CSPAN - Washington Journal 07/16/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 16, 2025 06:59-10:00 - CSPAN

03:00:56

Washington Journal 07/16/2025

Participants

Main

kim schrier

rep/d 14:10

mimi geerges

cspan 30:39

rich mccormick

rep/r 20:14

Appearances

chris coons

sen/d 00:35

chuck schumer

sen/d 00:59

donald j trump

admin 01:46

michael walz

00:52

mike johnson

rep/r 00:44

pam bondi

admin 01:30

ro khanna

rep/d 01:53

Clips

adam goodman

r 00:04

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 00:13

john roberts

fox 00:06

patty murray

sen/d 00:04

rachel maddow

msnow 00:07

steve scalise

rep/r 00:04

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Watch the game live from the Audi Field in Washington, D.C., starting at 7.30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
		The world has changed.
		Today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
		So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
		Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
		Wow.
		WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up this morning on Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
		Then Representative Kim Schreier will discuss the impact of the GOP tax and spending cuts bill on health care.
		And Representative Rich McCormick will discuss the U.S. role in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
		Also, Amanda Wick, founder and CEO of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency, will discuss federal efforts to regulate the cryptocurrency industry.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
		Join the conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		It's Wednesday, July 16th.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The Justice Department's decision not to release additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump's defense of the Attorney General have caused a rift among the president's supporters, including Speaker Mike Johnson.
unidentified		Yesterday, the Speaker urged the Justice Department to release all related files.
		This first half hour of the program, we're getting your thoughts.
		Do you agree with the Speaker or with the Attorney General and the President?
		You can call, text, or post your comments.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrats call us on 202-748-8000.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republicans 202-748-8001.
unidentified		And Independents 202-748-8002.
unidentified		You can text us at 202-748-8003.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Include your first name in your city-state.
		And you can post your comments on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		We'll start with Speaker Johnson.
		This is what he said on Benny Johnson's show yesterday.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.
		I mean, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don't know.
		I mean, this isn't my lane.
		I haven't been involved in that.
		But I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out there.
		And, you know, Pam Bondi, I don't know when she originally made the statement.
		I think she was talking about documents, as I understood it.
		They were on her desk.
		I don't know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody.
		I like Pam.
		I mean, I think she's done a good job.
		We need the DOJ focusing on the major priorities.
		So let's get this thing resolved so that they can deal with violent crime and public safety and election integrity and going after Act Blue and the things that the president is most concerned about as we are.
unidentified		So I'm anxious to get this behind us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is the front page of today's Washington Times.
		It says, silence on Epstein exposes rift within Trump voter base.
		Many see new broken promise.
		It says that the Justice Department's refusal to release additional files related to sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein has created one of the most expansive splits within President Trump's MAGA base since he returned to office in January.
		On one side are Trump supporters who insist Epstein was killed in his jail cell and that the disgraced financier kept a juicy list of high-profile clients who engaged in sex with underage girls.
		On the other side are the Justice Department and FBI, which insist there is no evidence that any of that is true.
		That's in the Washington Times if you'd like to see that.
		Here is Politico with this, the powerful protecting the powerful.
		Democrats see an opening on Epstein.
		The article says that Democrats are stoking the online flames of the Jeffrey Epstein controversy.
		Internal memos and polling suggest the issue is breaking through to voters.
		Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, accused President Donald Trump of, quote, hiding the Epstein list in a post on X. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries insisted at a press conference Americans, quote, deserve to know the truth.
		The Democratic National Committee last week launched an expot that posts daily, has Trump released the Epstein files?
		No.
unidentified		And House Majority PAC rolled out a simp target list of complicit GOP members.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And on Tuesday, Democrats attempted to cast a procedural vote as a referendum to compel the release of more Epstein-related material.
unidentified		Now, regarding that vote, this is Rocana.
		We'll show you that in a moment.
		RoCanna doubles down on effort to force the release of Epstein files.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He says on X, I will continue to fight for the release of the Epstein files.
		That vote went down yesterday.
		Republicans voted against it.
unidentified		Let's show a piece if we have that of RoConna.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We might not have that ready, but we'll show it to you later.
		In the meantime, we'll start with your calls.
		Teresa in Indiana, Independent Line.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hi, Mamie.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I just wanted to add my two cents about this.
		It doesn't really matter if there is an Epstein file or a list out there.
		My thing with this is these were children.
		We know that there were children from Mar-a-Lago.
		So Trump would be involved with this no matter what.
		Wait, how do you know there were children from Mar-a-Lago?
		There were several depositions taken from Danego that they didn't release their names.
		There was the lady that committed suicide from Australia.
		She was a towel girl in this spa over there.
		That Epstein and Ghillaine Maxwell hired her.
		That she worked at Mar-a-Lago first.
		So they know that she came, she was hired over there from Mar-a-Lago to go over with Epstein and Ghylaine.
		That Trump and Epstein were extremely close.
		They've been seen at parties together with younger people.
		If there's anything to hide, then he could.
		If there's nothing to hide, then Trump should show the files.
		He should open them.
		It seems like they are, you know, they're trying to hide something.
		You know, let's open him up.
		If he has nothing to hide, then he should have nothing to fear.
		I don't know why Congress, why the Rules Committee voted this down.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll take a look at that, Teresa.
		But first, look at this on the Washington Times.
		Again, this is on the front page.
		Unpacking President's Past with Epstein, it says, Were President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein close buddies or sworn enemies?
		It depends on whom you ask and how they feel about the president.
		Democrats and Trump opponents insist the White House is hiding a secret client list and other evidence that would expose the president's unholy relationship with the late disgraced financier and convicted pedophile.
		The evidence that exists and even Epstein's words lack proof that Mr. Trump associated with the underage girls trafficked by Epstein in the years leading up to his 2019 arrest.
		It says, according to many accounts, Mr. Trump and Epstein largely ended their friendship many years earlier in 2004 when the two fell out over an opulent Palm Beach mansion on the auction block that both were vying to purchase.
		So that's on the front page of the Wall Street, sorry, The Washington Times about the relationship between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
		Here is Rocana on the House floor yesterday talking about that amendment that he proposed on release of the files.
ro khanna ▲ ● ▼		Last night, the Speaker's Rules Committee voted to block my amendment that called for the full release of the Epstein files while protecting the victim's identity.
unidentified		Let's just be clear.
ro khanna ▲ ● ▼		They voted to protect rich and powerful men who were abusing, assaulting, and abandoning young women.
unidentified		That's what this vote is about.
ro khanna ▲ ● ▼		A nation that chooses impunity for the rich and the powerful at the expense of our children is a nation that has lost its moral purpose.
unidentified		So you ask why did they vote this way?
ro khanna ▲ ● ▼		Let's speak plainly.
		Because these rich and powerful men donate to the politicians in Washington, D.C., play golf with the elites in Washington, D.C.
		They are foreign leaders who we don't want to offend.
		They interact with our intelligence agencies that we don't want to disobey.
		There is something rotten in Washington.
		And this is a question of whose side are you on?
		Are you on the side of the people?
		Are you on the side of America's children?
		Or are you on the side of the rich and powerful who have had their thumb on the scales and shafted Americans for decades?
		We are going to get a vote again this afternoon.
		And I hope people will find the courage of a Republican like Ralph Norman or a Republican like Marjorie Taylor Greene or a Republican like Thomas Massey or the many, many MAGA Republicans who are demanding the full release of the Epstein files.
		It's not a question just of Epstein.
		It's a question of trust in our democracy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're getting your calls on that topic this first half hour of the program.
		And this is Al Delaware, Republican.
		Good morning, Al.
unidentified		I'd like to everybody to know all this stuff happened when Biden was in office to Democrats.
		And how come they didn't bring the files out then?
		So, this is a bunch of corruption, and that's for sure, and that's the proof of it.
		Now, the Democrats want the files out.
		Now, what do you call that?
		Is that hypocritical, or what is it?
		That's enough.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And L C is in Salisbury, North Carolina.
unidentified		Democrat, good morning.
		Good morning.
		I don't know what everybody's upset for about Epstein.
		You've been, they've been, y'all have been raised to crawl out of them caves and trees in Europe.
		You've been raping and molesting minors and women all around the world.
		So, it's nothing different.
		There's nothing strange.
		Like my grandfather said, a white person, Caucasian, got the morals of a cat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's hear from President Trump now on what he said yesterday when he was traveling to Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here he is.
unidentified		I know you urge people to move on, but I'm curious: why do you think your supporters in particular have been so interested in the Epstein story?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand about how it's been handled.
		I don't understand it.
		Why they would be so interested.
		He's dead for a long time.
unidentified		He was never a big factor in terms of life.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is.
		I really don't.
		And the credible information's been given.
		Don't forget, we went through years of the Mueller witch hunt and all of the different things to steal dossier, which was all fake.
		All that information was fake.
		But I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody.
		It's pretty boring stuff.
		It's sordid, but it's boring.
		And I don't understand why it keeps going.
		I think, well, really, only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.
		But credible information, let them give it.
		Anything that's credible, I would say let them have it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was the president yesterday.
		He, I believe he had just returned from his trip to Pennsylvania.
		Here is the front page of Breitbart.
		It has several articles on this topic, headlined, What We Actually Know About Jeffrey Epstein.
		Jeffrey's calls for an Epstein special counsel, a quote, diversionary tactic.
		And Trump defends Pam Bondi on Epstein files, quote, handled it very well.
		And this is the front page of the Huffington Post with this headline, Epstein Who, right-wing media falls in line.
		And here is Vanya in Maryland, line for Democrats.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, C-SPAN.
		Good morning, America.
		Well, this topic has been going for a while, and I really cannot believe this is a political issue.
		This is the issue about our children.
		They are underage girls who were abused, as Roquen has said, by rich and poor people.
		In this particular issue, we really do not care who is in power, who needs to release these documents, but we deserve to know the truth.
		I do believe that there are people from both sides, starting with the President Trump, probably President Clinton.
		I don't know, but we need to know.
		Prince Andrew, all these big donors, they are all involved, and we need to know who is there.
		It's not about politics, it's about who is guilty.
		It's about protecting our children.
		I wanted to say a lot of things, but honestly, everything that I heard now being said by Roque and I couldn't agree more.
		We need to come to the bottom of this, and the guilty people need to be held responsible.
		Thank you.
		Bye-bye.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's what the Attorney General Pam Bonnie said.
		We'll show you what she said back in February on Fox News and then what she said recently at the in the White House.
		Sorry, here she is.
john roberts ▲ ● ▼		The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
john roberts ▲ ● ▼		Will that really happen?
pam bondi ▲ ● ▼		It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
		That's been a directive by President Trump.
		I'm reviewing that.
		I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.
		That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president.
		In February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said, I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK, MLK files as well.
		That's what I meant by that.
		Also, to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein.
		Child porn is what they were.
		Never going to be released, never going to see the light of day.
		To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
		We can get back to you on that.
		And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
		And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter.
		And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video.
		It's old from like 1999.
		So every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing.
unidentified		So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night.
pam bondi ▲ ● ▼		And that's it on Epstein.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Speaker Mike Johnson did put out a posting on X yesterday at 9.30 p.m.
		He says, House Republicans aren't going to be lectured on transparency from the Democrat Party that worked to cover up President Biden's lack of fitness for office and his scandalous use of the auto pen.
		Republicans remain committed to passing crypto legislation, the defense appropriations bill, and rescissions legislation.
		But Democrats didn't take that opportunity seriously in the Rules Committee and instead resorted to an obscure procedural and political stunt to try and distract the American people from their own failures.
		Connie in California, Independent Line, what do you think, Connie?
unidentified		I think this is ridiculous.
		If my name was on somebody's telephone doesn't mean that I did something wrong.
		They need to prove that first.
		These young girls would come forward and they would blab just like they've always done and torture people.
		And the Democrats need to get themselves together and start thinking about really doing something besides criticizing Donald Trump.
		Donald Trump's not the only one up there.
		Donald Trump's not the only one that knew him.
		Donald Trump is, there's other presidents, there's other powerful people that knew, but you need to, the Democrats need to pay more attention to what they're doing.
		Just like when they started taking Donald Trump and spent money on investigating him and then sending him to court, this, I mean, it needs to stop.
		They need to regroup and think about what they're doing to improve themselves.
		Instead, they just keep, they keep on and on and on.
		And it's totally ridiculous.
		I mean, who really cares?
		I mean, it is important.
		People shouldn't do the things that Epstein did.
		That was wrong.
		But I'm just saying, these young girls will come forward, and they will want money, and they will want fame and all of this other stuff, just like in the past with Bill Clinton and all the other presidents and all the other people, just like the guy over in England.
		I mean, it will come out.
		All right.
		These girls will want the money.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And let's hear from the president again.
		Yesterday, he was asked about his confidence in Attorney General Pam Bondi.
unidentified		Mr. President, your daughter-in-law said that it's just transparency of the Epstein case.
unidentified		The Attorney General's handled that very well.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		She is she's really done a very good job.
unidentified		And I think that when you look at it, you'll understand that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I would like to see that also.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		But I think the Attorney General, the credibility is very important.
unidentified		And you want credible evidence for something like that.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And I think the attorney general has handled it very well.
		On what?
		On what?
		On what subject?
unidentified		Epstein.
		Okay.
		So if you look at the files.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		A very, very quick briefing.
unidentified		She told me how to let her name on the church.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		No, no.
		She's given us just a very quick briefing.
		And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
		They were made up by Obama.
		They were made up by the Biden information.
		You know, and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia-Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
		We've gone through years of it, but she's handled it very well, and it's going to be up to her.
		Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On this topic, and we'll take your calls, and then we'll go to open forums.
		So if you'd like to weigh in, you can do so now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Let's hear from Linda in Corning, New York.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Yeah, it was pretty clear that Pam Bondi said when asked specifically, the list of names is on my desk.
		She was pretty clear about the answer, and the question was pretty clear.
		So now, you know, they're backtracking and say, oh, I didn't mean that.
		It was just a bunch of other files.
		And when it benefited Trump to want the Epstein thing revealed because he thought that there were big Democrats on it, he played it all up to his base.
		But now, all of a sudden, he doesn't want to release.
		And oh, it's nothing.
		I mean, the whole thing, you know, it just doesn't make sense.
		I just wish that people would wake up.
		I mean, it's pretty clear.
		It's pretty clear.
		Thank you.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch was on the program yesterday, and we asked about a potential list.
		And here's his response.
		So a couple of things here.
		The client list.
		The Attorney General put it in air quotes.
		Is there a client list?
unidentified		I think there is.
unidentified		I mean, they talk about there's no.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Then why do you think they're not releasing it if it actually exists?
unidentified		What they say in the memo is there's no incriminating client list.
		I want the non-incriminating client list.
		And client list is obviously a term of art.
		That's why, you know, when people put air quotes around it, they're using something specific or something in a way that you might call a client list, but isn't labeled as such.
		So folks want to know who he was in contact with, who potentially was involved in the sort of conduct that was at issue.
