here or way out in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to fast, reliable internet. that is where we are -- >> mediacom supports c-span as a publicerce, along with other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on c-span's washington journ, we will take calls and mments live. and then look at the importanc of health care with emily gee and michael cannon. also, u.s. special envoy to yemen, timot lenderkg ask about relations with the u.s. and who the --houthi strikes in the red sea. "washington journal starts now. -- "washington journal" starts now. ♪ host: good morning.

friday, march 29. a recent gallup poll asked respondents how much trust and confidence you have in the mass media. when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly, 39%, an all-time high, said none at all. this morning, we will ask the same question. would you say you have a great deal or a fair amount of trust, called (202)-748-8000. suntrust, (202)-748-8001. and if you have no trust or confidence in the mass news media at all, it is (202)-748-8002. you can send us a text, (202)-748-8003. include your first name and your city, state, and we are on social media, facebook.com/c-span and x at --@cspanwj. welcome to today's "washington journal."

i would like to show you the current page of "the wall street journal" because today is the one-year anniversary of the imprisonment of an american journalist, 32 years old with the wall street journal, and this is different page. it says, this story should be here, a year in russian prison, a year of stolen stories, joys and memories. the crime? journalism. we will find out more about evan gershkovich on "the wall street journal" i'm going back to that gallup poll i mentioned, it was taken in october 2023, here are the top line numbers. when asked, 32% said they had a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media. 29% said not very much trust and 39% said none at all.

you can look at those results visually over time. here are the trendlines. the green is a great deal or fair amount. this blue line here is not much, and the dotted line is none at all. this goes from 1973 to 2023, and there is the dotted line coming up to 39%, the highest number. there's a trend line for a great deal or fair amount. we are taking your calls on that question. following the story about the former rnc chair, here is nbc news and it is reporting that nbc news cut ties with the former rnc chair, coming after nbc news announced her hiring,

prompting an extraordinary public protest from the former host of its political morning show, as well as many of the most popular msnbc hosts three here is a quote from the nbc universal chairman and this was in an email two staffers who says "there is no doubt the last several days have been difficult for the newsgroup after listening to the legitimate concerns of many of you, i have decided that ronna mcdaniel will not be in nbc news contributor. i would like to apologize to team members who fell to eight them down -- let them down. while this was the recommendation, i approved it and take full responsibility for it. let's take a look at what ronna mcdaniel's said on "meet the press" sunday on the legitimacy of joe biden's presidency. [end video clip] -- [video clip] >> do not have responsibility to

say before january 6, the election is not rigged, that donald trump lost, given that there were more than 60 court cases that occurred across the country and that donald trump lost? >> the reality is that joe biden won. he is the legitimate president. i will continue to say that there were issues in 2020 and both can be true. you can say that acid laws were changed to ports, secretary of state and not through the legislative process in the name of the pandemic that took away safeguards to the election. >> you acknowledge what you were talking about did not rise to the level in any way of overturning -- >> remember in november, by the way, when that call took place in november, the election happens in november. we have a job to say this was done correctly, and i will just finish about wayne county, there were precincts that did not align. that is a fact, not propaganda,

so i can't you say, these precincts are not aligning? >> let me stop you because you just said joe biden was legitimate elected president. this is the first time you have said this. >> that is not. [end video clip] host: that was ronna mcdaniel on nbc's "meet the press." we are taking your calls in the amount of trust and confidence you have in the news media. e mbers are divided this way. if you have a eaamount of trust, (202)-748-8000. some, (202)-748-8001. and no trust at all, (2)-748-8002. we have got some text messages. this is fron in michigan. who says, "i have very little faith in the media. the problem started when ronald reagan appealed the fairness doctrine, which created opinion news." a tt at says "i have zero

trt in the media." from virginia, "i have a little trust in the media when reporting on nonpolitical events. absolutely none on polital reporting." and this from tony in florida, "trust but verify. the only information i trust from any media is that which i can verify from multiple sources." we will go to the calls now and hear from tom in deerfield beach, florida. caller: couple of quick points. i have been a c-span watcher, and for some reason, you guys have moved away from the washington, d.c., topics of government and seeing to be addressing broader brush issues. i think you need to return to more nuts and bolts of what government is doing, the hearings, things that are taking place on capitol hill more aggressively and more specifically public policy. the other thing i would say is

that i would like you to reconsider your 30 day rule in an era of issues, maybe there should be a 15 day 21 day window . as far as the lack of trust in media, i think it is a very severe issue, especially on the political realm, which someone referenced in reference to a text or email. on the political issues, with cable news channels, they had just gone off the deep end across the board with what they want people to hear and to see. and as far as the substance of the issues, it is not really get covered well. that is why i was disappointed last week that you did not cover the budget more specifically, the nuts and bolts of it, the things that were in there that were not discussed, and i think c-span provides a valuable tool, but -- host: so what news media do you

follow? what do you trust? caller: not much. i read a great deal and try to filter through the publications and go to real clear politics and specifically try to read something from the left and right and try to get balance on the topics that are active of that day, and then i watch fox news. i also watch, you know, cnn occasionally, news nation. i try to filter through some of that, but it is very hard. i do not watch the networks because they become corporate mouthpieces and you cannot trust them. i do value c-span and this 7:00 a.m. our, but lately, you guys have gone off in a different direction and not get into the nuts and bolts of what is going on in d.c. that we are lacking

information on. there is no accountability anymore in d.c. on anything. nobody resigns over any controversy because nobody cares anymore. everything is fine, so it is this appointing, and c-span is one of the few media outlets that can actually hold someone accountable in a fair manner. host: i appreciate the feedback. let's hear from jean in louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: it is still a cold case. i got lawsuits against w l ky, wave three, wh s-11, local news stations, and my sister was murdered -- host: i'm really sorry that happened, but that is not really are subject today. wayne and south lebanon, ohio.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have no trust at all with people who cut people off when they are trying to explain something to me where i'm trying to explain something because what is going on in the united states with these hospitals that are killing people. host: and janet in rocky river, ohio. good morning, janet. caller: why doesn't news nation higher this ronna mcdaniel. it seems like chris cohen and geraldo rivera are in love with her. i'm glad that nbc got rid of her. she lies. thank god they got rid of her, but go to news nation and be with your friends over there. a bunch of right-wingers who try to say they go down the middle. not true. great work. host: thank you. so what do you watch and how do

you get your news? caller: i get my news on, of course, msnbc, cnn, channels five, abc at night, fox news is ruining the country. i've got relatives i don't even speak to anymore because you cannot talk to them and i don't try, but i think you do a terrific job. i look c-span. thank you. host: this is an article from july of last year from the washington post that says the head of the gop is still elevating 2020 election skepticism. it will not say the election is fair because given her position, she cannot. let's look at something from july of last year. this is there then rnc chairwoman ronna mcdaniel, asked about the 2020 election results. here is what she said on cnn. [video clip] >> i would like to point to

something you said on november 10, 2020, one week after the election when news outlets had all projected biden was the winner of the 2020 election. here you are. >> it has been rigged from the beginning, rigged from the laws passed in the name of covid, rigged in a sense that they kicked republicans out of poll watching and observing. why do you do that if you have nothing to hide? >> my did you stop being an election denier? >> i think problems of 2020 was real. i am from wayne county, we had a woman sent a note said that they had pulled watching. i think everybody should be more concerned about -- >> are you saying as the chair of the republican party, you still have questions as to whether or not joe biden was --

>> no, joe biden is the president. >> do you think he won the election? >> i think there were lots of problems in 2020 ultimately, he won the election but there were lots of problems with the 2020 election, but i don't think he won a fair. let's look at the hunter biden laptop, 51 people in the intelligence agency signed a letter. that is what the public was told and that is not true. that is a lie. >> so you are saying he might not be the legitimate resident? >> i'm saying the american people were not given the information they deserved before the election. [end video clip] host: we are taking your calls and the level of trust and confidence in the news media. this is from greg on facebook, "the problem is people confuse the hours of opinion pieces with the few seconds of actual news. he was responsible for the bridge falling?

and josenortcarolina on text said, "the became suspect a long time, 1930, mussol was a journalist, ter all. rush limbaugh went from reporting to g th presidential medal his "journalistic views" i don't trust people who make up views for money, just like i don't trust politicians who beg for support andey." tricia on facebook says, nalism has changed over the years. it used to be fact-based, and we decided how to digest information. now people throw their own opinions into the broadcast. let's hear from tom in ohio. caller: good morning. appreciate your platform. as far as the trust in the news, i have none.

it is a 24 hour news cycle. it is something to keep the lights on, and opinions from journalists, so-called journalists, are not really what i'm interested in. just give me the news and let's move on. host: where you get the news? caller: i listen to all of them, including your show, of course, and local news, national news, cable news, i listen to all of them. i really want unbiased news that people can listen to and believe in. there isn't any right now. host: and ronald in new york. good morning. caller: good morning.

unfortunately, i have no confidence in journalism or the media, and i will cite two things. unfortunately, even c-span fails in these respects. for example, regarding the 2020 election, that was fraudulent, and on c-span, supposedly, without bias, you claim to be without bias, but you have never had a single person talking about fraud in the 2020 election. you had plenty of people saying that it was valid, but not fraudulent. another example regarding covid and vaccines that were given,

you have had plenty of people with the accepted view, the official view that the vaccines are safe and that covid was properly taken care of with vaccines. you have not had one single person of over thousands of doctors that questioned the vaccine. you have not had one single one on c-span and c-span, ironically, claims to be better than other sources. as far as politics, to some extent, it is, but you are so deficient, it is really a shame. host: tell me about where you get your news then. caller: well, ironically, -- can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead.

caller: ironically, i read "the new york times" every day, while i know it is propaganda, but it has some interesting stories sometimes. i'm also reading "the new york post" for alternative points of view. ironically, "new york post" is the oldest paper in new york city. recently, i happened to get a paper called "the epoque times," which tries to give the viewpoint you never hear from conventional media. i may subscribe to "the epoch times." host: don i salinasn don -- don and salinas, california. caller: i believe that nbc, cnn

will all push their one view. and then i have to clean the truth between the two because i cannot truly trust what a reporter is telling me on the tv. and same with this ronna mcdaniel thing. the media should be hanging her head in shame over what they did to her. when trump went through the deal, there were journalists who won prizes of literature providing their phony stories about trump-russia. did they give their prizes back? did they become ostracized and called a bunch of liars? no. they are still celebrated by people in your business, and for them, to turn around and act

like they are better than ronna mcdaniel, it bugs me. it really does. media should be totally ashamed of what it is doing right now, but it is not. it is probably pushing its agenda. we are looking at a president biden who gets less coverage than ex-president donald trump because almost everything he does falls apart, and it is a disaster, but we do not hear it. we do not hear it from you in the media. all we hear is about, oh, donald trump is going to court over stormy daniels. but we don't hear about what a disaster biden did in afghanistan. we don't hear about what a disaster biden has done in middle east. we don't hear what a disaster biden has done -- host: you really think that has not been covered? the withdrawal from afghanistan, the war in the middle east? you feel like the news media is not covering that?

