program. people have no idea what their congressperson does, so my idea is to take democrat and a republican freshman in 2024 and to put a camera crew within the c-span. show them setting up their office staff, where they live, traveling back and forth to the district, meeting with constituents, lobbyists. and of course, having to raise tons and tons of money for reelection. i think it would be a very eye-opening program for most of

your listeners and most americans. and my other idea for programming is during the recess for the fourth of whatever, i think c-span should replay the watergate hearings, the d year anniversary. replay it for all the c-span nerds and younger generations to look back at what went on 50 years ago. i think it would be very educational and brings up good memories. thank you very much. host: allays appreciate the suggestions. the watergate hearings, wendy of programming on that is available on our website at c-span.org. most recently we did a segment on this program on the watergate hearings, had a call in on that topic. we encourage you to see that.

on your suggestion of having a camera crew following, as congress around, do you think voters would be surprised to see how much time they spend raising money for the next election? caller:: i think they be shocked, and i'd like to see more of what goes on. sometimes it seems like they are very prepared and other times it seems like they don't have an idea what they are talking about. host: always appreciate the suggestions. about 10 minutes left in our open form. richard, california, democrat. good morning. caller: it to richard in oceanside, california again. and you hear me ok? host: i can hear you better if you turn down your television. caller: there it goes. i wanted to say, i'm an old guy now, 76 years old.

living in southern california, as far as the exchange goes, by the time i was 16, some serious classes for the advanced education bunch about how politics works in this country. when we were 16, we were drinking. i was a big kid, old enough to buy beer. i spoke marlboros. i had guns. i was a routing, tootin, shootin guy. a lot of my buddies were. what happened with which? they made bush the 50 caliber gunner on top of the slope. he was a little bit nervous when he got home.

he was a good social kind of guy. they should lower the age to 16. the kids 16 now are smarter than the kids when i was 16, i think. these older republicans, they don't want the young people to vote because they will vote against them. i used to vote republican. i voted for richard nixon, i voted for the governator. they were so screwed up by donald trump and all of the trouble he's caused, i can't stand it. that's all i've got to say. host: that's richard out in california. this is bill in jacksonville. caller: i want to change the subject matter on this issue that inflation and the debt limits and stuff like that. i think people forget what

percent of the reserve system is to keep the u.s. government and business, whether democrat or republican. we need to come up out of the weeds and realize for the last couple years, inflation has gone up to 12%. the cost of government has gone up now 10%-12%. and i don't see anybody's willing to raise taxes. the local level will have products and people. fine, the military may have to kick up tax. people need to come out of the weeds and look ahead. the other problem i've got is that the feds did not act aggressive enough, so allowing inflation to rise build a higher platform for subsequent increase of inflation looking down the road. thanks very much. host: before you go, three goals for congress by the federal reserve.

maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. which of those three goals do you think they can best at? host: i'm sorry, say that again? host: which goals do you think the fed has done well at? employment, stable prices, and moderating long-term interest rates? caller: neither, those are short-term objectives. i'm looking down the road in terms of structure for society. if we take the pain now it will make it easier for the gain in the future. that is a good answer, i hope. host: independent, good morning. caller: -- thank you. host: that's it? caller: yep. host: democrat come good morning. caller: the morning. i tried to get in yesterday and

one of your callers called in and said we are all immigrants. at what point do we stop being immigrants? my father's family have been here since the 1700s, and my mother's family is indian and french. at what point are we going to stop saying we are all immigrants? that's my only comment. host: at what point do you think we are no longer immigrants to this country? caller: i feel if you were born in the united states of america, you can say my ancestors came from this country, that i'm sorry, my family has been here over 200 years. i'm no longer an immigrant. host: this is john in new york, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what is on your mind? caller: quick question. you should have voting id, one.

you only should vote if you have photo id. no voting unless you are senior senate -- senior citizen or military. for school budget votes, they should pass a law where only homeowners should vote on school budget votes. aunt donald trump, best president assad ronald reagan. host: what is going on with school budgets in new york that it is on your mind? caller: well, high property taxes. 75% property taxes. teachers make 150 thousand dollars, teachers make a $200,000. no politician, nobody is stepping to the plate. you want to talk about wasted money? i'm thinking about running because no politician is

republican. nobody stepped the play, that is the issue. we need blue-collar workers seven to the play, making term limits and making people be held accountable. like trump said, if you can't do your job, you're fired. host:host: what was your job? caller: i did custodial maintenance. high school, elementary school. education, special needs and all that. host: thanks for the call. we got time for one more collar in the open form. lake charles, louisiana, independent. caller: i'd like to make a

program into gaston. i'm interested in hearing what is happening with the enemy combatants in guantanamo. i know that 93 of them have been released somewhat recently. could you perhaps arrange for someone to come on and explain that to us in more detail, please? and also, as far as voting, if anything, we should raise the age. 18-year-old kids today, they aren't very well versed on the issues? that's all. thank you so much and hope you have a great day. host: before you go, with the miami herald, i believe i can double check that for you. but certainly a suggestion i will take to our meeting after the show. always appreciate suggestions. at the mullahs in louisiana.