		In the memo, this Justice Department FBI memo, they talked about a thousand victims.
		Well, you know, that's a lot of victims for one man to have been involved with.
		Were there others?
		I think that's a fair question.
		Now, is there other evidence?
		They said there's no evidence suggesting others should be prosecuted.
		But is there any evidence at all?
		I don't know.
		So my advice is, because we've got the FOIA lawsuit, is just release the records under FOIA in the lease.
		And that way there's a process in place where records are released.
		If there are exemptions or redactions where things are blacked out, they typically have to explain why and what the basis is for it.
		And at least in the court process, we can appeal it if there's an issue.
		But it's a way to kind of regularize this as opposed to the irregular way through which these disclosures and conclusions have been made.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's go to Ricardo in Philadelphia, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thank you for answering my call.
		You guys keep doing what you're doing.
		I just want to be brief.
		I'm not an attorney, but I do have the ability to digest information and to utilize deductive reasoning.
		His assistant is currently in jail, convicted on basically being a pimp, providing women and services for gentlemen.
		Now, they had to offer evidence to convict her.
		Where's that at?
		Who was the name that was used in this evidence?
		Who was she pimping these people to, to herself?
		Why would she be in jail if there was no one that she was pimping these people to?
		That's unrealistic.
		Release the evidence.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is what Representative Jason Crow says.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He says, Dees, release the Epstein files, ours.
unidentified		Long pause.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Biden's auto pen.
		And this is a text from Michelle in Jessup, Pennsylvania.
		They don't get it.
		I don't care if Epstein killed himself or not.
		It's about the kids.
		And this is what Senator Ed Markey said.
		It's time for Trump to face a Frankenstein of his own making.
		Release the Epstein files.
		No redactions, no more secrets.
unidentified		The American people deserve the truth.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is, we read that one.
		This is Stacey in Waldorf, Maryland, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		How are you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		I definitely believe, I personally feel that they should be released.
		But I also think that the reason they're not being, I don't think there's anything incriminating against Trump per se, but I think it's the, there's world leaders, there's politicians on both sides, them, Republicans, judges, and probably half Hollywood involved.
		And I feel like our government as a whole is protecting these people because of the fallout.
		Now, I personally feel that anybody who's a U.S. citizen that is involved in this situation should be totally prosecuted.
		Now, we can't touch the royal family.
		We can't touch world leaders.
		But I do believe it needs to be put out there.
		And I feel like that's why the former administration didn't release it.
		I feel like that's why this administration is not going to release it because there's just too many powerful people involved.
		So the fallout would be brutal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But members of this administration did say before that they would release everything.
unidentified		No, and I'm totally disappointed that they're not.
		And I think once they got into the files more and more and saw who was all involved, they were probably advised, don't do it, because the fallout would be so bad.
		Because I do believe it's a lot of powerful people.
		And like I said, you can't touch people outside this country.
		But I think any U.S. citizen, I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat, I don't care who you are.
		If they were involved, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest.
		These young girls went through hell.
		And like your earlier caller just said, Maxwell, she's not sitting in jail for nothing in prison.
		So they definitely have evidence.
		There's no doubt about it to prosecute people involved.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here on the Democratic line in Upper Marlboro, Maryland is Nelson.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, and thanks for taking my call.
		So I can believe the media is falling for this.
		This, again, is another distraction from the big ugly bill that the Republicans just passed.
		And why didn't they talk about the Espin or whatever files a few months ago?
		They just decided because the repercussions from the big ugly bill was so devastating, even to their communities, the Republican communities.
		Now they want to spin and they want to bring up this spin of files.
		We all know we saw the videos, we saw the pictures of somebody, the president with Spin.
		And I mean, they supported him.
		So I don't see if they bring out the files today and they said, oh, he was part, he was on the list.
		Would that change anything?
		It's not going to change anything.
		And I think this is just another distraction.
		They're just trying to spin it because they know they're going to lose in 2026 on the poll.
		So thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Edward, Las Vegas, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Edward.
unidentified		Yes, this is Edward Arthur.
		I just want to say the last gentleman that made that statement is absolutely right.
		President Trump said that we are at the golden age of America.
		$16 trillion of investments are coming in.
		And the FBI is supposed to be working with the Attorney General.
		That goes all the way back to Hoover when he took in power in 1921.
		However, the geopolitics and the rest of the world and the Democrats, I would say, are progressiveness to ruin our president, Donald Trump.
		I think that common sense says that Pam Bombi, she's a credible Attorney General.
		They should just let that go and let the president continue to make America Gradient.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Amanda in Tampa, Florida, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Amanda.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		Honestly, I think that this is the biggest failure of America right now.
		And it is absolutely insane that they would hide this.
		I feel like they're afraid it's going to open the floodgates for a lot of particular people and issues, people of power.
		But at the end of the day, we are being told lies.
		We are constantly divided.
		We are constantly pitted against each other and our own beliefs.
		And we're picking sides and pointing fingers at Trump and everybody else.
		Nobody talks about Pam Bondi, how she had been mixed involved in Florida and with Epstein from day one.
		Nobody talks about Virginia Gufri, who was murdered, but they try to blame it as a suicide.
		Nobody talks about all the children, the 350,000 plus children that went missing under our own child services care in America.
		And of course, it's within the sex trafficking rings that, you know, they already caught the Amber Combi and Fitch guy, CEO.
		No one talks about Bill Gates.
		No one talks about how Bill Gates has put appeal in chemicals in our organic foods.
		And the FDA just approves that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Nobody talks.
		And Amanda, we'll stop there.
		We are going to go to open forum.
		If you'd like to continue talking about this topic, you certainly can.
		Any other topic related to public policy, you can go ahead and feel free to call in now.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		We'll get to your calls after a very short break.
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 america marks 250 years and c-span is there to commemorate every moment From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Washington Journal continues.
		Welcome back.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It is open forum and look forward to hearing your thoughts on whatever's on your mind this morning regarding politics.
		This is Joyce on the Line for Democrats in Texas.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to talk about at sea.
		I don't understand why President Trump always talks about President Obama.
		He had nothing to do with this.
		He was squeaky clean.
		He served for two terms.
		And there was no, nothing like this ever brought up about President Obama.
		And I wish people would stop adding his names into different projects.
		Thank you so much.
		Goodbye.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Dan, Independent in Riverside, California.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dan.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		To piggyback on this whole Epstein thing, I think it's very telling of who we are as a country when we can run policies off of a tragedy of like Lake and Riley and say, here, here's a race in America that's destroying our country.
		And then you look at what happened with Epstein and you're saying, okay, well, nothing happened here.
		Everything's fine.
		It's like, no, if you can go off of one tragedy and create fear-mongering policies for our entire United States and not fight for it, like not fight for what the truth is in this list or whatever have you, like any politician, like it's a very telling situation of who you are as a person.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Bruce in Falls, Pennsylvania on the Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Bruce.
unidentified		Hi, how are you doing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		I'm calling about the floods.
		I just don't understand because I'm in a flood area.
		We had, like, I think 10 years ago, we had a bad flood here.
		And I've been trying to get Trump in touch with Donald Trump, but I can't do it.
		But, I mean, in these areas that are flooding out, why can't they hook up a pipeline and take it out to like dry land and pump it out there, have it filtered, and you know, they won't have like states, I mean, like Louisiana, Texas, I mean, and it'll cause jobs and that.
		I was wondering why they don't do a pipeline.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And also on Monday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to lay off about 1,400 Department of Education workers and to continue the executive order that he had signed back in March saying that he would shut down the Department of Education.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is the Secretary, Linda McMahon, being interviewed yesterday on Newsmax.
unidentified		I was very pleased with the ruling from the Supreme Court because what we did when we first came in was to take a look at the department, to take a look at what could have been, you know, just too heavy in personnel.
		We weren't just trying to make radical cuts just to shrink the size of the department.
		We viewed it with exactly the right eye as I think an executive coming into a company to see what functions are needed, how many people we needed to do that, etc.
		So we're very careful in planning how those cuts were made.
		And I was very pleased that the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, did give us the ability to continue to do that and to operate the agency efficiently and to get all the work done that we needed to get done to meet all of our statutory requirements.
		And that's exactly what we're doing.
		And we were proving that we could do it at the time when we got the order that we couldn't proceed.
		So we're very happy to now be able to do that work and to do it well.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Doug in Fairfax, South Dakota, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Doug.
unidentified		Yeah, Mimi, I got a question for you if you'll ask or answer it.
		And then a couple of comments.
		But I haven't seen Bill for a long time.
		I wonder if he retired.
		And if he did, I wish him really great, great retirement.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He has retired.
		And we miss him too.
		But thanks for asking.
unidentified		Yeah, okay.
		But I like to make a comment on PBS.
		I watch PBS all the time.
		It's the only one I think it really tells you anything.
		And DW News and BBC and Jeff Jeff, which used to be one of your commenters on this show, I enjoy watching them.
		And they're the only one that you get in full hour of news.
		On the other ones, you get a half hour of commercials and they get about 15 minutes commentary and then you get about 15 minutes news altogether out of the whole hour.
		And on PBS and them channels, that's the only one that ever talked about Israel.
		And over in Israel, they're still killing a lot of people.
		Last time, I believe they killed 100.
		And over in the West Bank, they just killed an American again, a half American, and nothing's being said about it.
		I just don't understand why they don't say nothing about any of the Palestinian people.
		It's as if they are a lower class.
		Is that the situation?
		I'd like to ask some of these people to tell me why they just don't.
		And even you guys will never bring nothing up about it.
		You avoid the topic completely.
		So I don't know.
		There's still a lot of killing going on over there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're right.
		There was an American citizen just killed in the West Bank.
		I will get you an article about that.
		But here is Senator Chuck Schumer talking about the rescuing package.
		Doug mentions the funding for public broadcasting, and that is in the rescissions package.
		Take a look.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		Republicans are leading the charge to implement President Trump's devastating and wildly unpopular cuts that impact millions of Americans.
		This time, targeting local news throughout the country, including in rural areas that lack broadband and other options.
		To be clear, gutting bipartisan investments and hurting America's standing throughout the world is not popular.
		Losing access to local news, radio, and weather alerts, particularly in rural areas, is not popular.
		Americans rely on public broadcasting for weather alerts.
		And these cuts couldn't come at a worse time right now after we're seeing the devastating tragedy in Texas.
		And we're left with even more questions about what the cuts to the weather service and to FEMA had, what effects they had.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is the Guardian reporting.
		The family of U.S. citizen beaten to death by Israeli settlers calls on Trump administration to prosecute the killers.
		It says, Say Fullah Musalat's relatives criticize U.S. government over West Bank killing.
unidentified		Quote, somebody needs to be held accountable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's in The Guardian if you'd like to see more on that.
		And Roy is in Kingsland, Georgia.
		Republican, good morning, Roy.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		And you look lovely today, and I hope you're having a good day.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, I wanted to comment on something the gentleman said on the last segment.
		I do believe it's talking about Epstein now and with all this controversy is a diversion from questions that people have about the current administration.
		So it's a diversion.
		And that's my thought on that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, sorry, Roy, did you, I mean, do you have an opinion as to whether you think any additional files should be released or do you think that we should just kind of forget about it and move on to more important things?
unidentified		Well, I don't care to hear about it, but I understand it's a horrible situation, but also I do think it's a diversion to bring it back up and then say we're not going to say anything.
		So it diverts people's attention from other things that are going on, much more important as of this moment.
		And I agree with that gentleman that brought that up earlier.
		Okay.
		Yep, and that's all I wanted to say.
		I agree with him.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, we got that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mel in Long Island, Independent Line, good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		I think something has been overlooked with the increase with tariff increases on pricing.
		The municipalities all over the United States rely upon tax revenue from retail sales.
		When retail sales fall because of inflation, because of high prices from tariffs, the municipalities suffer because their budgets all rely upon tax income or tax revenue from retail sales.
		So I think that the double whammy besides increased prices is also the failure to be able to meet budgets in the municipalities because of lower tax revenue.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And that is on the front page of the New York Times.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Rising inflation signals hazards in Trump tariffs.
unidentified		It says the gauge offers preview of risk from planned higher levies.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The president says President Trump's steep tariffs have started to weigh on consumers' wallets, sending prices higher as the White House readies a more drastic and potentially costly expansion of its global trade war.
unidentified		That's the New York Times.
		Here is Sam in Michigan.
		Democrat, good morning.
		Morning, young lady.
		This is about the Evsteam files.
		I guess if you look at Donald Trump, he's got a bit of a pattern going on here.
		If you go back to the Stormy Daniels episode there and E. Gene Carroll lawsuit there for rape conviction, plus a couple dozen other women that have claimed that he's sexually assaulted them.
		So when it comes to the Epstein files, it's almost like it kind of fits in with the rest of his just the way he acts.
		The kind of a guy he is, he likes that kind of stuff.
		So it's not surprising to me he wants to hide it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Georgia Democrat Lucy McBeth.
		This is after the Supreme Court decision on the Department of Education.
		She's calling on the department to release $7 billion they say are being withheld from states and localities.
		Here is a portion of what she said.
unidentified		These dollars appropriated by Congress are meant to improve student learning and empowerment as well as their achievement.
		Operate before and after school programs, train teachers, and help adult learners go back and finish high school.
		Just a few weeks ago, on the evening of June 30th, the Department of Education sent out the following message to states, and I quote, given the change in administrations, the Department is reviewing the funding for these programs, and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year.
		Accordingly, the Department will be issuing grant award notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1st, unquote.
		In their own words, they knew this deadline was coming and they missed it anyway.
		They chose to wait until the last second to notify states and schools that the funding your family relies on to educate your child for the school year that is starting in just a few short weeks is not where it's supposed to be.
		Instead of being in your child's classroom, your money is sitting in Washington here because the Secretary of Education could not be bothered to meet a deadline that is the difference between a school having an after-school program or not.
		Funding that is the difference between a child having a safe place to go while they wait for mom or dad to get off work and come get them or not.
		The Trump administration's failure to release this funding on time is disrupting school and district planning, jeopardizing the education of millions of students, and is forcing layoffs, program delays, and cancellations for students and their families.
		It is wrong and is completely unnecessary.
		And the House will be in session today, right after this program at 10 Eastern.
		We'll take you there at that time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Bill Kentucky, Republican Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		I'd like to talk about the congressional softball game coming up.
		Is C-SPAN showing that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We are.
unidentified		Are you?
		I know I watched the baseball game during, you know, which about the 15, and they had Hakeem Jeffries come up to the booth, you know, and talk and go on stuff.
		And I couldn't figure out why he wasn't down playing.
		I mean, he's a pretty healthy looking guy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Bill, it's the Congressional Women's Softball Game.
unidentified		Well, that's why I'm wondering why he was up there, not on the field on the baseball game.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay, and so are you going to be watching the women's softball game today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It's at 7.30 p.m. on C-SPAN.
