C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (12/11/2025) dives into the U.S. seizing Venezuela’s largest oil tanker—disrupting crude exports to China—as callers clash over Maduro’s alleged narco-terrorism ties and Trump’s foreign policy motives, while Democrats like Dina Titus warn of regime-change risks. Simultaneously, the Senate debates healthcare: Republicans push $1,000–$1,500 HSAs with abortion restrictions, calling Obamacare a costly failure, while Democrats fight to extend ACA subsidies before a "devastating cliff" hikes premiums and out-of-pocket costs (e.g., $1,300 MRIs). Critics expose systemic flaws—from FEC quorum failures and corporate-funded campaigns to VA’s lack of pain-patient representation—and tie economic crises to decades of unchecked spending and billionaire tax cuts. The episode underscores how partisan healthcare battles and foreign interventions reflect deeper distrust in governance, with callers demanding transparency, accountability, and systemic reform over symbolic gestures. [Automatically generated summary]
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, the Elections and Government Program Director at the Brennan Center for Justice, Daniel Weiner, will talk about the Supreme Court hearing oral argument on the constitutionality of limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate.
Then North Carolina Republican Congressman Tim Moore talks about the Federal Reserve, the economy, and the future of Affordable Care Act subsidies.
And Indy Star State House reporter Kayla Dwyer discusses the push to redraw Indiana's congressional map ahead of a final floor vote expected in the state Senate today.
And we'll continue our discussion on the future of health care subsidies with Nevada Democratic Congresswoman Dina Titus.
She'll also talk about current Ukraine and Trump administration defense policies and other congressional news of the day.
And this is an article from Bloomberg about that topic with the headline, U.S. Seizes Sanctioned Oil Tanker Off the Coast of Venezuela.
It says that U.S. forces intercepted and seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, marking a serious escalation of tensions between the two countries.
It continues.
A senior Trump administration official referred to the ship as a stateless vessel that was last docked in Venezuela.
And the U.S. action may make it much harder for Venezuela to export its crude, as other shippers are now likely to be more reluctant to load its cargoes.
Most of the nation's oil goes to China, usually through intermediaries, at steep discounts owing to sanctions risk.
It says a few hours later, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on X showing heavily armed forces descending to the ship's deck with a Black Hawk helicopter in a standard commando-style tactic called fast roping.
That's at Bloomberg if you'd like to see more.
And we are showing that video on your screen right now that was released by the Department of Justice.
On our second topic, which is the ACA health insurance enhanced premiums that are set to expire, the Senate is voting today.
By the way, we will have the Senate comes into session at 9:30 today.
And those votes on the ACA subsidies are expected at about 11:30.
And make sure you watch that on C-SPAN 2 if you're interested in following that.
In the meantime, here is Senator Schumer talking about that from yesterday.
This vote is going to be one of the most important votes that they take in the whole term of the Senate, in the whole two years of the Senate.
We have only three weeks away from massive and devastating cliff for millions of Americans.
As you will hear from some of our guests here, this is not just sort of an on-paper accounting political thing.
This is life and death for people.
This is having a decent life or a life where you can hardly cope if you don't get the health care that you need.
Congress should have solved this problem months ago.
Hakeem Jeffries and I asked the Republican leadership and Donald Trump over and over and over again to sit down and come up with a solution to the crisis.
They refused.
We were ready.
We said, let's negotiate.
Let's find a path.
Republicans refused to lift a finger.
They knew the crisis was coming.
But ever since the fight with Hillary Clinton on health care in 1993, the Republican Party has been just intransigent in not helping people, but just helping the special interests, whether it be the drug companies or the insurance companies or hedge funds or whatever else.
They just sat there, did nothing, and now the day of reckoning is coming.
And it's the day of reckoning for millions of Americans who are going to lose their health care.
It says that the Senate is poised to vote on Thursday, that's today, on two separate plans aimed at addressing spike in health care costs that are expected for tens of millions of Americans who receive Enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits unless Congress acts.
Both plans, one put forward by Democrats and the other championed by Republicans, are almost certain to fail.
Again, you can watch that on C-SPAN 2 starting at 9:30.
We've got two Republican senators, and they don't, they're on board.
We're elected governor down here, most likely.
And Marshall Blackburn is going to do away with tea theory we have here in the States, which is, you know, I like Medicaid, but we just do call tea here.
And it's just going to devastate people.
But I appreciate you people at the people call because this is the only voice.
All right, Charles, let's hear from Mary, a Democrat in Fort Washington, Maryland.
You're on the air, Mary.
Good morning.
unidentified
Yes, good morning, C-Span.
Good morning, Mimi.
I think what's going on right now is absolutely illegal.
The tanker being seized.
What's for?
We have our own oil.
What this is is an absolute invasion of another country because of their oil, and it needs to stop.
And the ACA, and they call it Obamacare because they want people to hate it.
Many Republicans don't even realize it's the same thing.
And I believe that the Republican Party, the toxicity of number 47 is so great that they're going to have to extend the subsidies because they won't have a choice.
Because if they don't do that, they're going to ruin people's lives.
And I dare them to have a town hall meeting right now.
Right now, I think the administration is illegal, and number 47 should be impeached and removed from office.
And the Republican Party should all fail next year in the 26th elections because it's going to be a Democratic wave because of the toxicity of number 47.
Apparently, nothing's changed in 255 years, correct?
It's the same government and corporate fascism that funded the Nazis, funded the Bolshevik Revolution, and we're at it again because now we got a bunch of corporations and a corporate fiction in Washington, D.C., raping and pillaging the common man to take taxes away so they can give it to the rich.
If it's no good and you cut it out, and did everything go out of control and people don't have enough money to pay for health care, and if it's stay in place, everybody can manage to keep things down, the prices.
Venezuela, Trump wants the all.
There's minerals over there that he wanted.
He wanted in Iceland.
He wants to take that country over.
Number three, he may want to start the war so he can stay in power because once the war is gone, the president has to stay there.
First, regarding Venezuela, I do not believe that President Trump intends to go to war with Venezuela because he believes in ending wars, not starting wars.
Next, regarding the health care proposals, I was very impressed when I heard Senator Bill Cassidy speak about his plan to put $2,000 in the pocket of every citizen,
and that would be from for the minor, any type of health care initially that's needed will be paid for by the government, not by insurance companies.
And he plans to get insurance companies out of the equation to a great extent, which would be wonderful.
It is not regarded as a Republican bill versus a Democratic proposal.
Rather, as an American plan, and anyone who's heard what he has to say about this, particularly Democrats, would logically, if it were logical, they would want to go along with this because it would be such an enormous improvement over what we have right now, just throwing money down the drain.
This is a Senate Republican plan that will be voted on today.
Let's put it on the screen so we can go through the details of it.
So, it replaces expiring ACA-enhanced subsidies with a health savings account, deposits of up to $1,500 into the HSA for individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty line.
So, this, it would be if you're between the ages of 18 to 49, you would get $1,000.
If you're between 50 to 64, you would get $1,500.
It bars the funds from being used for abortion or gender transition services.
That's from Reuters.
Now, the Senate Democrat, the Democratic health care proposal says this.
It extends expiring ACA enhanced subsidies for three years, and it continues to cap out-of-pocket premiums to 8.5% of income.
That's from the Hill.
So, those are the two proposals being voted on today in the Senate, and we're getting your thoughts on that and the oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
So, the Obamacare, it was called the Affordable Care Act.
What happened?
Why is it so unaffordable?
And why does it keep getting more unaffordable when it was called the Affordable Care Act?
That's one question I'd love an answer.
My second comment about Venezuela is they had an election.
Maduro didn't concede, and so at that point, it became a narco-state.
They're sending poison into our country, and my party seems to be more concerned about the drug dealers' rights than the life and health and well-being of American citizens.
But that just seems to be the case in everything we talk about, whether it's Garcia and where he gets deported to, or if he gets to stay a Michigan dad or whatever it was.
I mean, really everything.
My party has become so corrupt that they're against everything good for this country.
If it's good for this country, we seem to just hate it.
Okay, so what's your, but wait, what's your solution to that?
You said go get a job.
I mean, what?
unidentified
So if you can work, get a job.
If you're low IQ and I'm not being rude, if you're low IQ and can't get a job where you can support yourself, then we should have safety nets to carry those people.
But it has become just get all you can from our government.
I think Senator Cassidy's plan is probably one of the best plans that has been brought up because this takes all the money away that's being wasted given to the insurance companies.
unidentified
I'm pretty sure it's like 20% from every person that's on Obamacare.
And the insurance companies won't get that money anymore.
And if the person doesn't use the insurance because they're healthy and they don't need to go to the doctor or anything, the money rolls back to their account the following year.
unidentified
So no money is going to be spent.
I really wish people would look into this and realize that this is a really good policy.
Well, the premiums will go up on the ACA if they're not extended.
But in this plan, the premiums would go up, but you would get an HSA for your expenses.
unidentified
So Senator Cassidy thinks that the premiums won't go up because what's going to happen is the insurance companies are going to have to come to fruition.
They're really going to have to pay attention to what's going on, and it's going to become a more competitive market.
unidentified
And if it becomes a more competitive market, it would be in their worst interest to raise premiums and do that because people are going to be able to go out into the free market of health care.
You can find an MRI cheaper and people will go and do the MRIs at a cheaper rate so that the ones that are charging more are going to have to adjust their prices.
He is the minority leader in the Senate, but you never show John Thune.
unidentified
And John Thune gets up every day and he does a speech just like Chuck Schumer.
In all fairness, I really wish that you would show John Thune a little bit more because, you know, it kind of slights us Republicans that we don't intend to do that, but here is Senator Thun talking about the ACA on the Senate floor yesterday.
The Democrat proposal, which is a three-year extension of the status quo, is an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare's spiraling health care costs.
So if we do this, we extend this for three years at a cost of $83 billion, taxpayers, $83 billion to the taxpayers.
What happens after three years?
Another three-year extension or patch, as Obamacare costs continue to spiral?
Republicans will offer up something as an alternative.
And just as a point of fact, it has some contains some provisions in it, which tries to move us away from a couple of the features of the Obamacare exchanges.
One is it tries to get the money in the hands of the American people.
And so, and by doing that, creating health savings accounts where money flows into the health savings accounts that individuals control rather than having it controlled by the insurance companies.
Now, you still get your insurance in the marketplace, but now you would have more dollars at your discretion to decide how you are going to use them.
Instead of taking a silver plan in the Obamacare Exchange, you might take a bronze plan.
A bronze plan would mean you're paying less for it, sometimes might have a higher deductible, but with the proposal that we're going to put forward, there would be money coming in to these HSAs that the individual would control.
