CSPAN - Washington Journal 05/06/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 6, 2025 07:00-10:00 - CSPAN

02:59:53

Washington Journal 05/06/2025

Participants

Main

pedro echevarria

cspan 40:28

Appearances

brian lamb

cspan 01:28

donald j trump

admin 01:49

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:48

linda mcmahon

00:48

ted williams

00:35

will chamberlain

02:24

Clips

barack obama

d 00:02

bill clinton

d 00:02

george h w bush

r 00:02

george w bush

r 00:04

jim marrs

00:03

jimmy carter

d 00:03

justice neil gorsuch

scotus 00:10

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

robert gaylon ross

00:04

ronald reagan

r 00:01

william binney

00:04

Callers

donald in maryland

callers 00:15

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Republican Idaho Congressman Russ Fulture joins us to talk about the GOP budget, tariffs, and possible cuts to Medicaid and other government programs.
		Also, the Education Department is resuming collection on defaulted federal student loans.
		We'll speak with Rick Seltzer, senior writer at the Chronicle of Higher Education.
		And Democratic California Congresswoman Nanette Barragon weighs in on the budget, current deportation policies, and the Democrats' strategies to counter the Trump administration.
		Washington Journal starts now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is the Washington Journal for May the 6th.
		The Trump administration and Congress are taking steps that could affect those who hold student loan debt in the United States.
		This week, the Education Department resumed collections on defaulted student loans.
		And recently, the House Education Committee passed a bill out of that committee that, if signed into law, would make several changes to federal student loan programs.
		To start the program today, your thoughts on how the federal government should handle rising student debt in the United States.
		Different lines today.
		If you want to make your comments, if you have student loans and you want to talk about if the government should be doing things to make those steps to those like you, 202-748-8000.
		If you've paid off those student loans, you want to give your thoughts there too.
		202-748-8001.
		All others invited to call 202-748-8002.
		If you want to make your comments in other ways about how the government should handle rising student debt, you can text us at 202-748-8003.
		You can post on Facebook and on X. According to EducationData.org, there's some statistics when it comes to student loan debt in the United States.
		This is provided by that website from October to December.
		Taking a look at that, about $1.7 trillion of outstanding federal student loan balances currently in the United States.
		43 million student borrowers have student loan debt.
		The federal student loan debt represents about 92% of all student loan debt.
		The average federal student loan debt balance, $38,375, and 5% of federal student loan dollars were in default as of 2024's fourth financial quarter.
		Again, that's provided by educationaldata.org.
		According to those, to that point of the defaulted student debt, the federal government, the education department specifically resuming collections on that debt.
		Fox News reporting on it saying it was a pause in the payments that occurred in the pandemic, which ended in 2023.
		But the Biden administration extended that no consequences period through the 2024 election as the former president tried to pass loan forgiveness programs, according to the Wall Street Journal.
		Quote, while Congress mandated that student and parent borrowers begin to repay their student loans in October of 2023, the Biden-Harris administration refused to lift the collections pause and kept borrowers in a confusing limbo.
		The previous administration failed to process applications for borrowers who applied for income-driven repayment and continue to push misguided on-ramps and illegal loan forgiveness schemes to win points with borrowers and mask rising delinquency and default rates, according to the Department of Education.
		In fact, it was the Education Department just on Monday resuming efforts to collect on defaulted student debt.
		Linda McMahon, the Education Secretary, making that announcement and making those comments on Fox News.
		Here's a little bit of what she had to say about the government's efforts.
linda mcmahon ▲ ● ▼		This is not to, in any way, try to cause hardships.
		There are several different payment plans that you can access.
		If you go to studentaid.gov, there are several plans there that can help you.
		We also are keeping hours open longer at the service centers and also having them open on the weekend to answer any questions.
		And there will also be AI help with Aiden, who can answer many questions for you relative to your loan.
		So we're trying to make it easily accessible for responsible folks to pay back their loans, but they need to get on it because there isn't going to be any loan forgiveness program.
		As the White House Press Secretary said this afternoon, there's no such thing as loan forgiveness.
unidentified		It just gets transferred to someone else, and that's just not fair.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that's the Education Secretary talking about those efforts to collect on those defaulted student debt and the larger picture of rising student debt in the United States.
		Your thoughts on what the government should be doing about that.
		Again, if you hold student debt, 202748-8000.
		If you've paid that off, 202-748-8001.
		And all the others can call at 202-748-8002.
		You can text and post on social media too.
		Some of you are already doing that on our Facebook page before the start of the show.
		This is Greg McKay giving us his thoughts, saying, why does the government need to be involved?
		They shouldn't be.
		Financing a college education change and almost reversing how money is available with that cost started increasing dramatically, he says.
		Thomas Trapellis from Facebook saying that the answer, at least to him, when it comes to how the government should be handling this debt, is interest-free loans.
		Colin Desnoyers, apologies for that if I've said that wrong.
		He says the same way to deal with this issue is with every other issue.
		Have the federal government print more money.
		And then Brenda Beckett joining us on Facebook saying nothing is quote free.
		Someone always pay.
		That's the first law of economics.
		Adding that all of this loan forgiveness does is transfer the burden to the taxpayer.
		Again, Facebook is available to you as well.
		If you want to make your thoughts, you can also make your thoughts on X. You can call us on the lines too when it comes to this topic of how the government should deal with this rising student debt.
		Kim in Maryland.
		And Kim joins us this morning.
		Kim, good morning.
		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning.
		I truly feel like the government needs to just wipe out all the student loan debt.
		They need to clear out everyone's credit.
		We make the money here in the United States.
		In D.C., we make the money.
		You know, there's no reason why anyone should be out here struggling and trying to make ends meet when we make the money here.
		You know, that whole pandemic issue and all that stuff that went down, that was not the people's fault.
		That wasn't our issue.
		It wasn't our problem, but they made it our issue.
		So honestly, I think they need to clean the slate, let everyone start out anew, clean everyone's credit, you know, get all that behind it so people could start living again and start, you know, that will cut down crime big time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you clean out the slate, so to speak, someone else ends up paying for it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure the argument will be, what do you think of that argument?
unidentified		Well, I mean, they need to figure that out.
		They need to figure it out because they're not doing us any justice by keeping us, keeping everyone in debt and trying to pull money from us from here, from there, everywhere.
		They need to figure it out.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Kim there in Maryland giving us his thoughts.
		You can join the same as with the Education Department collecting student loans on one front.
		If you go to the House of Representatives, they're making their own efforts on student debt programs.
		This is from Inside Higher Education from a few days ago saying that it was over strong objections from Democrats that House Republicans at the Education and Workforce Committee advanced legislation that would make dramatic changes to the federal student aid system.
		The sweeping 103-page bill known as the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan passed on a party-line vote after more than five hours of debate.
		The legislation would cap the amount of federal loans a student can take out, cut off the Pell Grant for students who attend less than half-time, consolidate income-driven repayment programs, and introduced a risk-sharing program where colleges are partially responsible for unpaid student loans.
		The bill would also reverse multiple Biden-era student borrower protection regulations, could save more than $330 billion in federal funding over 10 years, according to Committee Republicans.
		It's just one section of a larger budget bill that lawmakers are planning to use to fund some of the president's top priorities, like lofty tax cuts for the wealthy and a major crackdown on immigration.
		But House Republicans said the changes were more than just a means to fund his MAGA agenda.
		That hearing, by the way, it took place a couple weeks ago.
		It was during that hearing that Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee talked about those changes on the House side and how it would impact students of color.
		Here's some of her comments from that hearing in late April.
unidentified		The reality is, is that so much that's in this entire reconciliation bill targets me specifically, not me, the congressperson.
		Me, the first generation black student who came from a working class single black mother who could not afford otherwise to send her child to school.
		She had a child who had aspirations, not to be a congressperson at the time, but aspirations to get a higher education, to be able to break cycles of inequality that we had been thrust into in communities just like mine, but for Pell Grants, but for the ability to take on loans.
		And I will be the first to admit, I would not have liked to have taken on loans, right?
		We would love to see college education more affordable, more accessible.
		We look at a country that is the wealthiest nation on earth, yet makes the lowest amount of investments into public education for its citizenry.
		Other nations on earth have been able to figure this out, where we have not just free college education, free education from pre-K to college and other first world, as we call them, developed nations.
		We also have health care.
		What we're seeing here in this bill and in so many others of our practices are a lack of any sort of investment into working class people, which means a lack of investment into the future of Americans.
		When we think about who shoulders the biggest burden in loan debt, it is black women.
		Black women shoulder the largest burdens into student loan debt.
		But if you asked us if we would still like to be doctors or engineers or lawyers or professionals, you would hear us say resoundingly yes.
		If we would still like the opportunity to learn for the sake of being able to learn for knowledge's sake, which is an important and a completely reasonable reason to want to go to college, you would hear us say yes still.
		None of the provisions in this bill have any incentives for colleges to lower the cost of admissions.
		What we are doing instead is incentivizing colleges to take fewer low-income students.
		With these provisions in place throughout this bill, I would not be here.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Again, that was from the House side a few weeks ago.
		The federal government from the Education Department coming and trying to get money back from defaulted student loans, the overall topic of rising student debt and what the federal government should do about it.
		Our opening topic today, if you hold debt and you want to give your thoughts, that student debt, 202-748-8,000.
		If you've paid off those student loans, 202-748-8,001.
		And then we've set aside a line for all others, 202-748-8002 to give your thoughts there.
		Sherry's in Florida on our line for all others.
		Sherry, good morning.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yeah, I don't have student loan, and I feel bad for the people that do.
		And I'll tell you why.
		Because a lot of these people, now some of the people did get great jobs, but the college is a money-making scam.
		You know, I mean, it's there for higher education.
		I get it.
		But there's a predatory thing regarding the colleges as well.
		And one of them that I would say, if you've got a job and you've got a job because of your college education, yes, pay it back.
		But think of all the people out there that were not able to get the jobs.
		They were not able to use their college education.
		I mean, they're able to use their college education.
		They've learned.
		But they couldn't get a job.
		And especially with the COVID, when that came out, people were not able to get into the fields that they wanted to.
		Now you've got colleges still collecting the money.
		But here's the big problem.
		We've got the publishers for these books that these kids are buying in these colleges.
		And that's where the big ripoff comes into play.
		They're not asking for any of this money back from Simon and Schuster and these big publishing companies that are making these books for colleges.
		Kids will come in one year and buy the college book.
		It'll be five to six to seven hundred dollars.
		But guess what?
		When the kid goes into the college the next year for the same exact course, they'll change the books up on them.
		And they'll change one or two pages in that book just enough to make that new professor say, hey, you guys need this book, not the book that was there two years ago or one year ago.
		So there's so many elements of thievery in the college that I can't even begin to go into it.
		So there's a lot of kids out there that are not going to be able to go on with their future because they're saddled with this debt.
		And do you think Vince McMahon's wife, they've got a lot of money.
		I've got a blues clue for them.
		Why don't you put some of that money and help people with the college educations that do not have the jobs?
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Florida there.
		Sherry there in Florida giving her thoughts, talking about books as part of the overall cost of student debt.
		Bradley in Michigan, also on our line for others.
		You're next up.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yeah, thank you for taking my call.
		Just first, a quick comment.
		The clip that is played with Brian Lamb receiving news and the validity of C-SPAN is just priceless.
		I think every time I see it, I get a good feeling and just really appreciate the whole thing.
		My comment is I was lucky.
		I was educated back in the 60s and 73.
		I could make enough working at the cement plant to pay off my entire thing.
		So that tells you like, I think it was like $4,000 or $5,000.
		And I was able to do that luckily.
		But my suggestion is before addressing the student debt thing is to address medical debt.
william binney ▲ ● ▼		Medical debt is from people that you've not made a choice.
unidentified		You're devastated and you are really in need of help.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, stick to the student aspect aspect.
unidentified		Yeah, well, the student loan isn't as important as settling up medical debt.
unidentified		We have limited resource, and I would rather see it addressed with people that have the misfortune of needing medical assistance, Pedro.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Rick is Alabama paid off his student loans.
		Rick, give your perspective.
		Hi there.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, yeah, I mean, I took me about 10 years to pay it off, but I did pay it off.
		And, you know, it's a tough situation to be in for any person at all.
		And, you know, it just seems like college tuition keeps going up and up and up.
		So it's making it more difficult for people to even get jobs that are eventually going to take it, you know, away.
		You know, even now as a parent, you know, my children are incurring student debt as well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So how much debt did you take out?
unidentified		I was out about, well, granted, this is a while ago, but I was out about $60,000 total.
unidentified		It took me about 10 and a half years to pay it off.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you hear these ideas of dealing with student debt in the current day, some of them saying forgiveness, some of them saying, you know, making sure to pay back what they owe, what do you think of these ideas being floated about?
unidentified		You know, I think that I think that forgiveness is important now with the way that tuitions are going up.
		I don't have a problem with forgiveness.
		Granted, I paid mine back, but the opportunity presented itself that I got a pretty good job and had the ability to do that.
		I don't have a problem with forgiveness for people that are struggling at all.
		I really don't.
		It's very difficult for people to get a foot up if they're constantly in debt.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If I may ask, what did you go to college for and are you using that degree in your work today?
unidentified		Yeah, I work in research.
unidentified		I got a degree in biomedical sciences.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Rick in Alabama giving his thoughts, paid off his student loans.
		We've set aside three lines.
		Again, you can choose that line if that best represents you are all others line available too.
		And if you currently hold student debt, you can give your perspective as well.
		This one, the Wall Street Journal, as of this morning, when it comes to the Education Department, the headline, the president threatening colleges if student loans are not repaid, saying that the administration is evoking rules that allow the government to shut off the federal student loan spigot for specific schools if too many of their former students have lapsed on payments according to a notice published by the education department Monday.
		The government has long had the power to restrict federal student aid if too many students don't pay it back, a check intended to make sure the government isn't on the hook for degrees that don't pay off for graduates.
		Losing eligibility for federal aid is a potentially devastating blow to a school's ability to attract students.
		The story adding that nearly 10 million borrowers are either already in default or on the cusp.
		The education department said within a few months, about a quarter of borrowers nationwide could be in default, meaning they are at least nine months behind on payments.
		Let's hear from a viewer in Richmond, Virginia, Tester, on our line for others.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Did you say Chester?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Oh, are you Chester?
		Chester?
		Is this Chester?
unidentified		Affirmative.
unidentified		That's right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go for it.
unidentified		Let me just, yeah, how you doing this budget?
		Let me just say this.
		I'm a United States Marine that went into the Vietnam fight in 68 and 69.
		And I had a full scholarship.
		And I went on to do what they were doing, which is drastic.
		but I volunteered for the Marine Corps.
		And since I've been back, I spent most of my life in the Washington, D.C. area, where I – Hello?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
		Go ahead.
		Keep going.
ted williams ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, where I spent most of my time going to all the universities there in the area.
unidentified		And I got an education.
ted williams ▲ ● ▼		What I don't like when I look at what the government is doing, they can fix legislation to get these people into jobs that they need them to have to pay back these loans without robbing them out of everything.
unidentified		They know they can do this.
ted williams ▲ ● ▼		And it's just a systematic thing where they just are finding ways to terrorize people after they have gotten the sales between a rock and a hard place.
unidentified		And I know I had to get shot all up in Vietnam to get my education just because I turned a full scholarship down at Virginia State and went on into that.
		So if I can see this and if I know this and I can understand this, why is it so hard for these government lawmakers where they can't see it?
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Chester there in Virginia.
		Let's hear from Karen.
		Karen in California on our line for others.
		Hi.
unidentified		Yes.
		I'm a college graduate.
		What I wanted to say is When I came along, I finished high school in 1974.
		I went into college.
		I went to the junior college for two years.
		My parents, we felt that since the we're paying taxes to get your money's worth.
		And then I went on to transfer to the University of California.
		My parents saved for me.
		And so I finished.
		I got a good job after I finished in 1979.
		And I got a good job.
		We never used any loan or any financial aid.
		Then years later, I went back to school in the late 90s for engineering.
		And I paid my own way.
		I was working full-time and I paid my own way.
		And I finished and I got the job I wanted.
		The thing is, there was a woman on talking about the books.
		And she a little while ago, and she's absolutely right.
		I never saw such foolishness before.
		She said it, these books are too high.
		You take, if there's, for example, for pre-calculus, for example, if you have to take the book will be $150,200.
		Then if you have to take it over again, you have to buy another book if another teacher is using another book, a chemistry class, any of it.
		It's freedom to teach.