our last color in the open form. coming joined by the congressman of california, member of the house and ways committee. we will talk about her no vote on the debt limit deal and priorities in the months ahead and later, on the congressional review act, schools and congress can use it to oveurn rules issued by federal agencies. that conversation with ohio state university lop have -- eighth ohio state university law professor. stick around for that discussion at the bottom of the hour. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. former fbi special agenthomas baker shares his book the fall of the fbi where he argues americans have lt faith due to politicization by the former director robert mueller, james comey, and others. at 10:00 eastern, former trump

admistration secretary david bernhardt and the mr. reed of state the unaccountable power over the last 20 years in his book you report to me. interviewed by american enterprise institute senior fellow adam white. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on the program guide or watch online any time book tv.org. -- booktv.org. watch video on demand at c-span.org and try our points of interest speaker, a timeline tool to use maers to guide you to the interesting highlights of our key coverage. use points of interest anytime online at c-span.org. since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span provided complete coverage of

the halls of congress from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what have think -- what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest event with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress. -- congress, white house events, the court, and more from the world of politics, all i your fingertips. also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the

apple store and google play, download for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we are glad to welcome california democrat judy cruz -- judy chu and a no vote on the debt limit compromise on saturday. congresswoman, why no vote? guest: i of course would never have let a default happen, so i wanted to make sure that there were the votes there because i believe that a default would have been devastating to the american economy. we have never done that and our credit rating would have failed, which would have affected so many americans in the united states. for instance, a person retiring

now would see a loss of $20,000 in their retirement savings because the stock market would go solo. after i was assured there was the votes there to ensure i would not -- ensure we would not default. i voted my conscious. because there were things in this bill that i found disturbing. the most disturbing was the fact that it would make more americans go hungry. in fact, what it is was raise the work requirements for people ages 49 to 54, and there are so many amongst those who actually cannot find the work or cannot get the ability to do the work and they would go hungry as a result. i thought this was taking it on on the poor and doing unnecessarily to people on these

food stamp programs. they only get two dollars a day to be able to eat. this is not an extravagant use of our money. so i wanted to make sure people could eat and i did not like the hostage taking because republicans use it as a way to demand cuts in our budget. what i found very disturbing was that they themselves had raised the debt ceiling limit three times during the trump years in a clean wipe without any consternation, without demands, they did it three times despite the fact trump increased our debt by 25%. he was the -- she was responsive over 25% of our debt of $31

trillion so they chose this time to take the budget hostage and that was completely outrageous. announcer: with those multiple concerns, did speaker mccarthy outmaneuver president biden and his team in negotiations here? caller: no. i believe -- guest: no. i believe president biden did an incredible job of negotiating this deal. he preserved the inflation reduction act, which is the largest amount of dollars we have had in combating climate change. he preserved the inflation reduction act as well as the infrastructure bill, which is the largest infusion of funds for infrastructure in decades. he was able to ensure social security, medicare, and medicaid were preserved despite the fact

that republicans wanted to attack these programs and republicans wanted a drastic 22% cut in all spending, which would have been devastating for all america in this country. so president biden did an incredible job with a bad situation. announcer: let me invite viewers to join the conversation. the congress and with us until the bottom of the hour. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, democrats (202) 748-8000 and independent (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, want to talk about what role the ways and means committee will play going forward in the implementation of the fiscal response ability act, and are there ways as that happens for you to limit the impact some of these concerns that you bring up that are in the final law? guest: i talked about the fact

that trump increased our debt and is responsible for 25% of it. and what republicans are trying to do even as soon as next week is continue this terrible gop tax down bill that allowed the wealthy to save on their taxes and did not help the average american in any way whatsoever so we will do our best to make sure this does not get implemented, and even if they pass it, i doubt it will have president biden signing into law. but we also want to make sure that the irs does what we think it needs to do, which is audit the wealthy taxpayers in the country. we put an $80 billion through the inflation reduction act so the irs could, over a decade, make sure it served its