So it's about individual control versus government control, first and foremost.
This says, Obamacare customers with sky-high premiums will get no help through Cassidy's plan.
Democrats and policy experts say it says with the enhanced subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, Democrats say they see no choice but to extend them.
It says the article starts, it's too little, too late for Senator Bill Cassidy's Obamacare subsidy compromise.
And it says that the fierce pushback to Cassidy's proposal, it says Cassidy's plan, which has not yet, which has been written up in a bill now, involves taking money for an enhanced tax credit used to pay down premiums and giving it to consumers via health savings account.
The base tax credit passed as part of the original ACA will remain in place.
The HASA can be used, it says, there are some major caveats to Cassidy's plan, according to experts.
There are four tiers for ACA plans, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze.
Each plan must cover the same benefits, but the cost-sharing amounts are widely different.
For instance, a bronze plan has low premiums but higher co-pays and deductibles, whereas a gold or platinum plan has the opposite.
That's at Politico.
If you'd like a little bit more information on the premiums and the proposed HSA and how they would impact each other, here is Dolores in New York, Independent Line.
Hi, Dolores.
What do you think?
unidentified
Hi.
I just have something to say about the war with Venezuela.
I mean, we are so we are thinking we are nearly a trillion dollars in debt, and then now we're going to start a war with Venezuela.
All of a sudden, Maduro is a bad guy.
And I know Maduro has been very critical of Israel genocide in Gaza.
So, I mean, in all fairness, the majority of American politicians are corrupt.
So, do we want other countries to come here and take care of it for take care of them for us?
As a matter of fact, for the right price, they'll allow the genocide, they'll fund it, deny it, justify it, and then turn around the world about human rights.
I think what this should, modeled on, I don't know, already, modeled on British NHS, NHS, which you have either private care or people private or just for free and health care itself.
And this is Donald in Raleigh, North Carolina, Independent Line.
Hi, Donald.
unidentified
Good morning.
I just want to say, if you look back at any public law in the United States that's over five years old, it will read as amended.
And the reason is because very few laws in the U.S. are implemented in perfect form.
If you go back to 1935 when Social Security was first enacted, well, there's been like 10 or 15 amendments to add, like for example, it used to be only the way journal was covered, then the wage earner and the spouse, then the way journal and the spouse and the children.
And all additional branches of coverage extended from that.
And the reason was because it wasn't working in its original form.
Obamacare could have been the same thing.
Problem was the Republican Party did not want a black man to have credit for having enacted major health care legislation and reform in the United States.
And one of the major things they did was fix it so, they made a change so that people didn't have to have coverage.
One thing about any kind of insurance, I don't care if it's life insurance or health insurance, you're insuring lives because if you have a catastrophic incident, there's no way you're going to have enough money to pay for it unless you're very wealthy.
So they spread the coverage over millions of people, which makes the cost reasonable for everybody who has the coverage.
But they took that option away.
So everybody didn't have to have it.
Now, on C-SPAN, I heard a legislator say one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
I forget who he was or what his name was, but he said the Affordable Care Act was a waste anyway because only like 60% of the people even used it last year.
Well, you apply that same logic to life insurance.
Suppose somebody says, well, I wasted that $800 I paid in life insurance last year because I didn't collect owner.
I didn't die.
That's the same kind of logic that Republican legislator was using.
All right, Donald, let's talk to Lillian in Temple Hills, Maryland, Democrat.
Hi, Lillian.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
How are you?
Good.
I was talking about the ACA, and something said to Google it up and compare it.
So I did that on Bing, and the IA said that the Affordable Care Act was a better solution to our problem as far as healthcare is concerned.
But also, my opinion is that if they're going to give you this money for you to select your own health insurance and to pay for it, the amount of money that they want to offer up is not enough to cover not even a couple of months to make the payment on the insurance company.
So to me, that's just a waste.
And they haven't sat down long enough to focus on how to get the program organized.
And threatening war against Venezuela, I think, is a major mistake.
I mean, remember, President Trump ran in part saying we've been engaged in all of these forever wars, these conflicts that we've gotten sucked into that have wound up costing Americans far more than we benefited from.
And I think there were a lot of people who were sympathetic to that after 20-plus years of various wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
He's expanding the idea of where we should go to war against all drug traffickers, apparently, and now against any country in the Western Hemisphere that he doesn't think is towing the American line.
unidentified
We should not be trying to dominate the Western Hemisphere.
There are two topics that we are getting your comments on.
That is the seizure of the oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.
And also, the Senate is voting on health care today.
We're getting your comments on either or both of those.
This is Delray Beach, Florida, Republican, Michael.
Good morning.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Hi, good morning.
I just want to start out by saying that, you know, this Democratic Party, you know, Schumer and Jeffries, I never heard any.
These people are such thieves and such liars.
It's just unbelievable how people could believe anything that comes out of their mouths.
I mean, Trump is so far ahead of these people.
It's just funny.
They want to try to save every single piece of money that they're saving.
I mean, I can't understand how these people could be for open borders, letting people bring drugs into the country.
I can't believe how they could complain about this oil tanker being seized when they're giving our enemies oil so that they could bring drugs into our country.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Michael really need to stop watching the fake news, and they've got to stop letting them brainwashing them because they're spreading so much false rhetoric.
They're just sickening that this is even allowed to go on.
All right, Michael, here's Sheila, Youngstown, Ohio.
Democrat.
Hi, Sheila.
unidentified
Oh, hi.
Well, first of all, about the drugs coming into the country, I know that Trump doesn't care about that because he pardoned the ex-Honduran president.
He had the most violent drug cartel, 400 tons of cocaine he brought in.
And Trump pardoned him.
And guess who was one of the prosecutors in the case?
It was his own personal attorney, Emil Bove, who looks like Nosferrato.
He's one of Trump's henchmen.
Trump just made him a judge.
So now he went to the rally, which was illegal for a judge to go to.
But he was also, Emil was also the one who said, oh, no, we'll do what we want.
Just ignore those judges' rules.
So he doesn't believe in the rule of law.
We don't have the rule of law anymore.
Is that worrisome to anybody?
And concerning the ACA, the GOP just ate that into you, folks.
They had 15 years to come up with something.
They did 70 times trying to get rid of the ACA.
They didn't come up.
Now, in the last couple of days, oh, we're going to give you a health.
Now, what are you going to do with the health savings account?
What are you going to do with $2,000?
Do you think anybody is, what am I supposed to call around looking for health insurance for that amount of money?
And everybody's, please ask the senators and the congressmen.
Their insurance is subsidized just like everybody else is in the country.
And there are some people, and the people who need ACA, they do work.
They're your farmers, your small business owners, people who are home with their disabled children, people who are 55 that they have cancer, so they can't work.
I don't understand what the heck is wrong with these people.
It's like, if you think you deserve health care, why doesn't your neighbor deserve it?
What she said earlier about Emil Bove, who's now a judge, says the New York Times, Trump's pardon of Honduran ex-president erases top loyalist triumph.
Emil Bove's work as a prosecutor before he was a Trump lawyer and official helped lead to the conviction of the former Honduran leader whom President Trump freed this week.
This is Marvin in Texas, a Republican.
Go ahead, Marvin.
unidentified
Good morning.
First of all, unfortunately, most of the people in the United States is extremely uninformed.
They do not necessarily look into the background of most of the stuff that's going on.
As far as the Congress, your last person said something about the Congress that their insurance is subsidized.
No, their insurance is free, paid for by us.
I think that's wrong.
If the people in Congress, when Obamacare was made, the Congress should have had to go to Obamacare themselves, and then it would have never happened the way it is.
Second of all, I'm an older person, and I have been getting calls, many of them, 10, 12, 16 a day, and they're asking how old I am.
If I was under 65, I would qualify for them to even talk to about the Obamacare.
If I'm over 65 and have Medicare, they didn't even want to talk to me.
And when you do talk to one of them, majority of them have a very foreign accent.
I believe that there is so much crime going on.
It looks like we're now finding out that the insurance companies have people on their list that they're collecting money from the government for that actually aren't even being insured.
If the person is insured, they don't even know it.
It's a way for the insurance companies to slam money from the government now to the oil tanker.
Yep.
Maduro isn't even the democratically elected president of Venezuela.
The lady who has been elected legally, she's been in hiding for over a year.
This is a dictator who has killed and run off over a large portion of his participants, the people of Venezuela.
So, Marvin, we're running out of time, but I did want to show what you were talking about, which is the opposition leader.
This is the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
Opposition leader Machado fled Venezuela for Norway by land, sea, and air.
You might remember that she did win the Nobel Peace Prize this year.
Coming up later this morning on the Washington Journal, we'll continue our conversation about the U.S.-Venezuela tensions and the future of ACA subsidies with Republican Congressman Tim Moore of North Carolina.
But first, after the break, a major campaign finance reform case was before the Supreme Court earlier this week.
Daniel Weiner from the Brennan Center explains what's at issue and where the court might be headed.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the island to a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Okay, so first tell us about the Brennan Center, your mission, and what you do there.
unidentified
Sure.
The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute.
We're focused on issues of democracy and justice affiliated with NYU School of Law.
And so we work on money and politics, voting rights, other democracy issues, as well as a suite of other issues related to the health of American society and American democracy.
So on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a case called National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission.
Tell us about that.
unidentified
So this is a case that is a lawsuit brought by the National Senatorial Committee of the Republican Party, as well as Vice President JD Vance when he was a senator and various other plaintiffs.
And it challenges a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limits how much national political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
And that's a technical term that means, you know, sort of in cooperation with them as opposed to independently.
They're pretty much on the same page anyway, aren't they?
unidentified
Right.
So here's the thing.
So federal law puts a limit on how much you can give to a federal candidate.
It's a little over $3,000.
Federal law also puts limits on how much you can give to a political party, but it's much, much higher.
And right now, political parties can raise checks of upwards of a million dollars.
If you have that limit on candidates and the party can just coordinate with the candidate and can basically pay their bills, that means that that candidate limit is kind of meaningless, right?
So we limit how much money can be filtered through the parties to go to the candidates.
And, you know, this is actually a pretty common concept in campaign finance law.
It sounds a little technical, but it's an important thing to have if you want to have contribution limits for candidates, which most people agree is necessary to prevent corruption.
And it's something the Supreme Court has said too.
Here, I'll give you this big check, as long as you do this for me once you get in office.
unidentified
Yes.
Now, I want to be clear.
That's probably narrower than what most people think of when they think of corruption, right?
But under the law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated, that that is the only type of corruption that can be used to justify campaign finance limits.
If you'd like to join the conversation about campaign finance, the Supreme Court case that is ongoing, that oral arguments were just on Tuesday.
You can join our conversation.