		Another thing I found out were there were these offshore book places where they were making books.
		It's just a racket.
		And then even the grants and the scholarships, the people were complaining because these books, these textbooks, something needs to be done about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So you think the federal government should focus on that part of it, the part you mentioned?
unidentified		Well, that, and then, well, that, and maybe they could get some of the money back that way.
		And, you know, I don't like this thing Biden did with this debt forgiveness.
		I agree with some of the people who have called in.
		It's just putting the debt on someone else.
		I'm a taxpayer.
		You know, I don't pay for somebody else's problem.
		Okay.
		And some of these kids are fooling around in school.
		They're not doing anything.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Karen there in California.
		Joe is up next in Alaska, paid off his student loans.
		Hi, Joe.
unidentified		Hi, yeah.
		I agree with Trump as far as how he said that you shouldn't just pass the cost on to someone else.
		I actually took some college classes in the late 90s, and I ended up taking some classes that were too hard for me, and I wasn't able to complete them.
		I failed.
		I had to withdraw.
		I wasn't able to maintain my 2.0 GPA and keep my student loan.
		I ended up having to quit going to college and then get a job and pay off my loan.
		I actually borrowed $17,000, but because the loan capitalized interest went to collections, I had to make $200 monthly payments, and eventually I paid it all off.
		Well, the thing about it is after I paid it off, I'm so used to making those payments.
		Now I'm able to disable a bunch of money.
		So, I mean, they shouldn't play favorites.
		They shouldn't say, hey, you guys, you get a free passport.
		Well, people before I had to pay.
		I mean, that's my thought.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joe there in Alaska giving us his thoughts.
		The members of Congress giving thoughts on the recollection of some student debt, too.
		This is Jimmy Gomez out of California, Democrat from that state saying that Mr. Trump is bringing back student loan collections, even though millions of people are already behind.
		35% of borrowers are over two months late, and many are close to default.
		Going after them now will only make things worse in this hashtag Trump recession.
		This is from the House Committee on Education, which we told you a little bit before, showed you a bit of that hearing.
		Some of the comments from Tim Wahlberg there, the chair, saying that the Biden-Harris administration's misguided student loan policies forced hardworking American taxpayers to cover the cost of loan repayment freeze, even if they never went to college or took out student loans.
		Congress mandated payments to resume in 2023.
		The Biden and Harris administration willfully and unconstitutionally ignored this mandate, creating chaos in the student loan repayment system.
		It goes on from there, if you're interested in reading the whole statement.
		RoCana, California, Democrat from California, saying that in his post from April 23rd, that the president's going to make you pay student loans starting in May.
		I'm fighting to cancel student loan debt.
		And then a viewer from Arkansas saying that when it comes to federal government handing that rising student debt, his answer is send them a bill.
		Again, a variety of ways you can reach out to us on the phone lines too.
		Pick the one that best represents you.
		Deborah in Houston, a holder of student loans.
		Deborah, good morning.
		Thanks for calling.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I believe this should be forgiven, but I know with Trump and the currently president, it's not going to happen.
		People have, a lot of minorities have student debt because of what is the big picture: it's jobs racism.
		I mean, the higher people, the people who are in hiring positions, they're white.
		The majority of them are white.
		And I can say that clearly because I'm very highly qualified in my position, the position for 20-plus years, and I'm still having troubles finding a job.
		So as long as they have the playing field fairly even, where you have a lot of minorities in the hiring positions, it's not going to ever be right.
		So people are trying to get jobs.
		They're not able to get jobs and pay off their student loans because they're constantly getting laid off or not being hired or overlooked, or like Trump's cabinet.
		Hiring your relatives, your cousins, your people who are not qualified.
		So that's the bigger picture here.
		People wouldn't have student loans if they had jobs that they can retain and pay off these loans.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Deborah, there in Houston, let's hear from Gail in Pennsylvania, paid off student loans.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gail, hello.
unidentified		Yeah, hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, I'm 87.
		I work 60 hours a week as a waitress at two different restaurants to pay off my student loan.
		And I'll be darned at 87, do I need to pay off somebody else's loan?
		60 hours a week.
		You can find plenty of restaurants and plenty of things, jobs to do if you really look.
		When I was younger, people used to knock on your door and say, Can I clean your backyard?
		Can I rake your leaves?
		Can I do this to make money?
		And since we put in all this handout money, people that work seem to get stuck.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gail, in Pennsylvania, where did you go to school?
		What did you go to school for, Gail, as far as that?
		And how much did you take out for student loans?
unidentified		I didn't have any money.
		First of all, I did not go to this Trenton State College, which was basically very cheap.
		I went to a Panzer College of Physical Education and Hygiene in East Orange, New Jersey, which was three times of what the cost was at the state schools.
		And I paid it all off for my work in 60 hours a week.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is a viewer from Richmond, Virginia, saying, I paid my loans off.
		It took decades.
		Others should not expect a clean slate.
		They signed the loan agreement, so they need to pay up.
		Will others get money back for paying their loans off?
		That's Kender from Richmond.
		Sherry Struple saying, I think all learning should be free.
		I, for one, have no problem paying extra taxes for kids to have free lunch and free education.
		We should want a smarter population, not a poor, stupider nation.
		Representative Summer Lee, which you heard from earlier from that hearing, posting yesterday, saying that like most people, I didn't want to take out student loans.
		The cost of higher education isn't what it used to be, and cutting access to financial aid helps no one.
		These proposed changes will be catastrophic for the future of education and the future of Americans.
		And then Lee Melton, a viewer from Facebook, saying, if schools have a huge endowment, they should lower prices, help students with grants.
		If the students signed a loan to go to school, they need to pay it back.
		Also, make sure students choose better so they can find a job when they graduate.
		A collection of thoughts there, a collection of ways you can give us your thoughts on this topic, including the phone lines.
		Let's hear from Rich in New Jersey on our line for others on this idea of the government or how should the government handle rising student debt.
		Hello, Rich.
unidentified		How are you doing?
		I think if you look at H.R. 6951, the College Cost Reduction Act, it greatly reduces the amount of money that a student can borrow to go to school.
		And I paid for three kids to go to school, and now I have my younger son who wants to be a veterinarian, and veterinarian costs is like $300,000, $400,000.
		The aggregate limit now, according to H.R. 661, is $200,000 per student, which greatly reduces.
		And after paying three college educations, I can't pay for, and I need my son to borrow the money, and he's capped at $200,000.
		And the only thing good about this is that the law, if it's passed, it won't come into effect until June 30th of 2026.
		But it also says it caps all your, if you borrowed other money, even before 26, that goes against your current cap.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The three that you paid college educations for, if I may ask, what did they major in?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And are they doing what they, do they have careers similar to the things they majored in?
unidentified		My oldest son has got a job with the environmental state of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection.
		That was with his major.
		My second son is working for the Department of Justice.
		He was a political science major.
		And the one who's going to wants to be a vet, he graduated with a degree in biology, which is one of the degrees you have to have to become a vet.
		So those are the three.
		So far, my two older sons, it's worked out well.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Just broke me, though.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rich, thanks for sharing the perspective today.
		Really appreciate it.
		From the Washington Post this morning, talking about grants, but targeting a specific education or place of higher learning, this is from today saying that it's the education secretary yesterday said that the federal government will not provide any new grants to Harvard University, saying the Ivy League school had, quote, made a mockery of the country's higher education system.
		In a letter that was posted to social media on Monday evening, McMahon said the school had violated federal law and questioned, quote, where do many of these students come from?
		Who are they?
		How do they get into Harvard and even our country?
		And why is there so much hate?
		She said the university had failed to abide by its legal obligations to ethical and fiduciary duties, its transparency responsibilities, and a semblance of academic rigor.
		Change comes after the administration announced that freeze of $2.2 billion in federal funding and initiated numerous investigations of Harvard's operations.
		This is from Ann in Maine, paid off the student debt, giving perspective on how the government should handle rising student debt.
		Ann, hello.
unidentified		Hi.
		First of all, I'd like to say to the lady who said she's a taxpayer and she doesn't pay for other people's problems.
		Well, that's exactly what we pay taxes for to help each other.
		And I was very lucky when I was coming up in the 60s.
		I had a state scholarship, but my husband went on to higher education, and it took us over 10 years to pay off his debts.
		But I have no problem with, you know, student loan forgiveness because we had so many more possibilities.
		And when Reagan became governor, he started slashing public education.
		And we watched that go across the country to different Republican states.
		And, you know, for my state, a lot of those state work study and scholarships, those just disappeared.
		And our son, you know, I'm the third generation American.
		I'm the first one who was able to go to college.
		I worked almost full-time through college.
		And even now, my son worked full-time to getting a master's degree, got a really good job.
		And now in the Trump economy, he's out of work.
		And with the uncertainty in his field, who knows when he'll be able to get another job.
		And a lot of young people, we should be taking care of our next generations.
		And we're really not.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And I'm curious, do you think college is worth it for those who are considering it?
unidentified		Well, I think from a purely, like Summer Lee said, from a purely, you know, knowledge is a good thing.
		Learning is a good thing.
		I can't believe I actually have to say that.
		But, you know, so I think that's the case.
		I think there are a lot of opportunities.
		You know, once you've learned to study, once you've learned to do the rigorous work of, you know, showing up every day, turning in your assignments, doing it well, that in itself is also preparation for almost any job.
		And I think especially for young people from disadvantaged families who might not have those examples before them, you know, being in college, being in that environment, that helps all of us.
		The more people we have who are knowledgeable and the more people we have who are eight, you know, who have spent like two or four years really keeping their nose to the grindstone, turning out the work, showing up, no matter what they do, you know, go on to, whether it's related to their studies, it's really good for all of us.
		And I have to say, I think it shows that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to vote for somebody like Donald Trump.
		The less likely they are to be taken advantage of, the more likely they are to be able to discern when they're being lied to.
		So that's how I'm feeling.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Ann in Maine, giving us thoughts this morning.
		Let's go to Thomas in Louisiana on our line for others.
		Hello, Thomas.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to say all these people calling about this loan forgiveness.
		What about bankruptcy?
		What about the six bankruptcies that Donald Trump had?
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		The taxpayers pay for those.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And how does that relate to the student issue?
unidentified		Well, it's the same thing.
		The taxpayers paid for his bankruptcies.
		Taxpayers pay it for student loan forgiveness.
		What is the difference?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think those in the United States get from paying off, or at least if they cover student loan forgiveness?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think they get from that?
unidentified		Well, number one, Pedro, this is what happens when these young people get in school.
		I've seen it down here in Louisiana.
		They don't only get money for college.
		Credit card companies send them a credit card.
		You got $5,000 to be like you want.
		Okay?
		I don't believe they understand the full aspect of all of this.
		So that's a problem.
		I lived with a woman who went to school until she was 42 years old on student loans.
		She never paid a penny of it back.
		She's dead now.
		Who's going to collect that money?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Thomas there in Louisiana giving us his thoughts again.
		If you're joining us, how the government should take on, or at least the government's role, at least to you, of how they should handle rising student debt.
		You heard from the Education Department just this week working to reclaim those defaulted student loans.
		Other efforts in the House when it comes to that too.
		Our lines are different.
		If you haven't noticed by now, for those who have student debt and you want to give your perspective, 202748-8000.
		It's 202-748-8001 if you've paid off that debt.
		And we've set aside a line for all others too to make your comments.
		That's 202-748-8002.
		And you can always text or you can always post on our social media sites your thoughts on this.
		Evie in Georgia paid off her student loans.
		Evie, hope I'm saying your name right, but go ahead.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, and thank you, C-SPAN.
		This is really a timely topic, primarily because we now have young people who cannot start their lives.
		That is right.
		We are fortunate.
		I'm almost 70, my husband almost 80.
		We came through a period where my husband went to Columbia in 62, 64.
		This was before DEI.
		This was before affirmative action, whereby the HBCUs started in the 18th century, were in fact, as Representative Lee, the opportunity because it wasn't that we chose it.
		It was because the country decided that it did not want to educate black people who were citizens.
		So now we go to, I have a radiologist, an OBGYN.
		I have five pharmacists.
		Yes, we just paid off $200,000 for the Duke radiologist, $400,000 for the Harvard-Howard Morehouse surgeon, OBGYN.
		So we are a family, black people in America, who come through the HBCU, Florida NM, North Carolina AT, Morgan, Howard, Morehouse, Spellman.
		So I know very well what this education system is in America and what it has been historically.
		What we have, as you read, a person who is now in charge of the Department of Education, who was in fact a woman who did not, from what we can understand, I can't really get the clarity of it, who did not have matriculation in any way that is outstanding, and who was a part of a wrestling oversight industry, which is plagued with all kinds of problems.
		So now we're here where you read it.
		They could have solved all these problems if we valued people, valued our children, valued a citizenry that is educated and civically and caring with the values that we say we have ideals of in this country, but somehow we don't want that.
		And so now we're here again, back at trying to regress rather than progress.
		And so I would love to ask, and I would hope you would have on, the impact of what all of these cuts and lack of investments here in the state of Florida and Georgia, these copycat deals, where they are trying to take away the public funding for public K through 12 education.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		The Evie Bear in Georgia.
		Let's hear from another Georgian.
		This is Lattell, hold student debt.
		Lattelle from Georgia.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing, sir?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		I possess student loans.
		I was a graduate of Fort Valley.
		However, met a, or I was challenged with a educational, or not an educational, economic, how can I say it, whole, a bull or bear market.
		And, well, a mixture of two in a sense.
		And basically, at the time of graduation, there was an influ, inflation of career fares and what have you.
		And it became quite difficult for across the board, HBCUs, as the lady had mentioned, the Clark Atlanta University system, Savannah State University system, and several other systems were placed with, how can I say it, like a preconceived notion.
		And the career fairs were laden with racism.
		And if possible, the way, how can I say it, if possible, some type of engineering has to be made, whereas it will envelop all fashions of the economy in such a way that it will show the same type of curriculum that presents itself in college,
		even down to a silicone diode or germanium diode.
		That's my comment.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Lattelle in Georgia, sharing his thoughts when it comes to student debt, what the government should be doing about that debt.
		In the pages of the New York Times this morning, this is Elizabeth Bumiller writing under the headline, the president's top academic prey, that's P-R-E-Y, is an Ivy League that won't love him back.
		She writes this morning that Mr. Trump's attacks on this elite group, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, and the University of Pennsylvania have endeared him to his political base.
		He is withholding or threatening to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding from six of the eight schools because he says they are citadels of anti-Semitism and liberal indoctrination.
		Officials in higher education acknowledge failures but call the president's crackdown a personal, perilous threat to academic freedom.
		The story adding that the Trump administration has targeted many other colleges and universities for potential anti-Semitism, some 60 in all.
		And yet the eight Ivies are cultural touchstones for Mr. Trump beyond the politics is a complex brew of resentment and reverence that the president, an Ivy League graduate himself, has long harbored for a club that has never really accepted him.
		Quote, they don't return the love to him, said Alan Marcus, a business and political consultant who oversaw Mr. Trump's public relations from 1994 to 2000 after the president's companies went through multiple bankruptcies in the 90s.
		Mr. Marcus said that a part of an attempted comeback for his client, he tried to get Mr. Trump to deliver a college commencement address or receive an honorary degree.
		Quote, I called a few people I knew on boards, Mr. Marcus said, but I got essentially laughed at.
		More there.
		If you want to read that story from today, taking a look at the larger issues of the Trump administration's actions towards higher education institutions.
		Your thoughts on student debt overall, how the government should be handling that.
		Harry, on our line for others, good morning.
		Thanks for calling.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for the topic.
		Here are some points.
		My mother had a master's degree in history and English.
		The only way she got that was piling in a car and driving an hour and a half to a local college to work for her degree.
		I have 10 grandchildren, and the point I'm making is that there are no free lunches.
		Pay as you go.
		During the Great Depression, she would tell me about hard workers who would work for a year, sometimes two years, to go to school for a year.
		That there's a great book out there.
		It's called Nickel and Dimed.
		It's by Barbara Ekenrich.
		That's E-H-R-E-N-R-E-I-C-H.
		Nickel and Dimed.
		It's all not getting along or not getting by in America because these highly educated, some with college degrees, master's degrees, doctorates that are working at minimum wage jobs.
		The rule that to my fellow boomers who have children is what I would respectfully suggest is it works that if you go to school for a semester and you've worked to pay for that semester, I have the ability to reimburse that.
		But you have to get a passing grade, and it has to be in something not in basket weaving, but something that makes you employable.
		Somebody has to want to hire you.
		The rule that in my era was that if somebody paid you, let's pick any number, $20,000, you had to return back in your productivity at least $40,000 for that to be economically feasible on both ends.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Harry there in West Virginia on our line for others, holder of student debt.
