CSPAN - Washington Journal Washington Journal

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 7, 2026 11:01-12:59 - CSPAN

01:57:52

Washington Journal Washington Journal

Source

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Dramatic Shift in Enrollment 00:15:41
	Daniel Armstrong taking his first historic steps on the lunar surface in July 1969 and NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon.
	She also looks back on astronaut Frank Borman's Apollo 8 Christmas Eve broadcast in 1968.
	Frank Borman was told when he was preparing for this mission and the schedule is short.
	He said, he was told the broadcast will be on Christmas Eve and more humans will be listening to your voice than have ever listened to a human voice in history.
	Say something appropriate.
	Those are the instructions he got and he thought, you know, what should I say?
	From the beginning, God createth the heaven and the earth.
	The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum's Tiesel Muir Harmony.
	Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to QA and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
	Stephanie Stapleton, welcome to the program.
	Hi, thank you for having me.
	Let's start with KFF so people know what it is.
	KFF Health News, what is that?
	Okay, well, it's interesting.
	KFF is sort of the umbrella organization and it specializes in providing quality, independent health organization to people, just in general.
	So there's a polling arm, then there is a policy arm, and then there's the nonprofit news organization, which is where I work, KFF Health News.
	And so I imagine one of these topics you've been and your colleagues have been looking at since a long time is ACA enrollment.
	We've seen some different numbers this year at the start compared to years previous.
	Paint the picture of where we're at with those numbers.
	Okay, well, so open enrollment on the Federal Exchange ended on January 15th.
	States have a little more variation because let me just take, it's also very complicated, like healthcare.
	This is very complicated.
	So there's the federal exchange and then 20 states in the District of Columbia operate their own exchanges.
	Now, those states have a little more flexibility in when their deadlines might be.
	Some of them went to the end of January.
	But in general, open enrollment for the Federal Exchange ended January 15th.
	And the first round of numbers that came in in terms of signups totaled about 23 million, which is 1.2 million below this time last year.
	And that, of course, everyone was really watching that closely because it was, you know, now we don't have the enhanced subsidies.
	What's going to become of the signup numbers?
	But that's just the first glance.
	It's going to take months for the actual numbers to shake out.
	And sold $23 million in 2026, like what you just said.
	The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services back up that $24 million for 2025.
	It also says that for new consumers, as they've defined them, for 2026, 3 million signing up comparing to 4 million the year previous, and then returning consumers, 19.5 million this time around, 20 million for the previous year.
	What do those numbers tell us as well?
	Well, the one thing that's interesting to think about is the returning customers.
	Okay, those are the people that are already in ACA plans.
	Many, many of those people are automatically re-enrolled in the same plan they have or a similar plan, which and this is one of the reasons why the numbers have to shake out over time because for some of those people, the first time they're really going to focus in on what their new cost is is when they pay their premium, that first premium.
	And so that's when the sticker shock could hit.
	So the thought is that, you know, people are going to be like, oh my God, this is a lot higher.
	Estimates are that it could be like double or even more, which is a lot for any household budget to absorb.
	And so, you know, they might not pay their first premium.
	They might try to pay a premium and kind of realize over time that it's not going to work for them.
	That's what we're watching.
	And, you know, it's going to be, as I said, a few months probably into summer before the numbers are more final.
	So, Vic, those things could skew the numbers themselves.
	We could see even more downward trends.
	Is that the possibility?
	That's kind of the idea, yes.
	When it comes to the subsidies themselves, step back a little bit.
	I'm a per, let's say I'm a person facing those new payments without a subsidy.
	How much of those subsidies cover at the beginning, approximately?
	Oh, heavens, this is a hard question.
	I guess it varies by plan and by your own income level.
	The biggest difference with the enhanced subsidies, what that did was it expanded the eligibility for this kind of premium support to people would have to pay a lower percentage of their household income toward their premium, and they would also have no income cap to qualify for the subsidies.
	So, that's why you saw, you know, it's many more people signed up.
	Those enhanced subsidies were credited with the record-breaking sign-ups that we've had in recent years up until this year.
	Remind people about the enhanced subsidies themselves.
	How long were they designed to last?
	Well, that's a great question.
	So, they came as sort of a COVID-era benefit to help people, you know, get over those difficult days.
	And that was part of the argument that we heard last fall when Congress was, and into the winter, obviously, when Congress was debating whether to extend the subsidies or not.
	Some people kept saying these were intended to be temporary, they were part of this public health emergency, and that public health emergency is over.
	And they do cost money, you know.
	So, that was one of the arguments against extending them.
	I suppose that the issue is that people came to depend on them.
	Yes, very much.
	And so, now that the loss is there, you say that we're still months away from knowing for sure where the numbers are.
	We have the first blush estimate from what we're seeing from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services.
	Talk a little bit about what the potential is.
	Well, let's start with this: who is dropping out?
	If we're talking about the numbers that you're saying, who's dropping out primarily?
	Well, what we've seen, and this is again when I was talking about the federal exchanges and the state exchanges, there are around 7 million, 7.2 million people signed up through the state exchanges.
	And that's where we're kind of getting the most detail at this point about who signed up or didn't sign up.
	Across the board, a lot of states did see fairly strong drops.
	Some states managed to find ways to use their own money to provide some support.
	And those states, there were actually some of them that had some increases because they were still providing sort of that subsidy-like assistance.
	But across the board, they had pretty dramatic drops.
	And one state I know, Pennsylvania, their numbers indicated that the two categories of people, kind of demographic groups, I guess, that were the biggest drop-offs were people aged 55 to 64, because those are the people that insurers can charge the highest premiums.
	And then, of course, the 2030-somethings, you know, we during the ACA debate, we called them the young invincibles.
	You know, they're like, you can see in the cost-benefit analysis, they might be more comfortable going bare without insurance.
	But take out the young invincibles, it ultimately affects down the line.
	Is that the idea?
	Well, you know, the whole notion of insurance is that you want to spread the risk.
	So you do want the young health people, young, healthy people in the risk pool.
	So that does help control costs.
	Okay.
	Stephanie Stapleton joins us for this conversation.
	And if you want to ask her questions about the current state of the ACA, you heard her talk about declines in current enrollment for 2026.
	2027 8001 for Republicans.
	202748-8000 for Democrats.
	And Independents, 202748-8002.
	And if you want to text us your thoughts, you can do that at 202-748-8003.
	When you take a look at the history of the subsidies, what are the main concerns as far as what you're seeing reporting-wise as the year goes on?
	You said those numbers could shift.
	What trends might appear from?
	Well, I can tell you one of the trends that has already appeared is that people have shifted to what they call them the bronze plans.
	And just also another quick reminder: the ACA plans have metal tiers that reflect the benefits that you get.
	So there's gold, silver, platinum, gold, silver, then bronze.
	And the bronze are lowest premium, highest deductible.
	And so there's been a pretty dramatic shift to the bronze coverage, which means that people just want to be able to have some insurance.