The lines are Republicans 202748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202748-8002.
The name of the case, as I mentioned, NRSC versus the FEC.
But the FEC is on board with not having these spending limits on coordination.
So who's arguing against this?
unidentified
Yeah, it's a little confusing.
So the FEC is an independent federal agency, right, that regulates campaign finance.
And the FEC, which actually does not have a quorum of commissioners at the moment, President Trump fired one of the commissioners and then a couple others left, is not responsible for taking litigation positions in the Supreme Court.
So the Trump administration has taken the position that these rules are unconstitutional and is not defending them.
Technically, that's not the FEC, actually.
Technically, that's the Trump administration, which at least for now is separate from the FEC.
But at the moment, that's right, the government is not defending the law in court, which is very unusual, although it has happened before.
Your answer is suggesting to me that every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse.
You're telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up, yes, in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminishing another voice, that of the party.
Now you want to now tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party.
Well, that was such a powerful point from Justice Sotomayor.
So one of the questions here is whether these rules make sense just as a matter of policy.
But the other question is, are they constitutional?
And she's drawing that distinction of, you know, we can debate whether you want this rule or not, but who should be making that decision?
And I think what she's implying is that the court, the Supreme Court, is not very well equipped to make these judgment calls.
Those judgment calls really belong to Congress.
And that's actually a point we also made in our brief before the court.
You know, there are a lot of questions around political parties, right, and the role they play in our democracy, but those are policy questions.
Those aren't legal questions.
And the court does not have a great track record in this area when it constitutionalizes all these issues and substitutes its own judgment for Congress.
If these limits were overturned, or even if they're not, which is the case right now, how much enforcement is actually going on?
I mean, is there somebody in the government saying, hey, hold on, you cannot coordinate with your candidate, or you coordinated for this much money, and that exceeds the limits?
unidentified
Well, that's, of course, the elephant in the room here.
So the Federal Election Commission is the agency that is supposed to be doing that.
At the moment, and for the past few months, it does not have a quorum of commissioners.
So there will be very little, if any, enforcement.
The criminal provisions can be enforced by the Department of Justice, but in general, the FEC is not going to be doing anything.
Because there's no quorum, so they can't do anything?
unidentified
Because there's no quorum, but I have to say, even before they lost their quorum, they had a pretty dismal enforcement record.
So there's a couple things going on.
There's what should the law be?
Then there's also how should the law be enforced.
And when you hear arguments in front of the court about, well, we can strike down this rule because, you know, there are all these other provisions, you should also be thinking about, well, will those other provisions or even this provision, as you said, actually be enforced?
And it is actually a big challenge right now for our campaign finance system.
All right, let's talk to callers and start with Nathan in Largo, Florida, Independent Line.
Hi, Nathan.
unidentified
Good morning.
This is more of an opinion versus a question.
My opinion is for us lower class Americans, the average hardworking clock in eight hours a day, if I was to choose to run thinking my ideal was the best for the country as an independent, I think, and this again is an opinion, we should get the money out of the way.
Lower class and poverty-restricking people couldn't imagine running for president because we need millions.
So when you get the outside dark money, political money involved to people who are nobodies, who I consider, you know, us lower class people who has to clock in eight hours a day, but have a vision for the country, that dream of running for president don't exist because of money.
So I think it should, you know, result back to whenever the election started, where people had to get out, you know, and knock on doors theirselves, not send a party out, not send millions of troops, even though that helps and it broadens the range.
But that's where us nobodies don't stand a chance because we can't compete with millions and billionaires if we was to, you know, run for our ideals.
I mean, one of the things we tend to talk about with campaign finance is corruption.
I do think we should also be talking about how the role money plays in our political system keeps a lot of regular American citizens from being able to run for office.
And it is a huge, huge problem.
One that, you know, quite frankly, the Supreme Court has made kind of not appropriate to consider in crafting the law in many instances.
And I think that's a mistake, right?
And that goes to the larger picture here, which is that we have this system dominated by private money and we have a Supreme Court that unfortunately has substituted its own judgment for Congress and has made it harder for Congress to take a lot of the concerns, frankly, that people like Nathan have, which are very widespread into account.
So he brings up the question of like, for instance, health insurance companies.
And then a lawmaker will have, obviously, like what's going on now with the ACA enhanced subsidies extension.
How does that work?
unidentified
Well, I mean, first of all, thank you for correcting the record.
I'm not a politician.
The Brennan Center is nonpartisan.
But I think he's pointing to the real world impact of these issues.
So this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
It impacts the policies the government enacts.
Certainly, our entire healthcare system is set up in a way that is responsive to all these companies that have spent millions and millions of dollars.
I'm not going to comment on the specific conduct of any politician here, but again, we have these structural inequities and inequalities in our system, and money and politics is very much part of that story.
One of the interesting things, right, is that this is a concern that's shared across the political spectrum, right?
We have a lot of polarization today and a lot of partisanship.
But when you ask Americans, do they feel like the system is rigged?
Do they feel like the wealthy get a better deal out of our political system than everyone else?
Is there some best practices from other industrialized democracies that we can look at?
I mean, you need money in politics.
You have to buy ads.
You have to have a ground game.
unidentified
So you're absolutely right.
Politics costs money and it has to come from somewhere.
And there are a couple solutions, right?
Under the current law, you can obviously impose reasonable limits.
And then the Brennan Center has been a strong advocate for public financing in elections.
So in New York State, for instance, the state matches small contributions from people's constituents.
And so it tries to essentially push politicians to raise more money in their districts, raise more money while campaigning.
I do think over the long term, we also need to do something about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, right?
I mean, I think it has really led us astray.
That may mean amending the Constitution, which is kind of a lost art, and to give the government more leeway, essentially, to put reasonable regulations in place.
But there is still a lot they can do even without that.
Congress has tried repeatedly to pass new campaign finance rules.
They've passed the House and usually been stymied in the Senate by the filibuster.
But I think that there are solutions on the table and it's just getting the political will to pass them.
When you say public financing, how much money are we talking about?
Because you have an article here on your website.
Dark money hit a record high of $1.9 billion in the 2024 federal races.
That's just the dark money.
unidentified
Right, right.
You know, elections are expensive.
In the big scheme of the federal budget, you know, the amount it would cost to put in a real public financing system would kind of be a drop in the bucket.
And again, we come back to this point that the money has to come from somewhere.
So what's interesting about this system is the federal government is tens of trillions of dollars enterprise, but you can direct policy in the federal government for a tiny fraction of that.
And so it doesn't actually take, in the big scheme of things, that much money to dictate policy.
And we have to think about where is that money coming from.
Here's David in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hey, good morning.
I was struck listening to the argument by how within the two-party framework, the whole conversation was limited.
At one point, they were talking about how the parties have lost some influence compared to super PACs because of Citizens United.
And I found myself for a minute kind of being like, oh, poor Democrats, poor Republicans.
But then I snapped out of it.
And it was like, no, wait, I found myself wondering, maybe you have some comments on a Cornell West or an Andrew Yang watching this.
Are there any thoughts from a third party perspective?
That was my main question.
Then just quickly, because you mentioned the FEC, the argument the day before on the independence of commissions, I didn't know if you have any comments on whether that might touch the FEC.
Thanks.
Well, that was a very astute question on both fronts.
On the first, the caller's first question, I would say that parties have a lot of flaws.
They are a very important part of our system of government.
And the U.S. for most of its history has been a two-party system.
What you tend to see is you see insurgents sort of trying to take over one of the major parties.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of people that advocate for changing the law, including campaign finance laws, to make it easier to set up a third party and to have third parties run.
I think that that is something that, regardless whether we do that or not, we have to recognize that political parties are integral to our democracy.
You can do it with two parties, you could have multiple parties, but we need our parties to be strong.
The question is who should be taking the steps to do that?
Should it be Congress or the courts?
On the second question, the question of FEC independence is huge, right?
Like, President Trump was the first president ever to just fire an FEC commissioner without naming a replacement.
And the FEC, you know, we do need to ask ourselves the stakes in the case that was argued the day before this case is do you want one person to have that much power over the federal government, including, you know, over agencies that regulate political communications.
I believe there actually, even if the court generally comes out in favor of curtailing independent agencies, there are reasons to think that the FEC might actually still be independent because it's special.
It's created to a special provision under the Constitution called the Elections Clause.
Nevertheless, I do think there's this broader question of do we want one person to have that much power?
And Mr. Wiener, I'd like to ask you your opinion on when Terry Cruz went before the Supreme Court, when he loaned himself, I believe it was like $250 million for his campaign, and then asked the Supreme Court to see if he could reimburse himself with donors' money.
I'd like your opinion on that.
And then I believe that Citizens United should be overturned.
So can you just remind us about Citizens United and the impact that it has had?
unidentified
Yes, so Citizens United was a 2010 case.
And what the court held there was that independent campaign spending by corporations and unions cannot be limited.
And lower courts took that ruling and they concluded, therefore, that not only can that spending not be limited, but the contributions to organizations that only make so-called independent spending also cannot be limited.
That gave us super PACs.
The thing about Citizens United is that it had all of these assumptions that all that spending would actually be independent.
Citizens United made a big deal about transparency.
It said, why are you worried?
You know, the court, all of the spending also be disclosed so people can still hold politicians accountable and donors accountable.
What happened is that none of the court's predictions were true in Citizens United.
We've had oceans of dark money flood into our elections.
It's actually dark money, meaning we don't know where it came from.
unidentified
We don't know where it came from, right?
Thank you for making me define that.
Dark money, the donors, the ultimate donors are not disclosed.
The spending is actually hand in glove with politicians.
I think that the most troubling thing about Citizens United is the court just flat out said in that case, this won't cause people to lose confidence in their government.
You look at poll after poll after poll, that is exactly what has happened, is people have lost trust in government, like the callers today.
That case was a lawsuit brought by Senator Cruz challenging limits on the amount of fundraising that you can do after the election.
And candidates will do that often because they'll have campaign debts, or in some cases, like Senator Cruz, they have loaned money to their own campaign.
And, you know, the rule in that case, we argued it was constitutional.
You could say that it was a rule that didn't, you know, it maybe wasn't as well crafted as it could have been.
But again, the issue in that case was who should be deciding?
Should the Supreme Court, nine lawyers, none of whom now has ever run a campaign or really been involved in the electoral process, or should that decision belong with Congress and the FEC?
And obviously we disagreed.
The court decided to substitute its own judgment for Congress and the American people.
You got powerful people and powerful industries funneling all this money to candidates.
I think third-party campaign commercials from certain industries ought to be outlawed altogether because they're making those campaign donations for their industry and to benefit their sales.
Here's another thing.
We're all complaining about money buying everything.