customers, so taxpayers won't have to spend hours waiting on the phone to get an answer to their questions. so that the wealthy taxpayers can get audited, which was to bring in billions of dollars to our budget. instead, what is happened over the past decade is the irs has been drained of its funds and people have left the irs, especially those with the expertise to audit those wealthy taxpayers. we want to bring that back but most of all we want to make sure the average taxpayer is able to get their refunds quickly and that there is not this backlog for the average taxpayer. announcer: congresswoman judy chu joining us from the canon rotunda as it is known, where our cameras are this morning. she is a sitting congressman since 2009 and in her eighth

term. taking phone calls online. for democrats, republicans, and independents. sean is in colorado, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i am a rancher in colorado and this inflation reduction act -- i also raise food in colorado. this act in this climate where you are trying to kill cattle, trying to crush food, crush fuel, this is all progressive. the inflation reduction act for biden will stand, biden is a $10 million asset for china and this is a propaganda arm of the democrats. host: congressman? guest: actually, the parts of the inflation reduction act that combat climate change have to do with incentive to have more

renewable energy, so that means more incentive to be able to use wind and solar. this is not an attempt to take away your cattle or reduce your ability to produce food. it all has to do with making sure we are not reliant on fossil fuels like oil and gas, but instead that we have energy sources that can keep america going for many decades if not centuries to come. in order to do that, we have to rebuild our infrastructure and we have to have electric vehicles that do not rely on gas . so there are incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. but also we have to make sure there are charging stations because people will not buy those vehicles unless there are convenient ways for them to

recharge them. so we have to have them all across the country which means building them everywhere, in the midwest, the south, everywhere that there may not be those stations right now. announcer: this is michael, line for democrats, good month -- good morning, you are on with the congressman, shoe. -- you are on with congressman chu. caller: hope you're having a good start your day, congressman. i have a suggestion for social security and medicaid, making it solvent so we never have to worry about that again. right now, contributions toward social security and medicaid are capped at $125,000. once you hit it, you don't make any contributions. why not just double that to $250,000? the poor never feel it, it will -- middle income will barely feel it, people making above $150,000 can afford a small

contribution. wouldn't that solve the problem? guest: thank you so much. you must've read my mind. i believe that that is an important thing for us to do because you are absolutely right, those earning more than $125,000 will not feel that extra contribution they would make and yet it would do so much to ensuring our social security system is solvent, that it has the money it needs. let me say that social security is a system that will be able to pay out its life insurance system so it will be able to pay out but we don't want any erosion in the amount it pays out and unless we increase the amount that is paid in, we could very well face a situation where

beneficiaries get 75% of what they are owed. we do not want that. so with this small fix, we can make sure everybody gets 100% of what they are owed by paying into security for all their lives. so this is a wonderful way about this. and there is a bill, social security 2100, that addresses this issue, making sure the social security system can be healthy for decades to come. announcer: cleveland ohio -- host: cleveland ohio, this is john. you are on with congresswoman chu. caller: i want to expand the gentleman who mentioned social security. it doesn't matter, the money buys stuff. it not only helps social security but [indiscernible]

then one other thing, why corporate taxes. after-tax profit is divided by the number of shares outstanding because they buy back all the shares, the corporate people. host: on corporate taxes and stock buybacks? guest: yes, i was very outraged in the gop tax bill passed in 2017 when republicans lowered the corporate tax rate to 21%. it was 35%, a drastic cut. it was welfare for the wealthy, for corporations that did not expect it to be lowered to this incredibly low amount.

as a result, corporations did not use that money to say invest in their own companies, to invest in our ng or invest in better benefits for their workers. no, what to the use it for? for stock buybacks. that was just a means to give money to their already wealthy investors rather than making the company better by investing in itself and rather than ensuring workers of the company could have a better life. i was outraged and we predicted the extra money the wealthy corporations got what in fact go into stock buybacks and our predictions came true so it was outrageous. host: more than halfway through

our discussion with congressman judy chu of california. a democrat. as viewers may know, the first chinese-american woman elected to congress, been in congress 14 years. if you are brought up the issue of china in our first call. i one day -- i wonder in your 14 years on capitol hill, are we in the lowest point when it comes the u.s. china relations? guest: we are indeed at the lowest point and we see that there has been an increasing tension that, unfortunately, has been taken out on asian-americans in this country. it started with president trump calling covid-19 the china virus and who flew, blaming china for covid-19 without the evidence to support it and, as a result, there was a wave of anti-asian hate crimes and incidents over