	They can pay, you know, that premium is the most affordable one, but it does create, you know, then it's like, oh my goodness, am I going to be able to pay my deductible?
	You know, the average deductible cost of the bronze plans is $7,500.
	We'll talk more about that.
	I want to ask you, though, what has the Trump administration done as far as compensation at all?
	Has it come back with anything saying, hey, we understand this happened.
	Here's how we plan to meet that.
	Well, during, I think we can talk about this on two levels.
	Like, first, during the debate about the subsidies, I think it kind of the president sort of came to this idea that instead of paying the insurance companies these subsidies that help them, you know, underwrite the insurance costs, the dollars should go directly to people.
	And so that was sort of this direct to people was sort of his idea.
	And then earlier this year, last month, January, it's February now, he did unveil his Great American Health Care Plan.
	And that sort of reiterated that concept of finding a way to give the people money directly.
	That was one key part of the plan.
	And that would be sort of modeled after the health savings account concept.
	I think most people are pretty familiar with that idea.
	And let me also talk about a recent addition to the health care efforts of the president when it comes to prescription drugs, Trump RX, which he announced last year.
	I want to play a little bit of what he had to say about that and roll that into the conversation.
	Okay.
	Under the most favored nation agreements, my administration has negotiated.
	The United States will pay the lowest price paid by any other country.
	So we're taking the lowest price paid for drugs.
	We will pay equal to whatever the lowest price anywhere in the world.
	That's the price that you're going to be paying.
	It's a tremendous reduction.
	Drug prices in other nations will go up by doing this.
	They had to agree.
	And the reason they agreed is I used tariffs.
	I said, if you don't put them up, then we're going to put tariffs on your nation, which would be more expensive to you.
	So in many cases, the drug costs will go up by double and even triple for them, but they're going way down for the United States, come all the way down by a difference of as much as 300, 400, 500, even 600%, even more than that in some cases.
	For example, you will see dramatic reductions in the cost of popular weight loss drugs known as GLP1s, GLP1s.
	Novo Nordesk will be slashing the price, as an example, of Ozempic from more than $1,000 to $199.
	And the price of Wegovi from more than $1,300 to $199.
	Nobody can even believe it, a 578% difference.
	Eli Lilly, who's been very helpful to us in getting this done, will be cutting the cost of its common insulin drug and medication from $200 to $25.
	Nobody can believe it.
	And Stephanie Sampleton, there are a larger aspect of the president's, or at least this administration's efforts on health care.
	We'll talk about that in a bit.
	We have calls lined up to talk about the ACA.
	Tony in Pennsylvania, Independent Line, thank you for holding.
	Tony, go ahead.
	Yes, good morning.
	Great topic.
	I think part of the problem with when we talk about health care is we're often not using good data and facts.
	And often it's scare tactics.
	And so when I think about the ACA, and I think about when that was a passed during the Obama administration, private health insurance stocks soared.
	That was a giveaway to industry.
	It didn't have a public auction, so it wasn't going to control costs.
	But we rarely talk about facts.
	And then Trump's plan, giving a little money to each person so they can maybe manage their runaway health care cost also doesn't seem to be based in reality of controlling costs.
	And so what's often missing is we sort of ignore the rest of the world where they've solved health care and made it affordable.
	And there's sort of universal health care.
	It's affordable.
	They pay less.
	They have better outcomes.
	Their people live longer.
	We just ignore all that.
	And then generally we have talking heads that come on your program that scare people.
	During elections, I'll say something like, oh, my gosh, well, if we went to universal health care, it's going to cost $32 trillion over 10 years.
	But what they leave out of the conversation is that the current system is costing $50 billion, and it is expensive.
	It has poor outcomes.
	And roughly right now, prior to these cuts to ACA, we had about 68,000 Americans dying a year because of delayed and denied access to care.
	You can increase that now by about 50,000 a month.
	So we're talking about 9,000 Americans dying per month unnecessarily for an expensive system that doesn't provide good care, that enriches CEOs.
	And I think that's why Luigi, when he may have done something, he may have not, but people cheered when the healthcare CEO was killed.
	Okay, we'll leave it there.
	You brought a lot of things to the table when it comes to the overall cost of health care.
	Do you want to start there or wherever?
	I will note that one of the things during our coverage at KFF Health News during the debate over the extension of the subsidies, one of my colleagues, Stephanie Armour, she wrote a story about how affordability,
	this does encapsulate the affordability issue, but also the fact that Congress was debating the subsidies and that this had become such a heated argument was almost a lost opportunity because the debate was just about maintaining the status quo.
	It wasn't about getting at the very complicated underlying factors that drive up health care costs.
Priced Out: Rural Ohio's Health Crisis 00:14:54
	So that, I mean, that continues to be really interesting to me.
	If I'm a health insurer company, how do I look at the drop of these numbers that we're talking about?
	Oh, my.
	I have not thought about that.
	I would imagine that that's not something that they welcome because that would get at their bottom line, too.
	But Rhonda in New Jersey, Democrats line.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Good morning, America.
	My question for you regarding the subsidies being taken away from all Americans, basically, I think it's going to affect everyone in the country.
	Where is this money going?
	What is he doing with our money?
	He's robbing us.
	I saw on TV where Donald Trump opened up a secret account in Qatar.
	This man is robbing us.
	And not only that, now with the EBT subsidies, they're saying that if a child is 14, he has to go work.
	And if he doesn't find a job within two months, he disqualifies.
	Well, caller, there's a lot there.
	Specifically, what would you like our guests to address, please?
	I would like to know where is our money going?
	Where is this money being diverted?
	Because I guarantee you it's going in his pocket.
	I guarantee you it is.
	Because he's a thief.
	Okay.
	You know, I think I can only answer that question kind of generally because the subsidies are expensive.
	You know, they do cost the federal budget.
	And so I think in this whole changing priorities of the Trump administration versus, say, the previous administrations, that's part of that calculation.
	Patrick in Michigan, on our line for others.
	Hello.
	Go ahead.
	Hello.
	I would just like to say I'm a small business owner and I was on the ACA and still I'm on the ACA.
	My deductibles went up by 100%.
	They doubled.
	My monthly payout went up 600%.
	I had no choice but to drop my plan coverage from a silver to a bronze to be able to afford health care going forward.
	So I'd like to say that the easy answer to this is universal health care for all.
	Well, first, I'd like to say thank you for calling because you sort of gave a voice to exactly what the number said that I was talking about at the top of this show.
	And also, your experience is something that we're hearing a lot about at KFF Health News.
	We have started just recently a new series called Priced Out, and it, you know, it began because of the subsidies and because of people like this who have faced this really difficult decision about how to proceed.
	And we're getting so just an outpouring of comments from readers who are going through what our caller is going through, but also sometimes people who have insurance and still can't afford health care.
	So, you know, it just says to me that this is a really, really important issue.