		This is Kevin Woodbridge, Virginia.
		You're next up.
		Hi there.
unidentified		Next up.
		Hi, Mr. Harry.
		Hey, good morning, Pedro.
		How are you?
		How are you?
		I'm good.
		I guess my standpoint on everything is why not just kind of have some stricter guidelines on maybe not canceling student debt, but like lowering interest rates to almost zero or really basing any type of forgiveness on household income, more stricter guidelines, but also amount of people living in the house.
		You know, there's old, I have three kids.
		You know, I got a decent job.
		I went to trade school, so I didn't have as much debt.
		My wife went to the University of Pittsburgh for nursing, and she's a nurse here in the area, and just some Kevin, you're breaking up a little.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You still there?
		You broke up a little bit, Kevin.
		Go ahead and Say your thought there.
		Kevin, you're there?
unidentified		Trying to appease both sides.
unidentified		Yeah, can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, just trying to appease both sides, Pedro, and trying to reduce interest rates maybe to a lower amount instead of face any debt or appease, you know, kind of both sides of there.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kevin there in Virginia, Woodbridge, Virginia, not too far from Washington, D.C. Probably in the car, maybe calling us on his car phone.
		But thanks for the thoughts this morning.
		Let's go to Michael.
		Michael in Florida, paid off student debt.
		Hello, Michael.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Good morning, Pedro.
		I've got a big perspective on this.
		I like the caller who said, you know, there's no free lunch.
		I support that totally.
		I'm a college professor.
		I've earned seven college degrees over the last 20 years.
		And I remember the first student loan I took out was $4,000 some 30 years ago.
		And I knew when I signed on to that line, I'd have to pay that back.
		And I did everything.
		I worked marvel jobs.
		Sometimes I'd be able to, once I had a couple degrees, get tuition remission.
		My children are now working in health care and they're getting their hospitals to help pay for their tuition.
		They still have student loans.
		People have to learn that if you're going to take out a loan, you have to understand how are you going to pay that back?
		It's an important lesson.
		And I can tell you that it really shaped my lines because my parents weren't there for me when I got out of high school.
		And I had to go to school.
		And I figured, well, I've got to pick a career that's going to pay so I'll be able to pay back that loan.
		And today, these Ivy League things that you showed in the paper, well, I think the Trump administration is going after that because they're anti-Senatism, that, you know, there's issues there, that they're not really treating their Jewish students correctly or freely.
		So to conflate those issues, you know, he's going after the Ivy League.
		There's reasons for that.
		Now, writing off student loans for people the way the Biden administration did and set these lax rules, maybe Trump's going to do his best he can to help people forego the forbearances and all these things and penalties.
		But at some point, someone's got to pay.
		And we shouldn't just say, you know, it's a free lunch because many of us in this country, there was a father who talked to Senator Warren.
		And he said, you know, I gave up vacations, nice cars.
		I worked two jobs to put my daughter through school.
		And Senator Warren laughed at him.
		She just thought it was just a free lunch for everyone.
		And I remember that interview, and that infuriated me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Michael, let me ask you, before you go, when you got the explanation of your student loan, do you think it was done in a clear manner that you knew what you were getting into?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And do you think students get that kind of transparency when they fill out loan papers?
unidentified		Oh, I have two sons right now.
		One's a nurse and one's a nursing school.
		And I remember when I got it, I looked at theirs currently.
		It's very clear.
		And, you know, if you go beyond six months, I believe, without making a payment, you fall into a step before default.
		So people can't just say, well, I didn't know I was in default.
		They know.
		Okay.
		They know when someone hands them a check for $4,000, $10,000, $15,000 wherever they're going to school, depending on their income and all these things that you fill out through the financial aid forms, that there's conditions.
		And when the repayment plans, usually it starts, my son's coming up six months after graduation.
		You have to start making payments.
		And they're minimum payments.
		They're $100,000, $200,000, $300 a month, and the interest is not bad.
		So people complaining, like, oh, the interest is all this.
		You know, whether it drops a point or two, that's not the issue.
		The issue is you can't take the $4,000, $10,000, $20,000 and then think, well, I don't have a job.
		What do I do?
		You can then contact them.
		This is the important step.
		Contact them and tell them, I need a forbearance, and they'll extend it.
		And sometimes it can extend it into a year or whatnot, depending on your hardship.
		And they're very sympathetic to all that.
		I remember going through that when I was penniless.
		And I always knew I couldn't go into default because that would affect my credit score.
		I wouldn't be able to buy a home.
		And I knew this at age 20.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
		Michael there in Florida.
		This is a couple of congressional reactions.
		This is from April the 23rd.
		Congresswoman Nakima Williams saying 38 million Americans have borrowed money to pay for college.
		And after a pandemic and recession-induced pause, President Trump is starting the student loan to collection again.
		Cutting the economic mobility of millions of Americans will not help the economy.
		What would, and she adds hashtag cancel student debt.
		Representative Mark Green on X saying President Biden's student loan forgiveness schemes have caused taxpayers a fortune.
		It's time for borrowers to live up to their commitments and restart loan payments.
		Taxpayers, many of whom either didn't go to college in the first place or already worked hard to pay off, it goes on from there.
		But that's the post of the acts on X.
		This is Ibrahima in Maryland from a student loan debt holder.
		Good morning.
		Ibrahima?
		One more time for Ibrahima.
		All right.
unidentified		Pedro, am I on?
unidentified		Can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, please.
unidentified		Okay, yeah, I'm a long-time listener, first-time caller.
		And yes, I hold a student loan.
		And I want to say I'm almost paid up.
		If it wasn't for the COVID, I would have spent.
		But the reason for my call is I had maybe $100,000 in student loan.
		And I secured a lot of educational and matriculated with a lot of degrees.
		And I worked all my life.
		I worked through school and paid up.
		But now I have my kids that went through college and I paid up for them as well.
		And I had to take recently a parent plus to pay for my daughter who is, if I would say, congratulations to her.
		On the 9th this Friday, she'll be graduating from American University with a baccalaureate degree.
		And if I would just say congratulations to Khadija Diall for graduating and putting in a good work.
		But I want to tell a lot of people, going to school is an investment.
		You have to think about why you're going to school.
		You have to think about it as an investment in terms of value.
		Sometimes you have to make a decision to go to some schools that give you better value for your money.
		You don't have to go to Ivy League schools and go to some of the most expensive private school to get some education.
		That could come out and get the kind of job that don't require that.
		You just need to be someone that's driving, someone that's curious and someone that's ready to put in the hard work, to be able to get the best you can out of your work and come out and be able to get the kind of experience and discipline you need, for you to grow into your work life and be able to pay up.
		But if you do take the loan, I say you have to pay up.
		For me, I did very well and I've done very well for my family as well.
		And I think it was a great investment for what I did.
		And I went into the health space and I'm doing pretty good.
		So for everybody out there, I think you have to forethink it and you have to look at it as an investment and go for where you get the most value for your money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Ibrahima from Maryland.
		Thanks for the call.
		Russell's in South Carolina paid off his loans.
		Russell, you are next up.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, Pedro.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Did pay off my loan and it took a long time to pay my student loans off.
		I had a mixture of grants and loans.
		And I went to HBCU.
		I realize now that the folks in Israel have free college education.
		They also have free medical care and they have Family Leave Act.
		And we have given Israel $300 billion since the 40s.
		And why is it okay?
		Nobody's checking with them to see what kind of jobs they're getting.
		Nobody's giving them any trouble about what kind of money they're making.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so but as far as our government is concerned and how it should handle student debt, what would you recommend?
unidentified		I would recommend that we stop paying Israel so much money and help our students instead of helping their students and giving so much money to Israel when they have free college and free education.
unidentified		Nobody's browbeating them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay.
		Brett is in Maryland on our line for others.
		Brett, hello.
unidentified		Yes.
		My issue is my father, I'm from Atlantic City, New Jersey.
		My father was an educator.
		He died in 1997.
		His parents didn't even go to high school.
		And he worked through, he worked and he became when he, at his death, he was assistant superintendent of schools.
		My point is, my daughter, she was, she taught school in South Korea and Thailand.
		And also she taught school and she was also, we also, me and my wife, we also had about 13 out of students that were on, you know, the foreign aid.
		They came from different countries.
		We had a student from Norway that was living with us.
		And what they do in Norway, they, you know, the government pays for them whether you go to a technical school or if you go through a or if you go to college, it's your choice, but the government pays for it.
		So I think, you know, people talk about socialism and everything.
		I think there's something wrong with the capitalism that needs some tweaking in our country.
		And Norway, you know, they have social democrats where they, you know, the country, you know, they run the economy and they pay high taxes, but they have a lot of time off.
		They get like about six months where they can just go around the country or do whatever they want.
		So I think there's something with the capitalist system that I think if we had invested like they do in Norway, we would be better off.
		Gotcha.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, gotcha.
		Gotcha, Brett.
		One more call.
		Juanita in Ohio, hold student whole debt.
		Hello, Juanita.
		Your last call.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		I've taken on my baby sister's remainder of her debt.
		I'm 74, and I paid off my debts back in 1977, probably before most of your listeners were born.
		I think the government approach should be more nuanced.
		And what I see is taking a like a broadsword.
		My concern is for those students who took out loans at some of these technical schools, people who weren't able to compete colleges because of family problems, parents who co-sign loans.
		Remember, you can't get out of those loans by bankruptcy.
		And if you co-sign for your child, the government's going to come for you too.
		I do believe people should pay the money back, but I think the government should be much more nuanced about how they did it.
		Because when I paid my rent back in 1977, it was only 3%.
		And we had nine months from graduation to start paying it back.
		We're not a poor country.
		And they can give these kids a break and they can show them how nuanced financing can help them.
		Okay.
		Going through the slash.
		No.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, Anita there in Ohio finishing off this hour of calls, taking a look at student debt to those of you who participated this morning.
		Thanks for doing so.
		Several things to watch out for today on the networks.
		First of all, the Canadian Prime Minister set to visit President Trump to talk about tariffs and other issues.
		Watch C-SPAN, our main channel, our channels for that, as well as our .org and our app if you want to see more of that visit.
		On Capitol Hill this morning, several secretaries set to testify as part of the budgeting process, the appropriations process.
		At 10 o'clock, Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam will face questions on the Trump administration's deportation policies and other priorities for the department.
		She'll be here before the House Appropriations Subcommittee.
		It will be the first time testifying on Capitol Hill since her confirmation back in January.
		See that at 10 o'clock on C-SPAN 3, our app, C-SPANNOW and c-span.org.
		Also, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett will testify on President Trump's tariffs and economic agenda.
		That also before our House Appropriations Subcommittee.
		It will be the Secretary's first congressional hearing since his confirmation since January.
		See that 10 o'clock live on our free mobile app, C-SPANNOW, online at c-span.org.
		Later on this program, we'll revisit the efforts by the Trump administration to collect on those defaulted student loans, giving us more information on that.
		The Chronicle of Higher Education's Rick Seltzer.
		But first, coming up next, CQ Roll Calls Aiden Quigley.
		We'll talk about President Trump's first budget for 2026, where he proposes $163 billion in cuts and talk a little bit more about those cuts and other aspects of the budget.
		A conversation with Aiden Quigley of CQ Roll Call coming up next.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Carthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Facist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist.
		Book Burning, and Communism.
		All subjects of controversy during the 30s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States.
		Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, Red Scare.
		Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s.
unidentified		Author Clay Risen with his book, Red Scare, Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to C-SPAN.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the Tune-In app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN Radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day.
		Catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joining us now, Aiden Quigley of CQ Roll Call, reporter specifically taking a look at budget and appropriations issues.
		A good thing to have because the president is releasing so-called discretionary budget requests.
		Mr. Quigley, good morning.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When the president releases this request, what's the purpose of the document?
unidentified		So the idea is to kind of lay out his priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which starts October 1.
		So this is the first chance the president has to really say, this is where I want to go when it comes to spending.
		Every president releases it and Congress takes it and often goes in a very different direction.
		Obviously, when you have the same party controlling both chambers and the presidency, the document carries a little more weight.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I suppose the document also kind of reveals the intentions of the administration or what's important to the administration.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If that's the case, what does this document reveal?
unidentified		Exactly.
		So this document reveals that they want to dramatically increase defense spending with the big caveat that a lot of that is through the budget reconciliation bill, which is being negotiated now and is separate from the appropriations process.
		So that increase is $119 billion.
		It takes defense spending over a trillion dollars for the first time ever.
		But in the Senate, they're not happy with that number because a lot of it does rely on them passing this one big beautiful bill, as Trump calls it, this summer, which is obviously a little bit in question as we wait to see how it plays out on the Hill.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So defense is a priority, also Homeland Security revealed to be a priority in this document.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the money figure there?
unidentified		Yeah, significant increase to Homeland Security.
		It's very big, billions and billions of dollars.
		I think it's $65 billion on that for Homeland.
		But that is also in the budget reconciliation bill.
		So they, again, are really in a situation where they need to pass this bill in order to get these increases because otherwise it's pretty flat in the actual appropriations process.
		It's a proposal.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It seems like a lot of risk.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Why take that risk if you're tying this budget to that bill?
unidentified		So it's pretty hard to pass appropriation bills because you do need Democratic help.
		Obviously, we saw this time Democrats were willing to go along with what Republicans wanted in March with the full year CR instead of risking a government shutdown.
		But at the end of the day, the White House thinks that this will give them more flexibility to get the increase that they want without giving the Democrats the non-defense increases that Democrats will always push for in the appropriations process.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Aiden Quigley, one of the headlines that came out from this was this idea of cuts when it comes to, or at least potential cuts from this bill.
		The figure is $163 billion.
		That's the large figure, but break that down for us.
		What does that mean?
unidentified		Significant non-defense cuts are coming along with the defense increase.
		We end up flat if you take everything together, but to get $119 billion in defense increases, you need an equal cut to non-defense.
		Of course, there's a homeland increase, so that is kind of where that number comes from.
		But significant across-the-board cuts to non-defense programs.
		If you take out the homeland increase, you have about a 25% cut to non-defense programs, especially targeted on the State Department, which is a 48% cut, which is extremely significant.
		Obviously, we've seen the Trump administration going after USAID funding as well.
		Housing and Army Development is also a 44% cut.
		So there's really significant non-defense cuts, which Democrats are very upset about and will not sign off on in Congress.
		So we're setting ourselves up for another extremely tense appropriations process this year that will likely end in definitely another short-term continuing resolution when we come to October 1.
		And then past that, it's going to be a pretty tough fight.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I want to follow up on that, but I'll invite callers to call in too and ask about this budget request from the White House, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans, and 202-743-8002 for independents.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you want to text us your thoughts or questions about the budget request, 202-748-8003, Democrats' perspective to those potential cuts in programs, what's the main argument we'll hear from Democrats?
unidentified		Well, the main argument is this is going to really harm the lives of Americans by cutting government services that they depend on.
		And it's not just Democrats.
		We've seen a few Republicans, specifically Susan Collins, the Senate Appropriations Chair, express some questions about the scale of these cuts.
		For example, LIHEAP, which is a program which helps low-income folks heat their homes, is facing a very significant cut under this budget.
		And in Maine, that's a significant priority.
		So that's one that she's already called out as something that she is going to fight to make sure receive some funding.
		But across the board cuts to significant programs, health and human services, medical research is another one that Collins talked about.
		And one that the Democrats as well, Patty Murray, she's the ranking member on Senate appropriations.
		They just had a hearing last week on the importance of medical research and the significant cuts to that in this proposal.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So Susan Collins, you mentioned, and she said this, put out a statement, and she's the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee side.
		She said the president's budget request is simply one step in the annual budgeting process.
		This request has come to Congress late, and key details still remain outstanding.
		Based on my initial review, however, I have serious objections to the proposed freezing our defense funding, given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts and in some cases elimination of the programs you mentioned, LIHEAP TRIO, and others that support biomedical research.
		Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.
		Break that down.
		You broke down one aspect.
		What other concerns?
		When she says, particularly, you know, about the defense spending side, she calls that a freeze as far as what the president's requested.
unidentified		Exactly.
		So that's the discretionary defense spending.
		As I was talking about earlier with the bigger bill, the Republicans want more defense spending in the discretionary spending process because that will kind of lock it in, lock in a little bit more than a one-time infusion through reconciliation is the argument that Mitch McConnell was making.