caller: it is absolutely not covering that. it is covering what you want us to see is what i'm telling you. like in ukraine, do you know there is not a lot of fighting going on in ukraine? that there are not hundreds and thousands dying? it is an entrenched war were one side is throwing missiles at the other side, but you act like russia is still invading ukraine, and they have not been invading for a couple of years now. we are being lied to. host: this is sandra on x who says, "i trust myself as gh-level thinker, i listen and read thly, and i also watch pbs new believe it or not, i still have a love for great jism." and bob in rhodeand, "i work from home and have ytube tv multnewsoing on in the

background with fox, cnn, msnbc, and bbc. interesting to see how the headlines follow patterns hour to hour between the different networks. and cover completely different topics with the same topic from a different perspective." and this is politico on the ronna mcdaniel story, saying white check todd chuc -- chuck todd's course or matters. let's take a look at what he said on "meet the press." and we will talk about his concerns with ronna mcdaniel. [video clip] >> i have no idea whether any answer she gave to you is because she did not want to mess up her contract. she would like us to believe that she was speaking for the rnc, so she has ability issues that she still has to deal with. is she speaking for herself or

on the half of the speaker? she did say that i'm speaking for the party. i get that. that is part of the job. so what about here? i will say that i think her interview to a good job of exposing many other contradictions. there is a reason why there are a lot of journalists on nbc news uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the rnc have been met with character said issues, so that is where you begin here. when nbc made the decision to give her, nbc news credibility, you have to ask what does she bring nbc news customer and when we make deals like this, sometimes it is access to audience or individual, and we can have journalistic ethics debate about that, and i'm willing to have that debate, and

if you told me we were hiring her as a technical advisor to the republican convention, i think that would be defensible. if you told me we are talking to her, but let's see how she does in interviews i may be better with actual journalists and see -- and actually better with actual journalists and see what he could bring to the network, i think this interview will looked through the prism of who she speaking for? [end video clip] host: here is what "the wall street journal" editorial piece said about what you justea take seriously mr. todd's claims the rnc under r mcdaniel was uniquely guilty "gas lighting." that is the new tend this honesty is unately inseparable from part of the politics. we decide that ordinary confusion in recent years tomple

feel gaslight by the mainstream press. the moient point is nbc signed u gas lighters with regularity. most recently, jen psaki w from the biden white house to her own sh msnbc. jen psaki's many white house ts ilude calling the border close, denying americans were stranded in afghanistan, and threatening text platforms with certain covid views. that is "the wall street journal" editorial page. let's take a look at what jen psaki had to say. [video clip] >> you may have seen news the last few days about the hiring of former rnc chair ronna mcdaniel is an nbc news contributor. some, mainly in the right wing ecosystem, have made a comparison to others who have come from government or politics into the media, including me. that is a comparison i felt i had to address.

i got into public service for the same reason many people do, to serve american people. i worked on my first political campaign when i was 24 years old, when i was 28, i packed my bags, moved to chicago to work for barack obama. he wanted to make the country a better place, and i wanted to help him. i wanted to work on behalf of the american people to. and a few years later, i would do the same for president biden when i went to work for him in the white house. i was in the room for difficult decisions, the messy and at times incredibly grueling process of governing, and that experience is something i'm proud to bring to the network. and there are many others who have followed a similar path through i have respect for. here is the thing, that kind of experience only matters and only has value to viewers, all of you, if it is said with honesty

and good faith. those qualities are especially important now at a time when our institutions are under attack and our democracy is in danger. enter democracy -- and our democracy is endangered because of people like ronna mcdaniel or what they are pushing. she has spread lies and call january 6 legitimate political discourse. look, this is not about republicans versus democrats. this is not about red versus blue. this is about truth versus lies. service to the country versus service to one man committed to toppling our democratic system. that is the type of experience that ronna mcdaniel brings to the table, and that experience is not get us to a deeper understanding of anything in the public debate. [end video clip] host: that was jen psaki on msnbc. april in los angeles. good morning. caller: good morning.

i want to just say, i look at channel 7, i look at nbc, channel 4, channel 11, all the channels because i believe in the news, what i don't lead is how ronald mcdonald, who came from trump, who spread all kind of lies, i don't look at that news because the propaganda news and they make the news up. i would like to know why people don't have trust in the news? i have all the trust in the news besides fox news. any day, news channels the campaign for donald trump and then go around and cry about ronald mcdonald got fired, but nbc stood up and the whole cast

stands up and told us why they don't want ronald mcdonald there. i'm so happy they stood up and told the truth. fox news made people angry because -- and trump is the one that fired her, so she wanted a job so she was to fox news? host: in new jersey, ed. caller: i've been in charity work in the inner cities for 55 years and then run third-party for president of the united states for 38 years, and i know a lot of the major figures in the national news media. the problem with them is that they don't understand the problems in society, and they don't know the solutions. i do think the five most powerful, george stephanopoulos,

savanna guthrie, don holtz, simply don't understand the problems of societies with solutions. but i have a solution, let's have summits at harvard, columbia journalism, modell in arizona, and northwestern, creating a code of standards and ethics for the news media and try to make the news media more loving, kind, merciful and positive. but you are the best generalist in the world. host: has it been 30 days since we last talked? caller:. yes. host: just checking. wayne in new york. caller: i do trust the news. i trust the reporters on the ground really giving the news from the people, not the folks inside the studio who have no clue what is going on because they're listening to the folks on the ground.

they start from 7:00 p.m. all the way to 11:00 p.m., so you have to decide all this stuff. i trust the news because we're also going to get it from? i going to go to russia or iran? so the folks with the gas lighting that they are saying have this grievance. trust america. america is who we are. have a good morning. host: you, too. steve on x says, "i ca tell the differenween planted recording and straight news. i't trust certain outlets like the daily wire or breitbart . others are to be taken with a grain of salt." kyle on facebook says, "i trust nothing that i read online. i always considered the source and what they arenti. to see at least three ibleources saying the same thing. verify as much as possible but never trust anything cometely. the waynformation is

manid and manufactured always gives me some man i ask myself, who benefits from meing is is true? does it matter to my life or change what i doing anyway?" host: bill in massachusetts, good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing? good. c-span has already done it today, you are talking to chuck todd and jen psaki, both democrats saying how mcdaniel is not to be trusted. you just did it right there. i remember as a kid, it was sides, democrat and republican. 40 or 50 years ago, both sides would be covered. now when you look at the news, trump is a crook, a liar, everything is biden never gets put on c-span, the biggest crook

that ever was president in the united states history. only trump did this. trump tried to steal a january 6 election, which was not true. but here is one last thing, too. before it is too late, there has to be a total investigation on the 2020 election. maybe have it done from another country where there are thousands of people, and the dominion electronic machines, i bet they have all been destroyed, right? let's see how many people who died who voted. let's see how many people who did not live there anymore who voted. host: so, bill, you did mention that we had chuck todd and jen

psaki, so let's hear from dana perino, a former assistant press secretary for president george w. bush, talking about the topic. [video clip] >> i have lots of thoughts. bear with me. she's not your run-of-the-mill republican. what is that even mean anymore? it has been eight years. president trump is clearly the leader of the party, and they are in the rebuild for political realignment. if they cannot accept someone like ronna mcdaniel, a reasonable person, you might disagree. not a single person had enough guts to stand up and say, i think it is great. i will have her on the show. and what did you mean by this? are they so afraid of eating alone at the lunch table that there is nobody there that has an individual thought? i found that strange. also, they probably had presidential historians on

talking about how great it was that abraham lincoln had a team of libel and they cannot do that themselves. but this is a bigger story with the left because i would like to remind people, they fired the editor of the new york times opinion section because he dared to let tom cotton have an op-ed in the new york times opinion page. when political for wendy danny's ben shapiro an opportunity -- when politico gave ben shapiro an opportunity, people were fired by the end of the day. that is not only happening in the media, but you see that the white house. he was catering to the left right now? just look at israel, that is what is happening. they should have done at nbc beforehand which is dated to all go have drinks before any of this happened. come to my office, have a drink, i would like to talk, talk to

her and get to know her a little bit, rather than throwing her out there and then all of a sudden having to pull it back, looking embarrassed, and having to be sued. [end video clip] host: that was dana perino on fox news. getting your input on your level of trust in the news media, dave is calling from new york. good morning. caer: good morning, mimi. there are so much area to cover. i don'know where to begin. i grew up with walter cronkite telling us every night that that is the way it is. and we knew that was the way it was. and now with the evolvement of the fairness doctrine i do have the news pretending the selection is a horserace instead of what it really is, it is distressing. i listen to some of the callers who are watching outlets i

don't watch, and they are asking, why aren't they covering this or that? well, it is not news. it is not real. that is the problem that has taken place the last few years. there is a number of population convinced that there was an alternative reality. it was kellyanne conway who almost choked when she was talking about inaugurating back in 2017. she said, people need to realize that there are alternative facts. that is the problem right now. i don't know where you look. i don't know where you go to fix it. you have got to be smart. you cannot just say i do research and then go to the website that caters to what you think. it is interesting to watch like bbc and news from other countries and see what they

actually think of us and what we are doing right now. they just cannot believe it. and there is one other thing, and i have been watching c-span back when we used to joke about conservative friday. but there was a thing when there were rational people calling in who were holocaust deniers, you folks would shut the down. it is destructive. it is not good, and it hurts the country. and i really think that we need to be looking at treating these election deniers the same way because it is hurting the country. it is really horrible what we have become. host: we will go to norman in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't trust the news. for years now because not even

the local news because i will put an example of their, there has been all this news on squatting, where squatters are squatting in hauser's and don't get out, blah, blah. -- in houses and dump it out, blah, blah, blah. in reality, it is because the landlords are buying up all these properties, and they are not around the properties. people are squatting in them, but it is a big deal in the news is only talking about it because our local news tied to make it so our local citizens are doing it. host: so how did you find out,

you heard something on the local news, how did you find out that that wasn't fully accurate? caller: well, you pretty much have to decide early. you have to pay attention to different things and decide -- and decipher because you don't get the facts, like i just heard the guy say, like back in the day, with walter cronkite, like you got the truth out of him, it did not matter if it was good for the republicans or democrats and nowadays, the news, that they say this is what we want you to think about, and then they turn around and say, well, how do you feel? even though they got the fax, you know, how do you feel?

like here is the perfect example. i don't understand why like the price of gasoline, i don't understand why people in the news, they try to act like it is the president's fault or blah, blah, blah. they don't say -- the people on the news don't say, well, we are producing more oil now than we ever have in the history of our country, we are the number one producer or produce more in america, and the oil company is setting the prices, not the politics. they never tell you the whole truth. host: let's move onto paul in umoh, arizona. caller: good morning, america.

i don't believe fox, i don't believe one america, or all those things. who paid millions of dollars for lying? it was not nbc that is all i have got to save.. -- it was not nbc. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: in shreveport, louisiana. caller: it is starting to come out about hunter biden, but i have to go and look at different podcasts and different people thrown off of fox, books, how you will make your money, the rising star like obama, i did not know how he was influenced as a community organizer. you guys never did anything on that about how carol reed said joe biden was satanic.

host: and diane in syracuse, new york, good morning. caller: i don't have any confidence or trust at all. i basically trusted walter cronkite and everybody who had integrity. i stopped following the news following politics, but after soul-searching and all the chaos that started, i started voting again, and i will not watch msnbc, cnn, fox news. to tell you the truth, i watch you program everyone's in a while to hear what people are thinking but mostly, i watch the national desk because i feel like there are topics and

everything, but who in the world decided that different people on the news media, i will not watch "meet the press" or "face the nation." i do appreciate "60 minutes" but it is like we don't think for ourselves. i'm going to be 67, and i have watched the house of representatives, and i have watched 92, which is congress, and i have watched them live in the reruns. i have watched what is going on. and nothing really tells the whole truth. i am so disgusted at people who watch these roundtables and jen

psaki, she did live. everybody lies. and we have got to get back to walter cronkite. i'm so happy that he was brought up because there was integrity. i have only heard one person say, we cannot confirm this to get a talking point and to get everybody riled up. and that is what i have to say about that. host: raymond in florida, good morning. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: good. caller: i was listening to a lot of people. it is kind of funny this talk about fox, but you cannot even make a comparison like msnbc and fox. at least you will have a true debate on every panel. this is the problem i have with the guy who made all these

decisions. i used to be a corporate executive. you have got to use your head. one of the main cohosts came up years ago, a host and the show, and said, you will never have anybody on my show was a republican or has that view or whatever, so for that guy to turn around and higher ronna mcdaniel, knowing that none of the hosts of any msnbc is going to inviter on the show, except for maybe chuck todd or whoever did it, it is to me basically incompetent. you know those hosts have to invite her on the show and will not allow her -- i think that is bad judgment. that is really all i have to say. host: let's take a look at what "the chicago tribune" said i editorial about the topic. ma rig decision in reversing course on hiring ronna mcdaniel to be a

regular contributor. mcdaniel support for d trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him in ad uto the 20 anyone -- lead up to the 2021 capitol majorit. that does not change reality for nbc or any other national news platform seeking to be something more of an echo r for one side or the other. giving airtime to a variety of voices, including those expressing views some might find an accessie is the bare minimum needed to have even a chance at regaining the kind of bipartisan credibility broadcast media enjoy decades ago. let's go now new york, new york. good morning. caller: hey. good morning. how are you?