those three years. the numbers of incidents got to 11,500 with people being slandered, insulted, assaulted, and even being murdered. so that was the start of it all but now we see an increase in anti-china sentiment with the most recent act being in florida where governor ron desantis signed a bill to prevent chinese nationals from being able to buy land. but we are talking about people who may have lived here for a long time but who came from china, maybe they have a green card here but it would prevent them from being able to buy a condo in their senior years. this goes back to the racist

alien land laws of the late 1800s and early 1900s. we have not seen anything like this since then. this terrible alien land law in florida would bring back discrimination on people from being able to own their own property and it would put real estate agents in the position of being ice agents because they would have to check documents, the citizenship documents of people who just simply want to buy a condo or achieve the american dream of buying their own house. so it is terrible and that is why congress member al green and i introduced a bill that would prohibit these kinds of state laws that prevent people from buying land based on citizenship or ethnicity.

host: i want to take viewers on the issue of white house mausert security, it was john kirby talking about china and china's military with aggression in the taiwan strait. here is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> intercepts happen all the time. heck, we do it. the fee -- the difference is when we feel like we need to do it, it is done professionally and inside of national law -- international law and done in accordance with rules of the road. these two you saw -- and it happened with more frequency than we like, not only unsafe and unprofessional but these two you saw they forced our aircraft and sequence 35 to basically go through the jet wash. that -- you saw the bump in the cockpit, showing you how close the chinese fighter was tower jet.

the maritime is 140 to 150 yards. that is pretty close when you are in open waters. you can see they had a scene at the chinese vessel had on as across the vessel of one of our destroyers. it is unprofessional. as to why they're doing it, i think that is a great question to ask them. what i would tell you from our perspective is we are fine, we are sailing, we are operating in international airspace and international waters and both incidents were in complete compliance with international law and there was no need for the file to act as aggressively as they did. there's a concern with these on safe intercepts. they can lead to misunderstandings and miscalculations. when you have a piece of the metal that size whether in the

air or on the sea and their operating that close together, it would not give much for an error in judgment or mistake to get made and somebody could get hurt. that has got to be unacceptable and for them as well. host: congresswoman chu, it will not take long before somebody gets hurt. how concerned are you about that leading to escalation, to something even worse? guest: i do have great concerns because the tension is at such a high level and i think that it is true that one incident could cause an escalating counter incident and that could result in some kind of -- it could result in war-like actions and that is not what we want. we do not want -- and we don't want that. we don't want that.

it's important for us to have diplomatic ways of dealing with these things. we have to make sure we get to a civil level and we have to make sure everybody is safe. i have great concerns for taiwan as well. i want to make sure taiwan is safe and that we do not have these acts of aggression on the chinese side for sure but i think that diplomacy is a way to deal with that. host: this is joyce in georgia, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. on this last part, the reason china is being so aggressive and russia is being so aggressive is because this administration is weak and they know it and they are taking advantage. but back to the irs thing, you

are talking about how they will be collecting the money from the rich. in the irs, under their job for the government, they say a work of minimum of 50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours and being on call 20 47, including holiday and weekends. why are there going to need to be on call 20 47? also carrying a firearm and be willing to use deadly force is necessary. why does the irs need deadly force? guest: so let me say that there has been a lot of misinformation about what the funding for the irs would look -- would go for. it would go towards making sure there is the ability to hire

people when those irs agents retire and it would go toward making sure we have the expertise we lost over the past decade because of underfunding of the irs. it does not mean there will be armed agents with guns coming to your door. i do have to say that there are a small amount of irs agents that are basically law enforcement agents, so those are the ones that do have training in weapons but they are there in the most serious of cases. they are a very small group of agents but are a necessary roof of agents. the irs has a big job to do, and it affects every taxpayer in

this country. what we need to do is have many layers of service, which means we need to increase -- we need to ensure you are waiting on the other end of the line to get your questions answered and so if you are not getting a refund, you can get the refund back as quickly as possible. we also want to make sure audits are done correctly and done correctly. unfortunately, the wealthy have resources to be able to evade those audits. they can have armies of accountants that can prevent them from actually paying their fair share of taxes and we need to make sure they do pay their fair share of taxes. host: this is an in north carolina, line for democrats, good morning. caller: yes, i have a question

for ways and means person here. we need more people paying into social security and we need more revenue to help grow the economy and it seems like fixing our immigration is the way to do that. we are blessed to have people that want to come to the country. it's not like china would say have more kids. we have millions of jobs, qualified and unqualified, and why can't we do like ellis island at the southern border and say you go to milwaukee and love five years and then you can live wherever. or cleveland. there is a book, 8 billion, and it talks about we have cities with resources and infrastructure that need people. i will hang up and hear your response. guest: thank you for that sentiment. i totally agree with you.