	Is there a common theme that's emerging from those you are talking about about why they make the decisions they do when it comes to well, I mean, you know, it's often the decision, like, do I pay my mortgage or do I pay for health insurance?
	You know, it's people have to make really difficult choices within their own budget.
	There's not an easy answer to the question.
	For those who are under the ACA, with stories like him saying my costs went up considerably, what drives those increases?
	Is it the insurance company?
	Are there other factors that drives the increases that people pay under ACA?
	Well, this increase is definitely the loss of the enhanced subsidies.
	Now, there are, you know, before the enhanced subsidies took effect, there were less generous subsidies, and those still exist, but they are, you know, the eligibility for those is more narrow and they are much less generous, so people don't feel that same boost.
	And those subsidies are from the federal government?
	Yes.
	And as far as the eligibility, what weighs into who gets those types of subsidies?
	Well, again, it's sort of what I mentioned a little bit earlier.
	We're back now that the enhanced subsidies are gone, the COVID-era enhanced subsidies, we're back to the original subsidies, and those deal with first there's a household, you know, an individual or a household, you have to pay a certain percentage of your income, of your income has to go toward the premium before you qualify.
	And then, and so that's higher.
	And then also there are income caps.
	So at a certain point, you just won't get a subsidy any longer.
	Stephanie Stapleton of KFF Health News along for this discussion.
	Let's hear from Roland.
	Roland's in Maryland.
	Democrats line.
	Hi.
	Thanks for clicking my call.
	You know, this whole thing, you know, has just been made political.
	You know, the Republicans, most of them, you know, they've, you know, like, just like how they vote against their own interests anyway.
	I'd like you to see, I mean, do you have a breakdown of the enrollees and the statewide, you know, red states, blue states?
	Because if you pull, I mean, I'm pretty sure maybe half of or more than half of folks in West Virginia and some of these very red states all probably voted against the Obama and the health care plan and voted for Trump because the Republicans keep convincing them it's the illegals and the black folks that get all these benefits.
	Once we can get rid of all those people, food will be cheaper, rents will be cheaper, healthcare will be cheaper.
	But I bet you most of those folks get health care in the emergency room.
	Okay, let's stop there.
	Let's let our guests respond to that.
	Well, we don't have a breakdown yet because these numbers are still, as I said, shaking out.
	But I know in recent years, the ACA, people who have used the ACA for their health coverage, is not broken down by blue or red state.
	It's not like I am a Democrat, so I'm going to get an ACA plan.
	That's not how people are making the decision.
	And some very red states have some really high numbers in terms of people who buy their plans on the ACA marketplace.
	So I think it comes down more to just their health insurance realities and what their options are.
	Your organization did recent polling on issues, including the ACA.
	One of the things they found is this saying that two-thirds, it was 67% of the public say the Congress, quote, did the wrong thing by allowing the tax credits to expire twice the share.
	33% say Congress did the right thing when it talks about that expiration.
	What's the status of trying to bring those subsidies back in Congress?
	You know, I was just reading some news stories on that yesterday.
	And it seems like the House did sort of a huge thing.
	In December, a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to back a discharge petition that would bring the subsidies bill to the House floor.
	And then earlier this year, in January, that subsidy bill passed the House by a pretty strong margin, which I think does get to the fact that you know people who face election in a few months are very focused on how the loss of the subsidies is playing.
	You know, it is a concern.
	So then negotiations had started in the Senate, the Senate, and based on what I read this week and some podcasts and just like talking to folks, they're really kind of, they've really stalled.
	And it seems like optimism is not at an all.
	It's pretty low right now that they could figure out a way forward.
	Now, I say that, but at the same point, this is Washington, D.C.
	And who knows?
	Who knows what will happen next?
	You say that.
	A viewer says this when it comes to Congress itself saying, would you say that Congress understands the complicated underlying issues which drive the cost of health care?
	If they don't have a grasp on the problem, how can they fix it?
	Well, that, again, what we always say is healthcare is really complicated.
	And so when you start to look at all of the dynamics that drive up the health care costs, right, the subsidies aren't necessarily the thing that's driving, you know, it has made premium costs go up because people aren't getting that assistance that they're used to.
	But that doesn't factor in like what are the prescription drug costs that insurance is covering?
	What are the hospital costs?
	Like, you know, there are all of those underlying factors that kind of feed into why this is so expensive in our country.
	And it is perplexing, and I think people are struggling to answer that.
	To what degree does, say, the hospitals say, well, hey, we'll cut our costs, but what about the prescription drugs folks?
	What are they going to do?
	Or what about the doctors themselves?
	What are they going to do?
	Do they take these protective measures when it comes to this idea of cutting health care costs, do you think?
	Well, I feel like within the broader health care sector, there seems to be like there's always another bad guy in a way.
	I mean, just this, you know, in recent weeks, for, you know, the pharmaceutical benefit managers, the middlemen between, you know, the beneficiary and the employer, the insurance.
	Yeah, the PBMs, they are a real bad guy right now, right?
	Congress just passed some reforms to try to like curb their impact.
	But at the same point, then, you know, there were some hearings on the Hill where the health insurance executives were really called to the carpet for their involvement in health care costs too.
	So, you know, there's not just one bad guy, I guess.
	But everyone wants somebody else to be really the cause.
	By the way, those hearings with those health care executives that our guest referenced, you can still find them on our website.
	If you go to cspan.org, several key health care executives on Capitol Hill being interviewed by members of Congress.
	And you can go to our website to find where they are.
	Another Stephanie joins us.
	This Stephanie's in Ohio.
	Independent Line, you're on with Stephanie Stapleton of KFF Health News.
	Stephanie in Ohio?
	Yes.
	Go ahead.
	Can you hear me?
	Yep.
	I was calling in because I work at a critical access hospital.
	And one of the problems we have is people don't have insurance.
	They choose not to get insurance.
	And then we don't get paid.
	And there were about 700 hospitals that closed across the country because of all the cuts to insurance and reimbursement.
	And so I want to ask if anyone's considered that they're not going to be access to health care because we can't afford to keep going in the negative.
	Okay, Stephanie Ohio, thanks.
	And Stephanie from Ohio, I have to tell you, I'm from Ohio, too.
	So that's a great coincidence.
	To what you said, I guess I have to say yes.
	I mean, I think that like rural health care is the critical access hospitals tend to be in rural areas.
	And the rural health care system is, you know, it's really struggling along.
	We're not talking about Medicaid cuts so much today, but the impact of the Medicaid cuts that we're going to see in the out years that will come from the Big Beautiful bill, the so-called big beautiful bill, I should say.
	Other people call it the Trump tax and spend bill.
	It kind of depends.
	But there's a feeling that that's going to hit rural areas really hard, these rural and the critical access hospitals really hard.
	And, you know, so much so that one of the negotiations that happened in Congress when they were considering that bill was to create this rural health transformation fund that was supposed to stabilize and help figure out innovations that could help make sure that access to care is preserved.