i will try to be as fast as possible. i like you and greta a lot. i will try to be focused and quick. jen psaki, should evans -- bishop evans, the young texas dps murdered by the illegal alien, all the illegal aliens who are destroying our community throughout the country and all the mayors and governors and people and the bureaucrats and george soros, every power that is behind us, supporting them, the crime is unbelievable in our cities. i watch everything. one of my first careers from "the new york times" looking at one of their ads when i moved from minnesota to new york, so i read everything.

i will look at "the daily caller," newsmax, fox, and i even look at cnn and msnbc. not on a regular basis, but just to hear the other side because i'm not perfect and i may not agree with all the callers, but i respect their opinion to disagree with me. and to think that jim crow joe biden is a wonderful man -- he has been a plagiarist all his life. about 1987 when johnny carson outed him out, and not only that, but all the newscasters that he was lying about his credentials. he is lying now. look at the millions of illegal aliens he has allowed in the country. host: ok, we're getting off the topic. caller: ok, ok, i will be quick. this is what ongoing essay and i will be quick. you have an opportunity to read, do research, and be mindful and do everything you can.

to be reestablished as an american. we cannot rely on just regular news. so we go to our own self and politics, and we also believe interest in the truth -- believe and trust in the truth. i don't believe in the news but the truth, and i'm willing to listen to every person because they may help me get to the honest side. thank you and have a great day. host: new haven, connecticut, kristin. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to give all the people out there some hope. the mainstream media is dying, and there is a new media that is coming through and you can find a lot of it on youtube if any of you have access to youtube. also, through some of the shows, this is where you are going to find out about the wars. this is where you're going to find out about alternative candidates like jfk junior. this

is where you will find out information because the history media is not getting it. -- because the mainstream media site giving it. you have programs like "the hill," "breaking point." mind you, this news media that the younger generation is embracing, they get more news, more clips, more people watching that msnbc -- then msnbc and all the big ones combined. you have "redacted." you have judge napolitano. you can find out all you need to know about the ukraine-russian war. you have people like jimmy door who broke the vaccine story. it was incredible. you get nothing from the

mainstream media. the problem with c-span is that viewers have gotten really old. no offense. host: how old are you? caller: i'm 55. so i'm old, too. but i cannot watch those shows anymore. i can barely watch your show half the time. and i'm from the days of ryan lander -- brian lam. i used to call and talk to him. i think the great experiment you should do is play some of your older shows so we can compare the people who used to call 20 years ago and the people who call now. host: why do you think there is such a big difference? caller: because the mainstream media is emotion-based.

it is based on a motion. it is about divisiveness. there are -- host: so you think it is the media that has really changed the population that has divided the population? caller: dumbed down the population for sure. if you don't get factual information, you cannot blame the people. they are just regurgitating what they hear every night, which is based on emotion. it is not based on facts. journalism is very simple. it is who, what, when and where. and how. it is not rocket science. so when you are watching, you can go to alternative media right now. go to "breaking point" covering the israel war or maybe they are a little more political. they are getting millions of views on every segment they do.

the viewership for msnbc's probably around less than 500,000 people. it is a microcosm bubble. there is hope out there, folks. we have got to learn how to use the new technology. host: we will move on to oscar in north carolina. oscar? you have got to turn down your tv. i can hear it in the background. omar in brooklyn, new york, good morning caller: good morning, can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: good morning, america. i would like to talk about absorbing the news from the ground. i remember when i was younger, i spoke to my grandmother and

asked her, a black american that grew up in the projects because her husband, my grandfather, was in world war two. he had just moved into the projects. that was the focus, but i feel like i can say, my mom, she passively, but i asked her about malcolm x, i never remember she told me that she was afraid of malcolm x. i asked, why? she said because of what they were promoting on the news. and she advised her children to veer away from that type of advocacy, that activism. the problem with that is that the mainstream media tends to move your opinion, and i subdue it from the mainstream media because back in 2016, donald trump was running for president

anti-got the presidency, and i just want information, the facts, and then i will make my own decision. back to malcolm, when he got killed, everybody loved him, same thing with martin. the same thing with martin luther king. everybody talking about you all love martin now, but you didn't back in the day. host: and you blame the media for that? caller: that was all from the media. and i'm a new yorker, a born new yorker. the riverside church speech he gave, they castrated him, and that a couple of months later, he was killed. you all promote the people, and then when something bad happens, you want to promote it and prop it up to it is magnificent. now what i listen to his black

media -- is black media. i go to the black media. host: let's talk to john in maryland. caller: [indiscernible] usually listen to npr, pbs, but one thing, all these crazy accusations about the election, over 60 cases that trump lost when trying to overturn the election, over 60 with judges he appointed. even they thought it was hogwash, and not in one did they actually say the election was stolen or rigged. then they would be found guilty of lying under oath.

so, all the various recounts republicans had of all the elections around the country in 2020, not one found fraud. and in america, they looked into the election and found no fraud and [indiscernible] republicans are absolutely insane. and looking for bamboo fibers and stuff. just truly says the mindset of these people, too. really speaks to what the president said, and you can see it and how republicans talk about nikki haley, immigrants, and lyndon b. johnson once said, that the lowest white person is better than the highest black

college person, than he is not going to notice -- host: that is all the time we have for this segment. i would like to remind you that this is the one-year anniversary of evan gershkovich's imprisonment in russia, a 32-year-old "wall street journal" reporter and has been imprisoned for one year. "the wall street journal" took out a full-page ad in "the new york times," say we will keep telling evan story until he can tell his own, and you can find out more about him on "the wall street journal" homepage. next, emily gee of the center for american progress and michael cannon of the cato institute discussed the role health care is playing in campaign 2024. later, we are joined by mothy lenderking who will assess the cent strikes by houthi rebels in the red sea and u.s. efforts

to restore peace in that country. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> today watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage, providing one shop -- a one-stop shop to find out what candidates are saying to voters along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org for download as a podcast on

c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> get contact information from members of government right in the palm of your hand when you preorder your copy of the 2024 congressional directory with bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 118th congress. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today for delivery this spring. ♪ >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy for you listen to all of the c-span

podcasted future nonfiction books in one ice so you can discover new authors and ideas. each weekly make it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with tickly acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events and culture from our signature programs about books, afterword s, q&a. bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find them on the free c-span now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. >> the space program will

continue in the future as long as man has the thirst for knowledge, we will continue to press outward and in the process, there is risk. that risk is taken by each one of us every day and that risk is understood by all the members of the crew that climb into a loaded spaceship. >> c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues.. host: welcome back to our discussion on health care policy. we are joined by the senior vice president for inclusive growth at the center for american progress action fund and michael cannon's director of health policy studies at the cato institute. welcome to both of you. i want to start -- it's a 14th

anniversary of the affordable care act and i want to show a poll thatkfs did asking how favorable or unfavorable an opinion of the aca, also known as obamacare is. this shows the trend with this dark blue line being favorable, up to 51% now with unfavorable at 40%. it looks like it's the biggest, the highest it's been since it was signed into law. what you think of that and why do you think that is? guest: it's the highest it's been since it was passed in 14 years. it's a surprise because we have more people that are benefiting from the affordable care act. 45 million people are now covered whether it's buying coverage on their own for the health insurance marketplaces, coverage through the affordable care act, medicaid and childless

adults or getting basic health plan coverage, people also are benefiting from better protection. if you have a chronic condition like diabetes or asthma or you are pregnant or you're going through some sort of surgery or cancer treatment, you can't be discriminated against by health insurance plans the way you could before the aca. host: there has been some sparring politically about the aca and the future of it. i want to show a biden campaign add. it's very quick, about health policy specifically. [video clip] >> obamacare is a disaster. what would like to do is totally cancel it. obamacare is a catastrophe. {beeps]

host: it was not rick very radio from the of the end but essentially saying that trump wants to take away coverage for pre-existing conditions. 45 million americans could lose their health insurance. this is what he said on truth social. he said i'm not running to terminate the aca. joe biden disinrmation and misinformation all the time. i want to make ourilary grade and strengthen our military make the aca or obamacare as it is known much tter, stronger and far less expensive. in other words, make the aca much, much, much better for far less money to our great american citizens. michael, your reaction to that? guest: it's hard to know what

president trump things from one day to the next but certainly, he is not running on health care. i don't think he did last time. i don't think he took the repeal effort seriously and that's too bad because research by president biden's economic advisor at the council of economic advisors shows that obamacare's central provision, the pre--- the suppose a protection for people with pre-existing conditions are actually making coverage worse for people with conditions like multiple sclerosis because they penalize insurers unless they make the coverage worse. those provisions that are supposed to protect the sick are actually harming the sick. if you ask respondents about those effects of those provisions of obamacare, even democrats turn against obamacare. the kaiser family foundation

poll, single pairs are asked about the cost -- single payers are asked about the cost. . if they looked at it, they would find that not only do republicans and independents turn against obamacare but even democrats. host: explained that, what do you mean the coverage would get worse? guest: whatever one calls obamacare's protections for people with pre-existing conditions is the government telling insurance companies you cannot charge sick people higher premiums which imposes what we call a branding -- a binding place -- price ceiling. when you have a binding price ceiling like that, the quality of the product gets worse. if you said you can only charge five cents for an apple, then if an apple costs $.60 to produce, you will not get a 60 sent apple anymore. you will get apples with worms and holes in them and that's what's happening with health insurance under obamacare. host: we've seen that over the last 14 years? guest: president biden's

economic advisor has studied this showing that as a result of these provisions, coverage is getting worse for people with multiple sclerosis and lots of other expensive conditions. the debate has not focused on that. when republicans attacked his law, they don't bring up that part which gets back to president trump inattention and the inattention of republicans in congress. host: has the aca made health care worse? guest: it has made health care so much better. we are so far from a perfect system on whether you have marketplace coverage or other coverage, there are things we can still do to make sure people have access to the providers they need and the medicines they need, have adequate insurance networks. let's go back to pre--2010. people with multiple sclerosis are cancer might've gotten denied coverage altogether.

they might've gotten charge more because insurance plans were allowed to discriminate and say we will cover you but not cover your cancer or i will charge you more because you previously had a c-section or you are a female. the aca outlawed that. it's a wildly popular provision of the aca where the majority people in the u.s. thinks insurance companies should not be able to be prejudiced based on pre-existing conditions. host: the provisions are set to expire at the end of 2025. explain with these premium subsidies are and what would happen if they were to and at the end of 2025? guest: from the beginning, the affordable care act made marketplace coverage for people who buy insurance on their own more affordable by guaranteeing that coverage would cost no more than a certain percentage of their income. that's on a sliding scale. if you are someone who is just above the cutoff for medicaid

eligibility, you can get a plan that doesn't cost your family that much. the obligation for the family gets higher as income gets higher. what the enhanced subsidies that were first passed as part of the american rescue plan act and extended through the inflation reduction act do is they give more financial help to families on the lower scale and eliminate the subsidy cliff at the higher end which meant there were some middle-class families that suddenly got over an income cut off and lost their subsidies. it's a better tax design but also made financial help available to more families. host: we are at the point where four out of five marketplace consumers could have found some sort of coverage on the marketplace for $10 or less. host:host: michael, your opinion. guest: these are premium subsidies that hide the cost of obamacare plants. they don't reduce the cost, they hide the premium by shifting the net burden to taxpayers rather than the enrollee.