		Because if you increase the defense spending levels when it comes to next year's fight, that's kind of the baseline that you're working off of compared to non-defense.
		So they really want.
		And Roger Wicker, too, he's a Senate Armed Services chairman.
		He's saying that the defense spending and reconciliation is supposed to be a one-time infusion to really set the United States on a different path of a bigger military along with these regular annual increases that we are expecting.
		But over in the House, a lot of the Republicans want to cut spending.
		And if you're giving the Pentagon a trillion dollars, that's harder to do.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It's the budget hawks, so to speak.
		I suppose those in the Freedom Caucus as well are going to express some of the concerns.
		Who are the ones to watch, so to speak, as this process plays out?
unidentified		I think in the House, obviously there's been a lot of talk this year about the tiny majority the Republicans have, and it's going to be hard for them to pass spending bills.
		And that is definitely going to be true in this process when you come to the end game when you have the Freedom Caucus.
		The entire pitch behind the full year CR in March was that we'll do this now and then we can lock in some of the Doge cuts, for example, in the fall.
		And by the time the fall rolls around, it'll start to feel like the midterms are coming up a little bit, and you'll have some moderates who will be not wanting to significantly slash government spending.
		So to pass a bill, they'll have to work with Democrats, which will just open up a whole nother can of worms, likely.
		Again, we've seen Republicans pass bills on their own a few times this Congress, which has been kind of an impressive feat when you have such a small majority.
		But when it comes to the end game of this appropriation cycle, it's hard to see how you don't work with Democrats to come up with an agreement.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Aiden Quigley reports on budget and appropriations issues for CQ roll call.
		Anthony's in Detroit, Independent Line.
		Anthony, thanks for calling.
		You're first up on this conversation.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Good morning.
		This really fires me up because, I mean, you talk about waste and fraud.
		I mean, I'm looking at obviously the Pentagon with our 700 some-odd military bases around the world.
		They don't really do anything for us.
		And now Trump wants to do the mineral deal with Ukraine.
		Well, look at that.
		Marjorie Taylor Greene says, no, we don't want to waste our money occupying Ukraine.
		We have our own minerals.
		And Homeland Security, you can totally get rid of that whole department.
		Immigration and naturalization, that was Justice Department.
		TSA, Transportation Department, Customs, that was in the Treasury.
		Just get rid of the Homeland Security.
		It was a 9-11 mistake, and that's how we save our money.
		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Anthony there with thoughts on what's being spent and where.
unidentified		So there are some Democrats, especially on the progressive side, who I think share some similar views that at least you should look at the Pentagon to cut back.
		But a vast majority of both parties, I think, supports the defense spending levels that we are considering under the president's budget.
		Maybe not as much defense on the defense side.
		Obviously, Democrats will want more non-defense spending than Trump is putting forward.
		And the level is a lot higher on the defense side than Democrats would be comfortable with in general.
		But when you talk about significant cuts to defense spending, that would be a non-starter for most members of both parties.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talked about the dance in the House only because of the small majority.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's facing Speaker Johnson then, as far as the president's request and how much he sells it to his caucus?
unidentified		So this is kind of taking a backseat to reconciliation right now, which is really taking, you know, eating up all of the attention of leadership at this point.
		Obviously, there are other issues moving too, but appropriations is going to go to the committee, and the next step is kind of the House Appropriations Committee will write their bills.
		Last night, the chairman, Tom Cole, said that they're going to broadly write in line with the president's budget.
		They're still going to figure out exactly where they're going to land on the top line.
		But they're really looking at this document as a guiding path on what they want to do.
		In the Senate, obviously, we've talked about Collins a lot.
		They're going to take a different path.
		She has not yet started conversations with the Democrats about a top line agreement over there, and that's going to be extremely difficult to reach.
		But they're definitely going to try to spend more in the Senate than the House is going to in their annual processes.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We will see Christy Noam, the DHS Secretary before an Appropriations Committee sub committee today.
		We'll see Scott Besson, the Treasury Secretary, before a House Appropriations Subcommittee.
		Is this the start of the process when it comes to the budget request and how much the White House wants?
unidentified		Exactly.
		These hearings are kind of the first pivotal step where the secretaries come to Congress and members of both parties question them on their priorities.
		These hearings are often very interesting because a lot of the senders and House members have some district-specific interests that they have specific questions about, which is interesting to watch, but also the wider national conversations play out here as well.
		So this is the first step.
		The next step would be writing the actual bills and holding markups over the summer and then eventual negotiations based on the two chambers and where they wrote their bills to in the fall.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
		If you have questions about the start of this budget process that Aiden Quigley has been talking about, Buffalo, New York is where Bill is.
		Bill joins us on our independent line.
		Bill, hello.
		You're next up.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
unidentified		How are you today?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on with our guest.
unidentified		All right.
		Yeah, I look at the corporate tax rate in 1910.
		It was 1%.
		And that was, we did not have a military involved in the world.
		And in 1960, it was 52% after the Second World War and after the Vietnam War.
		So how are you going to increase the military budget by 13% and reduce taxes at the same time and not increase the deficit?
		If you want to, and I believe we need a strong military.
		We need a very strong military, but you can't do it at 15% corporate tax rate.
		You have to raise it to 40% like they did in 1940, to 50% like they did in 1950.
		But you can't, you can't.
		And then the budget's based on tax, the corporate tax rate.
		That's my comment.
		I don't see how you can say, I want to reduce the deficit and then increase the military by spending by 13% and cut taxes.
		And don't tell me you want to decrease the deficit.
		Because see, look, in 2000, they said we have to cut back on entitlement programs.
		But in 2001, the Bush administration set up a military to go into Iraq and it costs us $4 trillion.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Okay, Bill, got your point.
		But to the larger point, Aiden Quigley, if you're going to set a budget, that depends on where you're getting revenue from.
		So let's start there.
unidentified		Exactly.
		And obviously, we're having these conversations in the reconciliation process about taxes and extending the tax cuts that the Trump administration passed in the fourth term.
		I think that they're trying to offset these defense increases with major non-defense cuts is the pitch that is coming from the White House on this.
		But as the caller was saying, that there is a hard argument to make when you are cutting taxes and you want to spend more money while also reducing the deficit.
		It's a difficult math equation, to put it lightly.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We have a viewer off of X who asked the question: how much of tariff revenue is in the budget?
		And then how's that tariff revenue being spent?
		Let me extend that, saying if is there a consideration for what might be brought in by tariffs or what might be brought in by savings from Doge?
		Does that become part of the math when it comes to formulating a budget?
unidentified		I think definitely the Doge side of it is involved.
		The tariff funds also are, but that is something I'm less familiar with.
		But back to the Doge side of things, the budget put forward does include significant non-defense cuts.
		Some of them were identified through the Doge process.
		But again, Congress has a power of the parcel and will have to make some significant decisions here when it comes to how to spend that money.
		Kind of jumping to an unrelated topic for a quick second, impoundment is another big issue that we've been talking a lot about this year.
		And the administration is not spending funding that Congress is appropriating.
		And that is something that we will see play out in the course.
		And we're already seeing that play out on the cards a little bit.
		But that's something that's kind of hanging over this whole discussion.
		The fight between the administration and Congress over who has the power to decide how the government spends its money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I suppose that both want to flex those sides appropriately during this process as well.
unidentified		Exactly.
		But when there is definitely kind of a not significant feeling among Republicans to push back against Trump in the House, especially, we've been seeing.
		So we'll see how it goes.
		But Congress definitely wants to, the Democrats in Congress and some Republicans want to, you know, push forward with their affiliations power this year.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		CQ roll calls Aiden Quigley here to talk about the budget requests from the president's first one of his second term.
		Mary in Texas, Democrats line.
		Good morning.
		You're next up.
		Mary in Texas.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Okay.
		The budget cuts.
		I'm concerned about NIH and the CDC.
		I have colon cancer and breast cancer, and I am cancer-free thanks to the work that those agencies have done.
		And we need to keep working on research done by universities that will help us.
		And these old guys in Congress, they are going to suffer from some of these diseases that will be helped by these agencies.
		They want to cut.
		And as far as the military budget, are they still going to make those big fighter jets?
		I read something about how now that's ridiculous because drones are being used in the fighting instead of those big billion-dollar jets.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mary, thanks.
unidentified		So the F-35 program is the fighter jet program, which is most prominent.
		And there's some delays and over budget as a lot of military procurement programs go.
		But to pivot to the medical research, I mentioned the hearing earlier.
		That is something that in the Senate, it would be hard to imagine them passing a final appropriation bill that includes significant cuts to medical research.
		That is going to be kind of a central issue, I think, in the appropriations process, where the Democrats are definitely going to be highlighting and a handful of Republicans that this is just an unacceptable proposal from the White House on medical research.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If I have the math correct, a proposed 26% cut when it comes to the programs at HHS.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is that research included or is there more there within HHS that could get cut?
unidentified		So there's definitely more than just research within HHS.
		It's a significant agency that covers a lot of different health programs and CDC, et cetera, et cetera.
		The Secretary, RFK, is going to be on the Hill, I think, next week talking more about this.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A viewer asks, it's related, but see what you take with it, saying, Mr. Quigley, if you have any information about the ability to raise the debt ceiling as part of this or the risk of a default on the national debt.
unidentified		So the debt ceiling is right now part of the reconciliation process, which is separate from the appropriations process, which is weighing into this budget.
		It is complicated because the ward budget is involved in both.
		But at this point, that is expected to be included in the bill that Republicans are trying to pass.
		If it does not make it, if that bill falls apart, then Republicans would conceivably have to negotiate with Democrats because there would be a 60-vote threshold in the Senate instead of the 50-vote threshold for reconciliation.
		So we will see the debt ceiling.
		It'll be a major issue this summer.
		If Republicans can pass the reconciliation bill, that will likely take care of it for the near term.
		But if they cannot, then it's going to be much more complicated.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You alluded to this, but elaborate a little bit more.
		Government funding is set to run out a certain date in the future.
		How does that complicate the process of getting everything done as far as the budget is concerned?
unidentified		So October 1 is the deadline.
		The full US CR runs through the end of the fiscal year.
		We typically see almost every single year a short-term continuing resolution that would buy more time.
		The reconciliation bill has the same deadline based on the budget resolution that they passed.
		So they would have to pass a new budget resolution after October 1 if they wanted to pass reconciliation, which would kind of restart the whole process.
		So they're kind of under a time crunch where they need to get this done.
		I know there's talk of a Memorial Day deadline or July 4th deadline for the Republicans priority bill.
		If they are able to do that, then obviously appropriations will take up the focus in the fall.
		But if they are not, then these two major priorities will be kind of taking up a lot of our time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The president's key person is Russ Vogt.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Talk about his role, not only in releasing the document, but what he does from here on out to help sell the plan to the Congress.
unidentified		Yeah, so he is the OMB director, Office of Management and Budget.
		He shaped this budget with Trump.
		Obviously, he's going to be really the one who's selling it to a lot of the Republicans on the Hill and trying to convince the lawmakers that this is the right path to go down.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
		This will be from Lyle, Salt Lake City, Independent Line.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Just curious, what percentage of the defense contracts are no-bid contracts, which probably lead to higher costs across the board?
		Thank you.
		So I know that that is a percentage.
		I don't know the exact number, but the defense contracting is an area that members are looking at in general.
		But I think that, you know, the defense spending, there's wide appetite on the Hill, as I mentioned earlier, for more defense spending.
		And that does not seem like it's going to change anytime soon.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Aiden Quigley, what do you watch for from here on out?
		What should our viewers watch for as far as the process of finalizing a budget?
		What's the things to watch for?
unidentified		So I think the next major, major step that I'm looking at for is what the top line numbers each chamber comes up with and how different they are from the president's budget.
		As I mentioned earlier, I expect the House to have something similar to what the president put forward and the Senate to go way higher.
		The two teams will have to then negotiate and come up with something.
		But the issues that prevented a final deal this past year of the government impounding funds, as I mentioned, the Doge cuts, those are not going anywhere.
		And I think that it's going to be very difficult for leadership to come up with a solution that appeases the Freedom Caucus and the moderates in the GOP, which would force them to negotiate with Democrats.
		And in the Senate, you have to get some Democrats on board to go along with the plan.
		So it's going to be a very contentious year.
		It always is, but this one and the last one were particularly difficult when it comes to reaching an agreement.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		All right, you can see our work of our guests at cqrollcotta.com, Aiden Quigley, a reporter for that publication looking at budget issues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Quigley, thanks for your time.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
unidentified		I appreciate it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A little later in the program, we're going to have a discussion on the Education Department's efforts to collect on defaulted student loans.
		That conversation with Chronicle of Higher Education's Rick Seltzer.
		But first, open forum if you want to participate.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Take those calls, and Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		Looking to contact your members of Congress?
		Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
		Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
		This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
		Contact 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 C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
		Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
jimmy carter ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is always an unfinished creation.
ronald reagan ▲ ● ▼		Democracy is worth dying for.
george h w bush ▲ ● ▼		Democracy belongs to us all.
bill clinton ▲ ● ▼		We are here in the sanctuary of democracy.
george w bush ▲ ● ▼		Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies.
barack obama ▲ ● ▼		American democracy is bigger than any one person.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected.
unidentified		We are still at our core, a democracy.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		This is also a massive victory for democracy and for freedom.
unidentified		Get C-SPAN wherever you are with C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on demand.
		Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
		Catch the latest episodes of Washington Journal.
		Find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV and radio networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
		The C-SPAN Now app is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
		Download it for free today.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joining us from Capitol Hill, Representative Russ Folcher.
		He serves the state of Idaho, Republican from that state, also on the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committee, and a Freedom Caucus member.
		Representative Folcher, thanks for your time this morning.
unidentified		My pleasure.
unidentified		Thanks for having me on today.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The Energy and Commerce Committee is one of those key committees involved in the reconciliation process.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Where are we on that process?
unidentified		Well, we have our major hearing next week, or at least that's when it's scheduled to happen.
		And as you know, we've been tasked with identifying about $880 billion worth of reductions in overall spending.
		And so it's a big job for us, but there's a lot of things on the table, and I think we're working through that detail right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You were supposed to have a hearing, I think, this week it got pushed off.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Was there a reason why?
unidentified		I think that there's some discussions with the White House and trying to just make sure that the priorities are lined up.
		We know that we're going to need the President's support with whatever we do.
		And so Chairman Guthrie met with the President and just made sure that the priorities the committee was working on were lined up with what the President wanted to see.
		And I think that that caused for about a week delay in order to go back and do some more homework.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One of the things that has been reported when it comes to energy and commerce is taking a look at Medicaid, possible cuts there to achieve reconciliation.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the number that we're looking at at this point?
unidentified		Well, we don't know for sure, but keep in mind that with Medicaid, it's not going to be reduced.
		We're going to continue to increase spending on Medicaid.
		What's going to happen is we're just going to reduce the rate of growth of the spending.
		And most people don't really understand that, but that's how that's going to happen.
		There's going to be at least $100 million or billion plus on EV and green mandates that get reduced, the subsidies.
		So that comes out of our budget.
		The spectrum sale comes out of our budget.
		There's some other things in there, but the Medicaid will be the biggest portion.
		However, that's not going to be all of the 880 by any means.
		And so I think there's going to be some focus on that.
		I would expect that there will be some adjustments very possibly with things like work requirements for the able-bodied, working age.
		But in terms of the benefit structure, the intent is to just reduce the rate of growth of Medicaid, not cut into the benefit component of the population that was originally intended for.