i'm a cosponsor of the farmworker modernization bill. agriculture is hurting because they need the workers to be able to take those crops. they are constantly asking for a way to have a steady stream of workers that will do that that they can rely on. just this past week, i visited texas instruments and they are doing a magnificent job of bringing the semiconductor business here to the level it should be. we rely on semiconductors from anything on our cars, washing machine, to computers. what they told me as they do not have enough workers who can produce those semiconductors. we need skilled people in

engineering and so forth in the stem profession that can do that . they said we in the united states have not vested -- invested in stem education over the last decade. we can do it but it will take a wild to ramp up. what we need is be welcoming to the people around the world who want to come here. they want to come and work here. we need to make sure that we can get them here so we can get industries like semiconductors -- the semiconductor industry to the place where we can make america the leader in innovation and technology. host: on the book the viewer brings up, a billion and counting, that's the name of the book. she appeared -- the author appeared on book tv in 2022.

it is available in our c-span video library at c-span.org. time for one more phone call with congresswoman chu. romney has been waiting in kentucky, independent, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i got one question about social security and food stamps. i just want to know one thing about the food stamps, why somebody is on a $900 disability only gets $25 a month. and if -- and how somebody disabled can live on that when they need to kind of change that graphic of how much somebody can give. -- how much somebody can get. they need to work on that. all this money they want to put

toward the border wall but don't want to give no money to the police of the border wall and spend all these money on people starving to death and can't make their bills. host: i will give you the final minute. guest: you are talking about something that very much concerned me during the whole debt ceiling discussion which is the republicans put forth this debt ceiling bill, which was so wasteful. they wanted a 22% cut in spending but wanted to put billions of dollars in for a waste of a border wall. i could not think of a worse way to spend money. i'm throwing away money on something that does not work. instead, we should invest in americans be able to live, especially those at the lowest income level.

here you talk about an important point which is in social security we should be able to have a way so people can live on . so what our proposal is in social security 2100 is to make sure nobody on social security lives below the poverty level. they should be able to have the kind of living where they can pay the rent and put food on the table. believe me, the food stamps, what we call snap, what it provides is not an extravagant amount of food. we are talking two dollars a day . i challenge a lot of people to live on that but it is enough so that at least people can eat. that is why i was so upset about raising the age for those who would get the snap benefits, the food benefits from 49 to 54, and

i think that should not have been done -- i hope one day we can return it back to what it was. host: congresswoman, we will have to end it there. i know you have a busy day on capitol hill. we will let you get on your way. congressman judy chu, democrat from california ways and means committee member, appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: next, we get more on the congressional view acts. a tool congress can use to ovturn rules issued by federal agencies. to do that we will be joined by ohio state university law professor bridget dooley. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: be up-to-date in the recent publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists and industry news and trends through insider

interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile the lap or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, when our republic drives. on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. to get the opinion that matters the most -- because the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to "washington journal" daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other

public affairs events throughout the day weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern. listen to c-span anytime, just tell your smart speaker late c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable. fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv, a program were nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators, and others on the latest books. this we, the former trump administration interior seetary, david bernhardt, on the mistry to state amounting unaccountable power in his book you report to me. he is interviewed by american enterprise institute senior fellow adam white. watch afterwards every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. announcer: "washington journal"

continues. host: the fight over prison biden student loan cancellation has left a vehicle on congress to rein in on this. bridget dooling joins us now. good morning to you. the act is a vehicle we are talking about here. can you explain where it came from and how it works? guest: absolutely. the congressional review act is a statute that allows congress to undo or disapprove regulations that have recently been issued by the executive branch. it was enacted in 1996 and allows congress to overturn rules. i study rules because they are fascinating but i am the first to admit they are little invisible. if you think about the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, the safety of our cars, safety of our workplaces, all of that is covered by federal rules.