Maybe the government ought to give candidates X amount of dollars and do away with outside donations.
Then the candidate would have to get out and speak to the people instead of spending a billion dollars in 100 days.
It amounted to nothing, a waste, inefficient.
Money can't continue to buy this, but I would think maybe to regulate somehow or another, like you said, all this outside money coming in.
You were just talking about money, you didn't know where it came from.
Maybe that could be part of the answer.
It seems kind of complicated, of course, everything is.
And I'd like to say one other thing, kind of a sidebar here.
We have a $38 trillion deficit.
One day the bill is going to come due, and that will affect us all, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whoever you are, from Main Street to the richest people, probably.
And one day that bill will come due.
And I think the government needs to start to pay attention to that.
And I was struck actually by Jay's last comment about the deficit, right?
Because the question of how our political system operates is very much tied to how the government confronts these sorts of problems, you know, and who has to take responsibility for making up that deficit.
You know, federal procurement is, for instance, it's almost three-quarters of a trillion-dollar industry.
Federal contractors also spend a huge amount on contributions.
And you wonder, for instance, is that meaning that some federal contracts are not going to the people offering the best services for the best deal?
So how we set up our political system affects these issues that Americans are worrying about, affordability, the deficit, all of it.
And that's why ultimately I think no matter what issue you care about, fixing the sort of problem of money in politics, right, it has to be part of the equation.
But see, well, let's get a response on campaign finance limits.
unidentified
Those are some really interesting points.
I think two things that struck me.
One is that President Trump's trajectory on these issues is actually a fascinating sort of example, right?
He ran in 2016.
He had a lot less money than Hillary Clinton.
And he railed against Citizens United.
Fast forward to 2024.
He depended more than any presidential candidate really in, or a successful presidential candidate in history on super PACs.
He outsourced a lot of his campaign in swing states to groups run by Elon Musk.
So it's a fascinating transformation.
And the Democrats depend on super PACs too.
The caller, again, your callers are raising great questions.
Who decides, including who sort of administers these rules, is actually a huge question.
We talked a little bit about the Federal Election Commission.
You know, at the Brennan Center, we've advocated for independent agencies.
And I think it should be an agency that's insulated a little bit from the politicians that actually administers this sort of system because I do think it gives whoever does it a lot of power and they can't be putting a finger on the scale for either side.
It's one of the reasons that the president's decision to fire an FEC commissioner earlier this year troubled a lot of us, you know, just because you want these agencies to be insulated to some degree from partisan control.
Later this morning on the Washington Journal, Republican Congressman Tim Moore of North Carolina joins us to talk about U.S.-Venezuela tensions and the future of ACA subsidies.
But first, coming up after the break, it's open forum.
You can start calling in now.
Here are the lines.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Past president.
Why are you doing this?
This is outrageous.
This is a tango root clause.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook Chief Correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides fridays at 7 and 10 p.m eastern and pacific only on c-span if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online at c-span.org Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
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.
I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home.
unidentified
And I wonder what grade you would give A ⁇ .
A plus.
A plus, Thursday, watch an exclusive interview with President Trump by Politico White House Bureau Chief host Dasha Burns, talking about the Ukrainian-Russia war, the economy, health care, immigration, and the future of the Republican Party.
Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-SPAN.org.
Fed cuts rates as split clouds action in 2026, unemployment fears versus inflation, anxiety.
Well, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, was speaking to reporters yesterday after their meeting, and this is what he had to say.
unidentified
Just first turning to the statement.
Just to be clear, we're on the same page here.
The insertion of the phrase, considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments, does that indicate that the Fed is now on hold until there's some clearer signal from inflation or jobs or the evolution of the economy along the baseline outlook?
So, yes, the adjustments since September bring our policy within a broad range of estimates of neutral.
And as we noted in our statement today, we are well positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks.
That new language points out that we'll carefully evaluate that incoming data.
And also, I would note that having reduced our policy rate by 75 basis points since September and 175 basis points since last September, the Fed funds rate is now within a broad range of estimates of its neutral value, and we are well positioned to wait to see how the economy evolves.
If you want to see the complete news conference, you can certainly do that at c-span.org.
It's on our website.
Here's Art in Chicago, Illinois, Independent Line Art Yarn Open Forum.
unidentified
Good morning.
I have something I've been thinking about as far as our refocusing directions about our country.
I believe across this country there are millions of people that have these little boxes called the Showtime Echo.
Every morning or anytime you want, just tell it, good morning, and able to ask you to repeat with it the Pledge of Allegiance.
We have forgotten how strong these words are.
These are the words that make us citizens of this country.
We own this country every square inch, all 340 million of us.
The fact is, we've lost every direction.
It's time to refocus on what makes us who we are.
We are citizens of this country.
We took that Pledge of Allegiance since we were little kids in our classrooms every morning standing, putting our hands over our heart and repeating, I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
These words are powerful.
These words reconfirm our belief that we are this country's best asset.
And in Montana on the line for independence, Corey, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
A couple of things.
First, on campaign finance, I would love for any political candidate who has received money from a firm that has been, that is later convicted of fraud, for them to have to return all that money to the U.S. Treasury.
We have a lot of fraud going on different places, but right now the current one they're talking about a lot is the Medicare and the Obamacare.
And we know there was billions of dollars of fraud, and a lot of that money went to politicians from both sides, and they need to return it.
Second issue, I'm from Montana.
We still have in the West millions of acres of standing dead trees.
I would rather pay money to have the trees harvested and use the wood than pay money to fight forest fires.
And here's Stephen, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Democrat.
Good morning, Stephen.
unidentified
Yes, good morning.
I wanted to make a comment about all the negative comments that are being made about the Somali population in this country.
But most in particular, that I think it was yesterday you had a guest on that spoke very negatively about Ilham Omar and that she didn't love this country and that her allegiance was not to the United States, but it was to Somali.
I want to make a comment about that because I am of the Jewish faith and I'm a senior citizen.
First of all, I'd like to say you get an awful lot of independent callers.
And once every three months, you ought to list independents on top, the phone number for independents on top ahead of Democrats and Republicans.
But I want to get out of affordability.
We ought to go back to silver coinage and to spend it in stores, not to hoard it or to accumulate it like we do now with silver at record prices and gold at record prices, but to spend it.
And the Met and the Treasury ought to come up with dollar coins, silver coins, 90% silver coins, $5 coins, $10 coins, $20 coins, $50, $100 coins, and spend it, spend it, spend it.
And this will contribute to deflation and contribute to less inflation and contribute to stabilize prices like we had before 1964 when we got rid of silver coinage and our money monetary system in the United States.
And Peter in Florida, Aligned for Democrats, you're on the air.
unidentified
Yeah, good morning.
Hey, one of my concerns is: first of all, I'm the veteran, so I'm lucky with my health care.
But what concerns me is I was watching you guys earlier when the Republicans offered their health package, where it was certain ages of people was 1,000, and then other people were 1,500.
And I forget where the cutoff thing was, but I'm 74 years old.
Here's Steve in Mashpee, Massachusetts, Republican.
Hi, Steve.
unidentified
Good morning.
Hey, I want to talk about the ACA, and I want to talk about the money that the government spends on it and the fact that, you know, we were saying, you know, we've talked for days about the ACA and it's 10% of the health care.
And I don't remember ever talking about 10% of anything on CNN for days and days and days.
And up next, we'll have two lawmakers on both sides of the aisle join us to talk about those expiring ACA subsidies and rising tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela.
Later this morning, we'll speak with Democratic Congresswoman Dina Titus of Nevada.
She's a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
But first, after the break, we'll be joined by Republican Congressman Tim Moore of North Carolina, who sits on the budget committee.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity, Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend, as the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, join American History TV for our series, America 250, and discover the ideas and defining moments of the American story.
This week at 11 a.m. Eastern, historians discuss the inspirations for the American Revolution and the personalities of the founders, hosted by the Jack Miller Center and the American Revolution Institute.
And then at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, we'll explore gun manufacturing in America and its impact on mass production.
And at 9 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, Douglas Brinkley charts the evolution of executive orders.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Book TV Every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At noon Eastern, Matthew Davis tells the history of Mount Rushmore, including economic and political forces that influenced the memorial's creation in 1925.
And then beginning at 2 p.m. Eastern, coverage of the annual Boston Book Festival, hear from authors discussing gambling, sports culture, Silicon Valley, and more.
And at 9.15 p.m. Eastern, British journalist Piers Morgan argues that there's been a global rejection of wokeism and discusses what he thinks the post-woke world would be like.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series, Sunday with our guest best-selling author, Arthur Brooks, who has written 13 books about finding purpose, connection, and cultivating lasting joy.
His books include Love Your Enemies, Build the Life You Want with co-author Oprah Winfrey and his latest The Happiness Files.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
And in the ACA, the affordable care, I think, affects, what, roughly 10% policyholders is what I understand.
unidentified
So it's a small population, but to that population, it is important.
So what I can tell you is I do believe one, and I'll speak for me, I believe Obamacare was a mistake.
I would like to see us get rid of that and go to a market-based solution that improves health care coverage, that lowers cost, and that ultimately provides better outcomes.
The issue you have right now is you have, you know, for that ACA population, that small population that's impacted by it, is that you have this deadline that is approaching right now and trying to find a fix so that there's not a sticker shock or a cost expense to those who do qualify and who are getting it and counting on it right now.
So there's sort of three camps, I guess.
There's a camp, as you characterize, I guess, as the moderates who want to expand the ACA or want to extend the ACA, although I think they're asking for some reforms with it as well.
And then there are some who are a little more hawkish on ending the ACA, being done with it.
I'm really between the two positions, frankly.
I do believe that it is, we need this.
I just got here.
I'd have been here, what, 11 months so far.
So we're trying to clean up a mess that has now been in place for 15 years.
And so we need to be sensible in how we go about it and make sure that we're making good decisions.
So The short answer is: I'm open to finding ways to continuing some kind of subsidy for a very, very limited period with an understanding that it's going to result in this eventually going to a market-based system.
You said earlier that access to health care has decreased.
And why do you think that is?
I mean, you did talk about health insurance being getting more and more expensive.
Why is it continuing to get more expensive?
unidentified
And that's the whole thing here, right?
Mimi, before Obamacare, health insurance was less expensive.
I mean, I remember when I bought health insurance, when my family members are paying for health insurance, you could actually afford health insurance.
The co-pays were more reasonable.
The cost, what you actually were charged when you went to the doctor, when you went to the ER, were more reasonable.
Look at the world post-Obamacare.
You go to the ER, I mean, I had emergency surgery a couple months ago to get my gallbladder taken out.
I mean, you get this sticker shock of how much it is.