		I think we can do that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You said reduce the rate of growth.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If that's the case, do people get left off in the process if you reduce the growth rate?
unidentified		You know, I don't think so.
		The intent is not to reduce the benefits themselves, but to just make it more fair.
		Get rid of some of the waste abuse and fraud, because there is some of that going on.
		Eligibility, we know there's a population that aren't eligible that are claiming it, so we're trying to identify that.
		I think possibly, and this is just me talking, I don't know for sure, it's too early, but very possibly the biggest portion of that number in terms of the reduction of the growth rate is likely to be the work requirement piece because a lot of states have expanded their Medicaid coverage and there are people on there, a lot of them, that are working age, able-bodied, and so it's just fair for everybody if that population has some skin in the game.
		And so I think that's likely to be the biggest impact.
		And we know that's hundreds of billions right there.
		And so I think that's kind of the direction it's going to go, but it's still too early to tell.
		We're working on it now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do states fit into the picture as far as the responsibilities they'll take if reductions are made and other aspects are changed in the reconciliation process?
unidentified		Well, there's some of the interesting components there because the state is a whole new twist and they have, as you know, the ability to administer these things.
		And so what Congress is likely to do is to set some guidelines up and if, for example, it's work requirements, there'll be some guidelines around that.
		But then the state will have the ability to administer that.
		And so how they do that will be up to them to a large extent, but they'll need to be within the guidelines of the federal direction, at least for the portion that comes through federal taxpayer money.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more question about timeline is concerned.
		Some say this should be the process of reconciliation done by Memorial Day.
		Some say by July the 4th.
		Where's your thinking on it?
unidentified		I think it's likely to be Memorial Day.
		That's the 26th of May, and currently, it's my understanding, we're trying to get this all to the House floor for a House floor vote the week of the 19th.
		So I think that's where it's going to go, and I think we're going to be able to make that timeline.
		ENC, Energy Commerce, is going to be the biggest gating item probably on the committee front.
		And we're slated to make that happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade on that front.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's the impact that we've seen, or at least you've seen so far in the president's approach to tariffs and trade?
unidentified		Well, you know, the biggest takeaway, and there's been, I know there's been a lot of controversy about this, but the biggest takeaway that I see is there's somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 trillion with a T of investment committed from foreign entities as a function of those tariffs.
		And it's across the board.
		It's automobile, it's tech, it's pharma, it's ag, it's medical.
		And so that's a big deal.
		We're not going to see the immediate payoff of that because it takes a while for that investment to take place.
		But that's the single biggest takeaway for me.
		There's a lot of discussions with other countries on where they're going to land on the tariff front.
		Personally, I think that's going reasonably well.
		I'm optimistic about that with the possible exception of China.
		China is, there's so many adversarial components to the relationship between the U.S. and China.
		I'm a little bit less optimistic that a deal is going to be cut there as some.
		I don't know, but the rest of the world seems to be coming together with the tariff agreements.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And as part of the committee, you are, do you get at least a tip or at least a heads up on when some of these deals might be announced?
unidentified		Well, I'd like to think so.
unidentified		And if not, I just listened to your program.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		But no announcement as far as specific deals.
		Will we see some this week, next week?
		Any sense of that?
unidentified		Yeah, well, I don't.
		However, what I can say is when the president says that there are people coming from other countries in order to negotiate those things, I know that to be a fact because some of those same delegations talk to us in Congress.
		So that is definitely happening.
		And I believe that long term, it's going to be a good thing.
		It's going to take a while for this to shake out.
		Sometimes we get a little bit of a head up.
		Sometimes we don't.
		But right now, I think things are progressing in the right direction.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think about the recent announcement of the president that he made towards the tariffs on foreign-made films?
unidentified		Well, it's just another one of those industries where, for the most part, there's been a trade imbalance.
		And I personally haven't followed that industry.
		President obviously is taking a look at it.
		You know, as the largest market in the world, we tend to put up with a little bit of discrimination against us because our market's so big.
		And that over the course of time has turned into be pretty lopsided.
		And where we have a trade deficit in so many industries.
		And so by leveling out that playing field, I think what the president's trying to do is make it so that American producers at least have a fighting chance to compete worldwide.
		And the film industry is just another one.
		Of course, there's a huge component of that in the U.S.
		It's reduced over the recent years.
		I think he's trying to even that out.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Before we let you go, you have legislation, or at least you're working on the House passed legislation when it comes to devices and informing the Smart Devices Act.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain a little bit about that?
unidentified		Yeah, you know, with this new internet interconnected world, just about every appliance seems to be coming out either with a microphone or a camera.
		And sometimes you wouldn't know that.
		For example, your washing machine or your stove would be equipped potentially with cameras, with microphones, and the whole idea is to make life more convenient for voice commands, for reading QR codes, whatever it might be.
		But what we are trying to do is just make sure that's disclosed ahead of time to the consumer.
		Before you buy, if it's a piece of equipment that wouldn't naturally have, you know, like your phone or your laptop or whatever, you wouldn't expect to have a microphone or camera.
		What we're asking for through this legislation is that the manufacturer disclose that ahead of time.
		And the reasons are obvious.
		It's for personal privacy.
		It could be you could be exposed through hackers and not even know it.
		Personal data could be collected.
		You don't even know it.
		And so that's the whole emphasis behind that legislation.
		It's just strictly for transparency and upfront disclosure.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative Russ Fulcher of Idaho, a member of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committee.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sir, thanks for your time today.
unidentified		Hey, thank you so much.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		A conversation with the representative part of this open forum.
		You can call and make your thoughts known on a variety of topics when it comes to politics.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, 202-748-8002 to participate in this open forum in Virginia.
		Excuse me.
		This is Floyd, Independent Line.
		Floyd, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm just very concerned with where politics is going these days.
		I'm sitting and hearing all of these things about tariffs are going to work out in the long run, just as the gentleman who was just phoned said.
		It's going to work out in the long run.
		We're going to see improvement.
		What Congress, both sides, have lost sight of is: okay, we may have to wait for things to get better, but what are we going to do about the people who need help in the meantime?
		And all of the budget cuts they're doing, I just had a mother who passed away March 2nd, had dementia, and they're wanting to cut funding for research for dementia and all.
		I think our congressmen have lost touch.
		They do not see that we are in a situation where we as caregivers have to watch things, watch our loved ones decline and all, but they are only doing their agenda to make more money for the United States, to make more money and make us a great economy again.
		I think both Congress, both, excuse me, I'm having a day, but I think both sides are losing touch with the people and they're just going by what an agenda is being set by an administration.
		They're not looking at the people they're representing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Floyd, if I may ask, have you expressed these sentiments to your lawmakers on Capitol Hill, your concerns, the ones that you expressed here?
unidentified		Yes, honestly, I have reached out by email.
		I have even offered, like, especially with the funding for dementia, I've offered, I would like to speak to someone in person, give them our story, let them see a personal view.
		And I have heard no responses at all.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Floyd and Virginia, thank you for calling.
		Thanks for sharing your story with us and our audience.
		Let's hear from Felix.
		Felix joins us Democrats line.
		Felix, good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hi, good morning.
		I just wanted to talk about the 2026 budget.
		The budget is suggesting to shift $163 billion to defense spending.
		$40 of that billion is to non-defense for the Department of Homeland Security.
		And I just wanted to mention that to the audience and kind of see how everyone feels about that.
		And how do you feel about it?
		I think it's The language from the OMB director to the Senate Appropriations Committee is a little strongly worded.
		And I don't know if it's actually true.
		So that's actually publicly available on the White House website under OMB.
		And I'm not sure if that's the best language to use.
		And it's definitely a tone changer.
		And if you're interested in hearing the direction from the fiscal perspective of the United States government, I encourage everyone to read it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Eric in Texas up next.
unidentified		Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes.
		I just wanted to call and comment on the gentleman that just called a few moments ago, the legislator who was talking about the legislation that he passed of all the things that we should be worried about and focused on in America.
		They are passing legislation about smartphones and stoves and dry and internet-equipped appliances, as he discussed.
		Internet equipment and all that good stuff.
		I think that's just such a waste of taxpayer money for them to be focusing on minute things like that when there are such more pressing things that they could be focusing on.
		So it's disappointing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So what would you like to see them focus on instead of what the representative talked about?
unidentified		Something that's going to impact everyday lives.
		How about prices, inflation, and things like that?
		Things they championed for Donald Trump to get elected, but now they are not even concerned about.
		They're not passing any type of legislation to improve the lives of everyday people.
		I think it's just disgusting, and I think they are absolutely wasting people's time.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Kate in Michigan, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I agree with the last caller.
		The woman who called about the fighter jets, that's what I want to discuss.
justice neil gorsuch ▲ ● ▼		For Trump's 100-day celebration, he came to Macomb County in Michigan and celebrated with the governor of Michigan.
unidentified		These fighter jets, they want to put, and if you look at Selfish Air Force Base, it's right on the border of Canada.
		So we want to put all these fighter jets on the border of Canada.
		And I really want to know why.
		Who is the enemy that we're fighting?
		And I would much, Gary Peters, my senator, sent an email to me totally in favor of this buildup.
		I am totally against it.
		I would love to see the money spent on climate change and protecting our Great Lakes, protecting our air, our water, helping people in our community.
		I do not want fighter jets on the border of Canada.
		And that's all I have to say.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Kate in Michigan there, it was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, published a story saying the world's top jet fighter is about to get more expensive.
		This is Alistair McDonald saying the F-35 is a symbol of U.S. military and technological might.
		It is also relying for more than 80 parts on a little-known company based in a quiet Danish suburb.
		Overall, the jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin has more than 1,900 suppliers from about a dozen countries that provide everything from tiny chipboards to the ejector seat.
		The F-35's sprawling supply chain is one example of how even the U.S. defense industry, which exports billions of dollars worth of weapons while importing few in return, could be challenged by the Trump administration's sweeping trade policies.
		More there at the Wall Street Journal if you want to read that story.
		Let's go to Steve.
		Steven, Indianapolis, Republican line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		Thanks for having me on.
		You know, I don't understand why anything that the Republicans try to do or Trump or whatever, the Democrats just are 100% against it, no matter what it is.
		If the Republicans said, hey, we're going to be a rich country if you'll just come over to our side.
		We can make it so much richer.
		But they won't.
		I mean, no matter what it is, they will not do anything to help our country.
		Only thing they want to do is no Trump.
		No Trump, no Trump, no Trump.
		And I'm thinking, Jesus Christ, how can you ever get a 60% on anything if you are so anti-Republican or anti-Trump?
		I just, it just baffles me.
		I just don't understand that.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you think a specific thing that the president has proposed that Democrats should latch on to?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's one of those things?
unidentified		Well, for one thing, it's definitely the immigration.
		You know, I mean, that's what he ran on.
		That's what 77 million people said, hey, we're with you on this.
		Let's do it.
		But they don't want that.
		I mean, why would they let 20 million people into our country and thinking that that's okay?
		That's okay.
		We'll get their vote.
		We'll get their vote because the Democrats have lost the black vote and they've lost the Latino vote because of what they are and how they stand.
		People don't want to come to our country to, how should I say it?
		They don't want to come to our country and not have the American dream.
		I mean, that's what our country is all about, the American dream.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Steve there in Indianapolis giving us his thoughts, thoughts about immigration, too.
		It was at the White House in the Oval Office yesterday, the president taking questions.
		One of the topics came up that came up was a proposal to pay undocumented immigrants $1,000 to self-deport.
		The president elaborating on that yesterday.
unidentified		Tell me about that program that's just been introduced to give undocumented immigrants living in the United States $1,000 to self-deport.
unidentified		Can you just tell us a little bit about the new program?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		We have millions of people that have come into this country illegally through an administration that didn't know what they were doing.
		They didn't have a clue.
		And now we find out officially they didn't because the president was incompetent, but I could have told you that before.
		And they've allowed millions and millions of people to pour in murderers, drug dealers, the biggest drug dealers in the world, actually.
		Terrorists come in, emptied prisons from many countries, not just South America, all over the world.
		They emptied their prisons into our beautiful USA.
		And to get that many people out, 21 million people, we think the real number is, but let's say 3 million of them are serious criminals.
		11,888 murderers, many of whom murdered more than one person.
		It's hard to believe we have to even talk about this when we're talking about something so beautiful, but it's something we have to talk about having to do with the country because it's very important.
		So they came in by the millions illegally into our country.
		They just flowed in through an open border policy that was insane.
		And what we've done is we've offered, you know, the numbers, but we've, because we're taking them out by the thousands, we're being obstructed.
		It's very unfair what's happening because the court system is being, it's very unfair.
		We have to get them out fast.
		These are bad people.
		Well, these are people that are killing, and they've already killed many people in this country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		From Wisconsin, Democrats line.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Colin, hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you today?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Fine, thank you.
unidentified		Yeah, so I voted for Kamla in the 2024 election.
		That was my first time voting.
		Yeah.
		And basically, what was Trump saying about the dolls?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The idea of having fewer dolls versus many dolls when it comes to larger aspects of trade policy.
		I'm paraphrasing greatly, but I'll look up.
		You continue on.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Okay.
		I don't get why you just comparing to that.
		I'm just tired of hearing his voice already, and it's only been 100 days.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Colin there in Wisconsin.
		Here's the headline stemming from the president's statements.
		This is just the CNBC headline saying that the president's saying U.S. girls, quote, could be very happy with lots fewer dolls under new tariffs.
		Let's go to Mark.
		Mark in New Jersey, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi, good morning.
		Thank you for C-SPAN.
		Since it's an open forum, I wanted to talk about my number one concern, and I vote for people who are going to do something about climate change.
		Donald Trump is a climate change denier.
		He's increasing fossil fuels, which is going to destroy the planet if we don't do something about it.
		China is going to be ahead of us.
		Europe is certainly ahead of us.
		So he's talking about making America great again.
		He's going to make America the big loser in the world, and he's going to make China the biggest superpower by his horrible policies.
		Not to mention, he doesn't even follow the law.
		I mean, he said on the Meet the Press interview that he's not a lawyer, so he doesn't know what the Constitution is.
		So didn't he take an oath to the Constitution to become our president?
		This is a joke, people.
		This is like a clown show.
		I just can't even believe we have a president who is so unqualified, incompetent, and doesn't even understand our system.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Barb is next in Iowa, Democrats line.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hi.
		First of all, I 100% agree with the last gentleman.
		I mean, you know, clear-cutting our forests, trying to get coal back up and running, it's absolutely insane.
		But I actually was calling more about the previous caller, the gentleman saying how Democrats won't do anything that the Republicans want to do.
		I mean, you know, that goes both ways.
		When President Biden was in office, they completely blocked everything that he tried to get through.
		You know, there's still a very few older Republicans and Democrats who will work together.
		And if our country doesn't start compromising together, we are just in so much trouble.
		You know, this new MAGA faction of the Republican Party is especially ridiculous on blocking anything and everything the Democrats want to do.
		And it's just dangerous.
		Dangerous and it's un-American.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Barb in Iowa.
		Again, the Canadian prime minister in town to meet with President Trump over issues of trade and other topics.
		Look for that on our networks today.
		10 o'clock this morning, the Homeland Security Secretary Christy No testifying before a subcommittee, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on budget requests and other matters.
		It's her first time testifying on the Hill since becoming Homeland Security Secretary.
		C-SPAN 3 is where you can see that at 10 o'clock.
		Our free video app, C-SPAN Now, and our website at c-span.org.
		The Treasury Secretary Scott Besson also testifying today before the House Appropriations Subcommittee.
		10 o'clock is where that will happen.
		You can see that testimony live at 10 o'clock on our platform, C-SPAN Now.
		That's a free video app and online at c-span.org.
		Let's hear from Susan.
		Susan in Florida, Republican line.
		Good morning.
		You're next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I just want to say one thing.
		Let's give President Trump.
		He's only been in 100 days.
		And so far, he's closed the border.
		Oh, my God.
		Biden couldn't do that in four years.
		He opened it.
		So he needs time right now to get the mess planked up.
		And I'm calling from Florida, the Red State.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Susan there in Florida.
		Dale is next.