the rules exist because congress told -- created agencies and then told them to write rules but sometimes congress needs to reassert its control on the backend after the agencies have written those rules and one of the ways they can do that is using the congressional review act. host: how did they define what a rule is? guest: that's a great question and a little controversial. sometimes folks have different interpretations of what it means to be a rule. what you think would be obvious but it is not. when congress is unsure, they ask the government accountability office to issue a legal opinion to decisively say one way or the other whether something is a rule. that is the best we got because the definition can be a little ambiguous. host: so congress doesn't like rule the federal agency issued and they want to overturn it, what happens on capitol hill? guest: any legislator can introduce a resolution of

disapproval and what is special about this is it has expedited procedures attached to it so it moves more quickly and easily through congress than ordinary legislation does. ordinary legislation can get bogged down in committee but resolutions of disapproval have a quicker way out of committee for example. they also cannot be filibustered in the senate which means a simple majority in the senate is enough to pass a resolution of disapproval and they do not need to get the 60 votes like they do for ordinary legislation. host: so viewers might have been surprised that there was a vote on present bidens student loan plan and that is against his plan. this is the reason why that foot paying happens. -- happened? guest: that's right. the resolutions allow legislators to express their views and concerns with rules or actions the federal agencies

have taken and they did take that vote last week. the president signaled clearly through different channels he will veto the resolution and i can be overcome potentially but they would need to overcome it with two thirds majority in the house and senate. it does not look at the moment like they have those margins. host: if they were able to get those margins, what happens to the federal agency and the rule? how long does it take for this rule to be rescinded? what is the process? guest: the rule goes proof if i'm honest. the congressional review act tells us to act as though the rules never listed so you have to jump in a time machine and go back to a period before the rule existed and that is what happens, immediately and has immediate effect which is a little tricky with one that has already gone into effect. it is easier and more claim to do that when a rule has yet to go into effect which is often

the case because congress only has a limited window to disapprove these things but for a rule like the one you mentioned, student loan forgiveness work, there, you have people whose loans have been forgiven, whose interest has been held, who have not been making payments on their loans and it is an interesting and tricky quandary and difficult quandary, particularly for borrowers who may be wondering how it will affect me. as a practical matter, that's one is likely to be vetoed by the president, so i do not think it will come to that, but you are right to raise the question of how this works in practice because, for something like student debt forgiveness, it would lead to potentially dramatic consequences. host: the congressional review act is what we're talking about, the vehicle congress can use to rein in federal agencies. conversations the next one he minutes, if you have conned -- if you have questions about how

works or the history, now would be a great time to call in. we are talking to a professor of ohio state university who has been deeply involved for long time. she is our guest and a great expert to talk to on her first appearance on the "washington journal" and glad to have you. phone numbers for viewers, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and independents, (202) 748-8002. as folks are calling in, bridget dooling. congress'success rate, it does not seem like it is accessible often. there has been 20 rules overturned total since the congressional review act was put into effect and one happened in the 107th congress in 2001 and 2002 and 16 rules overturned in 2017 to 2018, the 115 congress, and three in the 117th congress.

explain why this does not seem to be that successful that often and what the heck was going on in the 115 congress. guest: to put those numbers into conch -- context, any given year, federal agencies issue several hundred rules, so when you think about the types of numbers you're talking about, 1, 3, 16, it is a very small portion of the total number of rules that go out the door. the first time it was used was after the end of the clinton administration. there was a labor rule related to workplace safety and ergonomics that was disapproved by the next administration and that is a trend you will see in the data. the congressional review act tends to be used to disapprove rules right at the beginning of a new administration when the white house has changed control in terms of the parties in the white house. and that is because it is

unlikely sitting presidents would disapprove his own rules. so because the resolution of disapproval have to go through the house and senate and make their way to the president's desk to be signed into law, it creates a dynamic where you are unlikely to see a regulation disapprove if the regulation was issued by the president who received the let -- resolution disapproval on his desk. you are right, there was not much activity at all in terms of disapproval until the trump administration when the number of disapproval's and number of resolutions really spiked. we have seen three in the biden administration as well so far. what that story does not quite tell you is that all along, since 1996, legislators have been using the congressional review act to introduce these resolutions, even in situations where it is unlikely because of reasons i described that the

president will sign them into law. why is that? what is it that legislators are doing. it looks like a useful tool for legislators and this is building on work i've done with daniel perez at the george washington regulatory study center. that work showed although it looks like the congressional review act is hardly used at all, because you mentioned only 20 times disapproval, it has been used several hundred times to introduce resolutions of disapproval. so we see legislators reaching for it as a messaging tool, a way to signal constituents that they hear them and hear their concerns. i think we will continue to see and have continued to see the tool used in that way in recent years and going forward. host: viewers might be wondering rather than a resolution of disapproval and vote in congress and doing this after the fact, why doesn't congress get a vote on say the major rules federal