Then you see all these discounts and this.
There's all this kind of smoke and mirrors in medical billing.
I mean, think about this.
And I'm not trying to go too far afield, but I think it's appropriate to kind of set the table on where we are in health care costs.
Every consumer choice generally you make in your life, you know what you're getting and you know what you're paying, right?
You go to the department store and you buy a pair of pants or whatever, there's a price, you pay it, you get your pants.
You go to McDonald's, you order food, you pay for it, you get it.
When you go for a medical procedure, most people, if they're being honest, I'll tell you, they have no idea what they're ultimately going to have to pay.
They may know about their copay.
They may know about deductibles, and sometimes that doesn't even make sense.
But you go in, you show up, you don't know necessarily what you're going to pay.
So the whole system needs to be reformed.
So it's not just about insurance, it's about cost containment.
Again, that would take up a longer show, that one subject than we have right now.
The reason more people have health care is because of the aging population also, Mimi, and more people on Medicare.
unidentified
That's one of the big statistics.
And then also in terms of how Medicaid has been expanded as well.
And a lot of the Medicaid expansion, not Medicare, the Medicaid expansion has been rife with waste, fraud, and abuse, which is something that we've dealt with earlier this year.
But in terms of what you're talking about, like the folks, the Democrats espouse this like Medicare for all or this basically socialized medicine is what it is, single payer.
unidentified
That would be a travesty.
There's a reason.
There's a reason that people who live in countries that have that kind of health care come to the United States when they can to get better health care because we're a country that believes in medical innovation.
We believe in providing the best care available.
And you can't have that in a completely government-run system.
I mean, look at the post office, right?
The Postal Service versus FedEx versus UPS.
Private enterprise does it cheaper, does it better any day of the week.
And if you'd like to join our conversation with Representative Tim Moore, a Republican of North Carolina, you can start calling in now.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
In Independence 202748-8002.
Congressman, I want to get your reaction to the seizure of the oil tanker, the sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, and your concerns for escalation.
unidentified
You know, I applaud the president in taking a tough stand on Venezuela and on these drug dealers in these narco-states.
I've had the opportunity to visit a number of countries in South America to meet with, I've met with folks who have left Venezuela because of the oppression and what's happening there.
I've talked with law enforcement who talk about how these drugs come in, everything from our Border Patrol, ICE, you name it, ATF, agents who talk about how these things are coming in.
And you have in this case state-sponsored distribution of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs where that government, Mimi, is allowing this toxic poison to come into our country.
And I'm glad the president, that this president has shown the strength to actually step up and say, enough is enough and deal with these guys as they are.
unidentified
They are like foreign terrorist organizations.
They are foreign terrorist states, if you look at this.
What are they doing?
They're killing Americans with these illicit illegal drugs, and they're doing it with that state's blessing.
It's wrong.
And I think you're going to ask about the tanker that was seized?
He is a terrible person who has killed his own citizens, who has oppressed his own population, and who is willfully aiding and abetting the murder of American citizens through drugs and other activities.
The president put in place sanctions to deal with Mexico early on for not doing enough to stem the flow and has encouraged them to deal with these cartels.
And he also designated the illegal drug, you know, the gangs that were doing this also as foreign terrorist actors.
All right, we've got callers waiting to talk to you.
We'll start on the independent line.
Long Island, New York.
Joe, you're on with the congressman.
unidentified
Yes, good morning, Kathy Hollidays.
I was telling the lady before I got put on is that in 2019, I was diagnosed with stage four non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which thank God I beat and I had my last pair scared about about a year ago.
And my wife, a year and a half ago, was diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer.
She's not a young girl.
She's 100 years old.
And we're fighting that now.
And we get a letter in the mail saying that, of course, there's something, I don't know if it's an expiration on coverage or something, but we got to go for a new coverage.
And she was supposed to go for treatment today.
And she's going to call up and tell the oncologists and tell her that we don't have no more coverage.
And my wife has got another one that she had to change over during a year and a half ago.
And she changed over.
But now they're saying that she doesn't have the coverage.
Now, I come from a law-abiding family.
My dad was a police officer.
And back in the 50s and 60s, he had blue cross blue shields.
They covered everything, even if you had a spoon in your finger.
But I told my wife, I says, what we got to do is we got to go down to Texas and we got to go to the board and come in as an illegal and we will get treatment.
Number one, they should not be able to deny you coverage.
If you had Medicare coverage that covered that, they should not be able to deny that.
So I don't know who your congressman is, but you need to call their office, get them engaged in this, and get them involved, because that's the kind of thing when I get calls from folks back home, that's the kind of thing that we jump on, and we get on that quick to help with that.
I have a question about some of the procedures that are on, you know, some of these insurance policies that don't cover some of these procedures like if I wanted to get dental implants, that's not covered.
And I just feel like people that are seniors, that should be a requirement, I feel.
And one thing that we know about good dental care, it's more than just about how you look, your teeth, all that.
unidentified
Good dental care is important, dietary, but also it's a big indicator about heart disease.
Folks who don't have proper dental exams and dental treatment are like many more times likely to have heart attacks and other issues and infections and so forth.
So that is covered.
That's covered under Medicaid.
It's covered under Medicare.
Now, when it comes to Medicaid, states can determine what level of coverage they provide for various services.
My understanding is that most states, if not all states, do cover that.
But I'll tell you, you've got an amazing congresswoman from North Dakota, Julie Fedorcak.
And if you have issues where you're getting through on that, I'm sure you can call her office and she'll be very helpful to you.
By the way, I was looking at the weather the other day.
I've seen you guys have been getting some snow up there.
And so it's been, you live in an absolutely amazing state.
But if you, I'll tell you this, if you have issues like that, or if you're, you know, that's what folks in my job, our offices do is we help folks try to connect to those.
unidentified
So like I say, I know Julie Fatorjek very well.
She does an amazing job.
I bet if you call her, if you've got that, she'll help you.
Christina in Middleboro, Massachusetts, Democrat, good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
First of all, I want to say thank you for taking my call and thank God for C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3.
Well, I wanted to say that since the inception of the ACA until now, Republicans have undermined and tried to destroy the Affordable Care Act.
I mean, I watched all the bipartisan hearings on C-SPAN for the ACA led by Max Backus and Olympia Snow.
And I wanted to remind everybody, you know, go to the Wayback Machine, that there were many options that the Republicans objected to and would not agree with.
So those options were cut from the original plan.
Now, two of the biggest that I can remember were the Republicans would not allow the ACA to negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry.
And the second one was Republicans would not allow a voluntary single-payer option.
That would have made insurance companies have to compete with the government plan and therefore keeping insurance services and prices in line and comprehensive.
And finally, at that time, Republicans didn't act in good faith then.
After undermining the ACA plan, not one Republican voted for it.
Also, we all know over the years Republicans have worked to undermine and destroy affordable health care of any kind for the American people.
Republicans cannot be trusted with health care because they do not act in good faith.
Well, I'm going to say I agree with a couple things you said.
And one is that Republicans have generally opposed, most Republicans opposed Obamacare.
And I'm one of those.
I said that off the get-go.
Why?
Because I don't think Obamacare is working.
I don't think Obamacare is improving health care.
I don't think it's improving costs.
And I think it is a fundamentally flawed system.
I think that private enterprise does it better.
And I think that a system in place that we had before Obamacare, which needed a lot of reforms.
I'll give you that.
It needed a lot of reforms.
And there were a couple of good things out of the ACA.
The portability, the exclusions for prior diseases and so forth.
But those are things that could have been fixed without kind of throwing out the whole system and with this sort of weird hybrid model that we have right now that really is not working.
I mean, I would ask anyone on the Democrat line, whatever, who thinks that Obamacare or the ACA, whatever you want to call it, is a system that's working?
unidentified
I don't think anybody would.
It's not.
And it's been in place 15 years.
Look, I've been here 11 months.
That was before I got here.
I'm here to try to help clean up some of this mess.
And at the end of the day, my friends, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, simply want to just keep throwing more and more money into a plan, into a system that is not working.
So why don't we bring about the reforms that will fix it?
There are a number of things we can do, like HSAs, health savings accounts, allow that to happen.
unidentified
I did like what you said about some of the things with the insurance companies and them getting rich.
But bear in mind, the insurance companies are the ones who are getting rich off of this very system.
Why don't we get rid of all that and then go to a system where if there's going to be any kind of money given, I like what the president said, give it to the individuals who need it with restrictions so they can't just use it for anything, but use it in a way where it has to be for health care coverage.
What about additional tax incentives for employers to provide health insurance coverage?
And Congressman on the HSA, a caller brought up the issue that it's either $1,000 or $1,500, and that's not enough to cover most people's health care needs.
unidentified
So I think whatever the dollar amount is on an HSA, I would agree, probably ought to be more for your health savings account, probably ought to be more in that.
But what you can do is you can look at creative tax policy where you incentivize putting money into health care.
Look, we do the same thing on home mortgages, right?
You get a tax deduction for your interest on your home mortgage.
Why?
Well, we do it because we want to encourage home ownership, which, by the way, is something that's less and less attainable for Americans right now due to four years of Biden and this runaway inflation.
But again, we can get into that if we want to.
I'm glad to talk about anything.
But the reality is we can use tax policy in a way that encourages folks and gives people, frankly, the ability to have additional funds for their own health coverage.
On the Republican line in Bowie, Maryland, Michael, you're on the air.
Michael, are you there?
In Bowie?
Edward in Keyport, New Jersey, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
So I want to know if the government is so wasteful in health care, why do you think that it's so great that we could spend $600 million as of October in some silly regime change in the Caribbean or $80 billion on this ICE Gestapo nonsense?
It doesn't really make any sense.
And as far as healthcare and the government's concerned, I elect the government.
I don't elect private insurance companies, so I don't trust them.
I also want to know if public health care is so great for the VA, why can't the general public have it?
And my last thing is, as far as drugs are concerned, destroying supply will never destroy demand.
You guys need to figure out why people in America want to do so many drugs in the first place.
Yeah, there's a lot of sort of, it reminds me of Seinfeld, like the Festivus poll, the airing of grievances right there.
unidentified
I'll try to hit some of those.
Number one, in terms of calling ICE Gestapo, come on, that's not right.
We don't need any more of this leftist vilification of law enforcement because that's what's leading to violence against our men and women in law enforcement.
So, you know, let's just can it with that mess.
All right.
Second, let's talk about government inefficiency.
If what you're asking for is you're thinking that somehow more government spending is going to improve it, give me an example where that happens.
Third, the comment, I guess, about the Caribbean and Venezuela.