that doesn't reduce the cost of health insurance subsidies. it increases the cost of things. yet, even with all of those subsidies, obamacare plans, as a result of the subsidies, obamacare plans are becoming more extensive overtime. the pre-existing conditions provision we been discussing caused some people to double or triple their premiums since congress passed the law. it has become so expensive under obamacare that the average silver plan premium for single adults is about 13% for 40 years old. it's a significant chunk of income. and it's growing faster than household income. premiums have risen so rapidly that congress is now subsidizing people making $200,000 per year to help them afford this supposedly informal coverage.

those folks are receiving subsidies of $12,000 per year to afford this supposedly affordable coverage. the enhanced subsidies run all the way up the income scale to people making $600,000 per year. if congress had to subsidize people making six of the thousand dollars per year, this coverage is not affordable host: i will invite our viewers to call in and ask a question of our guests. the lies this time or buy insurance. if you have private insurance, call us on (202) 748-8000. if you are insured through the aca or obamacare, that number is (202) 748-8001. if you are on medicare, you can call is on (202) 748-8002. everybody else can call on (202) 748-8003. you can also use that line for texting us. remind viewers of the trump administration, what that

administration did while in office to rollback the aca. guest: very little. the administration gave people options so they wouldn't have to enroll in the aca if they didn't want to. one of those options was an option that congress created back in 1996. there is a market for health insurance in the united states that is not subject to any federal regulation because congress avoided that. we call that short-term insurance. what the trump administration did is rollback and obama era rule or regulation that said those plans cannot last more than three months. they always less 12 months. the obama administration limited them to three months which had the effect of throwing people out of their health insurance plan after they got sick and leaving them without insurance for up to 12 months. the trump administration added consumer protection to those plans and allow people to keep them for 12 months or 36 months

so they can at least get to the next obamacare enrollment period. the congressional budget office says it offers comprehensive coverage, lower deductibles then obamacare plans. for 9-10 months of the year, they are more comprehensive than every obamacare plan because you cannot buy in obama plan for 10 months of the year. the trump administration, by rolling back or eliminating the obama your role that talks people out of health insurance, the trump administration made health insurance more affordable for people. unfortunately, the biden administration is no basically reinstated their obama rule yesterday. they announced they would be throwing people out of their short-term plans after four months which means that by a short-term plan, you get sick in the by ministration will terminate that plan within four months and leave you without insurance for up to 12 months.

host: here is the new york times article from yesterday about that -- host: your comment on that? guest: these plans that michael is talking about, the short term duration plans are junk insurance. they are not aca coverage and they can discriminate against people for pre-existing conditions. they don't have to offer basic services like prescription drugs or maternity care, mental health care. these are really meant as a bridge for people between types of coverage. if it's short-term coverage, it should be short-term which is what the biden administration has allowed. if you need a bridge between different coverage, you can get it but otherwise, it should be -- it should not be a permanent type of coverage. the marketplaces provide special enrollment periods.

if you lost a job or lost their medicaid coverage removed from state to state, you have time outside the usual open enrollment window to enroll in coverage or shopper coverage. there is a year round marketplace option for people who experience those life transitions. host: michael? guest: what distinguishes the short-term market as you can buy as much coverage as you want or as little coverage as you want. what we are seeing is people who get the coverage they want and not having to buy coverage they don't want or the government wants to compel them to buy. that's why obamacare, it gives people the option to choose their own health insurance instead of empowering the government to choose it for them. on the question of junk insurance, if it is march and you go to buy health insurance and the next day you get hit by a bus, if you bought a short-term plan, the plan would cover you. if you tried to buy in obamacare

plan, it would not cover your care at all. you can by obamacare in march. tell me which of these plans is junk. host: let's talk to callers now kim is in ottumwa, iowa, good morning. caller: i was thinking about the health care debate. i think mr. cannon is totally wrong. short-term is junk, it's just junk. when people are working and you put everything in the kitty to receive services, that means premiums will go down. down. i don't understand what he's saying -- the only thing he's trying to say is that you tried to convince the lower tier that

doesn't make $200,000 but don't put it in the kitty because it's hurting their subsidies. it's taking away part of your health care. you should not want dental, you should not want all the other stuff including children that are disabled. that's what i fear. that's what i hear. host: let's get a response. guest: unfortunately, neither the trump campaign or biden campaign or republicans or democrats are introducing the sorts of reforms we need on health care which is reform that makes health insurance more affordable but health care more affordable, that drive down health care prices. all the people the caller is talking about are suffering because health care prices are excessive. the reason they are excessive is because government is trying to do everything it can to make health care free. when the government does that, what happens is there is no such

thing as a free lunch. all of the subsidies the government throws at health care and all of the tax preferences the government throws at health care encourage people to enroll in more insurance and the subsidies makes people less price sensitive say don't get the price competition we see in other sectors of the economy. when prices rise, people think now prices are so high, i need more insurance. that just perpetuates the cycle and they demand more insurance or more subsidies for insurance. the short-term market is a small step in the right rector because gives people the choice to purchase less insurance than the government is subsidizing or compelling them to purchase elsewhere. that can put downward pressure on prices but what congress really needs to do and i sympathize with the caller. i struggle with health care prices as well. but the government needs to do is less consumer control of the

$4 trillion that this country devotes toward health care every year. right now, employers and the government control 83% of that directly or indirectly. let consumers control that spending. they will have greater price sensitivity and spark more competition. that will cause prices to plummet and make health care more affordable for everyone .what you once more universal health care. you need that sort of price sensitivity and competition to drive down prices because that is what makes health care more universal. host: will that drive down prices? guest: in talking about prices, you can talk about the role of insurance.and the government has a responsibility make sure the that when people buy insurance, they get insurance. the same way if you buy a car, it better have seat and lights and breaks. if the junk plans are providing the kind of protection people

expect, if you get hit by that last with your plan, the plan might come back and say we are going to cap your coverage and i can't pay your entire hospital bill. we have a responsibility to make sure there is a market functioning for comprehensive insurance. the point of insurance is to spread risk across people and over lifetimes and at least provide a floor for the benefits people need that are essential. host: let's talk to carolyn in orlando, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hi, i'm a medicare recipient but prior to that, i had to use the aca program. once somebody says obamacare, they have dug into every negative aspect of aca. aca was helpful for me when i was working in between jobs and prior to aca, you are not able to buy insurance at all. it is a good thing for

americans. it's available to everybody so that makes it, you know, good for america. host: there are people that say it's too expensive. what was your experience with the cost of the aca? caller: it was comparable to private insurance. i used it prior to trump. my sister used more recently and she likes it and she had good coverage. she had good prices but she can no longer use it anymore once she retired. i am retired. i prefer it. i had better coverage. he's looking into the negative and the junk is people who don't want to buy private insurance or have to have some insurance proof for their employer. that's where the junk insurance

comes in. but aca has been good for me and my sister. host: what you think, michael? guest: i'm glad for the people the affordable help. -- does help. the people that it harms vastly outnumber them and the people it harms our women age 55-64. it's been found that obamacare increase premiums on women age 55-64 more than anyone else. reason for that is because it pools those women with men of the same age who are much sicker. as a result, the affordable care act or obamacare discriminated against women by increasing their premium differentially. i think the real problem here and what we are all struggling with and obamacare is an attempt

to fill the gaps of this problem -- for almost 100 years now, the government has been penalizing u.s. workers unless they enroll in employer-sponsored insurance. they let their employer control huge chunk of their earnings and used to purchase and enroll in and choose for the worker lousy health insurance plan. it disappears after you get sick. the government is compelling people to enroll in junk insurance and has been for 100 years, insurance that throws people out of their coverage if they get sick and leaves them to fend for themselves in a market that won't cover them because now they have a pre-existing condition. government is not the solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions, government is because of the problem. -- is the cause of the problem. the thing that congress must do if you want to make health insurance more affordable and secure is a need to reform the tax treatment of insurance that

penalizes workers unless they enroll in a very insecure form of junk insurance. host: let's talk to kansas in maine, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to thank michael cannon, thank you so much for shedding light on the skyrocketing cost. i want to highlight how expensive it is for working families. i understand the aca might work for a single person but for working families, we were quoted in maine that it would be $1250 for a bronze plant. that's simply unaffordable, is more than our mortgage. i just hope that we get the reform we really. desperately need host: what you think of that, the cost for families? guest: the underlying cost of

marketplace coverage is comparable, in the same ballpark as employer-sponsored insurance. there are subsidies available that are on a sliding scale with more help for lower income families. it will be critical to keep it affordable as it is now that congress and year before the end of the enhanced premium tax credits which expire the end of 2020 -- 2025, renew those of middle -- some more middle-class families can of access to financial help and marketplaces. i think there is also we need to do across the board to help lower the cost of health care. we pay a lot in this country for health that is not comparable to developed nations. in addition to the financial help for insurance, we need to look at things to lower the price of drugs which president biden has done. also extend the reforms for medicare to the commercial sector and deal with the

consolidation of health care providers in this country. a lot of the hospital systems, conglomerates or insurance and hospitals and other entities as well. host: let's talk about medicaid. i will start with you, michael. this is the axios article -- what's going on with that? this is the republican study committee in the house that released a budget that released a budget the calls for converting medicaid from an open ended entitlement to block grants. tell us how that would work, what's the difference? guest: we need to understand the federal government is so large and the debt to gdp ratio is about 100%. even if you eliminate, completely eliminate medicare and medicaid and obamacare and

the chip program, you still wouldn't illuminate the federal deficit. you would come close but you wouldn't illuminate the entire thing. congress has to cut somewhere and it has to cut health care because health care's social security and health care combined are about 46% of the federal budget. you cannot balance the budget without cutting these programs. the medicaid program is probably the easiest one to cut and the easiest one to cut because even if you zero doubt federal medicaid spending right now, that doesn't mean anyone would lose any access to medical care at all. states pay for about 40% of the medicaid program and if they want to maintain those programs at current levels, they just increase taxes and fund those programs at the same level they are now. if states are not willing to do that, that means this program is not popular at current levels in which case we should definitely

be cutting it if it's not popular. the way the proposal would work is it wouldn't eliminate the federal medicaid contribution. it would reduce the growth in spending, call that a cut, and it would give that money to states more and allow them to spend it more flexibly than they can now. there are a lot of very prescriptive rules to whom you have to provide coverage and what coverage you have to provide and so forth. what the republican study committee wants to do is say for these categories of medicaid enrollees, we will give you more flex ability when it comes to how to provide health insurance for the aged or the disabled or so forth. they should have gone farther in cutting medicaid, federal medicaid spending and they should have given states much more flexibility than they propose to do because of the federal government is going to give states money, they should give it to them as one unrestricted block grant so that

if the state thinks there is a more dire need for subsidies for the disabled, then they can do that. they can spend the money there and other states can make other decisions. it still doesn't make sense to have the federal government say states need to spend this much. host: what do you think? guest: you can go back and look at what trump did when he was president and you see that he was cheering on efforts to block grant medicaid. host: what's wrong with making it a block grant? guest: that doesn't give states more flexibility, it caps what they can provide. we know there is a lot of variation in health care cost. sometimes new drugs come online that can radically change how we treat health conditions like the hepatitis c drugs. states might experience natural disasters or gains or losses in