	How that works out, you know, that's just an early days for that program.
	But this is a big concern.
	Well, then let me circle back to the president's pharmaceutical announcement, Trump RX.
	What does it mean that the government's in the pharmacy game?
	This is tricky for me because I'm not, like, I don't know a great deal about the general sense that they've engaged in this kind of front.
	It is, it's interesting to say, like, how will this work?
	You know, again, this is one of those things I think we're still getting handle on a lot of the specifics.
	And from what I know, it would be a lot of Medicare beneficiaries would be going, and it's not clear what drugs would be included in that Trump RX formulary.
	So as I said, this is a hard one for me to talk about because I don't have a sense of how it's going to work.
	Rob is in Missouri.
	He is on our line for Democrats.
	Hello, Rob.
	You're on with our guest.
	Yes, good morning, Pedro.
	And good morning, Stephanie.
	I had private insurance last year, and I needed a stress test for my heart, you know, for my cardiovascular system.
	The insurance, my United Healthcare, they never, the group that was going to do the stress test, the cardiovascular group, never got a pre-authorization.
	And they never called me back, and I actually complained.
	So it was a failure.
	So 20 years later, I still don't have a stress test done.
Worries About Health Insurance Coverage 00:08:35
	But what I really want to talk about is I know, Gene, that you may not be an expert in Medicare, but I know that the fact that the Medicare premiums per person is only $202, you know, which is phenomenal.
	Okay.
	So I'm thinking that if we go with Medicare for all, and I think even Bernie Sanders doesn't talk about it, and we add more people to that pool of Medicare, I think the cost will go down for everybody.
	I don't think Obamacare, because of what Republicans are so against it, they voted 60 times, more than 60 times against, to basically destroy Obamacare because they don't want government helping people.
	If the billionaires needed a health care subsidy, the Republicans would have already voted for it and gotten it done.
	So I think we need to hear more about what if we went to Medicare for all for everybody, how that would drive the cost down, what would the premium be per person.
	I know it's not going to be $202, but it certainly is not going to be what it is now, both for private insurance and for Obamacare.
	So would you please address that?
	Thank you.
	Well, I think what you're, you know, some of what you just mentioned are things that we talked a lot about in the previous presidential election.
	You know, we had a lot, and we talked a lot about health care for all, about Medicare for all.
	And I almost feel like it's cyclical.
	You know, it's sort of like we had a healthcare election and then we didn't talk about health care at all.
	And I feel like we're warming up again.
	I mean, you mentioned that poll.
	People are definitely thinking about their health care costs.
	And that is something that it's like it's months away, but we're starting to feel like people are, this is an issue and our politicians need to pay attention to it, apparently.
	And so I feel like we could get back, like if we get back to health care, then maybe our representatives would talk more about the underlying problems that drive health care costs, for instance.
	That poll, by the way, healthcare topped that list when it comes to top household expense worries.
	32% of those saying that they were very worried about it, 34% saying somewhat worried about it.
	It goes down from there, but it tops the list when it comes to things like food and groceries, rent and mortgage, and such and so forth.
	Michael, Michael is in Pennsylvania.
	Republican line, hi.
	Thank you for taking my call, Pedro.
	And thank you to your guests.
	I had a question for her because I've often thought that this, truth of, I'm a dentist, so I've been dealing with dental insurance companies for a long time.
	And I have real questions about how they determine what premiums, what gets paid out, and what doesn't.
	They keep changing the goalposts all the time.
	And I believe that's the same thing with health insurance companies.
	And these companies take advantage of the people that are in the pool by switching coverages, by doing things for the profit, on the profit motive.
	And there are companies out there that have, and I think President Trump is talking about the right thing when he says there's other ways to do that.
	This shouldn't be employee-based.
	It should be, everybody should be able to get health insurance and they can find their own pools and do it.
	Something like what they do with that MediShare plan.
	You know, you have MediShare and there's a number of faith-based insurance companies that don't operate on the profit motive.
	Because I don't think insurance, health insurance is like other insurance.
	They can change, just like dental insurance.
	They call it insurance, but it's really not.
	It's a prepayment program.
	And they determine, it's not like your house burns down and they have to pay for your house.
	Or you get an accident and they have to pay for your car.
	It's like they keep changing what they're going to cover.
	So in these MediShare programs, people have banded together and set their own limits on what they're going to pay for.
	And it's faith-based.
	And there's no highly paid CEO.
	It's not on the profit basis.
	Rather than going all the time to the government to fill this thing, couldn't we go to more like something like that?
	Okay.
	Michael Bayer in Pennsylvania.
	I think that returns us back to some of the philosophical issues.
	And I do believe that it's almost like a personal philosophy that makes people decide what they think they need in terms of health care.
	You know, because on one hand, you have Obamacare or the ACA, and that comes with a lot of rules.
	You know, there is an essential health benefits package that has to be covered.
	You know, they have to cover things like maternity care, you know, preventive screening.
	There's a whole long list.
	And then there's, and some people want that.
	It's very comprehensive coverage.
	You know, it's a comprehensive plan.
	But on the other side, and I think, you know, we heard JD Vance say it at one point, that we needed to deregulate health insurance.
	And I think that's a little bit about what your caller's getting at, that maybe we don't need all of those strict rules, that maybe people want to just decide what they need.
	There are, you know, I think the experts would say sort of a yeah, but because you think you're okay, except then you find out that what when you really need something that it's not necessarily covered or the resources aren't there to cover it.
	But this is part of the debate.
	Like on one side, yes, the plans can be less expensive, but they're also much less comprehensive.
	And so it's almost like when you look at those two approaches, they are apples and oranges.
	How does the whole idea of no pre-existing conditions factor into coverage and what companies offer when it comes to coverage?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Well, I always think of the pre-existing condition exclusions.
	And I think like everybody in the world would agree with me on this, that those were the bad old days.
	You know, like that wasn't good for really anybody.
	So with the ACA plans, you know, it is the law of the land that pre, you know, you cannot be excluded from coverage because you have a pre-existing condition or your coverage can't exclude that illness you have or that issue you have from the rest of your coverage.
	That's no longer allowed.
	Now, there are plans that are sold off of the ACA that don't necessarily have, that's part of the essential health benefits rules, you know, so they don't have to follow that rule.
	So they can still exclude certain conditions or place lifetime or annual limits on what kind of benefits they're going to pay, for instance.
	One more call, and this will be from Leo.
	Leo joins us from Delaware Independent Line.
	Hi.
	Hi, Pedro.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Stephanie, what you're saying is spot on.
	And personal experience.
	Now, I have to say, well, I was on hold for a while.
	The caller that had the medical stress test, my son, his was denied too.
	It was a successful test.
	We ended up having to pay $2,200 copay.
	And the insurance company said, oh, the test was, you were fine.
	You didn't need it.
	I mean, how ridiculous is that?