How can you not see that a leader of a country, a socialist leader in our backyard who is willfully funding narco-terrorists, allowing folks to bring these illicit, illegal drugs that are killing Americans, willfully helping them, sending them into our country.
Do you support regime change in Venezuela by force?
unidentified
You know, I'm not going to get ahead of the president on foreign policy.
I'm over here in Congress.
That's the president.
So, I mean, I trust President Trump when it comes to deciding what needs to be done.
But I mean, this is a dangerous time because of dangerous, evil men like Maduro.
And I'm just glad that this president is standing up for our country and for people who live here.
Because, I mean, if you open up your line to people, how many of you know someone, either a family member, a friend, whatever, who has died or had their lives ruined by these illicit, illegal drugs that are coming into the country?
You would be here all day on that.
And the fact that we, I mean, we've got to deal with these things.
And when you've got state sponsored, I mean, actually the government encouraging it, I mean, you've got to deal with that.
And getting back to the health care question, I practiced in the 80s, 90s, and the 2000s, and I saw the health care system deteriorate into a corporate-owned system.
The big corporations figured out there was money in health care, and now all the doctors and all the health care facilities are owned by big corporations, hospitals included.
In the old days, employers provided insurance for their employees.
We now have millions and millions on Medicaid, able-bodied people who don't want to work.
If you tie insurance to employment, and if somebody's not working and they're able-bodied and the employment office tells them, here's a job, you need to take it or else get that back so that we are not under the influence or being owned by corporations.
I don't understand this.
This system used to work, and Medicaid should be for the disabled, for somebody who cannot work.
You know, we got a 60% labor participation rate, which is obscene.
And so the fact that you've got this system in place that doesn't strive on efficiency, that doesn't thrive on what the outcomes are, it's what happens when you have too much government.
unidentified
And I do want to touch on the good point you raised, too, about folks who are able-bodied.
Look, when it comes to Medicaid, Medicaid should be there for those who truly cannot take care of themselves.
Someone who's disabled or suffers an infirmity where they can't work, right?
Or if you're like, say, a single mom and you've got a child at home that you can't work because of that, then that's one thing too.
But someone who is able-bodied, that's got no thing preventing them from working, they should be working, not drawing welfare, not getting any of these other benefits.
unidentified
They need to be helped pull in the cart, not riding on the car.
And what the problem is, we've had some very lax enforcement.
And I would say your home state of California is like an example, unfortunately, where you've had liberal governors like Gavin Newsome and others who turned a blind eye.
They allow illegal aliens to get benefits.
They don't really worry about what people are doing in terms of able-bodied.
A lot of states, like my home state of North Carolina, we dealt with that trying to make sure that only folks who needed it got it.
unidentified
But one big thing with the One Big Beautiful bill or the Working Families Tax Relief was to try to help rein in on that to get rid of the waste, the fraud, and the abuse.
Because here's the deal.
When you have all this waste out there, what happens?
You were a doctor, you saw this.
You saw it didn't raise everybody up.
It lowered it for everybody else.
And so if you've got a system that doesn't work, it results in substandard care for everyone.
And hey, I hope you'll run for Congress from California.
And Congress, Congressman, you're a sponsor of a bill called the Judicial Accountability for Public Safety Act.
Can you briefly tell us about that?
unidentified
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up.
And I filed another bill, by the way, yesterday to say that if an illegal immigrant is arrested and charged with crimes, that there is a presumption that they're a flight risk and that they should be held and not released on bail.
My home state has had some coverage recently of some just ridiculous, some murder and violent assaults that happened by folks in the country illegally.
What we also saw was instances where folks with violent criminal records came before judges over and over again and they were released, get this, on unsecured bonds, right?
unidentified
They would commit a crime, they'd get charged, the police officer would bring them in, they'd come in, they'd get arrested, and sometimes even before the police officer was done filling out their paperwork, the criminal was back out on the streets and they were committing criminal offense over and over again.
And so you look to see how's that happening?
All right, is it a police issue?
No, it wasn't.
It was an issue with magistrates who are those initial judges you go in front of if you're arrested, and then some judges above there who were just letting these folks back out on the street with like no bond and they were committing criminal offenses over and over again with no consequence.
And I said, you ought to be held responsible for that, right?
unidentified
I mean, there ought to be a way where someone is held liable if they act grossly negligently, just sort of willfully turning these folks back out on the street.
And so what this bill does is it creates a private right of action against a judicial official who, again, not negligent, grossly negligent, lets these repeat criminals back out on the street where after they've been charged with a crime again and again and again, they turn them loose again.
Maybe if somebody's got some skin in the game where they're held accountable, they'll make some right decisions.
Because what happens, I've heard this stat for years, is that 90% of the crimes are committed by 10% of the people.
It's the same thugs that keep getting out over and over again, creating murder and mayhem.
If those guys are finally locked up and put in jail, that keeps the rest of us safe.
And we ought to do all we can to make sure that happens.
In about 30 minutes on the Washington Journal, we'll talk with Democrat Dina Titus of Nevada about the future of the ACA subsidies and rising U.S. tensions with Venezuela.
But first, after the break, it's open forum.
Start calling in now.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
Stay with us.
unidentified
And past precedent nomination.
Why are you doing this?
This is outrageous.
This is a kangaroo court.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At noon Eastern, Matthew Davis tells the history of Mount Rushmore, including economic and political forces that influenced the memorial's creation in 1925.
And then beginning at 2 p.m. Eastern, coverage of the annual Boston Book Festival.
Hear from authors discussing gambling, sports culture, Silicon Valley, and more.
And at 9:15 p.m. Eastern, British journalist Piers Morgan argues that there's been a global rejection of wokeism and discusses what he thinks a post-woke world would be like.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
And as you're calling in to share your thoughts, we are going to talk about what's going on in Indiana because Republicans there are considering new congressional maps to boost the GOP's chances of keeping its narrow majority in the House.
And joining us to talk about that is State House reporter for Indy Star, Kayla Dwyer.
All right, so explain the new congressional map and how it could potentially alter the balance of power there.
unidentified
Yeah, so this new map, this new proposed map, I should say, it still has nine congressional districts in Indiana, of course, but every single one of them has a supreme Republican advantage.
And it does that by carving up, chiefly by carving up our main urban area, Indianapolis, where I live, into four new districts.
Right now, this is one, basically one district.
Democrats in our current map have this stronghold as well as a stronghold in the suburbs of Chicago.
So that's Gary, Northwest Indiana.
And in this new map, if you run it through tools like PlanScore, Democrats really only have a 9% chance of winning the Gary area and a less than 1% chance everywhere else.
And the new map advanced to a final floor vote that's expected today.
What are you expecting from that vote?
Do you think it'll pass?
unidentified
Oh, it's a million-dollar question.
Everyone is asking.
It's really hard to answer simply because senators have been so split on it.
And it's the Senate, of course, where this is coming to a final vote.
The House already passed it last week.
And we know that they're split because when they convened the session back in November, they held a sort of proxy vote for this.
They held a vote to determine when they would convene again.
And if you voted for, if your vote indicated you wanted to meet in December, that was a pretty good proxy for supporting redistricting and the converse as well.
So that vote was just about evenly split among Republicans.
By our count, they would need pretty much all of the undecided people or the people who haven't publicly said anything to become yeses today in order for it to pass with a constitutional majority.
And that is looking complicated because there's been a few absences this week.
So if I had a crystal ball, well, I really shouldn't say, but it's not, it's looking tight.
And we can tell that the president agrees with that because he posted a very long post on Truth Social last night that did not sound terribly confident.
I mean, President Trump carried the state by 19 points.
The Senate is controlled by Republicans.
Why would Republicans vote against this?
unidentified
Among the people here who are opposed to it, it's really about the institution.
We're a state that really prides itself on having a lot of civility in the way we do things in our legislature and also prides itself with being a little bit independent of Washington, D.C.
So it's really, even though, yes, people here love Trump, like we are a Trump-supporting state.
We are not necessarily a do what D.C. tells us state always.
And that's been a big source of the resistance.
A very, a prominent Republican senator who's been in there for a long time actually gave a tearful speech about this two days ago at the committee level, where he basically said, I fear for this institution, people are going to completely lose trust.
But also the threats that lawmakers have been facing, there have been violent threats, bomb threats, swatting incidents against lawmakers who really on both sides of the issue, but it's ever since this has been in the national spotlight.
This particular lawmaker pointed out, you know, if we pass this, we normalize those kinds of threats.
We say that works.
And there's a lot of resistance to giving credence to that.
We'll take your calls on anything related to public policy.
Christy is a Republican in Concord, North Carolina.
Good morning.
unidentified
Good morning.
I was calling because I have read the executive orders that President Trump put in law, Executive Order 14168 that he signed defending women from gender ideology.
And I was calling because my school system is not following that.
So what can y'all do to help us to ensure that it is being followed?
Well, Christy, have you talked to your congressperson?
I did not get to talk to my congressperson because I was late to talk to my congressperson today.
I wanted to ask him, I didn't have a chance as to the guy from the Trump just turned loose here a week or so ago that bring in 400 million or 400 tons of cocaine into the United States.
He turned him loose.
Now, I don't know, a treason.
Isn't that giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Now, when you turn loose somebody like that back into the public, isn't that the exact terminology of treason?
Or, you know, turn your back on the American people, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
The man that called in, I didn't see the state he was calling from because it wasn't on the screen, but he mentioned about Representative Elon Omar that she is not, that she is loyal to the United States of America.
And there is a video out there that if you watch Fox News, if these people would quit watching CNN and all that other stuff, you don't get the real truth because there's an actual video out there that a man is at the podium and the whole place is crowded.
She's sitting right there smiling.
And he says that Elon Omar is not devoted to, well, these are my words, to United States of America, that her loyalty is with the country Somalia.
And also, they have been showing videos of like Pelosi, Congresspeople Pelosi and Schumer, and all of them in the old days.
And even President Biden saying that we need to go to the illegals' house to get these illegals.
All of this is, and a lot of it is from the C-SPAN archives.
So, and then the first person who used the word garbage was President Biden when he called half of America garbage, calling all of Republicans.
Because remember, President Trump went, well, he wasn't president at the time.
It was during the running for it.
He went and got that garbage truck and rode around in the garbage truck, which was funny.
And then one thing, U.S. aid, when we were all in that discussion, you know, only 12% of U.S. aid went to aid, whatever it was they were like for hungry people or whatever.
And then lastly, if they changed, you all changed when you're watching the congressional hearings.
You put a split screen.
I wish you all would just go back and put the whole screen up because I like to watch the people on the floor, even if they're not talking.
I like to see who's interacting with who.
And so I wish you'd go back to the, ever since that man came from CNN and he's the president of C-SPAN now, everything's changed and it leans towards Democrats, if you ask me.