population or economic ups and downs. when you block grant the program, it restricts the state's ability to react and provide health care. it also hampers states for making investment in care they could pay off for

caller: we could have a six

month plan to treat it and we can be on their pockets longer and make more money from it. they are obligated to keep somebody in a poor condition longer. they don't compete for the consumer, they compete -- they compete for deep customer class. they've allowed too many mergers and acquisitions. they shouldn't allow any of that at all. the profit motive is dominating everything. when we talk about health care, there are profiteers in charge of writing everything. the aca does have a lot of problems and lawyers -- and they don't have the means to provide good plans on up at the profit motive has to stop dominating absolutely if not the free market, is the private market. host: we will take that up. guest: i disagree because if he were correct, that health care providers and drug companies can keep bleeding us for money, when

we have a 95% care for hepatitis c. why would a drug company develop a drug like that? the reason is they can make money by helping patients. that's all to the good and if profits were an indication of how much a doctor or hospital or drug company were meeting human needs, we would love profit and celebrate it. it would be wonderful. when the patient is only paying $.10 on the dollar, they want more and more. when the government is paying directly for 50%, the industry

is able to go to members of congress and say can you reduce the price medicare is paying for me and my colleagues. they can gain the formulas and medicaid. they can use it to come up with a price they pay for drugs. they are able to make money because the government is so heavily involved in health care. they can make money even though they are not meeting patient needs. the best research we have on the medicare program from dartmouth suggests that one out of every three dollars medicare spends on health care for seniors does nothing to make seniors healthier or happier or secure. that's a pure income transfer. it's more like plunder of the taxpayers. that's my take on the caller's

concern. i also think the data highlights that congress should be cutting the medicare program pretty drastically as well. guest: we do have a problem where the price of drugs is disconnected from the value. there are drugs where it is quite expensive but cures hepatitis c but there are drugs like insulin that are decades-old where people were paying far too much to the point were sometimes they were rushing their insulin or not filling the prescription at the pharmacy because they couldn't afford what's literally a life-sustaining medication. if you go back and look at the poll numbers now for a few years ago, that's why one of the most popular health care reforms was allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices. until president biden signed the inflation reduction act couple of years ago, medicare didn't have the authority to do that. we in america pay about two or three times more than comparable

countries. for brand-name drugs but now, medicare can negotiate drugs and they are doing that with the first 10 drugs, the top 10 by medicare dollars spent which is dramatic savings for the medicare program and taxpayers and it will also lower copayments for medicare beneficiaries and the president has cap the cost of insulin through medicare. it's $45 per month. host: the caller also mentioned the ads we see for drugs. those didn't used to be allowed. what do you think of that? guest: there are countries around the world that don't allow pharmaceutical advertising the volume of ads you see when you turn on your favorite program or football game show you how much profit there is to be made in this industry. companies spend more in advertising than they do on r&d. a lot of that is paid by us the

taxpayers through national institutes, the basic science that goes into drug development is public money. there is still a lot of profit in the system and more we can do to reduce drug prices and connect them host: host: to value better. let's go to chicago and talk to justin who is on the aca. caller: shalom like him. the point is, i've worked 30 plus years in the union and i had great coverage. now i have aca. when roosevelt started social security, it wasn't perfect. it took years to iron it out and it still not perfect today but it works quite well. if you stop fighting over china getting rid of obamacare and really dig into -- we are supposed to be the great's nation the world. we are not in a comes to health

care, we are not when it comes to insurance. we have seniors that are in bad positions and not getting taken care of. we have people falling in the gaps who have worked all their life. we should have coverage and there should be nobody who doesn't have coverage in america today. it is ridiculous with the money we had over the years that we are fussing and fighting especially when there are other nations that have full coverage. all you have to do is walk in. we should be embarrassed and ashamed of ourselves that we don't cover each and every person in the united states, homeless people that are just starting families, all of this should be covered. stop talking about costs. let's talk about the cost it creates that if they are well and healthy, how they can participate in making the united states better. host: do you think everybody should be covered? guest: i want a health sector that fills in the gaps, over

time. so that fewer and fewer people fall through overtime. that's my idea of coverage. does everyone need health insurance for every item? no, because we reliant health insurance too much. it causes those gaps to widen an example that came to mind was we were talking about insulin but in the example of obamacare, it must cover all fda approved contraception. it's 100%. there will be no out-of-pocket charge when we access these contraceptives. you would think this is wonderful. what hit has axley done is because the prices of contraceptives to skyrocket. when you pay for things through insurance, prices go up. host: shouldn't that not be

allowed? that's like price gouging. guest: you can call it priors -- price gouging if you want but we know it will happen. then we should use a more reliable to forgiving those prices down which is letting consumers control the $4 trillion in the health sector and exercise price sensitivity with the purchasing pharmaceuticals directly over the counter or when they pay for their health insurance premiums. then they can put themselves in plans based on how good the plans are and their negotiations with the drug companies. congress is not very good at negotiating insurance. they are not good at negotiating with hospitals and neither is congress. we probably agree a lot on a lot of things in a calm superscription drug pricing. in one place we disagree or maybe we agree, congress has always had the authority to

negotiate prices for prescription drugs ever since it began. 1966 was when medicare took effect. it's been negotiating at the level of the formulas we will use to what the prices are. in those negotiations, the taxpayers lose every time because congress is terrible at this. the drug companies always win. when congress gave president biden and the medicare bureaucracy the authority to negotiate with drug companies which i favor, i'm glad they will try to get the price down -- it was an admission that congress at least is terrible at this. maybe we should give the medicare bureaucracy a shot at getting these prices down and they haven't done that yet. the cbo has predicted they will get those prices down for 50% which would be great but the cbo also predicted that the act would reduce the price the consumer sees but now there is evidence that suggests that

might be increasing prices. host: what do you think? guest: i think the inflation reduction act negotiations are a step in the right direction. how do we get coverage for everybody? a lot of it has to do with bringing down prices to make sure people regardless of whether they have insurance can get the things they need. while that has to do with lowering drug because, i think we need more transparency and prescription drug markets including the drug financial chain. as your caller said, we come a long way. at the latest data point we have for health insurance rate, the insurance rate was below 8%. that's half of what it was before the aca. there are millions of people, tens of millions of people who didn't have coverage before the aca who now have coverage. certainly there is more work to

do and their attendant states that haven't expanded medicaid under the aca and could do that and bring in federal money to support getting people above the poverty line into health care -- below that poverty line into health care coverage. it makes comparison-shopping better to make sure people have adequate information about the doctor networks they have access to. that's a lot of progress we can afford to roll back. host: michael mentioned the surprise medical billing. he said that's actually raised prices. is that true? guest: there was a congressional budget office analysis that came out recently that looked at whether that man unsurprised billing was going to lower the prices of care. this is an example of how you and act and reform which is important. the way the law is set up, the dispute resolution when a person gets a bill from a provider

where they weren't expecting this calls for some sort of negotiation process that goes against the consumer in the plan. host: let's talk to howard in minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. i've been working doing street outreach on the opioid epidemic in minneapolis. the governor's opioid epidemic czar presented at city council for minneapolis. we had 11 mental health facilities close because of the medicaid reimbursement rate. in the midst of a opioid epidemic, only 25% of people having substance abuse disorder are getting access to treatment. that's why we have so many overdoses. we need uniformity in her medicaid manatt lot grants to confront the opioid epidemic --

not block grant to confront the opioid epidemic. guest: the opioid epidemic is a horrible -- a very dear friend lost her brother to an opioid overdose. the cause of the opioid epidemic is the war on drugs. just like prohibition made alcohol unsafe and introduced into the market some forms of alcohol that caused blindness. the war on opioids and other drugs is causing people to turn to more and more potent opioids and other drugs to avoid detection by the government. those more and more potent drugs are leading to these overdoses. i want to recommend to the caller, dr. jeffrey singer at the cato industry -- institute,

the work is done on how to combat first the drug war but also the opioid overdose epidemic by doing such things as making no locks and over-the-counter --noloxene over-the-counter by allowing safe injection sites or overdose prevention site. there is a federal law that prohibits people from opening these facilities where people, where drug users can get their drugs tested to make sure they are not laced with fentanyl or other dangerous substances and inject in a safe environment where they have nurses on call n witholoxone and other social services should they need them. a whole list of other things that dr. singer and others in this cause have been working on to try to at least two reduce the harm of opioid use in the

harms of drug prohibition which is causing the first problem. host: howard, are you still there? what do you think of that? caller: i think harm reduction and safe sites and rhode island has already implemented it. we are looking at doing a safe site and duplicating it in st. paul and minneapolis. you get the reaction to any time you set up a clinic or a safe site location. this is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be confronted. host: linda in utah, good morning. caller: hi, my name is linda. i was really amazed that he compared affordable health care to all you were me apple with people with preconditions.

the thing that amazes me about it is we have pharmaceuticals and doctors and universities doing research and we have capitalism. you are saying that a person with pre-existing conditions are not having all these things coming due to the cause of the farmer and the apple at 50 cent? it doesn't even make sense. the farmer with an apple, though warmy apple will improve his product. your analogy of an apple and pre-existing conditions does not make sense to me. host: explain the apple. guest: the idea here is that if you control the prices so that -- let's talk about health insurance, not apples.

what president biden's economic advisor found when he was looking at the obamacare exchanges and the health insurance plans is that patients with multiple sclerosis filed about $63,000 in claims per year. the insurance companies that covered them only got about $47,000 i think it was in premiums, the premium that the enrollee was paying and the premium subsidies from the government and the special premium payments wykle risk adjustment payments. they were still only getting $47,000 per enrollee. that means there was about $16,000 m for everys patient, they would lose about $16,000. you cannot stay in business are you can't keep offering quality coverage for ms if that happens.

what will happen is your helpline will attract all of the ms patients. your losses will be even greater and the incentives that obamacare's pre-existing condition rules exist is to avoid the implicit penalties by making their ms coverage worse and worse. that's with the professor and his colleagues found. the authors of the affordable care act new that the pre-existing condition provisions would have this effect. that's why they created what we call risk adjustment payments to provide extra money to insurance companies that were attracting the sicker patients because they knew that if they didn't get the extra money, they would make their coverage worse for the sick. what the professor found is that the government is trying to price setting. they are trying to mimic market prices for market premiums,

health insurance premiums for people with multiple sclerosis and they're not getting the prices right just like medicare doesn't get the price is right and medicaid doesn't get that price is right when the government sets prices there and the people are suffering our patients were getting less access to drugs. one dimension on which these price controls or making coverage worse for patients. host: let's talk to teresa in pennsylvania. caller: hi, i really appreciate this conversation. it's been needed but i also think that the aca that's made it possible. the issue about patient care in particular, competition in pricing i think comes down to the issue of lobbying and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.

once the fda came down on going to the doctors directly, the strategies changed to go to the consumers. then also try to focus in on the lobbyists. the aca has stepped in and tried to make sure that the patients at least get a minimum amount of care which is necessary. my concern about the cato institute especially with the ms discussion is that cato never partners with the private sector organizations that represent the patient's. cato just criticizes the government spending. i know it's libertarian but it's not looking for what is common sense and how to treat a patient. this just looking at the fact

that the government is spending money and not specifically whether it's appropriate. host: let's get a response. guest: the cato institute has been around since 1977 and we are a libertarian think tank. when it comes to health care, that means we believe you have rights when it comes your health. your most important health care right is your right to make your own health decisions. we have been fighting for that right for all patients ever since the founding of the cato institute. that is across tax policy, cross health policy, entitlement policy, drug regulation and so forth. we want you to be able to make these decisions about your health and your family self, not have the government make these decisions for you. host: that's michael cannon, director health policies duties -- studies at the cato institute.

you can go to their website. also emilygee with inclusive growth at the american progress fund. thank you both so much for joining us. up next, u.s. special envoy to yemen joints is to discuss the strikes by the yemen houthi rebels in the red sea in the country's ongoing civil war. we will be right back. ♪ >> >> american history tv, exploring the events that tell the american story. at 2 p.m. eastern on the civil war, the author of long street

talks about confederate general james long street who embraced reconstruction after the civil war and became an outcast in the south. at 7 p.m. eastern, american history tv series congress investigates looks at the historic investigations that led to changes in policy and law. this weekend, the 1912 senate committees investigation into the sinking of the titanic, the 82 witnesses testimony about ice warnings that were ignored, the inadequate number of lifeboats and treatment of different classes of passengers. and 9 p.m. eastern on the presidency, the society of presidential defendants gathered at the truman little white house in florida to reflect on how their ancestors exerted influence on the presidencies. hear from the descendants of former president. exploring the american story, watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedulon your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.orgtory.