unidentified		I'm going to try to because I want to see if he puts on his wig and goes down and plays and wins.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's not nice, Bill.
		Come on.
		Here is Louise in Fredericksburg, Virginia, Republican Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I want to talk about misleading information or misinformation, disinformation, and what's going on with in general in the world.
		I want to specifically talk about Bloomberg television, which gives the most misleading headlines, the most misleading commentary that I've ever heard.
		And if you listen to them, it'd be like listening to Jim Kramer.
		You would go broke or you would hide in a closet somewhere.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Give me an example, Louise, of what you've seen on Bloomberg TV.
unidentified		Well, if it's China and they don't grow as much, they say grew, but less than expected.
		If it's the U.S., it says didn't grow, rose.
		It's just the words they use, the words that's being used.
		You have to pay attention to the words and how they twist and mislead you by their language.
		And I want to also talk about how it's interesting how we always get red herrings right when there's a lot of interesting things going on that people should know, like the Epstein files.
		Now it's the Epstein files.
		And it's just one thing after another.
		Monday morning, it was all about the big war that's going to be coming on Russia and the crushing of Russia and giving Ukraine offensive weapons like long-range missiles, all this other stuff.
		And the war hawks on the television were just absolutely delirious.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Louise, just to make a correction, there hasn't been a decision on offensive weapons, only on defensive.
unidentified		Decision coming.
		He's a peacemaker, and they still can't get this, can they?
		You can't, they just don't get what he's saying.
		He's saying he doesn't want war, and he's not going to go to war.
		And he doesn't, he's giving, he's selling to the European Union Patriot missiles.
		It's all so simple.
		And yet, the news media, it's kind of like my old English teacher.
		She confuses people.
		She would confuse people, you know, make it so complicated that you couldn't understand your own language.
		So let's stop playing games.
		The game playing is totally over.
		We need truth in the media, or people are just not going to believe anything you say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Louise.
		We got that.
		This is Elvin in Zanesville, Ohio, Republican.
unidentified		Yes.
		Regarding Epstein, did Pam Bondi ever, ever say she had a list of names, or did she say she had the foul on her desk?
		I hear a lot of people saying to the contrary, but I never heard her say she had a list of names.
		And for terrorists, I voted for Donald Trump three times, and I support him 100%.
		And don't we right now have a budget surplus because of the terrorists?
		To me, terrorists.
		A budget surplus, Elvin?
		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I think we're still running a deficit.
unidentified		The latest budget is still a deficit.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It is not a surplus.
unidentified		Okay, Mike, check into that because I've seen where they said there is a surplus.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we'll look into that as well.
unidentified		And that's the time that we've got for this segment.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's a lot more to come.
		This morning, we'll be talking to two members of Congress.
		Later in the program, we've got Representative Rich McCormick, a Republican of Georgia.
		He's a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee.
unidentified		He'll join us to discuss the U.S. role in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But next, we'll take more of your calls and talk with Representative Kim Schreier, a Democrat of Washington.
		She's also a pediatrician and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
		And we'll talk about the impact of the one big, beautiful bill on health care and layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins in a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		Wednesday, watch C-SPAN's coverage of the 17th Annual Congressional Women's Softball Game, live from Audi Field in Washington, D.C. Join members of Congress along with the Washington, D.C. Press Corps, for more than just a time of friendly competition and camaraderie.
		A shared mission to strike out breast cancer.
		Don't miss the Congressional Women's Softball Game.
		Live coverage starts Wednesday at 7.30 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
		C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org.
		c-spanshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
		Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
		There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
		Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We're joined now by Representative Kim Schreier, a Democrat from Washington, member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and also Congressional Doctors Caucus co-chair.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Representative Schreier, welcome to the program.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mimi.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		I'm really glad to be here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So this week, the Senate is voting on a $9.4 billion rescissions package that passed the House last month.
		All Democrats, including yourself, voted against it.
		Can you talk about why Democrats are opposed to this and what impact you think it'll have?
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, before we even get into the details of what is in the rescission package, I just want to make clear that fundamentally this is problematic because rescissions means cutting.
		And what we're cutting is funding that Congress in a bipartisan fashion.
		So Democrats and Republicans agreed that we should be spending taxpayer dollars wisely and in certain ways.
		And we came together, think about our states and our districts, and made these decisions.
		This rescission package now comes in and says, well, Congress, you thought it was important to have foreign aid.
		Now we want to cut it.
		Well, Congress, you thought it was important to have public broadcasting so that everybody in the country could hear unbiased news for free without commercials.
		And now, because the president wants to cut it, we're going to cut it.
		I think fundamentally it is wrong because it is taking away Congress's power of the purse.
		And I think that substantially it is wrong because it's cutting things that are really in my constituents' best interest.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what impact do you think these cuts, if they go through, will have?
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, look, PBS stations in some areas will do just fine.
		They have funding from their communities.
		But in other areas, I mean in rural areas, sometimes this is the only source of real news.
		And in the case of news and emergencies, it will take that source away.
		So it is damaging to information, to democracy, and to safety.
		And then with regard to foreign aid, I think sometimes people don't understand that foreign aid is a big part of our own national security.
		And so, for example, if they end the PEPFAR program, this is a program that was able to successfully combat AIDS in Africa.
		If we take that away and AIDS comes back in Africa, it will spread to our shores even more so.
		And frankly, the virus could mutate so that current treatments don't even work.
		So I just feel like this is really short-sighted.
		And again, Congress agreed this was an important program.
		And now this president and a very compliant Congress is willing to take it away.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Representative Kim Schreier is with us for the next 15 minutes.
		So if you'd like to get in a question with her, please call now.
		Democrats are on 2028-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Congresswoman, as a doctor, I want to ask about the One Big Beautiful bill and your concerns regarding health care in that bill.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, again, fundamentally when it comes to this, I'll call it the big ugly bill.
		Fundamentally, it is a shift from funding that takes care of the people in this country who are most in need, and it transfers it to a gigantic tax cut for the wealthiest people, the Elon Musks in this country.
		And the vast majority of those dollars are actually being sucked out of health care.
		It is taking Medicaid health insurance away, and in total, we'll take health care away from about 17 million Americans and transfer that to the Elon Musks of this world.
		I think that is morally bankrupt.
		And when I think about what that will do to our health care system, writ large, when you have that many people who now have no health insurance, go to the emergency room for their health care, cause long waits in the emergency room, drive up prices for everybody, and send our insurance rates higher, in addition to closing rural hospitals.
		This is going to be catastrophic.
		And again, the point of this is not fiscal responsibility.
		This explodes the debt and it transfers that money to the wealthiest who don't need it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And regarding work requirements in Medicaid, you know, Speaker Johnson has said 20 hours a week is not burdensome for able-bodied people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They could work, they could look for work, they could volunteer if they can't find work.
unidentified		Are you against that provision in the bill?
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's the thing.
		I mean, it's clever wording.
		I think most of us would agree that if you are able-bodied and you can work, you should be working.
		That is just part of our responsibilities to ourselves and to our communities and to our families.
		The thing is that this is really not about helping people work.
		I mean, the vast majority of able-bodied people who rely on Medicaid already work.
		This is about paperwork.
		This is about making everybody, if they are taking care of a child, if they are taking care of an elderly parent, if they are working, if they are doing gig work, you name it, they have to get paperwork done at least every six months to prove that or they fall off the rolls and it becomes very difficult to get that insurance back.
		And so I just want to be clear that when they've tried this in various states, what has happened is that the vast majority of people who are kicked off of Medicaid are eligible.
		They're working, they're taking care of their families, and they just messed up on the paperwork.
		And so, you know, they're using those words, and we all agree that people ought to be working, but this is draconian and hurts people who already are.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you're the first pediatrician elected to Congress, so I want to ask you about the measles cases hitting a three-decade high in this country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your reaction to that.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's outrageous.
		And frankly, I lay the responsibility for this at RFK Jr.'s feet because, well, even before becoming our Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is absurd because he is the least qualified, he works against our public health.
		He's been for decades sowing misinformation and distrust about vaccines.
		He's been making parents wonder about whether they should protect their children against really serious illnesses like measles, but let's not forget things like polio that will also come to our shores if we do not fully vaccinate children.
		And now we have people getting terrible illness.
		I mean, people suffer with measles.
		This is not just like a little rash.
		These are high fevers, suffering kids crying.
		The rash is just a part of it.
		And they're suffering and some have died completely unnecessarily because of misinformation from our Secretary of Health and Human Services.
		Just think about that for a moment.
unidentified		You said, quote, that he should be held responsible for, quote, every death from a vaccine-preventable illness.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I do believe that.
		Again, this is not just his time as Secretary of HHS when he's brought the fringe into the government.
		I mean, he's bringing these conspiracy theories and outrageous, disproven thoughts about damage caused by vaccines, which have been proven untrue.
		They are safe and effective.
		He's brought that here in the last six months.
		But the thing is, again, for decades, he has been spreading misinformation.
		So that has led to decreased immunization rates and the ability for these diseases.
		Measles was eradicated in the year 2000.
		It has gotten a foothold again in this country because of his misinformation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congresswoman, he has replaced his vaccine board, as you know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you know about the new vaccine panel and would you trust their recommendations?
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, this is outrageous.
		So the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices sits down in a deliberative way.
		They look at the evidence of vaccines that have been approved by the FDA, so then we know they are safe and effective.
		And they have deep discussions about the science and decide which vaccines to recommend on what schedule for which people.
		And this is a very thoughtful process.
		Their decisions then influence whether Medicaid, Medicare, your insurance company, whether they pay for those vaccines, and also whether schools require children to get those vaccines.
		So the impacts are important.
		Traditionally, the people on this committee have been vetted for 18 months on average to make sure they have the expertise, the experience, the credentials to really evaluate the science.
		And he summarily fired all 17 of them and quickly replaced them with seven people, most of whom have very clear, long-standing ties with the anti-vaccine community.
		Again, bringing the fringe into the government, getting rid of the scientists, and creating a situation where even physicians cannot trust what is coming out of this new ACIP.
		And so we're going to be turning to other places like the American Academy of Pediatrics or the family practitioners or internal medicine docs in order to get the real truth and going to have to work hard to make sure that we can give real truth to our patients and get them vaccinated.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		Jeff is in Bayville, New York, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Jeff.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		Thank you very much.
		Dr. Schreier, I couldn't agree with you more about Kennedy's effect on public health and especially firing the entire board of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
		I think you said it very well.
		However, there is also an additional issue that RFK Jr. brought upon the nation, which I'd like your comment on.
		And that is that he basically defunded a Moderna H5N1 vaccine that had already gone through phase one and two trials with results that indicated it was effective and safe.
		And the third phase is now not going to be funded by the government.
		And Moderna is now looking for private funding to do so.
		And the problem with that is, of course, is that if it's privately funded, the access to the vaccine will not have the same types of restraints on it as if it were publicly funded and would have much more, much broader access to the country and the world.
		Here, we're going to leave it to profit-making companies like pharmaceutical companies to get the most power that they can for the vaccine, regardless of who it leaves out of having access to that vaccine.
		And the other point I'd like to make is that the necessity for an H5N1 vaccine couldn't be greater.
		The threat to the nation and the world is actually greater than COVID.
		There's actually been a 50% mortality rate from the last thousand people over the last 20 years that have contracted H5N1, although it hasn't had human-to-human transmission yet, but that chances are increasing.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, let me just say, I think you bring up some really important points.
		And even without getting into specifics about who funds the research, it has been tradition, science, and completely reasonable that when we know a flu vaccine is safe and effective,
		every year the only thing that changes is the exact, what we call the antigen, the thing that is in the vaccine that triggers the correct part of your immune system so you're ready for the new strain of virus.
		And he wants to go back and have to do the double-blind testing that takes years in order to approve the flu vaccine every single year, which means basically we won't have a flu vaccine.
		So this is just another way that he is trying to undermine science.
		And I also want to thank you for bringing up H5N1.
		Like, this is the bird flu.
		And you'll notice that we haven't heard anything.
		I mean, it's crickets about bird flu for months.
		It's still out there.
		The egg farmers in my district know it's still out there.
		And how will we know, when will we know, when there is human-to-human transmission, which would make it incredibly dangerous, and we need to have that vaccine at the ready?
		Thank you for that call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Bill in Georgia, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Bill.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		I'd just like to tell the Congressman doctor that I'm a fellow pediatrician.
		And the point I'd like to bring up, and as I discussed on this program with Dr. Macri, is that the COVID vaccine, in fact, did not work for children.
		Children did not die of COVID.
		There was no great epidemic of COVID amongst children.
		So why, I'm going to ask the doctor, why should we give a vaccine that may be dangerous to children, to children, and also, secondly, why should we spend money?
		We already have a $1.9 trillion deficit for a problem that doesn't exist.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Bill, let's get a response.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Well, so thank you, doctor, for your question.
		And I think this is one of the problems out there with the spread of information and misinformation is that people don't know just how many children did die from COVID, how many children have gotten long COVID, how many children have gotten the multi-system inflammatory condition that can land children in the hospital or kill them.
		And because people are not aware of this, and then you hear people like RFK Jr., Dr. McCary talk about this, you would think that nothing happened to children, and that is wrong and it is untrue.
		And we know the vaccine is safe and effective.
		And we know that while most children do okay with this, boy, if we can prevent a child from getting long COVID that will plague them for years or maybe even for the rest of their lives, I vaccinate my child.
		So why don't we just say, I believe the science.
		I listened to the ACIP staffed by the people who I trusted, epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, pediatricians, who reviewed the evidence and said, you know what, overwhelmingly, safety and efficacy and utility outweigh the slight risk of side effects.
		So I would encourage you to look at the evidence again.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		On the line for Democrats in Maryland, Cheryl, you're next.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would also like to ask, I wanted to ask a question about the Department of Education, but speaking to the effects of the vaccination, I'm not understanding why people don't understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
		It's better to be proactive than to be reactive when it comes to illnesses that could wipe out populations.
		But aside from that, I wanted to know: if they are planning on going ahead with dismantling the Department of Education, why then will McMahon continue to have a job?
		If there's a Department of Education and they're cutting these funds that will be detrimental to, I believe, mostly rural statesmen, Democratic states, Why should she still be collecting a salary?
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, I think this administration basically wants to put her out of a job, and they're doing everything they can to abolish the Department of Education.
		And while they cannot do that entirely, they can certainly undermine it so much that it fails to function.