		He's in Maryland, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		I appreciate you taking my call.
		I just, one of the things I wanted to call in about is this hypocrisy of people calling in saying that it's the Democrats' fault that things aren't happening, but they forget that right now, Republicans control everything.
		They could pass any legislation they want to.
		They just simply refuse to, and the Democrat can only hold the line.
		They asked them to simply reauthorize the budget levels that were already existent, and they refused to even do that.
		So let's stop with blaming Democrats for what's not happening with this government.
		I mean, the only thing saving us right now is the fact that Democrats are saying no to these Republicans.
		I mean, why would you even attack Sesame Street and PBS?
		Those things are basic, easy yeses for everybody, yet they still want to defund it.
		And signing executive orders, let I remind everybody, is not the way to legislate a country.
		And eventually, hopefully, we'll get back to reality.
		And I appreciate you taking my call.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		It was the lead Democrat in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader on Capitol Hill yesterday, talking about the president, his claims of trying to deflect attention away from his handling of the economy in light of the proposed budget cuts.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Here's his comments from yesterday: The reason why he's the most unpopular president in modern American history after the first 100 days, despite all of the big talk of a mandate and the Democratic Party being in retreat, is that he has failed on the economy and Republicans have failed on the economy.
		And so, all the random stuff that gets thrown out there, which is not how policy should be made in a sound manner, all the random stuff that gets thrown out there, I mean, it's just hard to take it seriously, and it's hard to evaluate it outside of the context of Donald Trump trying to distract the American people from the fact that he's been a failure as president.
		The House Republicans are failing.
		They are completely in retreat.
		They are canceling committee hearings.
		They keep blowing through their own deadlines.
		Originally, this big, ugly bill was supposed to be enacted by early April.
		But now, in May, they're canceling hearings.
		They said, well, we're going to get this done by Memorial Day.
		That ain't happening either.
		And it's because the American people view these Republican policies as dangerous and harmful.
		And Republicans haven't figured out how to break away from being a rubber stamp for Trump's extreme agenda.
		And that's why we're seeing this level of paralysis.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Carol joins us from Arizona Democrats line.
unidentified		Hello.
		Hello there.
		Yeah, I'd like to get a little more understanding as to what people call illegal immigrants.
		Most of these people have presented themselves correctly, seeking asylum, seeking court dates to ask for citizenship or whatever their status.
		A lot of these people are picked up at ICE agent offices.
		So these are not illegals.
		These are people who presented themselves legally at the border.
		Also, in Tucson, just recently, we had ICE come into a hospital and arrest a supposed illegal woman who just had a baby.
		They took her and left the baby.
		That's one of the problems Democrats have with Trump is that he is so cruel in every way.
		I mean, Oklahoma City, where the ICE agents, the HSI agents broke into a lady's house that had just moved there with her three daughters and tore the house up, took their money, took their electronics, left them outside at gunpoint in the rain, in their underwear, while they went and destroyed the house.
		You know, this is just cruel, cruel, cruel.
		It needs to end.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more call.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This will be from Jay and Maryland, Republican line.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Hey, it's a small group of us.
		We are avid C-SPAN Washington Journal of fans.
		We call ourselves the Crazy 88s.
		And we have been, you know, raiding the host.
		Pedro, you are still the most improved host.
donald in maryland ▲ ● ▼		But one of the things that we would, you know, collectively like you to please stop doing, when somebody calls in, then you have a guest, or you read a question, let the question stand like everybody else does.
unidentified		One thing that you do, you rephrase the question to your liking.
unidentified		Please let the question stand as it is.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sometimes I have to clarify.
		Sometimes I have to clarify a question, and so sometimes that's the job.
		But go ahead and finish your thought.
unidentified		Okay, well, you do it more often than anybody else.
		You know, people call in and they mention about the Budapest memorandum about Ukraine giving up their weapons and U.S. will guarantee their safety.
		But prior to that, back in 1990, under the Ronald Reagan administration and James Baker, when the unification of Germany, there was a written agreement and a verbal agreement, not one inch.
		Anybody can Google that.
		Not one inch meant that NATO would not be expanding, not one inch eastward towards Russia.
		That was an agreement before the Budapest memorandum.
		It was before both Mintz agreements.
		Not one inch.
		And last thing, last thing.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Quick quickly please.
unidentified		I have a suggestion.
		I have a suggestion.
		Y'all doing the fundraiser.
		The suggestion is, and shout out to Peggy for this.
		Y'all can have a fundraiser.
		How about a lunch with a host?
		You have the host from C-SPAN.
		People contribute on a table and they come in and have lunch with the host.
		You had it monthly or quarterly.
		You know, just a suggestion.
		Okay.
		I think that would be a good idea.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Got to leave it there, Jay.
		I'm sorry about that.
		That'd be it for Open Forum.
		Thanks for all of you who participated.
		Two more guests joining us before the end of this program.
		Later on in the program, we'll hear from California Democrat Nanette Berrigan.
		She's a co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee talking about the budget, deportation policies, and other topics happening on Capitol Hill.
		But first, the Chronicle of Higher Education's Rick Seltz discusses this week's renewed effort by the Education Department to collect on defaulted student loans.
		We'll have that conversation when Washington Journal continues.
unidentified		Celebrate Mother's Day with our C-SPAN shop sale going on right now at c-spanshop.org, our online store.
		Save up to 20% on our Mother's Day collection of apparel, accessories, drinkwear, mugs, and more.
		There's something for every C-SPAN mom, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Scan the code or visit c-spanshop.org during our Mother's Day sale going on right now.
		Non-fiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on QA.
		Hear wide-ranging conversations with the non-fiction authors and others who are making things happen.
		And BookNotes Plus episodes are weekly hour-long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics.
		Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org slash podcasts.
		As Mike said before, I happen to listen to him.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		He was on C-SPAN 1.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		That's a big upgrade, right?
unidentified		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
		If it's a really good idea, present it in public view on C-SPAN.
rachel maddow ▲ ● ▼		Every single time I tuned in on TikTok or C-SPAN or YouTube or anything, there were tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people watching.
unidentified		I went home after the speech and I turned on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I was on C-SPAN just this week.
patty murray ▲ ● ▼		To the American people, now is the time to tune in to C-SPAN.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They had something $2.50 a gallon I saw on television a little while ago in between my watching my great friends on C-SPAN.
unidentified		C-SPAN is televising this right now live.
		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles.
		We are speaking to the country.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Joining us is Rick Selzer.
		He's a senior writer for the Chronicle of Higher Education here to talk about the Education Department's efforts on collections on defaulted student loans.
		Rick Seltzer, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This announcement was made before it started on Monday, but what prompted the action by the Education Department?
unidentified		Yeah, we knew this was coming for a long time.
		We just didn't know all of the details.
		So go all the way back to March of 2020 when the pandemic was first sweeping through the government or at least changes because of the pandemic were sweeping through the government.
		President Trump, still in his first term, actually paused loan payments under the federal student loan portfolio.
		That ended up getting extended many, many times under the Biden administration.
		Eventually, I believe Congress actually mandated repayment resume.
		Of course, the Biden administration fought to forgive large chunks of student loans.
		It was turned back at every corner.
		And so fast forward to now, we knew that folks were going to have to start repaying their federal student loans.
		The question was, what degree of outreach would the education department do?
		How could they get the message out?
		Do borrowers even know what they have to do to repay?
		Do they know how much they owe each month?
		Because you have years and years of folks who graduated and haven't had to pay their loans.
		And then you also have folks who had been paying up until the pandemic and then did not have to pay for four or five years.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So to that last part of the degree of outreach, the degree of information a loan owner has, how would you grade that or how would you characterize the education department's work on that?
unidentified		I think that is a to be determined, maybe an incomplete at this moment in time.
		We'll know when we know how many folks start to actually get into repayment.
		I think up to this point, it is fair to say that it is likely lacking or that hasn't been sinking in.
		You know, when the education department said last month that they were going to start putting people into collections, they estimated that within a few months, as many as 10 million borrowers could be in default.
		That's about a quarter of the student loan portfolio.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		No matter what you think about federal student loans, that's probably not a good marker.
unidentified		Now, the education department said last month, we'll be doing additional outreach.
		I believe there were some emails.
		They at one point touted an AI chat bot.
		Your servicer was supposed to be reaching out to you.
		Just yesterday, they told colleges, please reach out to your alumni and former students to let them know they need to get into repayment.
		The real question is, how many folks are they reaching at current addresses, current email addresses?
		Are they giving the information clearly in a way that the former student or alumni can understand?
		After, again, they haven't been involved in this system for a long time in some cases.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If you want to ask questions about this process about the Education Department collecting on defaulted student loans, 202-748-8000 for those who have student loans, 202-748-8001, if you have paid them off, you want to give your perspective.
		All others, 202-748-8002.
		And you have a chance to ask questions of Rick Selter of the Chronicle for Higher Education.
		Rick Selter, what defines a loan in default?
unidentified		Yeah, so a defaulted loan, I believe, is it hasn't had any monthly payments in about a year, 360 days.
		There's also some late-stage delinquency.
		That's 91 to 180 days.
		So there's several stages along the way before you get to default.
		Once you're in default, the government can start taking payments without you having any control over it.
		So I believe they're starting with federal payments.
		That's tax returns, social security payments for those who either are receiving retirement payments or disability payments through Social Security.
		But I believe it can be escalated all the way to garnishment of wages.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so that's just one of the many ways for the department to collect.
		Will they be doing this on their own?
		Will they be hiring out outside sources to help in these collection processes?
		How does that work?
unidentified		Yeah, I believe there's a contractor, just like they contract out to various companies that are known as loan servicers to actually collect from students who are current on their loans or move them into the correct payment plan, the payment plan they've requested.
		Just like there are companies they contract with to do that, there is one who handles defaulted student loans.
		The other point I should make about what happens when you go into default or fall behind on your student loans is this can really hurt your credit rating.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		So if you want to borrow for something like a car or a house or various other things that you may need, even just to get to work, it can become harder if you're behind on your student loans now.
unidentified		For the last several years, I don't believe they were referring folks to credit, have their credit scores impacted.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If someone finds themselves being contacted by the Education Department and they start collecting like in the method you talked about, what recourse does the loan owner have at that point?
unidentified		There is a default resolution group.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		And I think one of the things we should probably stress is if you are behind on your student loans, if you know it or have just learned, the most important thing to do is to try to contact the department or this default resolution group, try to work out some way to start making payments again, get into an income-based repayment plan or something that would allow you to not fall into default or to potentially get out of default in a while.
unidentified		Now, we've heard some stories about long wait times if you're trying to check on your student loans by calling into the hotline.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		We've heard some stories about difficulty getting through, having to wait hours and hours.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		It's probably worthwhile to try to fight through that to the extent that you can, because there are some pretty big ramifications if you don't.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And Rick Seltzer, I was going to bring up the fact that this effort comes at the time where the Trump administration wants to decrease the work of the education department by staffing and other means.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		How do those two things square?
unidentified		That's a great question.
		So a few months ago or a few weeks ago, they cut the Office of Federal Student Aid staffing pretty deeply.
		I believe two-thirds was the number of staffers that the union that represents folks there said had been lost from that office.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		It's a little difficult to parse exactly how much that filters through to what your borrower is seeing because so much of this work is done by contractors, because so much of it is done by loan servicers.
unidentified		However, I think anytime you have a significant amount of folks coming and going from an office, folks who maybe were checking an email address, answering new questions that were coming up, even if it's that the servicers had escalated, I think that kind of chaos or that kind of unsettled issue in an office can filter down and make it a little harder for everyone in the system.
		So it's not injecting any certainty into the system.
		Let's put it that way.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Rick Seltzer joining us for this conversation, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael in Kentucky on the line for those who have paid off their loans.
		Michael, thanks for calling.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Good morning, gentlemen.
		I'm one of the fortunate people who, by virtue of working for a nonprofit agency for now 20 years, was able to get my loans forgiven.
		And it was something I just kind of discovered from a colleague of mine that told me you can actually apply and have that and have those loans forgiven.
		And they were.
		And I'm just wondering how many Americans, you may not know the answer to this, actually take part in that program.
		How many student loans are forgiven because someone works in the nonprofit and in the nonprofit industry or in education or public service?
		Do you happen to know?
		And I'll hang up and listen to your response off there.
		Thanks, guys.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Michael England, Kentucky.
unidentified		Mr. Seltzer Yeah, I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but that program has been available for a long time.
		One of the really powerful things that some folks do with it is they pair it with an income-based repayment program.
		So if you are a social worker is often a good example, relatively low pay, often borrow a lot to get your degree.
		You can go into an income-based repayment program, make on-time payments for a number of years.
		I believe it's 10 years you have to do on time.
		And then at the end of that, this public service loan forgiveness can have the remainder of your debt cleared away.
		And that's a much faster process than if you had paid under other plans without the public service loan forgiveness program.
		There have been some issues with folks being able to get into that program over the years.
		About five or six years ago, I believe it was, there was a report that the education department had not processed virtually any folks for a while under that program.
		It got started again.
		In the Biden administration, they did a big waiver to try to catch up and try to bolster that program.
		It's really, my understanding is it is an option for a lot of folks who have been current on their payments, but for folks who have fallen behind, I don't believe that is available.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Phillip is next.
		Phillips in Maryland has student loans.
		Phillip, hello.
unidentified		Hey, good morning, guys.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		Yes, I have student loans.
		I've had them for a number of years.
		I'm still paying on them.
		However, I did recently apply for the SAVE program that President Biden had initiated, and I was approved for an amount that was actually considerably lower than what I was playing before.
		I only made a couple payments, and then everything got struck down in the courts, and everything has been on pause for going on, I think, almost a year and a half, two years now.
		So, my question for you, sir, is since Trump's come back into office and everything, and everything is still on pause, do you think I'm going to have to reapply for the SAVE program?
		Or do you think that they're still going to honor the amount I was initially approved for and be able to keep paying that lower amount?
		Call for taking my call, guys.
		Thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Seltzer, let's start with an explanation of the SAVE program, if you would.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So, go back to when the Biden administration was trying to issue broad-based loan forgiveness.
		So, there was a Supreme Court case about forgiving a chunk of all student borrowers' loans.
		The court said that the Biden administration did not have the authority to do that.
		In the wake of that, they did several other things.
		One of them was this new income-based repayment program, sets payments based on how much you make each month.
		And now, there are several other income-based repayment programs, but the SAVE program had some benefits.
		Notably, for many borrowers, it was going to lower payments very substantially, as this caller referenced.
		I believe it also made it a little easier to get to the end where any remainder of your debts would be cleared.
		So, SAVE was then also tied up in courts.
		A court did find that the administration didn't have the authority to create it, but the administration had already enrolled millions of people into it.
		So, it's tied up in limbo right now.
		I believe folks like this caller are all in an interest-free forbearance, so they don't have to make payments.
		I don't think they can make payments, but they're not accruing interest either until we see what happens.
		And really, it is going to be: we'll see what happens.
		Will folks who got into the plan be grandfathered in?
		Will they have to be shifted into another plan?
		Congress has been talking about redoing the income-based repayment plans in the upcoming big bill.
		So, that is very much a to-be-determined.
		Hopefully, folks who are in it are not going to feel any confusion, although that's hard to say that they wouldn't, or are not going to be kind of jostled around and not understand what they have to pay once we do know what's going to happen.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Selzer, it's academic.
		Could you explain what forbearance is?
		Is there any aspect of forbearance available to current those currently defaulted on loans?
unidentified		To those currently defaulted on loans, I would have to check that.
		Forbearance is basically a period in which it's a special status in which you don't have to pay the loan.
		And also, the interest does not accrue on the loan.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from another Philip.