	But my main point is, Stephanie, with the younger people and getting them to sign up so you spread the risk.
	My other son had an issue where, to me, it was all about what Obama told us.
	You shouldn't go bankrupt just because you get sick.
	And so that was my point to my kids is you need health insurance in case you get in a car accident and you have a $300,000 bill.
	That's the coverage, the catastrophic.
	But this high premium, high copay, they're going to pay out of pocket.
	They're not going to pay in $3,600 a year because they won't have that out of pocket if they go see their primary in most cases.
	So how do you get them in?
	I think universal Medicare makes some sense.
Universal Medicare Discussion 00:04:00
	And that's all I have.
	Thank you for C-SPAN.
	Well, I mean, you did raise a lot of issues there.
	But I think that you're right.
	I think that it's hard to get like young people, you know, even when they sign up for care, the catastrophic, you know, they're worried about getting hit by the bus, that like crazy event that nobody wants to happen, but is really scary to think about.
	But, you know, it's like I said earlier, there are that group of young invincibles that they can't quite wrap their brain around why they need health care.
	Yeah.
	You know, if that's the biggest expense item every month, like do they really want to pay that insurance premium?
	Like they're, you know, they're like at their best.
	So.
	Stephanie Staffulton is the senior editor for KFF Health News, KFFHealthNews.org, the website if you want to see their work.
	Thanks for giving us your time.
	Thank you.
	Later on in the program, we will talk about the current state of nuclear affairs between the United States and Russia, especially with the evaporation of a nuclear arms treaty between the two countries.
	Darrell Kimball of the Arms of Crown Control Association will join us later for that discussion.
	But first, another round of open forum, and you can call us 202-748-8001 for Republicans, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
	Those open forum calls will take place when Washington Journal continues.
	Sunday on C-SPAN's Q&A, the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum's Teasel Muir Harmony on the history of the U.S. space program from the creation of NASA in 1958 to Neil Armstrong taking his first historic steps on the lunar surface in July 1969 and NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon.
	She also looks back on astronaut Frank Borman's Apollo 8 Christmas Eve broadcast in 1968.
	Frank Borman was told when he was preparing for this mission, and the schedule is short, he said, he was told, the broadcast will be on Christmas Eve and more humans will be listening to your voice than have ever listened to a human voice in history.
	Say something appropriate.
	Those are the instructions he got and he thought, you know, what should I say?
	In the beginning, God createth the heaven and the earth.
	The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum's Tieselmuir Harmony.
	Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's Q ⁇ A. You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on our free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
	Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
	Coming up this weekend, we'll feature chef and former food policy advisor to Barack Obama Sam Cass on his plan for making the food system more sustainable with his book The Last Supper at 1 p.m. Eastern.
	Then at 7 p.m. Eastern, it's America's Book Club.
	Pulitzer Prize-winning author John Meacham joins David Rubinstein to discuss his biographies of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and George H.W. Bush.
	At 9.20 p.m. Eastern, author Howard French discusses his book, The Second Emancipation, on Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah's role in the Pan-African movement of the 1950s and 60s.
	And at 10.30 p.m. Eastern, Nicholas Boggs examines the life and activism of writer James Baldwin in his biography, Baldwin, a Love Story.
	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.
Gutfeld's Health Care Critique 00:04:48
	Washington Journal continues.
	It's open forum, and if you want to participate, hold off if you've called us in the last 30 days.
	Make sure you pick the line that best represents you, and that's 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
	The latest from the Associated Press, when it comes to the search for Nancy Guthrie, especially since the FBI's involvement in that search, just to show you the headline when it comes to the FBI, they're reviewing a new message that's tied to Nancy Guthrie's apparent abduction.
	There's a story it was yesterday in Washington where Pam Bondi came before cameras, gave her thoughts on the latest when it comes to the Guthrie investigation.
	Terrible tragedy we're watching in Arizona with Nancy Guthrie.
	I understand you know Savannah Guthrie.
	What is the federal government doing right now?
	Is the FBI now leading the investigation, taking it over from the locals?
	We're doing everything to assist the locals.
	We're working with the locals.
	Breaks my heart for Savannah and for her family.
	I know she's asked for all of our prayers.
	So please pray for her.
	Pray for her beautiful mom.
	Pray for her family that she's returned home.
	That's all we can say about that at this time.
	But yeah, I've known Savannah for over 30 years, and it's breaking my heart.
	More from that press conference on other issues that you can find on our website and our app.
	Let's hear from Terrell.
	Let's hear from Tony.
	Tony in Connecticut, Independent Line on this open forum.
	You're up first.
	Go ahead.
	Good morning, Pedro.
	My heart is broken.
	My heart is broken.
	I can't tell you how badly I feel.
	Two points are just really, I had a Kleemix here for wiping my tears.
	The first thing is this thing about the monkeys or whatever.
	A friend of mine sent me a piece from a Fox show last night, Gutfeld.
	Do you know that the Democrats have selectively posted our president's picture with monkeys, with orangutans, with all sorts of monkey-type animals eight times?
	I don't know where the selective criticism comes out.
	I beg you to please show it.
	And secondly, thanks to Bill Gates, I have co-pilot on my computer.
	It's an AI app.
	And I asked about this thing with the Jeffrey Epstein files.
	And, you know, it's pulled up and anybody can do it because this thing reads the whole Epstein files that are made to the public.
	I'm sorry, I'm baking up.
	Bill Clinton has been there 27 times without his wife, without his kids, on the Lolita Express 27 times.
	And it just goes this hypocrisy goes on and on and on.
	These are just two.
	I beg you, Pedro, please play that segment from Gutfeld.
	Okay, Tony, we'll leave it there.
	Let's go to Debbie, Debbie, and Missouri, Republican Line.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	That video is the song Awima Wack, The Lion King Sleeps Tonight.
	And it's long and it has all kinds of characters Of Hillary Clinton and Jeffries and Schumer.
	They're all animals, warthogs, all kinds of things, and it's not that offensive.
	And I would just like to say that nationally, we need to scrap and abolish the current voter rolls and have everyone re-register with proof of citizenship and give them a voter ID and have a national national elections.
	They can do their local elections any way they want, but for national, we have to have standards and vote in person on the same day or a three-day period and not only have the mail ballots for people that are out of the country or seriously disabled and elderly.
	Okay, Bill is next in Pennsylvania.
	Democrats line.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	I wanted to comment about the last segment about health care.
	We call it health care.
Healthcare Insurance Debate 00:02:27
	We're really talking about insurance.
	I'm an old guy, 75 years old.
	I'm on Medicare.
	Medicare is great.
	That's why I'd like to see Medicare available to all, not mandated to everybody, but available.
	If people want to stay with private insurance companies and get denied claims and get on the phone for hours to argue about it, I have been there.
	Get the insurance companies out of it, just Medicare for all.
	Now, finally, the reason this won't happen is because the health care lobbyists are one of the strongest lobbyists in Washington.