		And again, I want to just, in a broader sense, say that in the United States of America, we have made a promise to parents, to families, that their child, no matter where they live, will have access to a free quality education.
		And that is one of the things that the Department of Education ensures.
		Most of the funding comes from the states, but very important funding: funding for students with disabilities, funding to make sure that civil rights are enforced, to make sure that there is no interference of religion in our public education.
		These things come from the Department of Education in addition to the student loans that help students go on either to a career in technical education or to a university in order to get even more training and education that will give them their best path to success in life.
		And I just cannot overstate: you know, taking away funding from the Department of Education, kneecapping the Department of Education, undermines that promise that we have made to American families that you can get an education.
		I don't think we want to be like other countries where you only get educated if you can pay to send your child to private school.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more call for you from Sally, Rhode Island Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Sally.
unidentified		I want to say that as a doctor, you are very disappointing to me because we know we have a lot of research now after this shot that they are not safe and effective.
		Everyone I know who had the COVID shot had COVID.
		I did not get the shot and I haven't had it.
		And other side effects are affecting all these people too, if they didn't die from the COVID vaccine.
		And we have a long history in this country of the medical profession doing this, from polio to AIDS.
		And I believe the bird flu vaccine did kill people maybe 10 years ago and it was stopped.
		So this, it's almost a myth.
		The people don't get it.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Sally, let me just say, as I listen to the things you're saying, what I'm hearing is an echo chamber, and I'm sorry to say it quite this bluntly, what I am hearing is RFK Jr. coming through because everything you are saying is incorrect.
		Let me just give you COVID for an example.
		When the COVID vaccine first came out, it was a miracle because of a couple things.
		One, it was safe and effective.
		Two, it not only stopped people from getting COVID, and it was nearly 100% effective, it also stopped people from spreading COVID.
		Now, here's the thing.
		Just like the flu virus changes from year to year, we saw very quick mutations in the COVID virus as well.
		And so currently, you don't have that degree of success.
		But what we do know is that it prevents some COVID.
		It also means that the people who get the vaccine, when they do get COVID, get a milder course.
		We also know for a fact that when people are vaccinated and they do get COVID, their rates of long COVID are far lower.
		And we know the vaccine is safe and effective.
		So even if we don't have 100% numbers, which is kind of like the flu vaccine, we know that this is an important vaccine to get and it protects me when I get my COVID vaccine every year and it protects our communities.
		And so I would encourage you to move outside of that bubble.
		Even pick up a medical journal.
		Do some real research there.
		And I think you will find that you're getting a lot of disinformation from RFK Jr. and his ilk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Representative Kim Schreier, a Democrat from Washington State, Congressional Doctors Caucus Co-Chair and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
kim schrier ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are in open forum for the next 15 minutes.
		Go ahead and call in now.
		Democrats can call us on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Anita is a New York City Democrat.
		Good morning, Anita.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a quick question.
		When funds are allocated by a bipartisan Congress and the president decides otherwise, what happens to those funds?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Anita, that's what's going on right now, and that's the rescissions package, right?
unidentified		The rescissions packet.
unidentified		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Right, so this is them saying we don't want to spend that money that was already authorized and allocated.
unidentified		Correct.
unidentified		So if it's decided that they won't spend it, or the current administration says we're not doing it, like in education, et cetera, how long does it take before a decision comes down the pike?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, I think it's immediate, right?
		So I would think that that goes into effect immediately and that money is not spent.
		So I hope that answers your question, but we can look for more information on those details.
		Rick, Boston, Democrat, good morning, Rick.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Yeah, I just want to make a couple comments about Chauncey and whatnot.
		You know what I'm saying?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About who?
unidentified		Chauncey.
		That's President Trump.
		That's what I call him, Chauncey.
		You know, from the movie being there, why not be, you know, somebody's in the office in charge of something and don't know what he's doing.
		I mean, the guy comes into office, talking about he's going to bring food prices down.
		He's going to just he's going to end wars all over the place.
		Guy begging any dignitary that comes to his office to give him the Nobel Peace Fight, write his name down for Nobel Peace guy, he ain't going to get no Nobel Peace Fight, especially when you begging for it.
		Nobody needs to do something he's begging for.
		And then, like I said, he's talking about trying to end the war in Iran.
		It would have been, he wouldn't have had it going in the first place.
		It was 12 years ago here in the midst of Obama's policy when they had that treaty.
		He comes there talking about, no, this is not going to be no treaty.
		And then now he did 12 years later bombing the place and whatnot.
		You know what I'm saying?
		That's why I'm saying you got a guy, he's talking about DEI about basically saying he don't want black people in charge of nothing.
		All these white people have got plans in this country.
		You know, any other nag.
		Let me ask you something.
		One thing I want you all to do as reporters, I want you all to find out.
		He's talking about he don't want immigrants in this country.
		Ask, find out how many white people have he got them put in those prison debts that he covers.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Mike in Dundalk, Maryland, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm not really sure anything about the DEI or the bird flu, but all of us remember when COVID hit and they were telling people, don't go outside alone or you're going to catch the flu.
		Don't do that.
		There was so much misinformation that the medical community was putting out there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Don't go outside alone.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They said don't go outside alone.
unidentified		You weren't allowed to go out to the beach and go surfing.
		They arrested you if you went out alone to the beach.
		I mean, they were just locking everyone in their houses.
		This is stuff that was put out on the radio all the time.
		And, you know, the vaccine from COVID was ineffective.
		As doctors, we had to go once a week and get a nose scrub into our brain to make sure we didn't have COVID so that we could work and go into practice.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you're a doctor, Mike?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		The stuff that was put out there, as a person who focuses on research and who reads all the journals and was staying up with every single thing that was going on, they put on information out there before they knew what was going on.
		And it was just, you know, the whole thing that was spread out there to the community, it was unfortunate.
		And most of it wasn't true.
		So that's really all I have to say.
		Have a great day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Denise, a Republican in Fairlawn, Ohio.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Denise.
unidentified		Yes.
		I want to talk about, you know, about the illegal immigrants in our country.
		Okay, I'm just going to give some people something to think about.
		Okay.
		When in the Bible, it says that Jesus says to give Caesar what you owe Caesar.
		That's what he was talking about with the government.
		But he talked to each and every person from the time he walked on the earth that we are all supposed to help those that are worse off than us, help the needy.
		He did not say the government was supposed to do that.
		So what I'm going to suggest is all these rich Democrats or everyday Democrats, and I and I make like $25,000 a year and I donate Almost $200 a month to charity, and I'm not rich.
		They need to start like a GoFundMe for all these illegal aliens in here that they want our hard tech, our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for.
		All these rich Democrats, I'm talking to all you people out there in Hollywood and all you people in the federal government, Nancy and your ilk.
		You guys start a GoFundMe, and then when these illegals need money for public education, policing, medical care, go to the hospital, they can draw from that because we are not supposed to take taxpayer money and pay for people that are not in our country legally.
		So I'm just trying to put it out there that, you know, we need to, we have worked hard for our money and we want it to stay with Americans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Denise, on the independent line in Alabama, John, you're next.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
		Every time I hear all these people talking about education, I'm reminded of the American Federation of Teacher leader, Alvin Shankar from New York City.
		He famously or infamously said, I will give a damn about the children when they start playing union dudes.
		I'd like for you to go back in your files and pull up all the comments from the leaders of educational unions and see and show the American people what they're really interested in.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Celeste in Pennsylvania, Line for Democrats, you're on Open Forum.
unidentified		Just wanted to say, talking about these shots and the COVID and everything, I am a polio survivor.
		I was born in 1955, diagnosed in 1958.
		It was called the Butcher era back then.
		I was a case study.
		So my mom had five kids under five at the time.
		And we all had, she was bringing home a new baby and we had the flu.
		Well, it was time for our shots, and everybody was better.
		So we went and all five of us got our polio.
		I believe it was a cube at the time.
		Well, guess what?
		I got polio, one out of seven kids.
		So I'm just saying, you know, I don't regret me getting polio out of five kids.
		Why was it me?
		But you have to do it.
		You have to find out.
		And look at everything we found out about polio.
		They can't even tell me how I got it.
		You know, I have a friend who got it real bad that kissed her sister that had it.
		So who knows?
		That's all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What impact does polio have?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did polio have on you?
unidentified		Well, on me, it affected my left leg and my whole left side.
		It's two inches skinnier and two inches shorter, the left leg.
		So like on one side, I'm an eight and the other side I'm a 10, which makes it difficult.
		My leg is skinny.
		It basically just held on my jeans.
		But here I am, 70, retired, just going to the pool every day and enjoying myself.
		You know, I wasn't in an iron line, no, huh?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is Ed, a Republican in Pennsylvania.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, I just morning, I haven't had a chance to hear a terrific amount of my fellow Americans' comments today, but I did just want to chime in.
		I find it incredibly disheartening to just hear how thoroughly something like the Rescissions Pact is because they're coming down the pike and the rhetoric of my Republican Party has affected the moral compass of this country since the president has taken hold of power again.
		It is wrong and it has been wrong for my entire lifetime for us to privatize the commons and surrender to private interests what is in the interest of the public good.
		It is absolutely antithetical to science and its face for us to advocate a responsibility of the state to take care of the less among us.
		It is absurd to hear people talk about things this way.
		As we speak, there is an active concentration camp in this country that has merchandise for sale on the state of Florida's website.
		And in the interim, a hundred-year flood is happening every week in different parts of this country.
		We need to put our money where our mouth is.
		We are going to be a series of shining cities on a hill.
		Then we need to have something worth people being part of that society.
		And we have to be part of that society.
		If we feel that our tax money is being spent in error, then the people who are in charge of the purse are the Republican Party and have been for most of our lifetimes.
		Generally, people with power do not surrender power.
		They only consolidate it.
		And with this Supreme Court, particularly if you look at yesterday's decision with the shadow docket to begin dismantling the Department of Education, it's a perfect example.
		We as a populist need to get together and draw a line in the sand to say what we will and we won't stand for.
		And whether my fellow Americans like it or not, that involves taking care of people who don't look like us, sound like us, or necessarily live like us.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, all right.
unidentified		Thanks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And on the independent line in Tombaugh, Texas, Remo, you're next.
unidentified		Hi, I'd just like to talk about the COVID vaccine that they were giving.
		I don't believe that that Democrat that you had on earlier, that woman, saying that there was misinformation, disinformation, those are words that they like to use every time we question anything.
		You know, they can say all they want, how it was safe and effective, but the insurance companies are saying otherwise.
		The all-cause mortality has spiked through the roof since those vaccine rollout has hit the market, and young people are dying left and the vaccine companies, you said, Remo, are saying otherwise?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		They're saying that the COVID vaccine is not safe.
unidentified		Well, the Democrat lady you had on earlier saying that it was safe and effective and she keeps on getting it.
		All the people that I know that have taken that vaccine either regret that they've taken it.
		I don't think you'll find any person who hasn't taken the vaccine that regrets their decision to not getting it.
		But it'll be the other way around for people who have gotten the shot.
		Now, all the people also that I know that have gotten the shot, maybe they're still alive and kicking, but they have health problems that they've never had before.
		Their immune system is so low, they're getting sick constantly.
		And that's all I have to say on the matter.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And coming up later this morning on Washington Journal, the Association for Women in Cryptocurrencies Amanda Wick joins us to talk about federal efforts to regulate that industry.
		But up next, we'll talk with Representative Rich McCormick of Georgia.
		He's a member of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee, a Republican, about the U.S. role in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		As Mike said before, I happened to listen to him.
		He was on C-SPAN 1.
		That's a big upgrade, right?
		But I've read about it in the history books.
		I've seen the C-SPAN footage.
steve scalise ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		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.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So we are not just speaking to Los Angeles.
unidentified		We are speaking to the country.
		America marks 250 years.
		And C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		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.
		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 of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern.
		Listen to C-SPAN programs on C-SPAN Radio anytime, anywhere.
		C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
		In a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.
		This fall, C-SPAN presents Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
		In a town where partisan fighting prevails.
		One table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground.
		This fall, ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on C-SPAN.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Representative Rich McCormick, member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
		Congressman, welcome to the program.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Good to be with you.
unidentified		Thanks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So in the last few days, President Trump has increased pressure on Russia.
		He's agreed to send more defensive weapons and equipment to Ukraine.
		Are you on board with that support for Ukraine?
unidentified		Absolutely.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I always have been.
		I've been very consistent in this.
		I'm not going to flip-flop based on anybody's individual opinion.
		I spent over 20 years in the military, spent some time over in that area.
		I've actually been to Kyiv since this war has kicked off.
		I understand this is a top 10 country, actually top five country really in the world for resources is strategically important to us and important to NATO countries who border that country.
		Russia's a bad actor.
		They acted on bad faith.
		They went against the peace accords that they signed in the Budapest Accords when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons when they left the USSR.
		This is a bad thing to happen for the rest of us.
		It's going to actually financially impact for those America-first people.
		It benefits us to have this country on our side.
		If Russia takes their assets, which controls 70% of European grain and a ton of rare earth minerals, which we have contract with now, as well as titanium, steel, cobalt, uranium, you name it, that all is going to be disseminated to North Korea, Iran, China, people that aren't friendly with us.
		And I think it's in our best interest, financially and otherwise, to have them on our side.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, the president's critics will say, look, Putin is a known entity.
		We know that he cannot be trusted.
		Sure.
		That these past six months, he's been essentially playing the president of the United States.
		Why do you think it took so long for President Trump to get to the point where he says, you know what, Putin's BSing us?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, well, President Trump's been relying on his former relationship with Putin that he would come around, that he could actually be a peacebroker in this process.
		But Putin has not been playing by normal rules.
		He has not been a good actor, and I've said all along, this guy's not to be trusted.
		President Trump has come to that conclusion and now is turning up the pressure.
		Quite frankly, financially, we could hamstring Russia.
		Since they're reliant so much on their oil, we turned up pressure on India and undersold them in India.
		We could actually shut down the Russian economy.
		And simultaneously, we could provide Ukraine with enough weaponry to really, really do damage to Russia and even with a 30,000 influx of Koreans there.
		Look at what Ukraine did in the first year.
		They took out 50% of Russian armor and almost a million.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And they're going to shut down Russia's economy given that China will still buy their energy?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		One country, one country is not going to sustain this war.
		And we can actually make it harder on China.
		Well, yeah, China, 1.47 billion people.
		I get it.
		The second largest economy in the world, about $17 trillion per year.
		But we can make things a little bit hard on China, too.
		I don't think China, they have a precarious relationship with Russia, always have.
		Even though they see politics maybe similarly, they are rivals, both economically and militarily.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about your colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican who said, quote, this is on X, MAGA did not vote for more weapons to Ukraine.