>> dr. blackstock and her twin sister and their mother are all graduates of harvard medical school making them the first black mother-daughter graduates of the program. sunday on q&a she shares her book legacy which looks at racism and other issues she sees facing black doctors and patients today. >> when we look at for example myself as a black woman with a harvard degree, both undergrad and graduate school, i'm still likely to die from complications of pregnancy than my white counterparts. why is that happening in 2024? because our health care system, air health professionals are still not adequately trained to care for a diverse population.

our patients are dying and i feel like this is politicizing a crisis that doesn't need to be politicized. we have the specific -- statistics and numbers that show we could be caring for our patients, especially our black patients in a more competent way. that is a matter of life and death. >> dr. blackstock with her book legacy sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates years of covering congress like 45 no other. since 1979, we been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered -- coverage of government. taking you to where policy is

debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. 35 years and counting, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are talking about yemen for the next half hour with timothy lenderking, u.s. special envoy for yemen, formerly deputy assistant secretary of state for arabian gulf affairs in the near east bureau. buckham to the program. -- welcome to the program. what does it mean to be a special envoy? how is that different from an ambassador? guest: usually, the special envoy is a washington-based position. having been announced by the president in february of 2021, you get a big charge out of being authorized and propelled forward by the president. i work very closely with our ambassador to yemen. we have an ambassador there. that is sort of a one team, one

fight effort. having a position based in washington, close to the policymakers -- the president, the national security council, the secretary of state, makes coordination much easier for the work we are doing. host: speaking of february 2021, this happened. biden revoked the terrorist designation for yemen houthis. that has been reversed. tell us, what was the thinking behind doing that in the first place? guest: first of all, the biden administration came in wanting to take a new approach on yemen, and to prioritize ending the conflict. i think he and his advisors wisely sensed there was a moment that yemen could make progress, that this eight year civil war could possibly be brought to an end. it turned out to be a wise choice. over the last two years, we have

been able to establish a truce in yemen, to de-escalate the conflict. that has brought tangible benefits to the yemeni people. the problem, and we will get to this, is what happened after october 7. host: let's talk about the -- who the houthis are. how did they come to power in yemen, and how much do they control? guest: the houthis are a relatively new actor on the yemeni scene. you can chart their progress from about 25 years ago. houthis refers to a family name. it is not a tribe, not an ethnic group. the houthi family decided to create a movement in northern yemen calling for integration, and trying to de-marginalize their situation, impoverished, and make a name for themselves. in a short time, unfortunately,

with a lot of backing from iran, they have been able to become the strongest power, unfortunately, inside yemen, and to use that to significant negative effect recently. host: you mentioned it has been an eight year civil war. you mentioned iran. it has been called a proxy war between saudi arabia and shiite iran, the houthis being sheila muslim -- shia muslim. do you think that is accurate? host: it is not accurate to call this a religious war, a sunni-shia conflict. in some ways, that makes it easier. it is true the houthis have enjoyed strong support. they have been able to move from a relatively small regional actor into a regional power, by virtue of support from the iranians. currently, with the attacks the houthis are launching on ships, the iranians are giving them intelligence about what ships to

attack, how to do it, and aiding and facilitating. there are unfortunately lebanese hezbollah actors inside yemen. i think most yemenis reject this. they do not want foreign forces inside their country. i don't think the houthis would have been able to do this without iranian support. host: we talked about how they are doing it. let's talk about why they are doing it. initially, they said they were attacking commercial ships that were linked to israel in some way. explain that. and how that has evolved, because they are not just attacking ships related to israel. guest: that is true. i think that has been a falsehood right from day one, where the houthis have tried to link and justify their actions based on what is, you know, a terrible tragedy in gaza. the houthis have sought to attack israel and attack israeli ships, that they have attacked more than 50 ships. the vast majority of whom have no connection with israel at all

-- they are not israeli owned. they are not israeli flagged ships. they do not have israeli crewmembers. that is why the houthis' behavior has been indiscriminate, so reckless, and why it drew the terrorism designation you referred to back onto the houthis. two weeks ago, they shot at a ship. they killed three sailors, totally innocent people, two filipinos, a vietnamese sailor. they sink a ship a week before that which was an 18 mile oil slick in the red sea. these are vital waterways for yemen's fishing industry, or tourism, for internet cables, and for global commerce. that is why the united states felt we had to act to restore the principle of freedom of navigation and allow commerce to go which is affecting basically the world economy. host: we will take your calls for our guest, timothy lenderking, on our lines by party. democrats 202-748-200.

what is iran getting from supporting the these? guest: iran has low-cost, high benefit from supporting the houthis over the years. they put in a relatively small amount of money, getting a big bang for their buck, as the houthis have sort of steamroller through yemen in 2014 and 2015, and took control of 80% of the population. the houthis do not govern by popularity. they impose their will on the yemeni people. they rule through intimidation, ruthless behavior. their slogan, as you know, is "death to america, death to the jews, death to israel." it is repugnant. they also sponsor summer camps in which they indoctrinate young yemenis into a climate of total

intolerance, and learning how to handle weapons at a very early age. this is another thing that i think the yemeni people reject about the houthis, and what makes them such a difficult actor on the yemeni scene. host: i want to ask you about the u.s. response to the attacks on ships. last month, the senate foreign relations subcommittee on the near east, southeast, central asia, and counterterrorism held a hearing on those attacks. here is democratic senator tim kaine questioning the biden administration's legal authority to strike at those targets. [video] sen. kaine: i have great skepticism about what we are doing right now. i have great skepticism about the legal authorities. i have great skepticism about the absence of shared responsibility whose ships are being attacked by the houthis. why should the u.s. and the u.k. be shouldering the burden of protecting other nations' ships?

i have serious skepticism about the effectiveness of this operation in terms of the escalating the attacks on the red sea. to begin on legal authority, i think we have all conceded there is no congressional authorization. the war powers resolution has clearly been met when we are talking about 200 attacks on houthis. we are losing troops. they are losing civilian casualties and others. this is hostilities. there is no congressional authorization for them. to claim this is covered in article two, self-defense -- article two self-defense means you can defend u.s. personnel. you can defend u.s. military assets. he can defend u.s. commercial ships. but the defense of other nations' commercial ships in no way, and it's not even close -- that is not self-defense under the constitution. host: senator kaine talked about a couple of things. let's talk about legal authority for the united states to strike targets within yemen.

guest: i think the president has felt that he has the authority to do so, and there is active engagement with congress. i was at that very hearing, testifying in front of senator kaine, who i have great respect for. president has felt that we have the authority to do this. of course, the administration, myself, take the engagement with congress very seriously, the duty to notify. that's her of contact has been very regular, on a very regular basis with the congress. host: he also talked about effectiveness of the u.s. response. this has been going on since november. it does not look as though we have deterred who the attacks. it does not look like we have disabled their ability to attack. are we going to just keep going on like this? guest: i think the military strikes have been very effective. that is to say that the president set a very specific parameter that the united states and coalition partners -- senator kaine is right to say

there is responsibility on the region, but you have bahrain participating in the strike coalition, along with seven other countries. we have active engagement with that coalition to maintain. we also have operation prosperity guardian, a maritime-based force which has more than 40 countries participating. so there is burden sharing happening. i think if you look at the military strikes, we have degraded -- we are hitting those targets. almost no civilian casualties. very effective. it is true the houthis have continued to attack. that is why the military piece is not the only piece. have got to have the terrorism designation, which cramps houthi financing and ability to fund raise, and the diplomatic piece. that is why i am out in the region every few weeks, talking to the saudi's, talking to the iraqis -- the emiratis, the key regional partners whose

commitment is going to be necessary to de-escalate the situation. host: you mentioned that you reject the idea that this is in response to the war in gaza, or that this is somehow trying to help the people of gaza. what is bringing an end to that conflict -- would that bring an end to the attacks on the commercial ships? guest: i believe it would. i believe that the work the united states is now doing very actively -- tony blinken, seven or eight visits to the region since october, others, myself -- the work everyone is doing to de-escalate in gaza, the cease fire, release hostages, is very critical to a number of other regional crises, certainly this problem in the red sea i think will the escalate. the houthis have committed to de-escalate when there is a cease-fire in gaza. you have other actors telling us that the houthis will do so. we need to drive to that point. that is where we need to go. host: to promote a cease-fire.

however, in the united nations, united states abstained from the vote to call for a cease-fire. guest: the united states also backed another resolution calling for a cease-fire. at the end of the day, if you look at our actions and engagement, the israeli delegation coming to town next week to talk to us about hostage release and the campaign in rough up -- in raffa, the united states wants to drive as much you military and support into gaza as we can, and to reach a cease-fire. -- as much humanitarian support into gaza as we can. host: good morning, david. caller: i'm going to pull a little bit of history in, and then i will get right to the point. the muslim religion been divided furiously since the moors. move forward in the united states come in, and they got

right in the middle of this disagreement between the sunni and the shia, and they put their thumb on the scale, and they destroyed iran's democracy. that is where we are with iran right now. we went over there destroying their democracy. and then we put a shah in there. when the shah got kicked out, we said, bring the shot to the united states -- the shah to the united states. they went and rated the embassy. we made a good-faith agreement with them about the nuclear program. and we had it working. we could talk. we had ways to deal with it. well, our last previous president come in and destroyed it. we have been in this conflict for a long time. and it's our government, our political parties, that's

causing this whole mess over there. but that's up to them, you know? we can only talk about this. we have got to stop splitting the middle east in half. host: what do you think, tim? guest: i appreciate the call very much. i think the united states is in fact -- there is a painful history between the united states and iran, and that does need to be resolved. i think the united states is very firmly right now trying to push for peace in the middle east on all of these different conflicts, other we are talking about gaza, talking about our commitment to a two state solution for israelis and palestinians, the red sea crisis, stability in iraq, lebanon -- we are engaged in a full-court press, i think, to try to de-escalate all of these crises. don't think, honestly, that these crises are going to

de-escalate without strong u.s. engagement, so i stand very firmly behind the administration and the diplomatic efforts we are engaging in right now. host: max in boulder, colorado, independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? david kind of -- i want to extend on david's argument. the reason i called was about the saudi arabia war against yemen. and the united states' role in that. we have been playing such partners with saudi arabia because of their oil for such a long time. we have messed up the whole middle east. if you can recall, i remember it was hillary clinton who was secretary of state when we were selling weapons to saudi arabia, so they could bomb yemen into the stone age. what happened was, yemen got bombed into the stone age, and this was the terrorists -- the houthi terrorists move into