agencies are putting out there? a rule that has an economic impact of $100 million or more, why not have those go first in congress to see if they approve it or not and not give them the option of retroactively undoing rules that have already been complicated. guest: that proposal has been introduced into congress for many years in a row, referred to as the reins act. that is exactly what you are describing where gives congress the option, it puts the ball and congresses core after an agency has written a rule and said do you want the agency to go forward, yes or no. the default would be no unless congress acts. so there we are talking about a larger number of regulations potentially that would be affected but now we're talking into the -- it's a good question

how many but certainly less than probably 100 per year. with that question with that, as a practical -- practical matter, how much bandwidth does congress have to act on resolutions like that or approvals of regulations like that? compared to occasionally taking up a disapproval. so it flips the default and asks congress to take a much more active hand in the regulatory process and -- process that they have been taking today. sometimes when people talk about the reins act, they feel he could gum up the works on non-controversial or rules were legislators do not have an issue. the way it is with the congressional review act, it leaves the ball in congress is court to act if they want to disapprove rather than asking them to affirmatively approve the regulation the agencies are issuing. host: it stands for regulations

from the executive in need of scrutiny act. we are talking with bridget dooling this morning, law professor at ohio state university, talking about the congressional review act, the effort by congress that they can put forth to try to rein in a federal agency. a couple callers for you, jason is in indiana, republican. good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, i am a first-time color. this is a fascinating topic rate i spent 35 years working in an industry that essentially was regulated entirely through the code of federal regulations. so i know some of it in more depth than i ever wanted to. question is this, is there a similar act let's say for other nonstatutory situations, so

let's say the president issues an executive order and congress feels that he has overstepped into legislation, is there a similar way they can request disapproval or passage approval? guest: that's a great question. you remind me of an important point, congress always had the ability to act or ordinary legislation. if the president issued an executive order and congress disagrees with a, they always have the opportunity to go through ordinary legislation or conduct oversight or express their displeasure through appropriation bills for example and withhold money so congress has lots of vehicles to express discontent with the executive branch. what is unusual about the congressional view act is congress spent, in this instance, they will give themselves cedro shortcuts to

make it easier for them to do this kind of oversight, and that is limited to rules in this particular con -- context. so for executive orders, congress could have stepped in and issued a rebuke in the form of legislation or other means i described. host: dave in michigan, independent, you are next. you are on with bridget dooling. caller: good morning. this is confusing to me. when they rule on something, for the incentives as far as our way of revenues -- revenue purposes, where is there data, the proof of what the costs are when they're trying to overrule or have amendments according to the

new law they want to come in on. i don't want to just vote for the party, i want to be able to show approval of some kind of substantial data. i don't know if you can speak on that much but i would like to know how that works. guest: absolutely. that is a great question. when agencies issue rules, they are expected to make pretty persuasive explanations for why they are doing that rule and that includes looking at things like the benefits and costs and other alternatives they consider for example. when congress steps in to disapprove a rule, they are not required to do that so they can exercise their judgment and when they issue the resolution of disapproval, it has a strict format to it. there is not a lot of opportunity for members of congress to say much in the resolution itself about why they're doing it. of course they have the opportunity to make statements

and other speeches, everything from tweets to full on statements, so you might get glimpses of the rationale but it is rare for that to include anything like a complete cost-benefit analysis, the likes of which an agency would be expected to do when issuing the rule in the first place. host: on cost-benefit analysis and this comes up occasionally for environmental regulation that it seems it is easier to calculate the cost, how much a new rule will cost the oil industry your gas industry and benefit of how do you calculate the benefit, financial benefit of an acre of land save door the incidence of cancer happening less. how you calculate benefits versus costs. -- cost? guest: it's a great question and one the executive branch has been working on for long time because what you described.

it's harder to calculate things on the benefit side of the ledger. the most important thing i think folks should know about cost-benefit analysis is it is never -- i have done this for over 10 years in the federal government and it is not the case that you write out the costs on one cause and -- in one column and write out the benefits and one and see what is bigger, it is less exact science than that. the goal of cost-benefit analysis is to get on paper what we know. sometimes we can quantify what we know and sometimes we cannot. when we cannot quantify things, particularly on the benefit side but also on the cost side, the most important thing about doing the cost-benefit analysis is the opportunity to express what those benefits and costs might be so we can think about them and think about how much they might be, we can put out to the public an explanation of what the government thinks the benefits and costs might be so the public has an opportunity to