		MAGA voted no more U.S. involvement in foreign wars.
		I know you disagree with that, but isn't that where what she's calling MAGA voters are?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I don't think MAGA can be classified as one thing.
		I keep on saying, we're not a cult.
		If you're in a church and everybody believes exactly the same thing and one person gets to dictate that, that's a cult.
		We're not a cult.
		We're a diverse culture even inside of the Republican Party.
		We can have a disagreement and it's okay.
		Not everybody believes that America first means America only.
		As a matter of fact, this is a world economy.
		When you look at strategically what allies we have to have in this world, it's important to have friends around the world.
		And I would say it's financially important to us and it does put America first to have strong allies around the world.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman Rich McCormick is with us in the studio.
		If you'd like to give a call and talk to him, you can do so.
		You can start calling now.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov responded to President Trump.
		He said this, quote, We have already had an unprecedented number of sanctions imposed against us.
		We're managing.
		I have no doubt whatsoever that we will cope.
		You disagree with that?
		Do you think that they're coping now?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they're also putting, what, about 8% of their GDP into their military.
		They're not friendly with most nations in the world, especially in Europe.
		This is going to continue to get worse for them over time.
		They will cope, but what does that mean?
		Eventually, the oligarchs are going to rise up against Putin.
		Eventually, you're going to run out of Koreans, and the Koreans are going to get tired of this war as well.
		But they do.
		In warfare, they are a grindy, a meat grinder.
		Look what they did during the Gulag Archipelago era, which from 1917 to 1957, about 60 million people died in Russia.
		This control, these people, that heritage of that, and you listen to what Putin does, he quotes Peter the Great, Catherine the Great.
		In order to secure my borders, I must expand them.
		He is a Russian empire sort of mentality, and that needs to be defeated.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Pivoting now to the Epstein files.
		I know it's a hard pivot from Ukraine, but as you know, that there is a lot of discussion since the Department of Justice has decided to not release any additional files.
		Where are you on that?
		Do you still support or do you support the Attorney General?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I support full transparency.
		I think the more information is out there, the better we look.
		I'm like that with almost every issue, unless it's something that's of national security that's going to compromise us, such as the military, something that would put us at a disadvantage.
		But I don't see how this, unless they know something I don't know, and they probably do, the question is, why don't they release the files?
		I think it's a populist item.
		I mean, both Democrats and Republicans want to see what's in the files.
		Now, I'm sure there's some important people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		President Trump wants to move on from this issue and doesn't want to.
		It would appear that he doesn't want those files released.
		But the American public.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		No, I get it, but the American public still doesn't agree with that.
		And I'm sure President Trump will use the bully pulpit to convince people of what he wants to convince them of, and that's the president's prerogative.
		But I think the vast majority of people want to see those files released.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about what's called the Big Beautiful bill passed on July 3rd.
		You said this on X, quote, there is no way to get everything you want as a fiscal conservative, but this is a significant step forward in addressing the nation's most pressing issues of keeping businesses thriving and putting Americans to work.
		What are the parts that you did not like about that bill?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I'm a budget hawk.
		I believe that we are far too far in deficit spending.
		We're going to actually expand our deficit spending next year by almost a half a trillion dollars.
		The next year, the same.
		That's not good for the American future.
		We may have a golden era now, but we're going to have that come to pay in the next presidency.
		It doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican.
		It's simple math.
		Social Security will go bankrupt in about seven years, which means it's going to have an automatic 21% cut without a vote.
		21% cut the benefits unless we expand our debt even more grossly.
		Same thing with social security.
		I mean, same thing with Medicare.
		It's going to go bankrupt within the next presidency, almost certainly.
		And it's going to have an automatic 11% cut without a vote.
		Now, granted, this bill couldn't handle that because of the Byrd rules.
		We couldn't vote on that.
		But the rest of the budget, which is significant, we did very little on Medicaid reform.
		Now, I know people got upset about Medicaid, and I understand what they're worried about.
		But I think if you became unemployed tomorrow, you're not going to because you're a great reporter, but if you did, you'd be in unemployment line and you have certain requirements just to get your unemployment check, which you paid into.
		Medicaid is not something that you necessarily paid into, but you're going to get without the same requirements you would on something you paid into.
		That doesn't make sense to me.
		By the way, as an ER physician, most people who suffer from anxiety, depression, suicidality, drug, and alcohol abuse have one problem.
		They don't have something to live for.
		Being a volunteer for 20 hours a week, looking for a job, having a job is a good thing.
		We shouldn't look at it as a bad thing.
		That's a good thing for people.
		It's good for your health and good for America.
		Why wouldn't we do something of subsidence?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, critics are not criticizing the people's desire to work or to volunteer, but the extra paperwork and the burden that that puts on them and on states to check every six months as opposed to every year.
		Do you buy that?
		Do you think that that's burdensome?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		For me, once again, how many times do you have to get checked for unemployment every single month?
		Every single month, and yet we act like twice a year is a burdensome regulation.
		For me to check if you have a job, why is that such a burden when we do way more stuff than that in government every single month for people all over the United States?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Most people agree that there will be people that are coming off those Medicaid roles, and that's where the savings are going to come from.
		Those people end up in the emergency room.
		You are an ER doctor, so those people are going to put an extra burden.
		It's very expensive to get ER care, and then the people that really need it are going to have longer wait times.
		Are you concerned about that?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
		But if we don't do something, I would like to hear the better idea.
		The Democrats don't have one.
		They're like, just keep it the way it is.
		The way it is is failing us.
		And this is why when Democrats are all of a sudden, for the first time, worried about debt, that just makes me laugh.
		Now, neither side has been very good at managing debt.
		This is a bipartisan problem.
		We're not going to get out of it without bipartisan efforts, including on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, which is about 6% of the budget by itself.
		And by the way, I don't want to cut anything with Social Security.
		I don't want to make sure the people receiving or about to receive Social Security have got to be secure.
		I get that.
		But we have bipartisan bills out there.
		This is going to have to be something we address together.
		But tell me a better plan.
		Don't tell me you're going to tax your way out of this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's what I was going to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, the Democrats will say, have they set up this program to raise taxes on the wealth?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		You could take all, first of all, it's a false promise.
		Way more billionaires give way more money to the Democrat Party than the Republican Party.
		Why is it?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Because we're talking about the taxes.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I know.
		On those same billionaires.
		Why do you think that is?
		Because they know they can avoid those taxes.
		You raise the taxes, they don't get real income.
		The money in the bank doesn't get taxed.
		There's the dirty little secret, right?
		If I raise taxes on you, the billionaire, that just basically punishes the people who are trying to become billionaires, not the people who are billionaires.
		Because the people who are billionaires have money in the bank.
		They make money off of capital gains and their businesses get reinvested.
		They have these blind trusts, these trusts for their families that then control the government and then make them more money.
		I read a book called Controlagars.
		Excellent book on things that can be done by billionaires to control the economy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Robert Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Republican.
		Hi, Robert.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		Just a quick story.
		When I started working with Wallace Butcher Store, he had an accountant that was a Polish freedom fighter in World War II.
		And he told me to, you know, I was a young age, he told me to be very careful with the Russian, the Russian people, mostly the government and the communism.
		And I was almost tempted to write the president a letter that he's doing the right thing now.
		They're not to be trusted.
		They're very dangerous and very, very dangerous people, trust me.
		So that's all I want to say.
		And pretty much the Communist Party, China too, but especially Russia.
		And he has a face of a leopard, so be careful, Putin.
		So thank you.
		He's finally doing the right thing, Trump.
		I thought about writing a letter, but in today's world, they probably would send the Secret Service to my house.
		So maybe not.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressman.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I would say, first of all, Poland's doing it right.
		They have some issues right now, but in the last 15 years, the second fastest growing economy in the world.
		They've embraced capitalism probably better than the United States, quite frankly.
		They're thriving.
		They absorbed about a million Ukrainians, which they put to work because they have a thriving economy.
		That's something that they've emulated of ours, and I think that's something good.
		They left the USSR and have done the right thing.
		I hope Romania also falls in line with that.
		I worry about countries who keep on trying out communism as if it's something that'll work when it's failed over and over again.
		And by the way, we have a very inefficient government we're very critical of, but it's the best of the ugly babies.
		Democracy, as we've said in the past, democracy is the worst of all governments that separate everything else.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Joshua in Illinois, line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Joshua, you're on with Congressman McCormick.
unidentified		Hi, Congressman McCormick.
		My first question is going to be regarding foreign trade policy.
		Why have you given up your control over foreign trade policy?
		Like particularly like Brazil.
		There is no emergency with Brazil, yet you see Trump levying a 50% tariff on Brazil.
		Why didn't he go to Congress for that kind of permission?
		And my second question is, how did you vote yesterday on the release of Epstein files?
		And my counter to that, just to go further a little bit, the reason we call you a cult is because no matter what you hear and see in the news, like Trump being friends with Epstein for 15 years, and that's maybe the reason why he won't release the files, you tend to ignore that and cover your ears and eyes.
		And then when it comes time to vote, you actually vote against it.
		So that's why we call you a cult.
		That's my comment.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		So let's address the second first, the Epstein vote that never happened.
		This is commonly placed out there on X as if it was a fact.
		We didn't have a vote on releasing the Epstein files yesterday.
		Rules Committee voted that it was out of order to bring to the floor for what reason.
		I don't know what their reasoning was, but it never came up for a vote.
		It was listed 211 Republicans voted against releasing the Epstein files, which, of course, I was named.
		We didn't have a vote.
		So it's misinformation, first of all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		How would you have voted if it had come up?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I already told you.
		Early in the show, I said I'm full transparency.
		I have nothing to hide.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You would have voted yes, release the files.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
		Unless there's something of national security, which I don't think there is, maybe they have some reason, but they have to justify that, not me.
		The ball's in our court.
		But I'm independent thinking.
		I voted against the CR in December, not once, but twice.
		I very much have had a consistent viewpoint on Ukraine.
		I didn't wish wash based on who was believing what.
		You'll find my thinking process is independent of everybody else's.
		That's why we're a democracy.
		We're a republic.
		And I'm very consistent on my thought process.
		I don't worry about what other people think.
		That's the nice thing about being authentic.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He asked about tariff problems.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		So Brazil, actually, I'm very good friends with Eduardo Bolsonaro and very much feel for the people of Brazil, who I think have a horrible leadership problem in their political world right now.
		I think I'm very critical of their Supreme Court.
		But that has nothing to do with the tariffs, per se, except for the way we do trade.
		I'm sure the president will release his reasoning once everything's finalized.
		I don't know that we have a finalized product of Brazil.
		I haven't seen it.
		So I can't really criticize it or encourage it based on what I know because the details have not been released.
		So I'd be a little bit ahead of myself to get into the policy on tariffs on things that I don't know what's been negotiated so far and what the reasoning is.
		But I will be looking into it because I'm very much a foreign policy wonk.
		I believe in giving it time.
		One thing I know about President Trump: if he sees that something's not working, that's punishing our economy, that's doing poorly, he wants his legacy to be a strong, robust economy with a shrinking deficit.
		That's what he wants.
		If he sees things going the wrong way, he will adjust.
		He's already shown this in tariffs already.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Inflation did go up this past time.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Of course, yeah.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		And by the way.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think he'll reverse course on tariffs?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think he'll reverse course on tariffs?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I think if you're a Navy guy or a Marine like myself, you put in a course correction and you have to wait for a second because you don't know exactly how it's going to affect everything for a little bit.
		You can't immediately adjust, otherwise, you're not going to do the right thing.
		We're going to wait and see.
		And I'm sure if the president sees something bad happening, he will adjust.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Doug was asking about where tariff policy should be set.
		And whether, I mean, do you believe that that belongs to Congress?
		And will you be taking that power back?
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I hope so.
		First of all, I think the executive privilege benefits us greatly when President Trump is president, but then it can harm you very much when Biden's president.
		And I think we're out of balance right now.
		And that's why I'm a very big supporter of the Reigns Act or something similar to it where we have better balance, where the president, no matter who the president is, Democrat or Republican, can't do something that has massive impact on the economy.
		And I know it's frustrating, by the way, I understand why people want the executive privilege because the most efficient government of all is a monarchy or dictatorship or a theocracy where one person gets to call the shots.
		Really efficient, really effective, but not balanced, not the way we formed our democracy.
		Democracy is so frustrating because it's so slow to change, but it's to keep the government from becoming more powerful than the people.
		That's the founding fathers and the beauty of what they did.
		Now, I love it when President Trump's president.
		He can react very quickly to the market.
		He can do things that I like, but I'm not going to like it next time a Democrat takes over, and I'm squealing about the same thing.
		So I want to be consistent in my thought.
		And this is why I go back to grabbing back the power and making sure we codify those things.
		And it's okay if the president does things temporarily by executive, but we need to codify into law the things that work.
		And I hope we're really good about that, especially as we progress in this legislative body, in this Congress, that we actually balance back to power.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Doug in Newcastle, Delaware, Republican, you're on, Doug.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		Thanks for taking my call.
		I'm happy to talk with a member of Congress and the Congressional Congress caucus there.
		I'm just a little interested when people talk about being deficit hawks and policy wonks, and they seem to just disregard how quickly the effect of some of these votes is going to come up.
		You know, starting October 1st, because of PAYGO, those cuts are going to start not just on Medicaid, but Medicare.
		And we're talking about, you know, billions of dollars, something like $45 billion in cuts, like 4% cap.
		If you look at what was just decreed that you spent, I don't understand why you're heading your bed pretending like you're not in the cult when you voted yes on something that goes against what you say you believe in.
		You guys extended the budget of ICE to $150 billion and that money could go to take care of people in your own district.
		I mean, you know, if you put it this way, I don't know how many people are in your district, but let's say you average 14% of everybody's district is Medicare or Medicaid.
		You know, how much of a margin did you win your seat by?
		You know, are you going to run against the president?
		Do you have the wherewithal to do that when it's time for you to do the right thing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yep, go ahead.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so first of all, in my state, I probably had the best results of anybody in Congress.
		So not worried about that.
		I do try to do the right thing.
		I try to communicate it very well and balanced and informatively.
		When you talk about Medicare, that was a false statement.
		We're not cutting Medicare.
		We didn't even have that considered in the budget because it's outside the bird rules.
		So there's a lot of misinformation on there.
		And this is what's frustrating.
		And just like we talked about the last caller, the Epstein files.
		You voted, why did you vote against it?
		I didn't vote against it.
		That's misinformation.
		Careful what you read out there.
		Believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear.
		Verify.
		Don't trust.
		We didn't cut anything on Medicare.
		Medicaid has some small recisions.
		Most of it basically just requiring people to either look for work or have a part-time job or volunteer.
		That's not a tall order.
		And a matter of fact, anybody who thinks that going back to work for, and it's not on people who are single moms with kids under seven.