areas where people are desperate and hopeless. ofe, they come in and offer some help, becauseobody else was going to help them. the same thing happened in gaza. the palestinians are desperate and hopeless for years and ars, especially with the blockade hamas comes in and says wl help you. we are on your side. nobody ends up on the palestinian side or the yemen side. you have got these terrorist organizations that set in. israel appreciated hamas being in gaza, right? all know that israel supported hamas leading october 7, and now we are in the position we are in now. i would like a conversation about the united states and how we put people in such despair and hopelessness that caused all of this stuff going on in the middle east. i hope you have some comments about that. thank you. guest: first of all, thank you for feeling the pain of the yemeni people. i do as well. i think that is incredibly important for the yemeni people

to know, that there are americans who have some appreciation for what they have gone through, and the terrible conflict that has existed for the last eight years. and there is a lot of blame to go around. i think we are trying to look ahead. we are trying to understand that pain, also drive forward. i mentioned earlier the truth that we have been able to achieve in april of -- the truce we have been able to achieve in april of 2022. yemen has had the longest period of stability inside the country that it has since the civil war began eight or nine years ago. that has meant that the commercial flights from the airport have been able to restart for the first time since 2016. read those stories about the yemenis who stand in line to get on those planes to go get medical care. it really is powerful stuff. the yemenis having the opportunity to move about their country more, and to bring more

humanitarian supplies -- has been an improvement in the lives of yemeni people as a result of the truce. the point is, it is not enough. we have to end the war definitively, and that's why our goals in yemen remain a durable cease-fire and yemeni-yemeni political negotiation that will allow yemenis to decide the future of their country -- our resources are used, how the country is governed, and what the united states and the international community support. those are our key goals now, so thank you. host: in virginia, the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to add on what the previous caller explained. i see our support for israel since october 7. that was just support. now, it is overboard, as president biden mentioned, with

what is done in gaza. yemenis, houthis, all they act is a cease-fire in palestine, in gaza, and they will stop their actions. now that we ask israel to do a cease-fire in the last u.n. resolution, and they are not listening to us, why are we bombing houthis? they are the same, asking a cease-fire and humanitarian help for the people of gaza and palestinians. they are asking the same thing we ask. in a way, our words and our actions contradict. we want cease-fire for gaza, but people who are giving israel a hard time, pushing for a

cease-fire, we are acting against them. it is a contradiction that puzzles me a lot. thank you so much. i will just wait for your response. guest: thank you so much. i have a couple of reactions to that. first of all, i think we have to be very clear we are not bombing the houthis, right? we are bombing their military capability. we are not bombing the people of yemen or the houthi people. we are bombing and destroying that capability that they are using to attack ships from the red sea. the second point is, which has been condemned by every country except for the iranians, in terms of the attacks on the red sea -- they are not justified. i think that gets to the critical point here. one can be pro-palestinian and very supportive of palestinian rights, what also not condone or accept what the houthis are

doing has an acceptable response to that, because by attacking ships in the red sea, ships and individuals and civilians that have nothing to do with the palestinian cause of the conflict in gaza, killing those mariners, triggering that oil slick, sinking ships, affecting commerce and also the ability to bring medicine and fuel to get to people around the world who it is a falsehood.s -- in fact, what the h are doing created more problems for the palestinians. they are in no way affecting israel's behavior. what they are doing has been a failure in that sense. i think we need to delink gaza and the terrible situation there from what the houthis are doing in the red sea. it is not justified. it is not acceptable. i think more and more voices in the region are rising up to condemn what the houthis are doing. host: what have the houthis

gained from this campaign in the red sea? guest: i think because of the gaza situation, the houthis have written a crest, a wave of popularity they did not have, up to october 7. the houthis were struggling. i mentioned this truce. the yemeni people were asking the houthis -- we have a truce now. where are the jobs? where is the food? where is our economy to buy the food that is available in the country? the houthis have no answer for these questions. do not govern. what they are good at is shooting, is military action. and i think what the international community needs to do is understand that in order for yemen to be a stable country, the houthis have to move away from using military means to solve every issue, and turn toward governance, and be part of a dialogue to have with

the other yemeni parties, who very fiercely and fervently want this war over. they want to be able to govern and make key decisions about their country. host: linda is on the line for democrats from new haven, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask -- you are listed as a u.s. special envoy for yemen. richard grenell, who was in the trump administration, is over in belarus, meeting with third world dictators and things, laying the groundwork for donald trump's next presidency, and establishing and actually undermining our current president's ability to do his work. so richard grenell is over there as true's special envoy, which

he has no legitimate right to be doing, and undermining working with belarus, working with third world dictators, assuring them that when trump gets back into office, all their wishes will culminate in trump's third world outlook on the united states. what are your feelings about richard grenell and the role he is playing over there? guest: thank you. i have seen those reports, and i hate to intrude into things in the foreign policy realm. the difference between us is that i am appointed by the president, the sitting president of the united states, joe biden, as the envoy for yemen, and given a very specific mission, which is to help the humanitarian crisis in yemen, and help drive efforts toward a cease-fire. that is really what my focus is, and why i go to the region so

much, including in the very near future, to continue to support this effort in yemen. i think we have an opportunity to make further progress, and that is very much what we and the president are committed to. host: this is an article from "the washington post" about what the caller was talking about from yesterday, saying trump sends an envoy. neither is in office. he is meeting with foreign leaders, attacking president biden, and offering a glimpse at what foreign policy could be like in a second trump term. dave is an independent. caller: my question for timothy is why do we continue to take the agency away from the houthi people, saying iran proxy? they don't seem to be a proxy. they also seem to have a strategy. that strategy is to impede the flow of commerce and the suez

canal, and it is working, right? we are talking about it. the u.s. is taking effective measures. the u.s. is realizing economic losses. since october 7, the u.s. has made almost no ground in slowing down the killing of palestinians, while the houthis, a small group of people, have been able to be effective in creating conversation. and that is all they can do. they have missile defense, and so to the palestinian people. what do you expect from the people who see that plight and want to take action? i think it is not just iran. it is folks. but i don't think they are a c4 iran, just -- are a proxy for

iran, just like israel is not a direct proxy for the u.s. if they were, they would have stopped. i want to get your opinion. guest: i agree with you that the these are not a proxy of iran. -- the houthis are not a proxy of iran. i never say that. there are differences between the these and the iranians. the houthis don't do everything the iranians ask them to do, and the houthis don't like everything the iranians do. i think there is a very important distinction there. unfortunately, in this particular moment, with the attacks on the red sea, the iranians are definitely helping the houthis conduct these reckless and indiscriminate attacks. i was heartened when the iranians welcome to the truce i referred to in april of 2022. they went out and said we welcome this truce. they have sent messages to us and to various people we talk to that they do support a political

resolution to the conflict in yemen. we need that. this is not going to be a solution that the united states can impose on yemen. it has to be in conjunction with the international community, and that includes russia and china as well. all of these countries are going to have to work together to support yemen get back on its feet and to have its humanitarian crisis mitigated, and begin this important political negotiation, it is the goal of our efforts, moving forward. host: in maryland, a democrat. good morning. caller: do you think it was a mistake for us to get out of the iran deal? and do you think we should get back into the iran deal to bring peace in the region? can you answer those questions, please? guest: thank you. i do believe a deal with the

iranians is very important to curb their nuclear program. i think that is still a goal of this administration. what we also see is iranian misbehavior throughout the region. they are arming and supporting numerous groups, whether it is has blood and lebanon, or the strong radical groups in iraq who have attacked and killed americans over the years, and they have provided support to the houthis. this is not, it seems to us, the behavior of a group that wants to be welcomed back into the international community. we feel very strongly iran demonstrates goodwill, good intention, and good action to be accepted back into the international community. one area where i am keen to see the iranians show a different face is in supporting the houthis in getting an end to these red sea attacks. we need to drive to that moment. again, i am very keen to see

that there is a cease-fire in gaza. i do believe we can use that moment to de-escalate some of these other crises, including the red sea. we must get to that moment. host: more calls. michael in washington, d.c., independent. caller: how are you doing today? i think you made an excellent point that the u.s. needs to take a backseat in our efforts to kind of curb the houthi issue going on right now. but they are actually exercising iranian policy. they are doing exactly what the iranians want to do. have a proxy war going on with the houthis in iran, and the government representing saudi arabia. it is becoming part of what we have seen with soviet policy in the past and getting caught up in the will of other countries. previous colors said the yemeni people are being pushed in the direction of the houthis.

correct me if i am wrong. this is a long-term people and religious fight, similar to how you would look at specifically hamas being a sunni organization. it is ironic that the iranians, who are shia, are supporting them. i think this is one of the first times we have seen a religious backing. i don't think we will see a successful resolution with the u.s. being actively involved. we can support our allies in the region, but it is becoming more convoluted. guest: thank you. i do think u.s. engagement and involvement in the human crisis is vital. i think our efforts so far have been very effective. however, i don't think, once again, that we can do this on our own. have to work with the saudi's come up with countries that border yemen, with the yemen government, and ultimately with the houthis, to get to a settlement in yemen. that is very much the goal.

the first step that is going to help us get there is the cease-fire in gaza. i think we can use that diplomatically to de-escalate the situation in the red sea. yemen has the potential to get back on its feet. that is what i think the united states and its neighbors are committed to. we do not want al qaeda to be a remnant existing inside yemen. that is a big problem for the united states. cannot have attacks on the homeland generated in yemen. driving forward to a peace effort in which the houthis are forced to govern or participate in government, and not to be ruling through oppression and intimidation -- again, they are not a popular force. they do not rule through popularity. they have not gained support through popularity. we need to move into a yemeni-yemeni dialogue that allows yemenis to take control of their country. i am confident they will be able to find solutions. the united states should be there to support them. host: that is the last word.

timothy lenderking, u.s. special envoy for yemen. inc. you for joining us. up next, its open forum, your chance to weigh in on any public policy or politics issue that is on your mind. and start calling in now. democrats, (202) 748-2002 -- (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001 and (202) 748-8002 for independents. >> watch a weekly round up a c-span campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover what candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political

reporters, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail, today at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or whatever you get your podcasts. c-span -- your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ >> will you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> saturday, watch american history tv's new series, congress investigates, as we explore major investigations by the u.s. house and senate during our countries history. authors and historians will tell these stories. see historic footage from those peods. we will examine the impact and legacy of key hearings. the 1912 senate committee

investigating the sinking of the titanic -- witnesses testified about ice warnings that were ignored, the inadequate number of lifeboats, and the treatment of different classes of passengers. you will find out what congress did about it and how those changes impact travel on the seas today. watch "congress investigates," saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span two. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. the policies debated and decided with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, powered by cable. "washington journal" continues. host: it is open forum until the end of the program at 10:00 eastern.

we are taking your calls. i wanted to make sure you saw the front page of the wall street journal today. it is blank. the headline -- "his story should be here." this marks one year that wall street journal reporter and american 32-year-old has been detained in a russian prison. also, there is a joint statement that has been put out with senator schumer, mcconnell, speaker johnson, leader jeffries -- a joint statement marking one year of evan's wrongful detainment. senator schumer says, american citizen, reporter for "the wall street journal," has spent a year unlawfully detained. on the anniversary of his captivity, we continue to condemn his baseless arrest, fabricated charges, unjust imprisonment. also something you should be aware of is this, from last

night. the ap reports that obama, clinton, and big-name entertainers helped fund raise a record $26 million for his election. here is a picture of former president obama and president biden at that event. let's go to phones. roses in dublin, california, a democrat. good morning. what is on your mind, rose? caller: i was interested in finding out how much cash is given to immigrants when they enter this country? is it a one-time payment or is it a payment every month? they said in new york they are giving out cards for six teen hundred dollars to immigrants. i just wonder what is true and what is not. host: i don't know the details on that and whether that is location specific, but we will try to find some information on that for you, rose.