weigh in and say i think you understated outdoor overstated that. that is the best we can do sometimes particularly when things like human dignity and other things are on the line that are basically impossible to quantify. the government works hard to come up with ways to quantify things that are hard to quantify but as you can understand, there are certain things challenging to put a number two that does not mean write them out in narrative form and explain what they are and hopefully make a full and transparent accounting to the public of the trade-off of government action. host: we have done the reins act, let's do another strangely named washington, d.c. thing. [laughter] what is oira? guest: it's where i used to work, the office of information and regulatory affairs. it is a small office in the executive office of the president and over ira --oira is

best known for reviewing regulations. i spent over 10 years working in the government, working with agencies like the food and drug administration, department of labor, department of education, to work with them before the regulatory proposals go out the door to the public for consultation. host: the idea to avoid what we're talking about, congress stepping in and trying to pull back some regulations after they go out the door? guest: that is part of it. you get to the point of a disapproval, it is a failure. agencies work hard on the rules. it certainly takes a month and may take them years. a represents hundreds of hours of their effort to try to do the best regulatory proposals they can. at the end of that, to have congress swoop in and disapprove it, it is something the agencies want to avoid.

so oira review touches a number of topics, not just reviewing the congressional act disapproval but that review, the point is to make sure these rules are ready to go out in the public and agencies consider the trade-offs of other actions and they have done their best to expand to the public and to potential future judges down the line all the things they considered and different trade-offs associated with the heart policy choices we ask agencies to make area host: a few minutes before the house comes in for the day and we go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. we are talking about the congressional review act. bridget dooling is our guest, law professor at ohio state university. she is on twitter if you want to give her a follow. this is jonathan in louisiana, independent. good morning. caller: how are you today? host: doing well. what is your comment or question? caller: on environmental regulatory behavior, some time

ago in undergrad, i reviewed statements, clinton administration, the then interior secretary involved several involvements of hydroelectric dams and the application of dam removal and request for travel treaties and various other than for cost analysis regarding environmental regulatory procedures. it was a really good statement and came over two parts for public review and congressional staff review so that by the time it was passed and accepted, and ready for implementation, congressional staffers and rules makers can get with the various department of agencies and they were so well involved and

informed at every stage of the way that, by the time it was ready for implementation, had everyone been honest every step of the way, the congressional review act became unnecessary because it was there as a stopgap but unnecessary to be used to stop the them of mentation of removing the dams and restoring the public parks and that. host: let me stop you there because we are running short on time. bridget dooling on the process he described. is that close to the way it works? guest: yeah, so there has been discussion on how much process is enough. it can be hard to figure out the balance because, for every round of procedure you add to an administrative action, it slows it down. when we are talking about important protections for example, you want to be careful not to put something there's so

much process that it bogs down what could be a good result. on the other hand, it is important to consult the public, to get the richness of their views before an agency acts so it is a delicate balance, won many agencies struggle to find but it is important for viewers to know that federal agencies welcome the participation of the public in all regulatory proposals, so they are required by law to seek public comments on proposed rules put in the government's use -- government newspaper called the federal register which rooms are some of your viewers look at every day but it is a great place to look at regulatory proposals, regulations.gov is another wonderful resource if you are curious about learning more about what the agencies are doing in the regulatory space in your comments are not only welcome but are needed to share information with the governments as they make difficult choices we have to make. host: i've never heard the

federal register called the governments newspaper. we are waiting to see when the house comes in. we talked about the exec to branch, agencies making regulations, the legislative branch and congressional view act. has the judicial branch overweight in on the congressional review act? guest: the congressional review act as provision in it that limits what courts can do to review it. there's only certain ways to get into court to look at issues related to congressional review act. if an agency fails to notify congress, which is required to do under the cra, failing to do that, courts have said that is not something they will weigh in on because the cra limits what courts can do but there is another provision we have not talked about called substantially the same which is if a regulation is disapproved, that means an agency is barred from issuing a rule that is

substantially the same as the one disapproved and that makes sense because you would not want congress to disapprove something and how the agency turnaround and reissue it. there are questions about how narrow or broad the term is, what it actually prevents an agency from doing so there is potential that we will get more litigation on that now that we have more disapproval to work with. we don't have very much yet and it ends up being a phrase that is pretty darn important when you are an agency trying to figure out what rule to issue areas host: we will have to end it there as congress is getting ready to come in for the day but perhaps more conversation for another day area bridget dooling , thanks for the time. host: that will do it for us on the "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. we take you live to the floor of the house of representatives. [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]