		Philip is in South Carolina on our line for others.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Hey, I'm quite just a curiosity question.
		I'm a parent, and I've already paid two of my daughter's federal loans and personal loans off.
		And I've got a third one.
		And one of the other questions, a related question is my latest daughter that graduated has gone on for further education, but all the loans are in her name.
		But I'm sure my name is still on the FAFSA form.
		But my youngest one, I've got, I'm on the FAFSA loan for her, that she gets grants and whatever loan she can get.
		But the remainder of the college cost, I'm paying for it.
		So I guess the main question is: if she defaults on her side of the loans, am I responsible for it?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's.
unidentified		Do you know which program the loans are under?
		There are a couple of different programs.
		There's one in particular where parents can borrow for their students to attend, and that program is actually a borrowing by the parent under the parent's name.
		That's right.
		That's what I did with mine: I did a parent loan.
		Parent Plus.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Parent Plus, Philip?
unidentified		Yeah.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah.
		So if you're in Parent Plus, that's, as I understand it, that's in your name.
		And you are the one who has taken out the loan and would have to pay it back.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		If it's some of the other programs, that would be in the student's name.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		If it's federal student loans, one of the big confusing factors here is there are also private student loans that the federal government does not issue that are a whole different ball of wax.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Selter, if collectors are used, and probably they are think of in the worst terms of the constant phone calls and everything else, does the same apply to those on these defaulted student loans?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And is there any recourse for those on the other end of getting these calls?
unidentified		I'm sorry, can you say that again?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		If a collector is used to collect on it and they make a lot of calls or harass or anything else, is there legal recourse or recourses that a student could have if they're getting these type of calls?
unidentified		I think based on what I've seen so far, more calls and outreach would actually be good.
		I don't know that it would constitute the level of harassment at this point in time.
		I think the bigger concern is that it just goes right to having wages garnished or that it goes right to benefits being garnished.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You talked about this earlier.
		Can you expand on it?
		There's a front page story in one of the papers today about the education department going directly to colleges to help with those collections.
		Can you elaborate on that?
unidentified		Yeah, this is a really interesting development.
		Basically, yesterday, the education department said, colleges, we need you to reach out to the folks who pass through your doors.
		I don't think they limited it specifically to those who graduated, but basically said, you know, call your alumni, email your alumni.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		We'll try to give you the information about how to contact them if you don't know it, and tell them, urge them to get back into repayment, to start repaying a federal student loans.
unidentified		This is very unusual.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		It's something the Trump administration had floated a few weeks ago.
unidentified		It is, I think, indicative.
		I think it shows that they are trying to find ways to contact folks and trying to have different voices push them to make payments when they haven't been used to it.
		I don't get the sense this is something that a lot of colleges are going to be very enthusiastic about, right?
		They had a position where they were able to collect the tuition dollars, say it's a federal student loan, and the government deals with it.
		And that is very much something the Trump administration is trying to change.
		The Trump administration is trying to say, no, colleges, you have skin in this game.
		You are part of this system.
		You are going to have some of the egg on your face or some accountability or some ramifications if students don't repay at high rates.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Could Stu, what options do students have to take their current loan, refinance it to something more manageable?
unidentified		Yeah, that is an option.
		If you can consolidate multiple loans, because the loans are issued over each year, you're a student.
		You can consolidate it, sometimes in a lower payment.
		There are income-driven repayment plans.
		There are, in some cases, I believe, hardship pauses.
		If you are a recent graduate, you get a six-month grace period in which you don't have to forgive your loans.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Or if you've left college recently, you have a six-month grace period.
unidentified		And that's, as I rattle off all of these different options, that can be very good because it gives students a lot of options to fit their particular situation.
		One of the challenges is it can also be very confusing for the student, for the parent who has either borrowed for the student or is trying to help the student or fresh graduate.
		There are a lot of different options.
		It can be hard to get through to the department to guide you through the system and find the one that works from you.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		And in past years, frankly, there have been accusations that loan servicers, these companies the government contracts with, to collect student loans, that those loan servicers have not always steered students into the repayment plan that is financially best for the student.
unidentified		There have been some accusations that maybe they steer the student into plans that were more financially lucrative for the servicer.
unidentified		That has been a long-standing concern, particularly on the left.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		But hopefully, as we go forward, the Trinity Department will have enough staffing and enough tools that folks can figure out what the right option is for them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Chris.
		Chris on our line for others in Massachusetts.
		Hello.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My question is this.
		My son took a loan out in 2007.
		And at the school, they talked to him and taken not the federal, but the person from another agency.
		Now, he lost his job and wanted two arrears.
		Now, he made arrangements, but every time he catches up, they switch him over to a different borrower and they add money onto his loan, like between $50,000 to $2,000.
		And he has never been able to catch up.
		Is there something he can do about that?
		Now, when you say he did it through another agency, as I said, do you know if this is a loan through the government or is this a private loan issued through a bank or something else?
		Yeah, they talked at the school, they talked him and going to the private, not the government.
		I went to the government on my first child, but he tried doing it himself.
		So he went to a different one.
		But like I said, he lost his job.
		And now every time they make arrangements, he catches up.
		They switch him to another, another collection, another buyer, and they charge him money for a transfer fee.
		So he can't catch up because they keep adding money to the loan.
		Right.
		The private student loan market is, you hear a lot of allegations like this, and it's really hard to hear.
		It is not as closely regulated and does not have as many options as the federal market.
		A lot of that is going to depend on consumer protection laws, probably in your state.
		There were some efforts at the federal level from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look at some private lending operations.
		That bureau, as I understand it, has been slashed down pretty substantially in this administration.
		You may want to check with like a state attorney general's office to see what laws could protect you there if the lender is not interested in allowing your son to make progress towards payments.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Seltzer, if someone's defaulted, to what degree can they claim bankruptcy or some other legal means to shield themselves?
unidentified		Yeah, this is one of the things that's unique about student loans, federal student loans, is it has been up until very recently considered impossible to get out of them by declaring bankruptcy.
		They are a different class of loan.
		And the theory behind that legally was when Congress created this program and made it very hard to get out of them.
		The theory is when you go through a bankruptcy process, you have assets that can be reclaimed, right?
		You default on a car loan or a home loan.
		The bank takes your house or your car.
		You can't take someone's education away.
		There is no recourse there.
		And so the process of bankruptcy up until relatively recently, the last few years, has been considered impossible to get out of.
		There have been some court cases that maybe lower that standard, make it a little easier to go through that process.
		But I think it's probably fair to say it's an extremely hard process to use to get your loans forgiven or adjusted.
		There are a couple of cases where folks have been able to advance that, but it's still very much a shaky proposition.
		And one other thing I should mention just about this generally, I think we often have this perception of the folks who don't pay back their loans or who are unable to pay back their loans having graduated and maybe they have a degree that isn't working out in the job market and they're unable to make payments even though they have a diploma.
		That is not based on the research I've seen who struggles the most to pay back their loans.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		It's folks who go for a semester or two, maybe a year or two, and leave college without finishing the degree.
unidentified		So they don't get the prospective earnings bump.
		They also don't borrow it.
		You look at their monthly payments that they'd have to make.
		They're relatively low.
		They just can't make those payments.
		Those are the folks who I worry about most in these situations because they're also most likely to have to be working a lot, probably have other family commitments, and really would be impacted the most.
		They have the lowest recourse if they start to get wages garnished or if their credit score drops.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Seltzer, to what degree do you think a student who's borrowing money for education, there clearly explained what the rules are, what the interest rates are, what the terms are?
unidentified		I think there's been a lot of discussion recently about trying to make financial aid offers clearer to make it clearer to the student, to the family, what the student is getting into here.
		I think it's difficult because in many cases, although many student borrowers are not 18 years old, like the traditional picture is, many of them are adults.
		But in many cases, you are starting with a student who is young, who does not have a lot of experience with credit.
		And that's one of the arguments, frankly, for having the government do it is the government can offer more protections, can make sure they explain what a loan is, what repayments are more clearly.
		I don't necessarily know that, I don't know the best way to communicate that information.
		I think it is fair to say that a lot of students don't know what they're getting into.
		I also think it's probably fair to say that the government could potentially offer much better terms than most students could get on the private market.
		There's probably space there to make it better on both sides.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		One more question from X. Mr. Selzer is saying, when the administration announced they'll garnish wages for people in default, does that mean entire paychecks or will be garnishing percentages of pay and then adding many folks can end up homeless who are in default if entire wages are garnished?
unidentified		Yeah, it's a percentage.
		The number that sticks in my head is 15% is the top garnishment for wages, although I would have to check that, but it is not the entire paycheck.
		I believe it is, if you have your tax return garnished, I believe you can lose up to the entire tax return if you owe more than what your tax return would be.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And now that this program has started, what are you watching for next as you observe the process play out?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we're watching most closely to see how many students do resume paying their loans.
unidentified		Right, I gave that number earlier that as much of a quarter of the very large federal student loan portfolio could be in default in a few months.
		Do we actually get to that rate?
		If we get there, I think it means that the department's efforts at outreach have not been successful.
		If it goes down, if it is not a quarter, if more students enter repayment, that means the department has been successful in reaching out to them, contacting them, pushing them to do something they haven't had to do for years.
		And that is one thing we're watching.
		The other thing we're going to have to watch is what happens in Congress because Congress is looking at making substantial changes to this system.
		And that could really reshape what colleges have available to them financially and what options students have available to them.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our guest work is available at Chronicle.com, Rick Seltzer with the Chronicle of Higher Education.
		He's their senior writer, Mr. Selster.
		Thanks for walking us through this.
unidentified		Thank you so much for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our final guest of the morning, California Democrat Nanette Berrigan, a co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, talking about various topics related to Capitol Hill.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		So join us next when Washington Journal continues.
brian lamb ▲ ● ▼		Carthyism, Whitaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Paul Robeson, House Un-American Activities Committee, the Smith Act, the Hollywood 10, the Joint Anti-Fascist Committee, the Truman Loyalty Program, the Blacklist.
		Book Burning, and Communism.
		All subjects of controversy during the 30s, 40s, and 50s here in the United States.
		Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at the New York Times, has a fresh look at all this in his book, Red Scare.
		Mr. Risen writes in his preface that his grandfather was a career FBI agent who joined the Bureau during World War II, and he recounted stories of implementing loyalty tests for the federal government in the late 1940s.
unidentified		Author Clay Risen with his book, Red Scare, Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
		BookNotes Plus is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
		There are many ways to listen to C-SPAN radio anytime, anywhere.
		In the Washington, D.C. area, listen on 90.1 FM.
		Use our free C-SPAN Now app or go online to c-span.org/slash radio on SiriusXM Radio on channel 455, the TuneIn app, and on your smart speaker by simply saying play C-SPAN radio.
		Hear our live call-in program, Washington Journal, daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
		Listen to House and Senate proceedings, committee hearings, news conferences, and other public affairs events live throughout the day.
		And for the best way to hear what's happening in Washington with fast-paced reports, live interviews, and analysis of the day, catch Washington today, weekdays at 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		Washington Journal continues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Our final guest of the morning, Representative Nanette Berrigan, with Democrat from California.
		He is the co-chair of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, also serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to that steering and policy committee, what's the work specifically of that committee?
unidentified		Well, the Steering Policy Committee is kind of a leadership structure of the U.S. House of Representatives.
		We meet, we talk every week about strategy, policy, everything there is.
		What the Steering Policy Committee has started to do is to do an on-the-road initiative.
		We have had hearings in Washington, roundtables in Washington, but now it's about going out into the community, talking to people.
		We were just in Rancho Mirage this past weekend, hearing and having a town hall, hearing from people about what they care about.
		We heard about things like Medicaid, concerns about cuts to Medicaid.
		We heard from veterans.
		We heard from parents about the cuts to Department of Education.
		So we're on the road next to Louisiana, the speaker's home state.
		So we will be hearing from people there as well.
		I think it's so important that we go out into communities to hear directly from the people, especially at a time when Republicans are refusing to do town halls.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		And so then what's the end goal of going around hearing these things?
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you take back to Washington and how do things change?
unidentified		Well, first of all, it's hearing people's stories and sharing people's stories, but it's also using those stories in committee hearings, talking to Republican colleagues about their own constituents and highlighting the importance of the very programs they're trying to cut, like Medicaid.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to the meetings themselves, do you hear from Democrats particularly about Democrats not pushing back against this administration enough?
		I know Governor Pritzker made those comments to that effect a couple weeks ago.
		How do you take that in?
unidentified		Well, we hear from a lot of Democrats who are frustrated with this administration.
		I think it's reflective of all the terrible disaster, the chaos, the confusion, and the corruption that's happening at the highest levels in the administration right now.
		And, you know, asking what more we can do, asking where we go from here.
		Now, the Democrats have been working very closely with organizations on doing things in the courts, for example, and litigating.
		We have also gone into the communities.
		Part of that's town hall sharing stories.
		And it's just an all-hands-on approach where we need everybody speaking up and speaking out.
		And so just today, for example, I would love to hear from some of your callers in places like Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, to hear back about what they think about cuts to Medicaid, because these are the stories that are the most powerful to get us in the committee to share those stories to their members of Congress to hope that they will maybe change their minds or be willing to vote in the interest of their constituents,
		not for billionaire tax cuts for the rich.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		I suppose that parallels well with you being on the Energy and Commerce Committee, considering that one of the tasks of that committee is to find Medicaid cuts to pay for the reconciliation bill.
		Absolutely.
		So with that information, what do you take to that committee when you eventually meet on these kinds of topics?
unidentified		Well, one of the things that I've been doing in the committee is when I hear constituent stories from some of my Republican colleagues or even pointing out the number of Medicaid recipients that they have in their districts is talking about it in the committee.
		That is something that your colleagues don't like to hear about when you're in a committee and reminding them of how many people are at stake and what's on the table.
		And there's nothing right now on the table more than the economy, rising prices, Medicaid cuts.
		These are the number one things we're hearing.
		And of course, you know, I represent the ports of Los Angeles and we are seeing a drop, a significant drop, about 30, 35 percent drop in imports.
		That's going to mean jobs.
		That's going to mean higher prices everywhere.
		And pretty soon it's going to mean shortage on the shelves.
		So people across this country are going to see less inventory, less things available from shortage, things we haven't really seen since COVID.
		And this is the supply chain concern we have.
		And what are we voting on this week in the U.S. Congress?
		Instead of voting on something to bring down costs, something to help the American people, we're voting on renaming the Gulf of Mexico, which just shows you how out of touch Republicans and this administration are with the American people and their concerns right now.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Representative Bergen with us until 10 o'clock.
		If you want to ask her questions, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		You can also text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
		Earlier today, we had a conversation with Representative Frank Belcher on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
		He talked about Medicaid.
		He talked about necessarily when it comes to those cuts, it's not necessarily cuts.
		It's slowing the rate of growth.
		When you hear that, what do you think of that idea?
unidentified		It means cuts.
		We are talking about providing less funding to the states.
		Some of these states have something called trigger laws, which means they're going to stop their expansion of Medicaid.
		Medicaid is a health care program that's for low-income people.
		It's for women.
		It's for children.
		It's for the disabled.
		It's the most vulnerable.
		Just to give you an example, in Louisiana, they call it Healthy Louisiana.
		That's their Medicaid program.