	And therefore, so many congressmen, they're not representing us.
	They're representing the insurance companies.
	So I agree with one of your callers who said the simple solution is Medicare for all.
	Okay, Bill, in Pennsylvania, the Hollywood Reporter takes a look at recent scoring when it comes to the documentary that's come out on Melania Trump that goes as such, saying our great national political divide has come to rotten tomatoes.
	The critic score for Melania is an abysmal 6%.
	The documentary's audience score is an incredible 99%.
	This is the biggest critic versus audience split in the movie review site's history, confirmed a site spokesperson.
	And Rotten Tomatoes says those audience numbers are, in fact, very real.
	Quote, there have been no manipulation in the audience reviews for the Melania documentary.
	The company said in a statement provided to the Hollywood Reporter, reviews displayed on the popcorn meter are verified reviews, meaning it has been verified that users have bought a ticket to the film through Fandango.
	And it goes on from there saying, adding this, and certainly nobody has doubted the validity of the critic's score.
	Many of the scathing reviews sound like the reviewer attended the screening at gunpoint.
	A trio of positive reviews that have kept the score above zero were from the publications known for having a right-wing tilt.
	The Epoch Times, the London Evening Standard, and The Spectator.
	To be fair, many of the outlets that left negative reviews and often accused of having a liberal bias by those on the political right.
	There's more there if you're interested in the follow-up to the release of that documentary and who's watching it, The Hollywood Reporter.
	Let's hear from Sankofa in Georgia, Independent Line.
Town Forum Shutdown Demand 00:09:24
	Hello, as a foundational Black American who are not immigrants, but captives who are chained and shipped and brought to this country to be enslaved.
	I don't like the Republicans and I detest the Democratic Party.
	I have noticed that my people are not en masse supporting these mass demonstrations against ICE.
	We will not allow our bodies to be used as body shields for groups that would not spit on us if we were on fire.
	And the fact that most Latinos and Hispanics have anti-black sentiments, I resent the way Democrats making false equivalents of our mistreatment and enslavement to illegal immigrants that came to this country freely by hook or crook.
	ICE is not coming after us as foundational black Americans.
	There has not been any of our group detained and deported.
	And where would they deport us?
	Back to some state in the United States?
	This fear tactic is not going to work to get us out in these streets en masse because a lot of us can see through the play of the Democratic Party.
	The United States citizens get detained every day, having nothing to do with immigration, and as well as being separated from our families due to legal activity.
	As a United States citizen, if you are driving a car with your children with you and you get stopped by the police for a taillight being out and they run your plate and they find out that you have a bench warrant for traffic tickets not being paid, they will lock you up and have you call a family member to pick up the children.
	And if there's no one to pick the children up, then child protection will be called to get the children.
	Okay.
	Yeah, got your point.
	Let's hear from Gwen in Arizona, Republican line.
	Go ahead.
	I'm awful with them.
	So the lady that has been missing, I feel really bad for her and two sons.
	I feel really bad for her and her family.
	But the amount of coverage that it's getting is really irritating me because all of the kids that are missing and other people that are missing get nothing.
	And just because her daughter is on the Today Show or Morning Show or something, she is suddenly a national celebrity and is getting all of the news time.
	And I don't think that's right for all of the kids and the families of the kids that are missing.
	They deserve a lot of that time, too.
	Thank you.
	Gwen in Arizona, giving her thoughts on that.
	There's a profile of New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the New York Times this morning taking a look at efforts to step onto a wider stage, as the headline says, saying that seven years after she swept into office as a progressive agitator, unafraid to hammer fellow Democrats, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has emerged as an increasingly sought-after leader within the party she had set out to disrupt.
	She has positioned herself as a top antagonist of Vice President JD Vance, a potential heir to President Trump's political movement, sparring with him on social media.
	She stepped up her support of moderate and mainstream Democrats, sending a fundraising email last month asking her supporters to donate to the Senate campaign of former Representative Mary Patola of Alaska, a friend whose support oil drilling and gun rights are at odds with the New York Congresswoman's stances.
	And at a time of tumult across the country and the uncertainty within the Democratic Party, her direct and camera-ready speaking style is breaking through.
	And after federal agents killed Alex Predty in Minneapolis, she swiftly appeared on cable news, argued he had been, quote, executed in the street.
	Earlier this week, there was a town forum featuring the representative from New York.
	And one of the comments made during the town forum was that when it comes to ICE and its practices in various cities across the United States, here's a portion from earlier.
	Personally, I believe that it has to be part of the DHS negotiation to prevent that and tie their hands in being able to deploy ICE agents who are killing U.S. citizens from being anywhere near a poll site this November.
	Point blank, period.
	In terms of like the strategizing, I do not know if our leadership, like in terms of that for a long term, but we have to use political, we have to use our political power and we have to use our political pressure.
	What I can say is that, frankly, the outrage last May at refusing to hold people's ground on the shutdown resonated a lot in Washington.
	There were a lot of moderates, especially in the Senate, that just wanted to fold right away.
	And they experienced a lot of backlash after that.
	So it is literally people's mobilizing in May that is what gave them the spine to actually go through with a shutdown in September demanding reversal on the ACA cuts.
	So just know that this is starting to work.
	But we're going to, this upcoming fight on DHS is it.
	This is the moment.
	This is the moment.
	We have to send that message to Loveham.
	We have to send that message to both of our senators here in New York State.
	And we need to make very clear that this is the, there is no other bite at the apple.
	This is it.
	The funding fight and the DHS funding fight is it.
	And you can see more of that town hall on our website at c-span.org.
	This is open forum.
	There are the lines.
	If you want to get in, let's hear it from Benny in Pensacola, Florida.
	Democrats line.
	You're next.
	Benny in Florida, go ahead, please.
	Yeah, okay.
	I couldn't hear you.
	You got Congress lady up there on the phone, on the screen.
	I couldn't hear you.
	But I was calling in about the things that are happening here in America.
	I think most of the Caucasian people in America has chosen deportation over Medicare because if they wanted to do, if they wanted to do it right, they would allow Congress and the Senate would sit down and work that deal out.
	That's their job.
	If they want to change the health care system, they need to sit down and talk about it, work out a deal between themselves.
	That's what they have voted in office to do.
	But it doesn't seem like they can do that.
	Okay, let's hear from Ben in San Francisco.
	This is on our line for independence.
	Hello.
	Hello, you're on.
	Okay.
	Hi, C-SPAN.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	I know I said my name was Ben, but I actually go by serial designation N. I'm a disassembly drone from Coffer 9, and I was sent there by a company called JC Jetson and my colleagues Z and J to eliminate these drones called worker drones.
	And let me tell you about this weird encounter I had with a worker drone named Uzi Dorman.
	She yelled things like fighting and tried to obliterate me with her sick-as-hell relegon as part of her rebellion against humans and us disassembly drums.
	At first, I thought it'd be a goner, but then out of nowhere, BNJ swooped in to save the day and took the relegon out of Goozy's hands.