caller: thank you. host: mike in palm city, florida. a republican. good morning. caller: i am interested in the facts and figures that are given out, including your own media, about the number of deaths in the palestinian kerfuffle with israel, where they constantly say 30,000 innocent palestinians have been killed. those come from hamas. those figures come from hamas. you don't know if those figures are accurate. i continue to hear that the israelis are attacking hospitals. the hospitals are used as covers for hamas. hamas is an enemy of the united states, not just of israel. and yet we see young people in particular -- activists -- marching in the streets and favoring palestinians, and they

have no idea about the history of israel or palestine, i don't believe. the fact that israel is our only, only friend in the entire middle east -- the only one that supports the united states -- that is why we support israel. host: let me ask you this. the president has said that their reaction has been excessive or over-the-top. do you agree with that? do you think that israel could have responded to the october 7 attack in a way more proportional? caller: it is a war. we fought world war ii. did we stop when we got to berlin? that is the point. this is all media driven. every war has terrible results and casualties, and innocent people die. but when the enemy, hamas, uses the supposed innocent palestinian as a human shield,

what do use up to israel should do? host: let's talk to carolyn in savannah, georgia, democrat. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i was thinking about, this morning when i woke up -- i thought this is america, but i was wondering why is it that trump is getting so much leeway to cause so much harm in our country? i don't understand. they have reduced the amount of money that he was supposed to be paying, and now he has got some person, some envoy, over in parts of the world talking to dictators about what is going to happen when he is president? isn't this treason when you go against the policies that our president is trying to conduct, making the world safer for

democracy? why are we giving him so much leeway not to stop him? i don't understand. it is almost like he is getting special treatment to say whatever he wants to say. he has all these gag orders, and he is still speaking anyway and not being punished. why is he not in jail already? he tried to overthrow our government. that should certainly be considered treason. and yet he is free, walking around with all of his buddies. i wonder if this really is the right country for african-americans, because we are not getting the same type of treatment, obviously, that a white male with money is getting. thank you for listening. host: speaking of the former president, he was in new york, attending the wake of a slain new york police officer. here are his remarks after that.

[video clip] >> such a sad event, such a horrible thing. we are just not going to let it happen. we just can't. 21 times arrested, this thug. and the person in the car with him was arrested many times, and they don't learn because they don't respect. they are not given respect. police are the greatest people we have. there is nothing and there is nobody like them. it should not happen. i just visited with a very beautiful wife that now does not have her husband. stephanie was just incredible. their child, brand-new, beautiful baby, sitting there, innocent as can be, and does not know how his life has been changed. the family will -- they will never be the same. they can never be the same. we have to stop it. we have to get back to law and order. we have to do a lot of things

differently, because this is not working. this is happening too often. host: our previous caller, rose, was asking about debit cards given to migrants. i do have this information that can help shed some light on that , from the associated press. migrants in new york city will receive prepaid debit cards, not credit cards. this is from new york city. that is the claim, giving credit cards to migrants. it is missing context. the city is launching a pilot program that will provide migrants with prepaid debit cards to buy food and baby supplies. according to a spokesperson from the mayor, they can shop a bodegas, grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores. it says that the influx of migrants, social media urs are

misrepresenting. the program says migrants will get prepaid debit cards as part of a new york pilot program, not credit cards, which with they will only be able purchase food and baby supplies at certain retailers. here is the amount. it is $1252 per person per day for 28 -- it is $12.52 per person per day, for only 28 days, and it is only new york city piloting that program. arnold is a republican in brownsville, texas. caller: good morning. i want to say a few things. the politics of this country is such a mess. i will add one thing that is not politics, i don't think, but it is letting these boys play on girls sports, in college, in the olympics.

and all this crop. what is going to happen to this country now? have you got an answer for me? host: i am just here to listen to your views, arnold. caller: well, that is it. host: jorge's in albuquerque, new mexico, republican. caller: actually, i am an independent. is it still women's month? host: yes. caller: i would like to talk about women's literature. the women's bible, the council of nicaea -- they currently say the bible is written by men, different translations. it would be nice to have a woman's bible -- a book of mary. what about a women's constitution? bond rates across america, and why they are different for many counties and developments. bond rates should be the same throughout america. the workload for so many people

-- new reps. new reps means a new capital. america has outgrown d.c. move west, toward denver. move d.c. monuments to kansas. thank you. host: let's talk to donald in kalamazoo, michigan, republican. caller: good morning. listen, i know you are not talking about this, but this is about war and it clears up a lot of what happened in iraq. when the first act of war occurred in iraq in 1941, the japanese government attacked pearl harbor from the air without morning. our government called it an act of war. in 1993, our government attacked iraq from the air without morning for one day, firing 23 missiles into iraq. three overshot headquarters, killing eight civilians. in 1996, our government attacked

again from the air without warning. this time, for one day. it launched cruise missiles against parts of afghanistan and hit chemical plants. the next time our government attacked from the air without warning was 1998. the attack lasted four days. our government attacked iraq again in 2003. this attack was recently declared over. the reason given for the attacks was the same. iraq had wmd's. before the 2003 attacked, our government went to the um and had hearings in washington, and gave iraq a way to avoid an attack that they chose not to take advantage of. using pearl harbor as a standard, which of these attacks would pass the test to be called an act of war should mark that is about all i have to say. host: tom is next in richmond

hill, georgia, independent. caller: i want to express my worry about iran and their seeking of a nuclear capability. the reason is because iran is basically a terrorist state. we don't call them a terrorist state because they use proxies like hamas. if and when iran gets the bomb, what are they going to do with it? they are a terrorist organization. they are a terrorist state. host: what do you think they would do, tom? caller: well, you have to get into the mind of the islamic revolutionary terrorist, i guess. they call them freedom fighters or whatever they call themselves.

but they can do whatever they want. and knowing how their tactics are, i would suspect that they would try to infiltrate new countries with nuclear weapons. like with hamas, the black male. -- blackmail. host: in brooklyn, new york, good morning. caller: i have three observations. one is, if the palestinian people have a government, why is it they allow hamas to speak for them? would it be better if the hostages would be freed? two, israel is an ally. you cannot tell your best friend

and ally, you need to find a different way to go about -- how do you save the 1.5 million children, young and old? and three, why is it i am called a hater of the jews because i say, listen, my friend, you have to find a different way to do this? let us find a way to help palestine. thank you. host: there were hotels tinian -- pro-palestinian protesters outside of the new york fundraiser for president biden yesterday. the event laid bare one of his biggest weaknesses. pro-palestinian protesters occasionally interrupted president joe biden's fundraiser featuring barack obama and bill clinton. yesterday underscoring a serious

electoral challenge for the incumbent democrat, even as he rakes in the 6 million. there were shouts of "blood on your hands." donna is calling us from butler, missouri, republican. caller: yes, i have a question, and i have a comment. my question is, where are the illegal immigrants getting their money from? i was at walmart the other day in my town, in butler, missouri. i know they were illegals. they had two grocery carts completely full of stuff that was not even food, plus bicycles. us americans can't even -- most of us can't even afford that kind of stuff for our children. host: i want to ask you, how did you know what their legal status is? caller: well, it's pretty obvious if you go up and talk to them and everything.

i think you pretty well know. i talked to them from romania and different places, standing on the street corners in harrisonville, missouri. i gave one lady seven dollars. that is all i had. trying to say they were hungry and everything. and i'm thinking, you know, i heard a lady earlier saying bad stuff about president trump, and she don't realize president trump loves america and he loves the people, and he would not be giving our tax dollars that we, the american people, have learned, giving to illegals. i don't have a problem with people coming from other countries over to ours, what i want them to do it legally, like president trump had said. stay in place, the mexico thing. they need to go back to that. that lady was talking about the president trying to overthrow

the country. he did not. that is an out and out live. if he had tried to overthrow the country, they would have arrested him. he would be in jail. he was not convicted of treason or anything else like that. and they need to stop the lies. president trump loves his country. vote president trump, because joe biden has got our country so screwed up. when biden went in office, in butler, missouri, gas was $1.38 a gallon. it is now $3.29 and gallon. host: let's talk to rob in illinois, the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm calling in about a situation in israel and palestine. i want to give a little bit of grace. i understand there is a lot of complicated history. there was the horrible situation on october 7, and i understand

there is the goal of trying to keep everybody safe. i guess what i really struggle with is, why is it that there is -- i don't see what israel's point is in trying to keep food from going from all the agencies that are trying to get food in. why is the inspection process so cumbersome? the food is going to civilians. i don't see how hamas is going to be getting any of it, at the end. israel has really gone way too far with that, and it does not seem necessary. that is my comment for today. host: let's talk to rich in columbus, ohio, republican. caller: gosh, i thought i dialed in on the independent line or the direct line. guard list. -- regardless, my question to the listeners and to the media in general, for what i thought

was "trust the media," every time i see or hear about a poll, i look closely on the tv screen and there might be 600 to a thousand people. there is rarely a decent number of people that have even taken the poll, and there is no details. there is no real analytics. i hear the word poll 15 times every morning. it does not matter what channel you listen to. what it is kind of the media's way of justifying the stories they do -- we need some accountability. there is a lot going on in our country and the world. and accurate polling would be

something, you know, with accountability. fact-based. i would like to see a minimum of 5000 people taking a pole. granted, people hang up. they don't want to answer. whatever. eventually, maybe, ai can help legitimate cell phones register, and we can all become more invested. this is the poll right now. we get all kinds of texts from political candidates. host: a lot of people don't even answer the phone, rich. caller: i am one of them, sometimes, especially when it's -- i get seven or eight calls a day from people who want to buy my house, you know? there has got to be a way of figuring out that it is not a ghosted number, that it is a real -- there is real intent behind taking a poll. host: i get that.

let's get shirley in on the line from democrats, conyers, georgia. good morning. caller: i am calling because i just tuned in this morning. the first call i heard -- i would start with the ex-president and the funeral he attended yesterday. in new york, in new york state. we are always concerned about what happened with the people who shoot police. i think most democrats' position is that we really support the policeman. if they are not available, what would happen with crime in the streets? but now i am also thinking that president trump really took a position that he completely supports the police. when he did that, i'm thinking, you know, what happened on

january 6? the police that you attacked, the police that were bullied and beat up -- you know what happened on january 6. we all saw it on tv. some people decided it really did not happen. how do you support someone who says he supports the police, but he takes one case out of so many cases. one case in the united states to support the position of crime in the streets. we are all concerned about crime in the streets. the point is that when trump decides he wants to take a case, his excuse about january 6 -- we follow along behind him? he, of all people -- he was the president of the united states when this happened, january 6, and he allowed all of these people to come in and attack primarily the police department, and the capitol police.

he's going to take a position like that? i wonder, does anyone else notice this? host: that will be oulast call for today. coming uat 1:00 p.m., we will have a discussion on safearng the 20 before election, with -- the 2024 election, from the center of international and strategic studies. u can watch that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern, right here c-span. it will also be on our free mobile video app, c-span now, and online at c-span.org. ask for joining us today. we will be back again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. a happy good friday for all those who are commemorating today. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> this afternoon, a discussion

on safuaing the 2024 election with assistant homeland security secretary from the center for strategic and interniol studies. watch live coverage on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> the syndrome is extremely rare. >> hi. >> friends don't have to be. when you are connected, you are not alone. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a frontow seat to democracy. >> here's what'cong up in primetime tonight. at 8:00 eastern, an interview

with nyu professor jonathan haidt, which has technologs harming the social development and meal health of children. they are, --later,ed chair speaking at a monetary policy conference. wah his remarks tonight at 9:00 eastern here on c-span and online at c-span.org. >> will you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> saturdays can watch american history tv's new series "congress investigates," as we explore major investigations by the u.s. has and senate our countries history for the others and historians will tell these stories, we will see historic footage from those period, and we will examine the impact and legacy of key hearings. this week the 1912