		It's not for people who have permanent disabilities.
		This is for people who can work.
		It's not an unreasonable expectation to say if you're sitting at home and you're asking mom to make a sandwich and you're above the age of 18, it's not a good, healthy lifestyle.
		I want what's best for you.
		I'm not asking something from you I wouldn't ask for my own children or my own family or for myself.
		This is not hypocrisy.
		This is what's good for America.
		We have to have a plan.
		Medicaid is supposed to be a state-run program.
		Now we have the federal government paying up to 90% of some state's bill.
		It used to be that one-third of all government spending was from the federal government.
		Now it's two-thirds.
		And we're spending about $3 trillion more per year than we're taking in.
		That's going to be devastating to your children.
		If we don't do something for America right now to correct that course, we will not have our place in history for very much longer.
		We're going to have not just a recession, a severe depression if we don't do something about the deficit and the debt in the near future.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about Afghanistan because you serve there as a Marine.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that the Afghans that helped U.S. forces that are now in the United States should have protection here in the United States and get green cards and be able to stay permanently?
unidentified		Absolutely.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And their families.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		So I have a great heart for Afghanis, especially the people who paid the price.
		When Joe Biden decided to do that ill-gotten withdrawal from Afghanistan and you saw the devastation and the horrible way it was done from a point of weakness, announcing to your enemies that you're going to, after a 20-year investment, $2 trillion investment, 2,465 lives lost, countless brain injuries, limbs lost, months and years away from our families, to give it back to the same people we took it from?
		Are you kidding me?
		We had fewer people there than we had in Spain now.
		We've never fought a war in Spain.
		We had paid the price on this.
		And once again, I'm consistent on that.
		I don't care who president is.
		I don't care who the president is.
		This is doing the right thing.
		When you make a promise to somebody, just like your kids, you say, you make a promise, you stick by it.
		These people put their lives on the line, fight for their country.
		They were losing tens of thousands of people over the course of years.
		Even when I was there, they were ones losing lives, not us.
		In the last year that I was there in 2016, almost all the casualty, I only was allowed to treat special forces and dignitaries and American and NATO forces.
		The vast majority of Afghanis who were harmed went to the local hostels treated by the Afghanis.
		They were picking up all the chaos.
		But I will say that those patriots, those guys who, those men and women who fought alongside of us, in good faith, see the world very much like us, wanted to protect their country from communists, from Taliban, from bad people who would take away their rights, who see the world just like us.
		They deserve our loyalty.
		They were willing.
unidentified		If they go sent back to Afghanistan, they will be executed.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		And if they're sent somewhere else in the world, once again, they in good faith fought alongside us knowing that we are friends, and that's something we should take very seriously.
		Or why would anybody fight alongside us anymore in the future?
		We give our word.
		It doesn't matter if it's to Ukraine or Afghanistan or anybody else.
		You give your word, you stick by it.
		That's America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Franklin in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Rich, thanks for taking my call.
		We've spoken in the past, and I completely agree with you about your word.
		And you said earlier about needing to verify.
		I follow you and I've followed MAGA very closely.
		And I consider myself ultra-MAGA.
		And I agree.
		There's one gender and there's a lot of identity theft and all these illegals in the country.
		And I just wonder, where are we going to get to the bottom of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Dog the Bounty Hunter?
		We've never seen them in the same room together.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, come on, Franklin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Patty, Louisville, Kentucky, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, Congressman McCormick.
		I have several things I'd like to ask you.
		I want to start with immigration.
		Are you there?
		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Keep going, Patty.
unidentified		Okay.
		I know that I'm just like anyone else.
		I don't think that people should just be able to come into our country anytime they want for any reason they want.
		But when Donald Trump was campaigning, his main thing was to get out the murderers, the rapists, the mental institution people, the prisoners that were sent here.
		Okay, a lot of people that he is taking are not these criminals.
		A lot of immigrants in this country are not criminals.
		I would say the vast majority of them are not criminals.
		And many of them have been here for decades.
		And they contribute tax money to this country.
		They do jobs, unfortunately, that Americans won't do.
		And I just wonder how you feel about the way that he is taking these immigrants out of jobs.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate you asking that.
		Let me address that kind of in maybe a little more well-rounded perspective than you're used to from a politician.
		First of all, the business of America is business.
		Calvin Coolidge said that about 100 years ago.
		It's good to have a robust immigration policy that supports American business, not in a bad way that undercuts the economy or undercuts employment of Americans because that's got to come first.
		We need to make sure Americans are employed.
		But you're right.
		We don't have enough people.
		We have a shrinking population.
		We don't have enough people for all the people we need in the military, IT, agriculture, hotels, health care, construction.
		If we have a robust economy, the economy is growing by 4%, as the president's goal has been, we're going to need to right-size our legal immigration system where we know everybody who's coming to the country, why they're here, and how they fit into our country.
		We don't want people coming here, as you said, just because they want to skip over three other countries to get here because they want to live in America.
		That doesn't make sense for America.
		But if we bring people based on business needs, and that can flux, by the way, you may have to go home the next year because our economy shrinks.
		And by the way, if we have Americans that can fill that job, that should always come first.
		But I agree with you.
		We have people who've been here for decades, they're supplying jobs.
		That doesn't mean they should be given citizenship.
		Maybe they pay a fine.
		But I think most Americans, about 70% of Americans, believe that people who've been here for generations, or obviously you're American if you've been here for generations, but if you came here, you're doing the right thing, that there should be some sort of path to staying in America, continuing that business, providing jobs, paying taxes, all the things you've been doing, and maybe pay a fine.
		We'll let the president kind of just dictate what he wants to do on policy on that.
		But I think when you talk about going into ag and people are getting mad and throwing rocks at trucks for taking children into custody who are working illegally, I hope we don't encourage the fact that businesses should be employing child labor, child trafficking, human trafficking for basically slave labor.
		Some of these people are trafficked into the United States for slave labor to pay off their jackals who are basically bringing them in here, their coyotes, whatever you want to call them.
		And I think this is where we as a country have to be cognizant that this isn't just about some poor person who wants to come here.
		This is about 70% of the women who came across the border who were raped repeatedly.
		This is about over 100,000 children, well over 100,000 children, disappearing.
		There are unaccompanied children who came into America.
		We don't know where they are.
		We don't know if they're being sex trafficked, working in the fields, or who they're with.
		We don't even, and some, and a lot of children who come across the border, we don't even know if they're related to that person they were smuggled across the border with.
		And we used to test, and we found there was a significant number who didn't even genetically belong to that person.
		And so what did Biden do?
		He stopped testing.
		Shame on us.
		We want to scold the rest of the world on how they treat their children and their citizens, and yet we encourage that in America.
		Child trafficking, human trafficking, illegal employment.
		Shame on us.
		We need to do better.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Representative Richard Cormick, a Republican of Georgia and member of the House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us.
rich mccormick ▲ ● ▼		It's a pleasure.
		Thank you so much for the opportunity to talk to the listeners.
		Simplify.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Next up on Washington Journal, Amanda Wick of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency joins us to talk about federal efforts to regulate the cryptocurrency industry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
unidentified		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.
		Democracy.
		It isn't just an idea.
		It's a process.
		A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
		It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
		Democracy in real time.
		This is your government at work.
		This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy, unfiltered.
		Nonfiction book lovers, C-SPAN has a number of podcasts for you.
		Listen to best-selling non-fiction authors and influential interviewers on the Afterwords podcast and on Q ⁇ A. 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.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		Joining us to talk about federal oversight of cryptocurrencies is Amanda Wick.
		She's founder and CEO of the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency, a also former senior policy advisor for financial crimes and enforcement network for the Trump administration.
		Amanda, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So what is the Association for Women in Cryptocurrency and why did you found it?
unidentified		So we're a professional association.
unidentified		We're actually a 501c3 nonprofit that is educating, providing networking opportunities, and advocating for the greater inclusion of women in the future of digital finance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And tell us about your experience in the federal government with cryptocurrencies.
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, I came to crypto somewhat non-traditionally in that I was a money laundering prosecutor at the Department of Justice, and I caught a crypto case back in, I think, 2012.
		And I fell in love with the technology and its potential to do amazing things.
		I later went to work at FinCEN, as you mentioned at Treasury.
		I was a detaile there.
		I left, went to a industry, a blockchain analytics company, and then came back to serve as the lead financial investigator for the January 6th committee investigation on the attack on the capital.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so let's start at the very beginning, which is what are cryptocurrencies?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What does it mean?
unidentified		Yeah, so it's funny.
		People use that term to describe a lot of different things, and it's become this catch-all.
		Like fundamentally, what it is, is it's just a representation of value that replaces kind of like the trust that we put in an intermediary, like a bank or a PayPal, and replaces it with basically cryptographic proof.
		And I know that sounds really techie, but essentially all it was was the concept of this intermediating finance and taking out those middlemen that we pay a lot in fees to that take time and create friction and creating a digitized version of value that could move faster and would be more efficient and frankly often better at payments.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So when you say a digitized version of value, is there actual currency, hard currency, or are there dollars behind those?
unidentified		So it depends on the type of cryptocurrency, which is why when people clump them all together and say Bitcoin and stable coins, these two things are very, very different.
		So you have cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which are their own representation and value, and Bitcoin is just Bitcoin.
		We say it has a dollar value, but that's really just tracking its supply and demand.
		But then you have technology called stablecoins, and some of those are, in fact, fiat-backed or what you would say, dollar-backed, or they could be yuan-backed or ruble-backed.
		But dollar-backed stablecoins do, in fact, usually have, depending on how the issuer issues it, but usually those have dollars behind them that are held in reserve.
		So that if you were to present your stablecoin, just like if you were to present a paper dollar, the issuer of that paper dollar or that stablecoin would have to present you with the equivalent of a US dollar or an actual US dollar, which is why some of the stablecoin issuers have massive amounts of U.S. chartery bills because that is how they hold dollars in reserve.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And how does one use cryptocurrency to buy goods and services?
unidentified		So it depends.
		One of the things that's taken a while for crypto is the use of payments.
		There are a lot of companies now that didn't used to exist.
		Now you have things like the PayPal stablecoin.
		I think it's PayPal USD.
		You have Circle USDC.
		There's a number of payment mechanisms.
		It's a question of how you buy crypto, how you keep it in your wallet.
		All of this can be done on your phone almost like an Apple wallet, but it's a industry that is moving towards smoother and smoother apps so that people don't even know that crypto is in the background.
		But essentially, it's just digital money as payments.
		And people get wrapped up in that because the news tends to focus on meme coins, crap coins, and things that are really sexy clickbait.
		But really, it's just the future of digital money.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It is cryptocurrency week in the House.
		I want to start with a couple of the legislation and ask you to go through it.
		I actually want to start with the Genius Act, which did pass the Senate last month.
		Can you explain what is in and what impact that that could have?
unidentified		Yeah, so the Genius Act is basically something to regulate stablecoins.
		And so there's a number of bills going through right now.
		And so it's important to keep clear the Genius Act and the Stable Act because they're both aimed at regulating stable coins, but they have pretty key differences.
		And I would say the biggest one that you probably need to know is that the Genius Act has what's called a dual regulatory approach, which would allow state and federal oversight, whereas the Stable Act is basically prioritizing stricter federal control.
		And so that's probably, there's also some size requirements for issuers for Genius Act that stable doesn't have, but that's really the biggest thing for genius is that dual approach, which kind of matches historically our banking system where we've had that dual regulatory system of federal regulators and state regulators, which has always been really important as the United States has a very strong federalism system where the states have certain rights and the federal government basically has what's left that wasn't allocated to the states.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		If you'd like to join our conversation, if you've got a question about cryptocurrencies or the legislation that is currently at Congress, you can do so now.
		Amanda Wick is with us for about 25 minutes.
		Democrats can call us on 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Also, if you happen to own crypto, we'd love to hear from you.
		You can call us on 202-748-8003.
		You can use that same line to text us if you'd like.
		Another piece of legislation is called the Clarity Act.
		What is that?
unidentified		Yeah, so the Clarity Act is different.
		It doesn't focus on stable coins.
		It really looks at the market structure overall.
		And part of the crypto industry's problem was that there really wasn't clarity.
		And the previous administration, the Biden administration, unfortunately had a head of the SEC who really not only didn't engage with the industry, but actively attacked it.
		They did some legitimate fraud cases, but they also took some actions that really were trying to crush the industry instead of engaging with it.
		And now, if you look at commissioners like Hester Peirce, very engaged, very educated on the topic, very interested in trying to foster innovation while also regulating responsibly.
		And the Clarity Act tries to do that by basically giving some, I hate to say clarity, on certain definitions about what are digital assets, what are digital commodities, getting past this word crypto that kind of lumps everything together that everybody has this perception of, and says, okay, how do we have a more predictable regulatory environment for the crypto market so we can attract institutional investors, foster innovation, bring business back to the United States that left during the last administration,
		and also make sure that we have that regulatory certainty so that a company says, I know the rules of the road and I can build here.
		There's some consumer protection provisions, but mostly it's really about focusing on which agency is responsible.
		Because unlike some foreign countries, the U.S. has the SEC, the CFTC, and you have this fight over who's responsible.
		And so the Clarity Act clarifies which agency is going to be responsible for something and does it qualify as a digital commodity and it should be regulated by the CFTC?
		And when is something a security and it should be regulated by the SEC, which was a horrible battle and the way that it played out over the last four years under the Biden administration really had a hugely negative impact on the industry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you, going back to the Genius Act, one of the critics of that is Senator Jack Reed.
		He's a Rhode Island Democrat.
		And this is what he said.
		And I'll get your response.
		He says, rather than provide meaningful protections for consumers, the legislation weakens existing state laws on cryptocurrency to make it possible for stablecoin companies to operate with near zero capital, meaning that companies could be unable to weather a financial crisis.
		Furthermore, the bill makes it possible for stablecoin companies to avoid getting an independent audit and makes it virtually impossible for the government to revoke a stable coin company's charter, even if the company engages in fraudulent activity.
unidentified		What do you make of that assessment?
		To be honest, I'm not even sure what parts he's picking apart because unfortunately, the Democrats, some of the Democrats, a number of the Democrats have chosen to kind of make up a narrative about the bill.
		And don't get me wrong, the bill is not perfect.
		I think it's really important to understand that many people in the crypto industry, regardless of your politics, would say the bill is not perfect and there are issues.
		And if those are the issues, that's fine.
		But the risk of not having regulations over stablecoins are pretty massive.
		And I think people need to understand the larger issue, because if you just pick apart a bill because it's not perfect, that's not a reason not to pass a bill.
		I think Democrats would acknowledge that with Obamacare, and yet right now are very much nitpicking on some things that don't really matter.
		But right now, the largest issuer of stablecoins is a company that's based in El Salvador that has no supervisor, no authority, isn't examined.
		And so you have the 19th largest holder of U.S. Treasury bills who could sell them at any moment, completely unregulated with no legal relationship technically with the United States.
		And so when you're thinking about something, I think what people need to understand is that dollar-backed stablecoins facilitate international demand for the dollar.