	I really owe them a lot.
	And whatever they jim in Crystal River, Florida, you are next on this open forum.
	Republican line, go ahead.
	Yes, good morning, Pedro.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Let's talk about positive things, please.
	Thanks to Trump, the EV mandate is eliminated.
	That's where all cars have to be electric by 2030.
	Just in this week, the big three lost $129 billion.
	It's Atlanta for $2 billion.
	And right now, Jim, I apologize.
	You're breaking up.
	Either you're going to have to code a better signal or get closer to your handset, please.
	Okay, sir.
	Jim, are you there?
	Yes, brother.
	Okay, yeah, you're still breaking up.
	Let me put you on hold.
	Try to adjust that signal and get it to a point where we can hear you clearly.
Hello Good News 00:15:38
	Margo in Indiana.
	Hello, you're next up, Democrats line.
	Hi, Pedro.
	How are you this morning?
	Fine, thank you.
	I'd just like to make a comment about the means and a little information about what a primate is, referring to apes and monkeys.
	Monkeys have very, and apes have very thin lips, along with the fact that they have very straight hair and very flat behind from evolution of sitting on rocks and squatting on rocks for hundreds of thousands of years.
	So just to reiterate that that's just a matter of projection once more.
	Remember that monkeys have very thin lips, not thick lips, very flat behind, not bulbous ones.
	So that refers more to a European state of evolution compared to what African Americans are.
	Thanks, everybody, and happy Black History Month.
	Margo in Indiana, the Politico reports out of Milan through the Associated Press that American athletes received an enthusiastic welcome at the opening ceremony for the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics, but the mood shifted when cameras briefly turned to the Vice President JD Vance, led by speed skater and flag bearer Eric Aaron Jackson, Team USA, was among the last delegations to enter Milan Sincera Stadium at the Parade of Nations on Friday.
	The crowd cheered for the Americans, but jeers and whistles could be heard for Vance and his wife, Second Lady Usha Vance, were shown on the stadium screens waving American flags from the Tribune.
	Support for the U.S. among its allies has been eroding since the Trump administration has taken an aggressive posture on foreign policy, including punishing tariffs, military action in Venezuela, and threats to invade Greenland.
	Vlad is in Maryland, Independent Line.
	Hello.
	Good morning.
	I wanted to talk about the cost of healthcare and access and choices that we have.
	And I would like to compare us with Switzerland.
	Why Switzerland?
	Because it's a high level of quality of life country.
	Also, among European countries, it is, I think, similar to the U.S. because it has lower taxes than, for example, Scandinavian countries than France and Germany.
	Corporate tax is lower in Switzerland than it is in the U.S.
	And overall tax burden is kind of on par.
	The expenditures per individual on healthcare in the U.S. is between $14,000 and $15,000.
	This information is easily searchable.
	So, you know, anyone who is interested, do a quick search, very simple search, you will see these numbers.
	And in Switzerland, it is between $9,000 and $10,000.
	So the difference is significant.
	So it's $15,000 per person in the U.S. versus $9,000, $10,000 in Switzerland.
	In terms of healthcare, they have access for everyone.
	We can call it socialized.
	We can call it any way people want.
	But how do we compare what is better?
	I think that one of the most objective criteria is life expectancy, which is in the U.S. 79 years presently, and in Switzerland it is 83 years old.
	And now I would like to kind of stop at this because I don't want to spend much time on detail.
	people who are interested uh please uh this is all about numbers okay when we talk okay uh Nevada, next.
	This is Debbie, Republican Line.
	Oh, yes.
	Hi there.
	Good morning for taking my call.
	You know, I just wanted to comment on the woman who called out of Arizona regarding all the coverage for the family who lost their mother.
	It's just awful.
	I lost my mother there four years ago of cancer, but I think the news is giving it way too much coverage.
	There was a little boy in New York, I believe Brooklyn, that disappeared a few weeks ago, and they talked about him a couple days, and then that was the end of it.
	And it kind of breaks my heart.
	And number two, I am Republican.
	I am glad that Trump was nominated as our president.
	And sometimes he does say things that are off the cuff.
	But, you know, our Democrats have called him every name in the book and afflicted him as every type of animal.
	And the name's Nazi.
	You know, I think he's been serving our country well and helping and stock market and everything seems to be going okay.
	And as far as the borders being closed, I'm glad they are because my son died of an accidental overdose a couple years ago, and it was awful for our family.
	But I think overall he's done pretty good when there's been Democrats in power as president.
	I try to be supportive and it's hurtful to see our border people being hurt and disrespected.
	It's awful that those two people lost their lives.
	But I just don't understand when it became okay for people to disrespect the police and spit on them and cuss at them and push them and berate them.
	And they are here to serve us, serve us, the people, and take care of us, and God bless them.
	And that's all I wanted to say.
	And again, thank you for taking my call.
	I appreciate you.
	Debbie there in Nevada, this is Winifred, who joins us from New York.
	Line for Democrats.
	Hello.
	Hi, Pedro.
	How are you?
	Hi, America.
	What I think, I think the President should apologize.
	And I believe that it's a distraction from the Epstein files.
	And I also think that it's time that the U.S. should give reparations to the African Americans whose ancestors were slaves in this country.
	And everybody have a good day.
	Bye.
	Comes to trade deals, the HILL reporting that the?
	U.s and India announcing a framework for an interim trade deal that was released in a joint statement yesterday.
	An agreement between the two nations reconfirms the commitment to broader bilateral trade negotiations.
	The president announced earlier this week that the Indian prime minister had pledged to stop buying Russian oil in exchange for the?
	U.s lowering its reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 18 percent quote.
	The prime minister is also committed to quote, buy American at a much higher level, in addition to over 500 billion dollars of U.s energy technology agriculture, coal and other many other products.
	The president writing earlier this week on truth, social teasing the framework.
	Uh, Renee is in Connecticut independent line on this open forum.
	Hello, good morning.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	I want to talk about the previous topic, about health insurance, because I offer health insurance.
	So two things, which is on the faith base, which isn't bad, but people got to understand if you're not really healthy, it's not the best route to go.
	It's all about education.
	The other thing was with the Obamacare and everybody, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.
	I've had folks from Sikorsky where hey, I don't want none of that Obamacare, but since he was a straight shooter.
	I said okay well, this is the reality.
	Your sister's going to go to the hospital.
	You don't want to have Obamacare, but the companies are blue cross in Connecticare so when something happens she's not going to have coverage.
	Then, all of a sudden, he changed his mind.
	It all comes down to being educated.
	You know about health insurance and it's important for folks to do their own research, but health insurance yeah, has its quirks, like anything else, but you just try to be as educated as possible.
	Uh, let's hear from David.
	David joins us from Kansas.
	UH, Republican LINE, hi hi, Pedro.
	Hey, I just wanted to.