		You had 500 million people get on that, 500,000 people, I should say, get on that with the expansion.
		Those people would be at risk if the federal government is going to stop giving as much matching funding or dollars to the state.
		That means people are going to be kicked off of Medicaid.
		And so it's all a word salad for Republicans.
		You can't slice it anyway.
		You don't get to $880 billion without cutting Medicaid.
		That's going to eliminate benefits.
		It's going to kick people off Medicaid.
		It's going to make people's premiums go up, higher prices.
		This is about health care.
		We shouldn't be cutting it for the most vulnerable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Well, one of the other terms, at least in a story recently in The Hill, about one of those ideas is a per capita cap saying that key Republicans say that it's not technically a cut to avoid the politically charged label.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Is it the same thing we're talking about as far as a cap is concerned and what states get?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		That's exactly the translation is cuts to Medicaid.
		So when you hear that, that's exactly what that is.
		It means that they're going to limit the amount of money that the federal government will be sending to the states per person, something we don't do right now.
		That's going to mean that the states can't make up the difference.
		They're going to kick people off Medicaid.
		They're going to reduce benefits.
		That means basically higher prices.
		It all translated into the same thing.
		Like I keep saying, it's going to be a word salad.
		They're going to call it what they are, but it's going to mean less benefits, less people of Medicaid, which is health care for the most vulnerable.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		There was supposed to be a hearing this week on the reconciliation bill.
		That got pushed off a week.
		What's the message that you get from that push-off?
unidentified		Well, it just goes to show you this is an administration and House Republicans have been following them off the cliff.
		It's just more chaos, more confusion.
		I know that there are some Republicans that are not comfortable with this because this is their constituents.
		And we need those Republicans to speak up, which is why we need constituents in your callers to also speak up, call their members of Congress, share their stories, say why this is so important, what Medicaid means to them, so that they can really put a face on what's happening today.
		I do think that you are seeing a postponement, right?
		This was supposed to happen originally last month, and then it got moved to this month.
		And now we're hearing, oh, it may take longer than that.
		That is, I think, an indication of the fact that Republicans are having a hard time because this is about people's health care that they're taking away.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		We have people lined up to talk to you.
		This is from Gary in Kentucky.
		Gary joins us on our line for Republicans for our guest.
		Gary, hello, go ahead.
unidentified		Hello.
		Yeah.
		It seems that every time, well, you know, it took four years by Biden to screw everything up.
		So I was just wondering, there'll be no cuts to Medicaid.
		There'll be no cuts to Social Security.
		The rich won't get any richer.
		And, you know, first of all, if there was somebody that cut Social Security, Medicaid, whatever, their political career has gone down the tubes.
		So Democrats are easy to point out issues, but very weak on doing something about it.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Gary in Kentucky.
unidentified		Well, Gary, this week, House Republicans are renaming the Gulf of Mexico.
		So you talk about a party that's doing really nothing to help the American people.
		That is not doing anything.
		It does nothing to bring down the cost of living.
		I hear people talk about the cost of rent and groceries and how even gasoline.
		So we are hearing that, and we've seen no action from Republicans.
		I hope that you're right about the Social Security and Medicaid.
		But if you just take a look at the actions, you'll see that there have already been cuts in Social Security.
		Offices have been closed.
		People have been fired.
		That is meaning that people can't even get a hold of somebody on the phone to ask about their Social Security benefits.
		That is a lack of awareness of the importance of Social Security and the services.
		It also means people's checks could be delayed down the line, and it could mean benefits are at risk.
		And there is, by the way, no way to get to getting $880 billion in cuts without touching Medicaid.
		So you will see it.
		You may not believe it now, but you will see it happening when this goes into effect.
		And we'll know shortly when the Energy and Commerce Committee has its hearing in a couple of weeks of how they want to slice it and how they want to call it.
		But there's no way to do it without touching Medicaid.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is from Mississippi Jay, Independent Line.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Yes.
		Good morning, Representative.
		I want to ask you something talking about taxes and cuts and this and that.
		You know, us hardworking people out there.
		Are you going to support the legislation that will cut taxes on Social Security and overtime?
		I bet you a $3 bill you'll vote against that.
		That's the reason these labor unions and stuff are now supporting Trump.
robert gaylon ross ▲ ● ▼		And that's the way it's going to be unless it's a big change from y'all.
unidentified		Have a good day.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Jay, Mississippi.
unidentified		Thanks, Jay.
		What you're talking about is a big bill that's going to have lots of cuts, including cuts to taxes for the top 1% and the rich at the expense of the most vulnerable, which is going to be cuts to things like SNAP benefits and food SNAP, SNAP, which is a food benefits and a food assistance program for the most vulnerable and low-income folks.
		It's cuts to Medicaid.
		That is something my constituents do not support and do not want.
		Those programs that you're talking about that would cut taxes on things like overtime are going to be put into a much larger bill that is going to take away Medicaid.
		And that's something that I will not do.
		Separately, I'm happy to look at no taxes on things like overtime.
		But when you combine it with something like cutting health care to millions of people and throwing them off their health care and making the rich richer, that's something I can't support.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The reconciliation bill also deals with immigration issues.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What's your most concerns from that portion of it?
unidentified		Well, in the past, the parliamentarian has said that immigration is not a viable thing to be changing in reconciliation.
		And when that happened under Democrats, we said, okay, my biggest concern is that the Senate Republicans are going to do something that they said they would not do.
		And that is basically originally they would say they would abide by the parliamentarian, that they won't do it.
		They're going to do whatever they want, just like this president has done whatever they want.
		We know that this administration is just totally out of line, totally disregarding the law, disregarding the Supreme Court and what they're doing on immigration and due process so that people don't have the ability to be heard in court.
		This is something even you'll see even that you've seen conservatives say is against the Constitution, against American values.
		And that is my concern is that they're going to go along with this erosion of our due process.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		When you went on the town halls, how much did you hear about immigration and deportation policy?
unidentified		We heard it probably fourth when you talk about cost of living increase going up, increased costs, Medicaid cuts.
		But we have heard it, especially from people who have been very concerned about the erosion of people's ability to be heard in court in due process.
		We had a woman just this weekend tearing up, just sobbing about the fact of what happened to this Oklahoma family.
		The woman and her children, they raided her house and her home in Oklahoma.
		U.S. citizens went in, destroyed her place, took her money, and on the way out the door just said, we're sorry for being rough.
		I mean, that is not the America that we believe in.
		That is not what should be happening in America.
		And you've got people fearful, even U.S. citizens.
		And that is wrong to do that.
		And I wish we had more of our Republican colleagues standing up and speaking out, like constituents have been talking about across the country.
		So there is great fear.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Roger Roger in Nebraska, Independent Line.
		You're on with our guest, Representative Nanette Berrigan, Democrat from California.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Yeah, I wonder where this lady was the previous four years when the Biden administration completely destroyed the country, basically, with $5 gas and 9% inflation.
		She's talking about due process for illegal immigrants.
		Where was she at when they let, what, 10, 15, 20 million people into this country with no due process?
		You talk about giving each one of these illegal a court date, a due process to have their case presented in court.
		You know, that would take three, four, 500 years to have that done.
		You know, it's just ridiculous to listen to the Democrats now when I look back on the previous four years.
		And so, like, say, I'm just amazed at what she says.
		And I guess that's my thumbnail.
		Thank you.
		Well, I believe in the Constitution.
		I stand with the Constitution.
		And even Justice Anthony Scalia believed in due process under the Constitution for people, whether they were undocumented or whether they're U.S. citizens.
		There's a real danger here if we don't believe in due process, and that is that somebody can easily accuse you, anybody out there, a citizen, of something and you wouldn't have your day in court to be able to present evidence.
		That's wrong.
		It's against the Constitution.
		It's the most fundamental basic principles that we have is due process.
		It's the ability to be heard in court.
		As far as the last four years, I'm proud of the Biden administration and what House Democrats were able to do in passing an infrastructure bill, something this current president wanted to do, never could get it done.
		It's reinvesting in our country in roads and bridges and infrastructure.
		It's investing in things and getting things done like the Chips and Science Bill, which is investing in America and manufacturing of the semiconductors right here in America and so much more.
		We also had reopened schools and put money into the economy.
		So I'm proud of the last four years.
		And under this administration, we've only seen prices go up.
		We've seen him do absolutely nothing to bring down those prices, even though he ran on that, even though that was his day one promise.
		And now he's saying it's okay if prices go up.
		People can feel the pain.
		And this reckless tariff policy, which is basically costing people more money, the cost of your sneakers are going up.
		The cost of your clothes is going up.
		And this is intentional by this president.
		So we have seen nothing by this administration, House Republicans, in actually doing something to bring down the cost.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		You had talked about what's happening on the ports, particularly in the place you serve in California.
		Talk about the larger economic aspect.
		If ships are not coming in, ultimately, what does that do to an economy?
unidentified		Well, what's happening is the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach together, the San Peter Bay complex, is the busiest by container volume.
		They bring in all this trade from Asia.
		And so we're talking about toys.
		We're talking about sneakers.
		We're talking about clothes.
		A lot of things that people order and people need.
		So right now there's a halt.
		They're not even bringing in some of the items that are supposed to be coming in because of the tariffs and how much it's going to cost.
		What does that mean for the American consumer?
		Number one, the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, those imports touch every congressional district.
		They get on trains, those products, they go fanned out throughout the country.
		No trade or less trade means jobs, truck driving jobs, it means port jobs.
		It means if you're in a warehouse that takes these products, jobs there too.
		So jobs are at stake and higher prices.
		As you can imagine, store shelves, if they have less availability, prices go up, demand goes up.
		We'll see exactly what happened under COVID.
		And of course, price gouging, which unfortunately companies do when they see this demand.
		So we have started to hear the president and even House Republicans talk about the pain.
		The pain they're talking about is this pain.
		It's the result from what I call the Trump tax on the American people, which is really tariffs.
		And so people are going to be feeling it across the country and have less availability of the things that they need.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		This is Sean.
		He's in Hesperia, California.
		Democrats line hi.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
unidentified		And it's a she, Pedro, but that's okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, apologies.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Apologies.
unidentified		No worries, Pedro.
		No worry.
		No worries.
		I have a comment and a question.
		Okay, my comment is about immigration.
		We've been having immigration problems since I was born in 1960.
		And we have each president that talk about that they're going to do something about immigration.
		I remember when Reagan did the 11,000 amnesty, and a lot of people weren't happy then, but we thought that would be a solution to our immigration problem.
		Well, once we get further down, then you have all of these businesses that actually are not following the law.
		They are primary one of the problems, too.
		And also, us as America, we need to make sure that people are coming in the correct way and going to be vested.
		I would like to go work in other countries, but I know I have to be vested, and I'm not going to be able to lean on their system.
		However, we are America, and we're a little bit more friendly to help a lot of other people.
		What comes to my question now is: I work in the mental health field.
		I am a social worker.
		I am starting to see our clients that are on Medicaid.
		Their social security benefits are being cut.
		And I'm going to tell you how they're doing it.
		They're having, like when our clients want to go to work at some of the places for them to become independent or still kind of be independent as everyone else.
		They're not getting paid the same amount, but they're giving them a low amount that they couldn't go over the Social Security benefits.
		So now we're coming into when we get to sub-minimum wage and bumping everyone up.
		Now these clients are getting kicked off of Social Security or the benefits are being reduced and a lot of our clients are in boarding care.
		Boarding care in California is $1,420.
		So I just want to know what is our government doing about our mental health population for when those benefits cut, where are they going to live?
		Are they going to be back on the streets?
		And also think about it, people.
		Now we have to think about our safety.
		Thank you very much, ma'am, for being on here.
		I'm a loyal Democrat and callers from Kentucky and Louisiana.
		Start paying your fair share before you come after us because we're paying for you.
		Sean, thank you.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Sean, thank you very much.
unidentified		Well, thank you.
		She raises a very important topic and that is mental health.
		And we are seeing cuts to mental health.
		There's cuts all around in the Republican bill.
		And mental health is one where we really can't afford it because then it's going to result in more homelessness, people not getting the services that they need.
		And so this is House Democrats are fighting against in the cuts when it comes to mental health.
		And when you talk about this issue as well, it's those people who are on Medicaid and those people who have access to health care that need that.
		So we will continue to fight to make sure there is more investments in mental health services and no cuts or less cuts to them because we want to make sure that everybody has that ability.
		On the immigration front, you know, immigration has been an issue for decades.
		This is not a new issue.
		Ronald Reagan, as she mentioned, was somebody who came to the table who is willing to say, you know, the people who've been undocumented to this country should have the ability to go to work, have the ability to not be afraid.
		And if you think about immigrants and you take a look at the economy, the economy has been growing and doing well because of the contributions and the labor of the immigration workforce.
		And that continues to be the case today of the need for workers.
		We certainly hear farmers talk about this.
		We certainly hear those in other industries that have a shortage of workers.
		But look, my parents were immigrants.
		They came to this country and contributed to it.
		My dad was a TV repairman.
		My mother cleaned homes.
		She worked in a factory.
		And I believe this nation is built on immigrants, contribute to this country and are just, you know, are our neighbors and our friends.
		And so I support, continue to support that we have a strong immigration system.
		It's completely broken and needs to be redone.
		I completely agree on that front.
		Right now, there's no political will by Republicans.
		It's just deporting people, getting rid of people, people who have been here legally, people who have a court order saying that they could be here legally.
		This is an administration that's defying all of that and deporting people anyways.
		And that's a real danger to this country.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		In the case of Kilmar Obrego-Garcia, it was your governor, Governor Newsom, who said that the case was a distraction and that the attention was the debate that the Republicans wanted.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What do you make of that characterization?
unidentified		Well, I think what you see happening from this administration is crazy things are always being thrown out.
		And sometimes it's trying to distract about what's happening to the American people, whether it's high prices or the Medicaid.
		It doesn't mean that it's not important.
		And I do believe in the case of Mr. Garcia, the Supreme Court has spoken.
		The White House and this administration have defied those orders.
		I think the Chief Justice should do something to make sure that this administration complies with the Supreme Court and with other courts, which is something you're seeing even Stephen Miller say, oh, well, the president's got the authority and you shouldn't have judges telling him what he can and can't do.
		That is not the way we work.
		We have co-equal branches of government with the Congress and the administration, of course, and with the courts.
		And so it is befuddling to me why House Republicans have given up their power.
		I mean, they've done it on tariffs and said, you know what, we're not even going to vote on this.
		They've given up their power on so much more and said, hey, you know what?
		We just trust the president.
		Do whatever you want.
		That's not how this country was set up by our founders, and it's not how it should be functioning.
		I wish they would take their power back and grow spine, frankly, and do what's in the interest of their constituents.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		The House is just about to come in.
		We will hear from Anthony in Staten Island, Republican line.
		We're running a little short on time, Anthony, so jump right in.
unidentified		Ma'am, with an approval rating in the low 20s, why would anybody believe your party?
		You lied for four years.
		Now you're lying about immigration.
		That man was caught trafficking people across the border with no luggage.
		He got caught in a murder roundup with MS-13 members.
		He was there.
		He beat his wife twice.
		These are the people you're fighting for.
		And Social Security and Medicaid, all those cuts, you're lying because there's so many illegal aliens on those programs.
		That's what they're going to cut.
		But you guys lie and you scare people that don't really look into the facts.
		Why would anybody believe you, people?
		You don't have any solutions to the problem.
		You just lie about everything Trump's trying to do.
		It's been three months.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		That's Anthony in Staten Island.
unidentified		Well, in three months, we've seen the economy tank under this president.
		We've seen no legislation by this House Republican Congress to lower prices and bring those prices down, despite the fact that this president said that would be the number one priority.
		So, you know, we can just look at the actions.
		We can look at the result.
		And the result has been a chaos and confusion and really disaster.
		It's the reason also why you see Trump have the lowest approval rating that he's at.
		And so the American people need to continue to speak up and share your stories in all districts across this country, Republican districts and Democratic districts, and remind their members of Congress what is at stake.
		And what's at stake for so many that I've heard is the cost of living, the cost of groceries, it's the cost of housing, and of course it's their health care, which is Medicaid, Social Security, food assistance, all of those that are so very important.
		The House Democrats are continuing to fight to make sure people have that access.
pedro echevarria ▲ ● ▼		What are the next town halls that the committee or the steering committee is planning on?

▲