All right, Kathy, here's Jack, Memphis, Tennessee, Independent Line.
Go ahead, Jack.
unidentified
Yeah, I'm calling because I missed, I lived in, at one time, was a citizen of North Carolina, not far from his district.
And my son here in Memphis is teaching social studies at the community college.
We were talking.
He called me and says that he went on the internet and found out that a third of the senior citizens in his district received Obamacare.
And why is he waiting all these years to complain about it?
I've been retired for 12 years.
They take $174 out of my check every month.
I have good doctor, good plans, and I don't complain, and most of us don't.
Well, why all of a sudden, 15 years later, Obamacare is nothing.
Obamacare was great for me.
I don't, I'm not, they're judging that because a colored man, colored president, but they didn't complain about it when they the third of his white population is on that.
Checked on the internet and found that a third of those people, and they take money out of our check every month, 174 out of mine, ever since I've been retired.
And I would ask the other question: why would we not legalize them?
Is it ever based on objective criteria?
Is this drug more harmful to you than something that is a substance that is completely legal, regulated, but still legal?
There's just never really an honest debate.
And I'll give you an example.
The VA, let's call the VA, and we won't even discuss the range of illicit drugs, but for pain management, there was a panel in the VA that wanted to put together those interested to develop a policy.
I think the number was in the high 30s.
Only two of those people that were on the panel to discuss what should be the policy were pain patients.
So, that just does not seem I've not seen any form, even though in C-SPAN, which is wonderful.
I love you guys.
I've never seen a form that really gives a voice because we are all know, and you recently had a guest that discussed this the iron law of prohibition.
Well, every time I call, which is once a month, I just have to talk about the things that are going on and are being said.
The other day, I think it was two days ago, Representative Sessions was on talking about the ACA.
I'm not on the ACA.
I'm too old for that.
I'm on Medicare and I pay for supplemental insurance.
But he was talking about people and the plan that they wanted to do in the Senate.
And he said, you know, if we do this, then that'll put the people's premiums at about $1,000 a month.
And they can afford that.
Working America can afford that.
Are you kidding me?
I don't know where they come up with the numbers that if you make $100,000, there's not a whole lot of people in America that make $100,000 a year, nor are there a lot of people that could afford $1,000 a month.
That is ridiculous.
That's almost as much as I get in Social Security.
So I don't know how they expect a family of people, parents, kids, and all to afford this kind of money.
And the last thing I want to say is: I am so sick of this administration.
You know, every day I get up and Donald Trump has done something else, and I'm just tired of it.
So, Mimi, I want you to have a wonderful Christmas.
Nolan is in Louisville, Kentucky, Independent Line.
Good morning.
unidentified
Thank you very much for having me on your show.
Thank you very much.
I kind of have to piggyback on what the previous caller stated.
I'm kind of a little fed up with politics myself because I realize I'm one of these types of people.
That's the reason why I've been independent.
I think the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.
They're two wings on the same bird.
So it seems like our politics, because there's so much money in it, our politicians aren't looking out for the public's best interest.
They're looking out for their constituents' best interest that gives them whoever donates the most money.
I think that's what they're on the lookout for.
And that's a problem I have with politics in itself.
Now, healthcare plans, I guess my biggest problem with that is I realize when conversation talks about health care for all, our country can afford that.
We're bombing boats in Venezuela, for example.
And we say we're being told we're bombing boats because they've got illegal oil or they've got illicit drugs.
But what do we talk?
You never hear nobody talking about trying to get the people in this country off of drugs because these drugs can come in this country for a reason.
People are addicted to drugs, and we have a society that has addictions.
So with that, that's the reason why the drugs are coming in this country.
So when you stop that, start talking with the cure.
You don't have to worry about stopping the drugs in because if we eliminate the number of users, drug users, it will solve all our problems.
And I think that's what we really need to focus on.
You never hear a politician talking about that.
And I think that's what we really need to focus on society.
Would you be interested in seeing the it's the one specific one that they're talking about making public, which is the it was called the double tap strike.
Yeah, so all those calls are coming from private insurance companies trying to get seniors to buy supplemental.
Is that what you mean?
unidentified
Yes, because I don't get them.
I have a supplemental from my teaching, and I'm on Medicare.
Medicare never calls me.
They're not looking for business.
It's the private insurers that are looking for business.
And that's why you had the, I think, South Carolina congressman on talking about, thank you, talking about how much better private industry would handle this.
And I say no, to the woman's point, they're wasting money on call banks calling you constantly.
As far as all of these phone calls people have been getting, we've had open, open enrollment from October the 15th to December 7th.
And these calls are to get people to leave the plan they have and take another plan, and that's where the insurance agents get their money.
And that's why they called everybody.
And hopefully that'll calm down that we pass December the 7th.
As far as this thing with Venezuela, I wish people would educate themselves a little bit about.
Because, you know, when somebody says something about Venezuela and then they turn around and say, yeah, but what about Mexico?
They're two very different things.
People have been bringing cocaine into this country for decades.
Okay, and everything was fine, everything was just fine until Mexico, they started getting this precursor from China, and it gets sent to the cartels, and it gets cut into something like cocaine or marijuana or many, many other things.
And people are unknowingly being given this, and this is where they're dying.
Okay, it's not like somebody goes out and says, let me have fentanyl from some drug dealer when you know just a couple of grains will kill you dead and probably the rest of your family, too.
It's very potent.
And I wish people would understand that without something to add the fentanyl to, that wouldn't be a problem.
Okay, you got to have the cocaine first before they add the fentanyl to it so that you get it unknowingly and die.
And that's why so many people are first-time users and die.
So, Chris, I want to show you that there is an article on the front page of USA Today, today's paper of USA Today, with the headline, Trump's Drug Boat Claims Don't Fly.
Data shows Venezuela is not a major trafficker.
The article by Josh Meyer talks about where the drugs are coming from and the role that Venezuela is playing.
If you'd like to read that.
This is Bruce in Indiana Independent Line.
Last call.
Go ahead, Bruce.
unidentified
Yes, I'd like to talk about what the about the redistricting and also about one other thing.
And Bruce, we will be following that state senate vote coming up today.
But coming up next in about coming up next, we've got Democrat Dina Titus of Nevada.
She joins us to talk about the future of ACA subsidies and rising tensions with Venezuela.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series Sunday with our guest best-selling author, Arthur Brooks, who has written 13 books about finding purpose, connection, and cultivating lasting joy.
His books include Love Your Enemies, Build the Life You Want with co-author Oprah Winfrey and his latest The Happiness Files.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the island to a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
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.
Since you're on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I want to start with the seizure of the oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and get your reaction to that.
unidentified
Well, I was listening to the president's reaction last night.
It doesn't sound like he knows what's going on.
He said, well, I guess we'll keep the oil.
Well, I guess this is a problem.
I guess somebody else made the order.
So it shows you how foreign policy is in such disarray.
And this attack on this vessel comes after all of the attacks on the so-called fishing vessels or drug-running vessels that have occurred over the last several months, which are outside really of the power of the president.
He can defend the country, but he's not supposed to be out there initiating war actions like that without telling Congress or the public really what's going on.
And I mean, the argument is that Maduro is not a democratically elected leader.
He is illegitimate.
He is sponsoring drugs and a narcoterrorist.
And I mean, what's your response to that?
unidentified
Well, you could use that same argument against a lot of people who are in power that the president has cozied up to.
So that's not really much of a valid argument.
But also, just because you go down there, and maybe we're going to invade, we don't know.
He goes back and forth on that.
But if you got rid of Maduro, you don't have any guarantees that who replaces him will be somebody that the president likes or will be totally in line with the democratic principles of the United States.
Now, you have signed on to the discharge petition of Speaker Jeffries for a vote to extend the ACA tax credits for three years.
Can you tell us where that stands and how much support that has?
unidentified
You know, it goes back and forth by the hour.
There are three or four different provisions out there.
There are three just with discharge petitions in the House, several more in the Senate.
This to me is the cleanest, most straightforward way to get off of the cliff that's fixed and to face so many people in my district where the prices of health insurance are just going to skyrocket without those subsidies.
Well, we wanted to show you a portion of President Trump taking questions from reporters at the White House yesterday about the Republican plan to address rising health care costs, and then we'll get your response.
unidentified
Okay.
Senate Republicans currently have a health care proposal that would take away, let those ACA subsidies expire and then put about $1,000 in people's HSAs.
Do you think that is enough money?
And how do you ensure that people who will see those tax subsidies expire won't see their health care costs skyrocket?
Well, the Unaffordable Care Act, which is Obamacare, they call it now the unaffordable because it's unaffordable.
It used to be called the affordable, but it was never affordable.
It was always bad.
It was basically designed for the benefit of insurance companies.
And what we're doing is we want all of the billions and billions of dollars that went to insurance companies to go directly to the people and they can buy their own health care.
And people love it.
I don't know if the Democrats are going to approve it because they want the insurance companies to make money.
It was a scam.
Obamacare was a scam.
But we're going to see.
I mean, the Republicans, I can tell you, want the money to go to the people.
And we're winning that battle.
The Democrats are having a hard time with it because they're in the pocket of the insurance companies.
Congresswoman Titus, your response to that, that the AC was never affordable and that the Republicans want to give the money directly to the insured and not to the company.
unidentified
Well, that's the most ridiculous argument that I've heard, but they're very good at misinformation.
I was here when Obamacare passed.
It passed on a straight party line vote, and they've been trying to get rid of it ever since.
Now, we've had about 100 different votes over the last decade to try to do just that, dismantle Obamacare.
You remember the big iconic photo of John McCain going thumbs down?
He would not vote to get rid of it because he had his own health problems.
I can tell you, it saved Nevada because we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country because so many people are in the hospitality industry, work several part-time jobs, and don't get employer benefits that would cover their health insurance.
This business about being in the pocket of insurance companies, that's the exact flip of what the reality was.
Remember, in the Obamacare, we put caps on how much insurance companies could charge, and we also made insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, two things they had never wanted to do.
We were helping people, not insurance companies.
And as far as giving $1,000 to people to put in their own account so they can buy whatever they want, you don't really think that $1,000 is going to make up for health insurance coverage, do you?
You can't use that thousand dollars to pay for your premiums.
And I mean, regarding that, there's so many subsidies, though, why would the Affordable Care Act need so much taxpayer-funded subsidies in the first place?
Shouldn't it be fixed?
I mean, is there something that you would recommend that would make it so that you don't need that much subsidies?
unidentified
Well, it's a tax subsidy.
There are not a lot of different subsidy programs.
It's a tax subsidy that was put on to help people during COVID when so many people were unemployed.