		And one of the things that Representative McCormick mentioned, I believe, is the strength of the country's economy.
		That comes from the exorbitant privilege we have of the dollar.
		And when you see all these articles about de-dollarization and reductions in dollar dominance, which a few of us have been literally screaming about for the last two or three years, soaring up dollar dominance, one way to do that is to create a path for stablecoin issuers who buy up dollars and give them clear regulations.
		Just because you don't like tiny parts of the bill isn't a reason not to put into place extremely necessary regulations and for any massive class.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are those regulations that are that would be proposed in this bill?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Like what would happen as a result if this bill becomes law?
unidentified		Yeah, so under the Genius Act, they would have to have certain reserves on hand.
		They would have to be regulated.
		They would have to register.
		And I think those are things, and frankly, it would be more clear who is their regulatory authority.
		And I think that's something that, you know, the size-based distinction.
		So in the Genius Act, issuers with less than, I think, $10 billion in outstanding stablecoin issuance, they can opt into state-level regulation if the state regime is substantially similar.
		So I think people get hung up because they think if it's not federal regulation, it's not good.
		But I think most people don't realize how much of regulation is handled and examined by the states and whether they're doing it effectively, that's a different question.
		But if you look at the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, if you look at the state bank supervisory authorities that exist right now, that's currently what we have for traditional finance.
		And what stablecoin issuers are saying is we would like the same system.
		If it's good enough for banks, why wouldn't it be good enough for stablecoins?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers.
		Ann is a Democrat, Buffalo, New York.
		Good morning, Anne.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		And thank you, Ms. Wick, for your thoughts.
		I appreciate the distinction on the Genius Act referring to stablecoin.
		I have one quick question, and then I have another question.
		Is stablecoin a proof of work model?
		So that is one of my questions.
		The other question is, has to do with the environmental impact of particularly proof of work mining practices.
		And I know that Ethereum, which is the second biggest crypto, switched to proof of stake, which does not involve mining and uses 99% less energy than, for instance, Bitcoin, which is the biggest miner.
		So what are your thoughts on that?
		Do you think that we should possibly come up with some kind of regulation against mining?
		Because it's not only energy vampirizing, if I can coin such a term, it also is the e-waste is extraordinary.
		The terminals used for mining have to be switched out like every 18 months, and there are warehouses of them.
		So the environmental impact is tremendous.
		But also, is stablecoin proof of work or proof of stake, or what's the model?
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Amanda, you'll have to explain that question as well.
unidentified		Let me just say, I think her name was Ann.
		And let me just say that if the majority of the United States was at the educational level that Ann just presented in that question, we would be crushing the world.
		Let me just say the majority of the world doesn't know the difference between proof of stake or proof of work.
		That's a technical difference that most people don't even know the difference between Bitcoin and stablecoins.
		So Ann is officially my hero.
		Let me just say that.
		To answer her question, the majority of stable coins are minted on blockchains using proof of work consensus mechanisms.
		That's true.
		The difference, the issue is that not all proof of work consensus mechanisms work the same and they don't necessarily take the same amount of energy.
		I do want to quote Representative McCormick because he said something to the effect of be very, very careful where you get your information because there's so much misinformation out there.
		And that is incredibly true.
		There are states that are actually using miners to actually balance out their grid usage because we all use energy during the day, not the night.
		And Bitcoin miners can actually be programmed to run during the night so that a grid is more stable.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But so what's not Bitcoin miners?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What is what's being mined?
unidentified		Yeah, so I think people think that somebody's digging into the ground and reaching in and getting like digital gold.
		That's not what it is.
		Remember, I said earlier that cryptocurrencies are just replacing intermediaries with cryptographic proof.
		Without getting too nerdy and mathy, the calculations that have to be done by the system in order to keep the blockchain going, those are done using computers.
		And the people who run those computers basically attach them to electric systems and they do all the calculations that are needed to maintain the blockchain.
		And so when people say proof of work, it's the work basically that those computers are doing to constantly update and conduct transactions, update the chains in that the blocks in that chain.
		And so when we talk about proof of work, it requires that process.
		And so you hear mining because it's the miners who literally do the work to keep the thing going and then they get a bonus of payment.
		And that's how new Bitcoin are created.
		Not every proof of work blockchain works like that, but Bitcoin is probably one of the most commonly known.
		And so it's the easiest to explain.
		But that, but proof of stake is a different consensus mechanism where instead of those computers doing that work, people put in a certain amount of their crypto to basically stake the transactions that are happening.
		And this is an oversimplified explanation.
		As you can see for people like Ann, it gets really technical, but the key difference that you have to understand is work does take more energy, and stake is just a completely different model of how they reach consensus over what transactions were conducted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Andre in Heinzville, Georgia, who owns crypto.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Andre.
unidentified		Hello, ladies.
		Good morning.
		My question is about good morning.
		It's about winners.
		Are they going to allow crypto to be backed or stable coins to be backed by commodities?
		Like they already have it with gold.
		So are they going to allow oil?
		Are they going to allow corn?
		Are they going to allow cocoa?
		Are they going to allow rice?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Amanda?
unidentified		Yeah, I do actually think that's one of the things that, and I can't remember if it's genius or stable, but I do believe that's one of the things.
		I think, don't quote me, but I one of them does actually propose even allowing algorithmic stable coins, which is a type of stablecoin that's literally backed by an algorithm.
		This is the most, what we would say, risky one because this is the one that everybody thinks of when they think of Terra Luna and the crash that happened.
		But to Andre's excellent point, you know, most people, the largest market right now is by far fiat-backed currency stablecoins.
		So this is your dollar-backed, your Euro-backed, a country's issued money that is what's backing up stable coins.
		But Andre's right.
		There is already, I believe, gold-backed stable coins.
		I've heard of them proposing oil.
		I don't know right now what exactly is okay and what's not okay, but I will say those are going to become more prevalent just because once you have something identified as a commodity, it's moving to it being backed by a stablecoin is a very straightforward thing.
		So I imagine it will become more and more common for commodity-backed stablecoins to become a thing, especially given how popular gold-backed stablecoins are becoming.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We have a question for you from Mike in Keyport, New Jersey, who by text, will stablecoins make credit card fees no longer a thing, or will new laws allow stablecoins to make new fees?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		This is a great question.
		I appreciate Mike's question.
		So you might have seen, like people, people are watching right now, MasterCard and Visa.
		I think people would say Visa is a little bit behind.
		MasterCard has announced a partnership with Pfizer and all of them.
		MasterCard, I think, has been leaning into digital currencies much faster.
		But all of them are looking at how much faster and cheaper stablecoins move.
		I think you're going to see MasterCard, Visa, and the credit cards looking at the competition that stablecoins present and figuring out as adoption grows, as regulation basically clears a path for them.
		The whole point of stablecoins was to make money move faster and cheaper.
		Now, the interesting thing here is that stablecoins are privately issued.
		So there is a profit aspect.
		You are going to pay fees.
		Unfortunately, right now, what's happened in the United States is a very politicized narrative where CBDCs have been made a boogeyman because of the government having control over your money.
		But what people are watching is the state of Wyoming is issuing its own stable token, which will be essentially like a tokenized representation of dollar value issued by a state, which will be close to a public good.
		So merchants in Wyoming will have extremely discounted fees.
		People in Wyoming, when they get this up and running, it'll be a really interesting project because if you could get rid of the kind of fear-mongering that people have been doing with CBDCs, there's an argument that if the state or the federal government were to provide payments as a public good, like some other countries are trying to do, it would massively reduce fees for people.
		It would massively reduce fees for merchants.
		So you're going to probably see lower fees with stablecoins, but you'd see likely even lower fees from government issuers who are really caring about merchants and the consumer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jim, Austin, Texas, Independent Line, you're on with Amanda Wick.
unidentified		Okay, so with crypto, I'm wondering why is Trump into divesting?
		Sorry, opening up the gates for more crypto.
		Is he just.
		No, Trump is a very smart guy.
		And I think McCormick said this earlier and he said, you know, Trump is very big on the economy doing well.
		I will say the thing that Republicans tend to leave off is Trump is also very much into himself doing well.
		And part of the problem with the whole discussion about this is that crypto has been a really good boogeyman ever since some really bad companies and some frankly bad representatives early on in the industry, right?
		And so when people in hoodies come in instead of people in suits and they want to run financial services, people tend to not think well of it.
		The thing with Trump that's really problematic is that, you know, when Bernie Madoff happened, people didn't say shut down banks because somebody perpetrated fraud.
		When corruption happens in banks, people don't shut down the system.
		When Nancy Pelosi's husband made $4.7 million in one day in the stock market, people didn't say shut down the stock market due to corruption.
		Corruption is going to happen in financial markets.
		It happens, frankly, I can tell you as a former prosecutor, all the time.
		But you don't shut down the technology because somebody might be using it badly.
		And the thing right now is that where people might be upset about how Trump is using the crypto, that is a wholly separate question from the fact that the Trump administration as a whole has been infinitely better than the Biden administration on regulating a technology that has massive bus sides to the future of digital finance.
		And the problem in a country where we've lost nuance, we're down to seven second soundbites, and there's tons of politicized misinformation is that it's very hard to navigate in between that and say the technology can be good, even if somebody uses it in a bad way.
		So people who are upset about the conflicts of interest and Trump owning crypto, fine, pass a bill that prevents conflicts.
		I personally would love to see that for the stock market, for banks, for crypto.
		I'd love to see our politicians on both sides stop being corrupt, but you don't shut down an entire technology that has massive benefits, that other countries are competing faster because it's the future of digital finance.
		You don't shut down digital finance because you don't like how the other guy is using it.
		And that's a huge problem we're facing today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Amanda, this is what John in Norman, Oklahoma says.
		Many major crypto holders are Silk Road drug dealers who had windfalls of crypto.
		Crypto itself is inherently an offshore product.
		If there's anything that needs tariffs, it is crypto.
		What do you think?
unidentified		With all due respect, and I'm sorry I didn't touch his name at the beginning, but John, that I can tell you, if you want to read data, that is a myth that's been perpetuated.
		I can tell you as somebody who at the very beginning of prosecuting crypto saw all the criminal activity, and that was absolutely true.
		Criminals are always the first adopters of technology.
		And back in 2012, 2013, it was 100% largely used by criminals.
		Now that's not the case.
		Now, to the extent that a lot of the crypto is offshore issued, that might be true, but that's not entirely fair because those companies had to move abroad to find regulatory regimes that were fair and willing to work with them, right?
		There were lots of companies.
		I'm looking at Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, all three of those exchanges decided to be based in the United States and incur probably billions of dollars in compliance costs to try to do it right and to try to create financial services here in the U.S.
		And they mostly got lawsuits in return, right?
		There were exchanges that operated abroad without any regulations that didn't initially didn't even have locations.
		And it took too long for the United States to do anything about that.
		And so I think you have to be really careful because usually when people say like announcements like, well, it's criminal money or it's things like that, that's usually something pushed by people who are very unwilling to acknowledge the nuance, acknowledge the gray.
		There's tons of criminal money in banks.
		I will tell you, as somebody who prosecuted lots of money laundering, if people were really concerned about money laundering and terrorist financing, they would be working all day and night to revise the Bank Secrecy Act, which is the statute that regulates that.
		But they're not.
		Elizabeth Warren really wasn't that concerned with terrorist financing in the millions, if not billions of dollars that was hiding in banks and shell companies.
		But when $100,000 of it was publicly sitting on a blockchain, embarrassing everyone who wasn't doing anything about it, crypto shines a light on what's really happening because it's very visible.
		And it turns out what was happening is we actually really weren't that good at caring about money laundering and terrorist financing.
		And I know that's like a roundabout.
		Oh, sorry.
		Go ahead.
		So I was going to say, Amanda, how is it very visible?
		So people don't realize that most blockchains are completely visible.
		So like imagine if I could see the ledger of your bank publicly and I could see every transaction that your bank process.
		The difference is I can't see your identity, right?
		So your bank is tied to your identity, whereas crypto is very transactional based.
		could go online and see all of the transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.
		I can't see that Nimi did this transaction.
		I can't see that Jim did this transaction, but there are analytics that I could do that transactions of a certain size or certain amounts.
		I can see that.
		But when you're looking at a blockchain and I can see this is where Hamas sent funds, the visibility of crypto, it's like basically conducting funds out of a glasshouse.
		I can see all the funds that are coming in.
		I could see all the funds that are going out and I can do a massive amount of analytics on that, but I can't do that with banks.
		The banks are like black hole silos and most countries don't even have sharing regulations that allow banks to talk to each other.
		And in the United States, we have one that's optional that's not frequently used.
		So when people say, oh, we can trace money, if you talk to a prosecutor who's ever worked traditional finance and crypto and they're trying to trace money laundering and terrorist financing, every single one of them would tell you they prefer the visibility of crypto than the process of trying to find that money through banks.
		And so I think it's a perception issue that the ability to do compliance in crypto is actually really strong.
		It's just that's not what you read about in the paper.
		You read about FTX.
		You read about Barclay.
		You read about Haktua.
		The ability to do incredible compliance in crypto is not sexy clickbait.
		So this is why I tell people you have to look for this information because what will find you, aside from folks who take the time to have nuanced conversations, which is why I'm really grateful to you, Mimi, but mostly what you'll find is kind of unnuanced garbage.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Caleb, Charlestown, Indiana, who owns crypto.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Caleb, you're the last call for Amanda Wick.
unidentified		Hey, good morning.
		All right, I can't.
		I have a question, kind of a theory I have with Bitcoin.
		Do you feel as with the Genius Act and what Bitcoin can represent, that essentially you'll have Bitcoin being utilized to cut our current deficit?
		And then kind of piggyback on users, users that own crypto and people that don't know how to get in the space.
		So essentially people that own crypto like myself store it in a cold wallet.
		Some of that stuff is super confusing for people.
		Do you think banks at some point are going to start offering custody of crypto to help your everyday person understand how to use it and feel safe about using it?
		Yes.
		Let me address the second question first because it's so critical.
		And it's something that we're seeing now with the banking regulators that have just, I think all three of them have issued guidances that are giving banks the ability to custody crypto if they follow certain rules and maintain certain risk management guidelines.
		But that question is really important because, you know, you said a lot of users generally get in into cold wallets.
		And a lot of people, you're right, don't know what that is.
		It's just a wallet that doesn't have access to the internet.
		It's much safer.
		Some people call it self-custody.
		It's the ability to hold your own crypto.
		But actually, a lot of people, frankly, get in through exchanges like Coinbase, like Kraken, like Gemini, because those are very accessible and it looks like their bank.
		If you were to go onto one of their websites, I'm just going to use Gemini as an example.
		If you were to go on the Gemini website, it presents like a bank.
		It does KYC, know your customer, it does due diligence.
		It asks you for the same information that a bank does.
		You provide your bank account.
		You give them money.
		They give you crypto.
		Sometimes they hold it, but they can also give it to you if you want it in your own wallet.
		But that model was literally created so that those centralized exchanges would make people feel more comfortable into entering in.
		The problem is, is that people crapped on those and made them sound so scary.
		And government agencies under the Biden administration came after them when they were really trying to do it right most of the time.
		And the problem now is, is that as banks see a president that's more friendly to crypto, regulation that's more friendly to crypto, as banks see the business opportunities, now banks that, I mean, my mom had her account shut down from a bank that didn't even ask her any questions, just boom, de-risked her when she sent one transfer to Coinbase.
		Those same banks are now getting into crypto and offering custody services.
		And some of that is like the CD industry after Napster saying, well, we can do digital music too, right?
		When competition comes to crush you, you start to figure out how to adapt or die, right?
		And I think that's what board-leaning banks are doing and they have been doing.
		I've been really impressed that some credit unions were leaning out into digital assets long before the big banks.