Now, what's happening now, the president doesn't like to admit it, but the cost of living is increasing.
The affordability crisis is a reality.
You can't afford groceries, you can't afford your car payment, can't afford your electricity bill, can't afford your mortgage.
And why now take away health care in addition to that?
So that subsidy can continue until we can address the whole economic situation.
Now, as far as Obamacare needing fixing, there may be some things that need fixing.
You know, health care is extremely complex because the people who need it cover a whole spectrum of problems, and you've got hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, health clinics, so many different factors that have to be included.
But I can tell you this: Obamacare has been working.
This is just one more attempt to get rid of it.
And they've offered no solution.
They have said, well, we'll give you this $1,000 for a savings account, but there's nothing in there to address increasing premiums.
And on our side in the House, you've got Johnson saying, oh, well, we're going to fix it.
So he went in with his members and offered them an option, a menu of 10 different things that we are going to look at over the next half of the Congress.
So that's not a fix either.
And nowhere on that list is bringing down the cost of premiums.
If you'd like to join our conversation with Representative Dina Titus, Democrat of Nevada, she'll be with us until the end of the program at 10 a.m.
You can call us on our lines: 202-748-8001 Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and 202-748-8002 for Independents.
We'll go right to the calls now on the line for Democrats.
Freeland, Maryland.
Steve, you're on the air.
unidentified
Good morning, Mrs. Titus.
I can't give you an answer to why nothing is affordable in the United States of America.
I believe it's the deficit.
Once again, the federal government, the legislative branch, my favorite branch of the federal government, I call it the most dysfunctional branch, has once again abdicated its responsibilities in passing a budget.
So I think we're up to 30-plus years of not passing a budget in the United States of America.
And what that does is we keep printing money.
So let's all see that together.
We keep printing money.
And when we do that, what happens?
It devalues the dollar.
And we're going to continue to devalue the dollar because guess what you guys are getting ready to do?
Not December, because it runs from January 1st to December 31st, but it looks like we're going to January 29, either we're going to keep the government open, print another $2.5 trillion, then every six months we point another $2.5 trillion.
So when we talk about affordability, I think we need to look directly at the legislative branch and their inability for the past 30 years to do their job.
The fact of the matter is that, you know, the budget is your guideline and you're conflating expending with budgeting.
You know, if you want to look at what's causing inflation right now, you better take a look at the president and the tariffs, which he has imposed, so many people think, illegally and unconstitutionally.
That's what's raised the cost of everything that gets imported.
And every economist from here to Nevada has said that tariffs are part of the reason, the main reason, that those prices are going up.
You can also, if you want to look at what caused the deficit, take a look at the bill, the big, beautiful bill that was passed that cut so much government spending in order to give billionaires a tax break.
If they were paying their fair share, we wouldn't be in such a deficit.
And don't forget, Doge came along and cut so many programs that many people need to say, oh, we're cutting spending.
And in reality, now the head of the Doge guy, Musk, is even saying, well, that wasn't the right way to go.
So you can't just put all this on the legislative ability not to pass a budget.
I do agree with you, however, that kicking the can down the road is not a way to do good business or the way to govern.
And we did extend the continuing resolution to January, and we may go through this all again because the Republicans can't get it together of how to come to the table, compromise, and move forward.
They'd just rather put their head in the sand and say, you know, we're not going to negotiate.
Democrats don't mean anything.
You said you were a Democrat.
Surely you don't support that kind of non-compromise.
That's how the founding fathers wanted this government to work.
In Griffin, Georgia, Independent Line, Dottie, you're on the air.
unidentified
Hi.
I have a question.
Yes, ma'am.
When Hamas attacked those party goers in Israel and Israel retaliated, everybody said Israel has the right to defend itself.
Well, I would like to know: if the president of the United States attacks Venezuela, do they have the right to defend themselves?
It doesn't make any difference whether we like their president or not.
That's none of our business.
Just leave them alone.
But I don't think we've got the right to go around just attacking countries because we don't like their president.
And so we can say, well, they didn't manufacture narcotics and soon to our states.
Nobody's making these people lay down and take this medicine, these drugs.
Well, Congresswoman Titus, that's an interesting comparison that I hadn't been thinking much about.
But, you know, you're right.
Every country has its sovereignty, its power of sovereignty, and to defend its borders.
And so you can't expect Venezuela just to sit there and be taken over by the U.S.
And don't forget it doesn't just affect Venezuela.
It's going to affect our relations with all of Latin America because we don't have a very good record there of going in to try to initiate regime change to find leaders that we like or are more supportive of the U.S. or U.S. economic interests.
I've been trying to get cholesterol and blood pressure medicine under the Biden administration since 2021 to 2024.
And I always had a hard time getting a prescription refilled or anything else.
It got to the point I actually went down to the office and Western New York Medical.
The whole room was filled with illegal immigrants going in and out.
I couldn't even get to the counter to get a refill on prescription cholesterol and blood pressure medicine.
Anyhow, long story short, a month ago, I was rushed into the hospital with heart failure and that, and I get there.
And for the last six months, I come to find out that I got kidney failure and congestive throat failure.
Not one doctor from Western New York Medical called to notify me.
They knew about this for over a year, and now here I am, and I listen to you Democrats saying that illegal immigrants were acquired to Medicare and it wasn't hurting the American people.
I'm dying right now because of them illegal immigrants getting in line before me.
Our medical system and our health care system didn't even have, didn't even call to notify me to let me know about this a year ago.
Do you have a response for your party and what they're doing to the American people?
unidentified
Well, let me say I'm sorry for your health problems.
And you should have gone to your member of Congress and asked him to help intervene for you with Medicare, but Biden's gone, so let's talk about what you can do in the future.
As far as blaming on the immigrants, U.S. law says that immigrants do not qualify for Medicare.
So I don't know who is in front of you in line, but let's look at what caused your problem, see if we can help solve it now, instead of just blaming other people.
I agreed with the lady, the original caller that said something about Venezuela has a right to their president.
And if we're going to, and the United States has no right to go in and do regime change.
They have no right to do that.
We wouldn't want Venezuela to come to the United States and try and ouster our president.
So no matter if you don't like him or not.
And the other thing in terms of drugs coming in, they need to legalize drugs in such a way that the appetite, because even no matter what, the appetite is here.
And the appetite is going to remain.
So they should do like they did back in the Depression time, legalize it like they legalize alcohol.
And therefore, the drugs, whoever want to buy it, buy it.
What do you think, Congresswoman, about legalizing drugs?
unidentified
Well, you know, there's a big movement across the country to legalize marijuana.
Now, many people thought for many years or argued that that was an entryway drug.
Now that has all turned around.
The majority of the states allow marijuana use recreationally and for medical purposes.
There's more research now into the impact of marijuana.
And you're right, when it's legal and it doesn't have that kind of temptation of being illegal, use moderates and you haven't seen a lot of the crime problems that you used to see.
Well, I think it's a point that we've been making that regime change is very difficult.
You don't just step into another country's history, culture, economy, and turn it into a little United States.
So if you're thinking about that kind of investment, you're right.
If you look at the history of the U.S., we don't have a real good record on trying to change other countries, whether it's Latin America or the Middle East, as you point out.
Bonnie in Pennsylvania, Line for Republicans, you're on with Congresswoman Dina Titus.
unidentified
Yes, thank you.
I just had a quick question about the Medicare Advantage plans.
participants do not pay a premium, monthly premium, where my husband and I are on Blue Cross Blue Shield, and we do pay a premium.
So where does that support for non-paying members come from?
Is it coming from my premiums that I'm paying?
No, no, it's not.
Those are options that you can get that are usually supplemental insurance policies that go on top of what you do pay for.
And those are options that are available to you during this open enrollment period.
That's why this is so pressing.
The tax credits don't run out until the end of the year, but people are already getting bills for what their premiums are going to cost.
So those are additional supplemental programs.
But I'll tell you this, if people don't have their own insurance through Obamacare that they pay for, whether it's with a tax subsidy or not, the hospital bills will go up because people will go into emergency rooms now because they don't have insurance.
There'll be less preventive care like checkups in advance, so we'll have more disease, sicker people, more expensive.
And those kind of things will make your premium go up because somebody's going to have to make up the difference to pay for that indigent care, which is what happened in Nevada.
So when you're talking about increased premiums for people on Obamacare, that's a direct increase, but there will be an indirect increase to everybody else.
Yes, I'd like to say President Trump, you know, if we open our eyes up, we can see that he has become a dictator.
And a dictator does not care anything about the people of their country.
And as far as his health care is concerned, I mean, I just can't see how he can just cut out, you know, the things that, especially people that really need it, you know, chronic conditions and stuff like that.
I just can't see how he can just cut that out, you know, and just let them do without and taking away funds for other agencies that help people that need the help.
So, you know, we need to open our eyes up to see what he has to come.
He said he'll be a dictator.
So, you know, that's what he has become, a dictator.
Just a reminder of a program starting momentarily over on C-SPAN 3, and that is Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam and the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent.
They will be on Capitol Hill testifying.
You can watch that on C-SPAN 3 on the app and online.
That's it for us today.
Thanks for watching.
We'll be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Have a great day, everybody.
unidentified
I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home.
And I wonder what grade you would give.
A plus.
A plus.
A plus, Tonight, watch an exclusive interview with President Trump by Political White House Bureau Chief host Dasha Burns, talking about the Ukrainian-Russia war, the economy, health care, immigration, and the future of the Republican Party.
Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-SPAN.org.
And past precedent dominance.
Why are you doing this?
This is outrageous.
This is a kangaroo clock.
Fridays, C-SPAN presents a rare moment of unity.
Ceasefire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins.
Politico Playbook chief correspondent and White House Bureau Chief Dasha Burns is host of Ceasefire, bringing two leaders from opposite sides of the aisle into a dialogue.
Ceasefire on the network that doesn't take sides.
Fridays at 7 and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
There's a lot of things that Congress fights about, that they disagree on.
unidentified
We can all watch that on C-SPAN.
Millions of people across the country tuned into C-SPAN.
That was a make-for-C-SPAN moment.
If you watch on C-SPAN, you're going to see me physically across the aisle every day, just trying to build relationships and try to understand their perspective and find common ground.
And welcome for to everybody watching at home.
We know C-SPAN covers this live as well.
We appreciate that.
And one can only hope that he's able to watch C-SPAN on a black and white television set in his prison cell.
This is being carried live by C-SPAN.
It's being watched not only in this country, but it's being watched around the world right now.
Mike said before I happened to listen to him, he was on C-SPAN 1.
That's a big upgrade, right?
unidentified
C-SPAN.
Democracy unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced that the nation's central bank would cut interest rates by a quarter of a point, the third consecutive reduction this year.