		And for every Jamie Dimon quote where he crapped on crypto, everyone knew that JP Morgan was building Onyx, right?
		And then Connexus or whatever it's called.
		So as much as some of the banks were publicly anti-crypto, they absolutely knew that their rails were old, unimprovable, and that they were likely going to have to move to the technology underlying crypto, which is improved digital rails.
		And so you're going to start seeing more of these traditional finance companies incorporating crypto and blockchain technology and distributed ledger technology, which is the tech that runs this, which is oftentimes lost in the narrative.
		But yes, you're 100% right that we are going to see more traditional finance institutions kind of creeping into crypto without saying it's crypto as they incorporate the technology that moves money faster and cheaper.
		Because if they don't, they'll die.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Amanda, finally, I just want to ask: how confident are you in House and Senate lawmakers that they understand this concept and this industry enough to regulate it properly?
unidentified		I'm not confident.
		I think some of them are much better than others, right?
		If every one of them was an Ann or a Jim or a Caitlin, like I have to tell you, if the callers that called in were running around the halls of Congress, able to directly communicate with their representatives, the country would be better off.
		I think that's why initiatives like Stand with Crypto and other things that try to get people activated and say, call your representative because they're not paying attention to this.
		They probably think that it's about, you know, Bitcoin or Fartcoin, but it is really about America staying competitive in the future of digital finance.
		And I really worry that a lot of Congress people aren't.
		I will say full disclosure: I'm an advisor to a group called the Global Blockchain Business Council, and they kill themselves all day, every day, putting out explainers, working with staff.
		There's other trade associations that try to do this.
		So it's not like the information isn't out there, but you've got young staffers, you've got septogenarian and octogenarian people on the hill who explaining crypto to can be hard.
		So, you know, to quote a law enforcement agent I worked with, crypto kind of unfortunately exacerbates the two things that we don't really do well, which is financial investigations and technology.
		And America has to really get better at both very quickly.
		My hope is that especially Democrats will look at the policy and not the politics.
		We need stablecoin regulation.
		If you don't like how Trump uses it, that's another bill.
		That's another discussion.
		But if they do what they did with infrastructure, where they don't pass it in Trump won, and then it's the first bill that the next Democrat passes, I still remember that.
		Many moderates, independents, and Democrats still remember that.
		And if the Democratic Party just keeps saying, well, we're just not going to do what Trump wants, and that's our policy position, I 100% agree with Representative McCormick.
		That's going to be a really perilous path for them that will lose them midterms, just like it lost in the last election.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Amanda Wick, she wrote a book called The Catalyst, The Accelerating Forces, Forging the New World Financial Order.
		She's the founder and CEO of Association for Women in Cryptocurrency.
		Thanks so much for joining us today, Amanda.
unidentified		Thanks for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we're wrapping up today's Washington Journal with Open Forum.
		If you'd like to weigh in on anything on your mind that's related to public policy, politics, what's happening in Washington, you can do so.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
unidentified		and Independence 202-748-8002.
		This show and C-SPAN is one of the few places left in America where you actually have left and right coming together to talk and argue.
		And you guys do a great service in that.
		I love C-SPAN too.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's why I'm here today.
unidentified		Answer questions all day, every day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Sometimes I get to do fun things like go on C-SPAN.
adam goodman ▲ ● ▼		C-SPAN is, I think, one of the very few places that Americans can still go.
unidentified		C-SPAN has such a distinguished and honorable and important mandate and mission in this country.
		I love this show.
		This is my favorite show to do of all shows because I actually get to hear what the American people care about.
		American people have access to their government in ways that they did not before the cable industry provided C-SPAN access.
		That's why I like to come on C-SPAN, because this is one of the last places where people are actually having conversations, even people who disagree.
		Shows that you can have a television network that can try to be objective.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		Thanks C-SPAN for all you do.
unidentified		It's one of the reasons why this program is so valuable, because it does bring people together, where dissenting voices are heard, where hard questions are asked, and where people have to answer to them.
		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.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back.
		We are in open forum until the end of the program.
		At the end of the program, in about 20 minutes, we will take you to the House.
		They are considering legislation to regulate cryptocurrencies and we'll begin work on that 2026 defense spending bill.
		Over on C-SPAN 2, the Senate comes in also at 10 a.m.
		They'll continue work on the House past $9.4 billion spending cuts in foreign aid and public broadcasting funding known as rescissions.
		And over on C-SPAN 3, the Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, will testify before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on President Trump's 2026 budget requests on efforts to modernize the U.S. air traffic control system and other priorities for his department.
		His testimony comes just a week since he was appointed interim administrator of NASA after President Trump withdrew the previous nominee from consideration.
		That is at 10 a.m. live on C-SPAN 3.
		Then later this evening, it's the 17th annual Congressional Women's Softball Game.
		Members of Congress from both parties play against the Bad News Babes, a team of women journalists from the Capitol Hill Press Corps.
		All proceeds from the event will support the Young Survival Coalition.
		It's a nonprofit dedicated to helping young breast cancer survivors.
		That's live from Audi Field in D.C. starting at 7.30 p.m. Eastern Time right here on C-SPAN.
		You can watch all that on C-SPAN now, which is our app, and C-SPAN.org online.
		And we'll go to your calls now to Jorge Albuquerque, New Mexico, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
		Yes, the open forum I would like to talk about, and I think America needs to, is mental as well as physical health.
		I know I've been struggling with my own.
		Cryptocurrencies are, they undermine the dollar.
		I don't see how anybody who's patriotic or a citizen of America could want to undermine the dollar.
		And I'm meeting with the New Mexico Economic Development Department to try to get some business going.
		And so anybody out there who believes in prayers or good thoughts or good vibes or whatever, I'd appreciate them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Gary Jorge, this is Jake, a Republican in Trenton, New Jersey.
		Hi, Jake.
		You're on Open Forum.
		Jake, are you there?
		In Trenton?
		Jesse in Baltimore, Democrat.
		Good morning.
		You're on the air.
		Yes, go right ahead.
unidentified		I want to ask that young lady, what's she going there?
		I want to ask her, has she ever been to prison?
		Because she's not a person.
		We've got all the knowledge from prison or she's on her way.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ron in Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, instead of just focusing on things that most people can understand, and I'm talking mostly about older folks, we have new words, new currencies, things that just seem like a shell game to me.
		Perhaps I'm wrong, but when you can't spend a dollar at a place without showing up and saying, I've got your email address or something of that nature, a lot of older folks simply don't use these products.
		Why the government has turned over so much power to these technology companies that force us to do business in a way other than what we always have is beyond me.
		And they should be ashamed of themselves because these are the people they're supposed to represent, not deceive.
		But thank you so much for your time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ron.
		And this is Rose, Tennessee, Republican Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I wish I had been able to speak to the congressman, but I did leave a message on his voicemail saying the same.
		Social Security is at risk due to the world bankers whose Ponzi schemes have been exposed by two women in banking, Karen Hudas, H-U-D-A-S, and Leslie Manukian.
		You've never had them on your show.
		I don't know why.
		Those on Medicare are there due to severe illnesses caused by drug companies.
		So start taxing Pfizer in North Carolina and Moderna more to cover the diseases they create as side effects.
		Then here are three things that you need to do.
		Go after the rich men in the Pandora Papers who took their money offshore and evaded taxes.
		And the push for AI, which will replace 80% of all jobs in America by 2030.
		You know, telling people to get back to work when the job market is shrinking is rude.
		And the money dumped into the following deadly programs, HARP, which creates floods, DARPA, which creates fires with dew.
		FaceForce, which is ridiculous.
		We don't need war of the world.
		And CRISPR, which creates millions with a genome alteration and kills them.
		And take that $1 million per person given to many in our congressmen and women to foment wars in the Middle East and put it into Save the America Kitty.
		Yet.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Rose.
		And this is Politico reporting this at Democrats accuse Waltz of lying over SignalGate and berate him for not expressing regret.
		Let's take a look at a portion of that from yesterday.
		Here's Senator Chris Coons of Delaware questioning Mike Waltz on his use of Signal to coordinate chats with administration officials.
chris coons ▲ ● ▼		You were sharing details about an upcoming airstrike and the time of launch and the potential targets.
unidentified		I mean, this was demonstrably sensitive information.
unidentified		And the question I asked was, were you investigated for this expansion of the signal group to include a journalist?
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		The White House conducted an investigation, and my understanding is the Department of Defense is still conducting an investigation.
unidentified		Was any disciplinary action taken?
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		From the White House Investigation Center?
		Yes.
		No, the use of Signal was not only authorized, it's still authorized and highly recommended.
unidentified		Would you recommend the use of Signal for classified information to be shared between folks who have access to again?
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		We followed the recommendation, almost the demand, to use end-to-end encryption, but there was no classified information shared.
chris coons ▲ ● ▼		Did you speak to Secretary Hegset about his decision to share detailed information on the specifics of an imminent military strike?
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		What we spoke about, Senator, was a highly successful mission that did something that something that the Biden administration did not do was actually target the Houthi leadership.
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		We subsequently saw a ceasefire, an increase in shipping, and a drop in attacks on our ships.
chris coons ▲ ● ▼		Well, look, here's what I hear on this exchange, and I want to get to the UN point.
chris coons ▲ ● ▼		At the time, you took responsibility for having added a journalist inadvertently to a signal chat.
unidentified		But it doesn't seem to me that the administration's taken any action to make sure this doesn't happen again.
chris coons ▲ ● ▼		There's been no consequences, and yet the president continues to denounce those who leak information.
unidentified		We both know signal is not a secure way to convey classified information.
unidentified		And I was hoping to hear from you that you had some sense of regret over sharing what was very sensitive, timely information about a military strike on a commercially available app that's not, as we both know, the appropriate way to share such critical information.
michael walz ▲ ● ▼		Again, Senator, I think where we have a fundamental disagreement is there was no classified information on that chat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Back to the calls now.
		David in Maineville, Ohio, Democrat.
		Good morning, David.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I was calling in reference to a caller that called yesterday about taxing guns or firearms, and I thought it was a great point.
		The caller started off by saying I pay for fishing and hunting licenses, and therefore, you know, it could be quite possible that firearms could be taxed.
		And I looked up a little bit about that.
		You know, there's state, obviously, there's sales tax at the state level.
		And federal, it seems like there's an excise tax, I think it was called, and it seems like a tariff to the manufacturers of firearms.
		And possibly either or both could be good.
		You know, possibly remove the excise tax and press it on to the public or do both.
		But I do think it's a great idea and could possibly also help bring more safety to the gun culture that we all live in.
		So I really do think something that should be looked at and could help with the deficit.
		And also, I just wanted to finish off because my prayers and my biggest prayers of all that this war in Ukraine comes to an end as soon as possible.
		So that's thanks for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, David.
		Janet, Arizona, Independent Line.
		Good morning, Janet.
unidentified		Hi.
		I just want to say that we're all being asked to trust technology.
		It's technology that has changed society, and we're being asked to trust it more and more every day with banking and communication.
		Just look at Texas.
		What happened with the failure of technology?
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Dee and Cheney, Washington, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Dee.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Wonderful program this morning.
		Very informational.
		And you ask great questions, too.
		My concern is on tariffs.
		Yesterday, I was placing an order for some funeral flowers.
		And when I was talking with the lady, she said that their prices have gone up 15% due to the tariffs.
		Then later on that day, after dealing with that, I was listening to the evening news, and President Trump was talking about placing tariffs on our medications.
		And it dawned on me that I believe Congress should be setting some limitations on the presidency, not necessarily Donald Trump, but on the presidency, period, because there should be things that people use every day, like their housing, their food, their energy, that should be tariff-free.
		Medication, health care.
		This is getting beyond ridiculous, and it just makes America sound more and more greedy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, thank you.
		And this is the Hill with this headline.
		Trump says he wants Texas GOP to pick up five seats in redistricting.
		It says that President Trump said he hopes Texas Republicans will pick up five seats in the House from a redistricting plan they hope to enact in a special legislative session later this month.
		And here is House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries reacting to that.
unidentified		Real questions need to be asked and answered about the impact of the underfunding of the National Weather Service, the firing of hundreds of employees,
		the apparent absence of preparation as it related to what the Texas state government failed to do in terms of implementing an early warning system to alert people in the Texas Hill Country as to the impending danger.
		There are a lot of questions that need to be resolved on behalf of the people of Texas.
		There is an ongoing search and rescue operation, and lives have been turned upside down as it relates to the historic and devastating floods in the Texas Hill Country.
		But instead of addressing the serious crisis that has affected tens of thousands of lives in unthinkable ways, Donald Trump,
		House Republicans here in Washington, and Governor Abbott are conspiring to rig the Texas congressional map as part of an effort to disenfranchise millions of people in Texas.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		In this country, public servants should earn the votes of the people that they hope to represent.
unidentified		What Republicans are trying to do in Texas is to have politicians choose their voters and undermine free and fair elections.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is an article about what the caller was talking about on pharmaceuticals.
		This is an article on CNBC from July 8th.
		Trump threatens to impose up to 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals, quote, very soon.
		It says he suggested that those levies would not go into effect immediately, saying he will, quote, give people about a year, year and a half.
		That's on CNBC if you want more information on that.
		This is Dave, New Orleans, Republican line.
		Good morning, Dave.
unidentified		Yes, I was listening to the Washington Journal, and they went to court trying to free the Social Security information.
		And now that they have released that information, like last month, I'm getting phone calls on my phone every, like at least 20 between the time I get up, 8 o'clock in the morning till 12 noon, and another 20 from 12 noon to like 7:38 o'clock.
		And I think that that was wrong for them, the Supreme Court, to give them permission to release this information because I'm talking to other people here in New Orleans, and everybody's saying the same thing that they're getting all these phone calls.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Phone calls from who, Dave?
unidentified		Like Trump just approved the new Medicare.
		It's like robo calls.
		They approved the Medicare and they called me over and over again.
		Then I get people calling me saying that this is Dave Jackson.
		I asked who they are and I started saying officer Jackson and they hang up.
		But they constantly calling me over and over again and I spoke to other people here in New Orleans, at least 10, and they're saying the same thing.
		And one person actually said that the Trump administration has been sued for releasing our information, which has created a problem for me because my doctor's call.
		I don't know if it's a doctor calling, and it's creating a lot of stress for me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Dave.
		And here's John Edmund, Oklahoma, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Yeah, hi.
		I'm calling because I heard one of your callers talk about this idea that somehow there's a big conspiracy with the vaccines and all that for COVID.
		And, you know, I lived it.
		I was an ICU doctor taking care of patients during the pandemic.
		And it was real.
		And the people that I saw dying in the ICU, not prettily, were people who either didn't get vaccines or had overimunic compromise.
		They didn't sign up for this.
		These people compromised, they did everything they could to prevent themselves from ending up in the hospital dying of COVID.
		And I just can't let that rest.
		What I saw, what I experienced.
		This is not right.
		It's not right to turn a public health issue into a political chip, you know, that you put on the poker table and try and win a game.
		That's all I really had to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Teresa in Georgia, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Teresa.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a question related to fixed income senior citizens.
		So, say Social Security, we get $1,000 a month.
		Rent is $2,000 a month.
		Where does this leave people on fixed income?
		And I want to say this for all Americans from 18 adulthood till death.
		Why can't we have a cap on inflation, a cap on housing, because this is a very important issue in preventing people who are vulnerable, which I believe all American citizens are vulnerable to becoming homeless.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean, a cap on inflation, Teresa?

▲