	I'm just a farm old here in Kansas and uh, the reason beef prices are so high is because biden interest rate got so high that the ranchers couldn't fill the herds back up, so they sold the herds off and it takes about two years to get a herd and get a cow to go to market.
	And then on the energy, the immigrants.
	I've been a broker real estate broker 38 years and the energy problem is the immigrants won't pay their bill.
	They leave the bill and it goes to where they're going to shut the water, the gas or whatever off, and then they get somebody else to come in there and and put it in their name.
	And so the companies have to eat all those bills.
	So to eat the bills, they got to raise the prices.
	It's the same way with housing, the Housing Biden.
	He made everybody not pay rent.
	He said, you don't have to pay your rent.
	Well, all these people that have real houses?
	They still had to pay their mortgages.
	So once the you know they couldn't pay their mortgage, they sell their house and a lot of these big companies come in and bought them and that's why.
	That's why rents are out of out of out of crazy.
	Thanks uh to the caller's first point, uh story in recent days that the uh president uh signing an executive order that would allow the import of an additional 80 000 metric tons of Argentinian beef.
	Uh that to be imported to the United States on an annual basis.
	This is the story from USA today.
	If you're interested in reading it uh, let's go to Dennis Dennis in uh Michigan uh Democrats line.
	Hi, I love Washington Journal.
	I listen to you on a regular basis.
	I just want to get one point across that, and this is primarily for our Republican listeners and viewers.
	There's only one political party currently.
	If you are a neo-Nazi, if you are a white supremacist, if you are a cowboy, oathkeeper, the Republican Party welcomes you with open arms.
	You are their kind of person.
	Come on in.
	Be a Republican because you are our kind of guy.
	Republicans, you got to wake up to what your party is all about.
	Wake up.
	Thank you.
	Dennis, let me ask you a question.
	We saw, in light of the meme that we talked about earlier, we saw several Republicans line up to push back against that, starting with Tim Scott.
	What do you think of that move by Republicans?
	Like I said, not all Republicans are this way.
	But NAGA, you got to look in the mirror.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Look in the mirror.
	Do you see the MAGA movement as you describe it in the Republican Party as the same thing?
	A lot of Stuart Rose, Enrico Terrio, these guys, they were head of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.
	They led this insurrection.
	Okay.
	They were charged.
	They both were serving over 20 years in prison.
	Donald Trump pardoned both of those gentlemen.
	And I use that word loosely.
	That should say enough.
	Okay.
	Sarah, up next in Georgia, Republican line.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	I just called to talk about Advantage Insurance, Medicare, Advantage Medicare, I believe it's called.
	Anybody can get that where?
	Who is paying for that?
	I know people in Alabama and Georgia that get it, and it doesn't matter how much money you make a year or how.
	So who's paying for that?
	Because I've had friends that say, why don't you do that instead of paying your insurance company?
	Well, how do I know what they would do?
	But I know a lady that's been on it like four years.
	She's been happy with it.
	She doesn't pay anything.
	One more call.
	This will be from Detroit, Michigan Independent Line.
	This is Pat.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Good morning, Pedro, and everybody else.
	I'd just like to say I've been an independent for 45 years.
	It really began when Ronald Reagan came into office.
	I spent all that time listening to him rallying against big government and how it should be destroyed.
	And throughout the 45 years, I've seen both parties work to privatize the government and give complete control to the rich people.
	And at this time, as I see it, the rich people control our energy, our finance, our commerce, our transportation, our communications, everything.
	We are in very serious trouble.
	I agree with the gentleman that there is only one political party, and that is the party of the rich.
	This whole Epstein business should be a wake-up call to everybody.
	The first complaint against Epstein was filed over 30 years ago, and it has been covered up ever since through all the administrations to the one we have now.
	Okay, Pat in Michigan, finishing off the round of calls.
	Thanks for those of you who participated.
	The last guest of the morning will be Arms Control Association's Daryl Kimball talking about the expiration of a nuclear pact between the United States and Russia.
	What happens next?
	And he'll answer your questions on those topics when Washington Journal continues.
	Best ideas and best practices can be found anywhere.
	But we have to listen so we can govern better.
	Democracy depends on heavy doses of civility.
	You can fight and still be friendly.
	Bridging the divide in American politics.
	You know, you may not agree with the Democrat in everything, but you can find areas where you do agree.
	He's a pretty likable guy as well.
	Chris Koons and I are actually friends.
	He votes wrong all the time, but we're actually friends.
	A horrible secret that Scott and I have is that we actually respect each other.
	We all don't hate each other.
	You two actually kind of like each other.
	These are the kinds of secrets we'd like to expose.
	It's nice to be with a member who knows what they're talking about.
	Liz did agree to the civility, all right?
	He owes my son $10 from a bet for a fight.
	I never paid for it.
	Fork it over.
	That's fighting words right there.
	I'm glad I'm not in charge.
	I'm thrilled to be on the show with him.
	There are not shows like this, right?
	Incentivizing that relationship.
	Ceasefire, Friday nights on C-SPAN.
Verification Challenges 00:16:37
	Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
	This Sunday with our guest, best-selling author Jodi Pico, who has written 29 books about a wide range of controversial and moral issues.
	Her books include The Storyteller, 19 Minutes, and Her Latest by Any Other Name.
	She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
	People come to you and say you've changed their views on certain social issues because of your books.
	That's why I write.
	You know, it's to start a discussion.
	And you can't always have a discussion with people.
	Some people just aren't ready to hear it.
	But there are a lot of minds that you can change one mind at a time.
	Watch America's Book Club with Jodi Pico this Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
	In a divided media world, one place brings Americans together.
	According to a new MAGIT research report, nearly 90 million Americans turn to C-SPAN, and they're almost perfectly balanced.
	28% conservative, 27% liberal or progressive, 41% moderate.
	Republicans watching Democrats, Democrats watching Republicans, moderates watching all sides.
	Because C-SPAN viewers want the facts straight from the source.
	No commentary, no agenda, just democracy.
	Unfiltered every day on the C-SPAN networks.
	Washington Journal continues.
	We welcome back to the program Darrell Kimball of the Arms Control Association.
	He serves as their executive director, a discussion starting with the nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Russia.
	Where does it stand these days?
	Good morning, Pedro.
	Yes, this morning, the United States and Russia do not have limits on their strategic, their long-range nuclear arsenals or any part of their arsenals for the first time in about five decades.
	The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was negotiated in 2010, entered into force in 2011.
	It reduced the U.S. and Russian long-range missiles that carry warheads and the number of warheads by about a quarter from the previous levels, and it put in place new kinds of verification procedures and on-site inspections to monitor compliance.
	But the treaty, which lasted 15 years, was set to expire on February 5.
	President Biden and Medvedev, I'm sorry, Putin extended the treaty in 2021, and Donald Trump came into office, knew that it was going to expire, did not respond to Russian overtures to begin talks on negotiating a replacement treaty.
	Putin offered to continue to for the two sides to respect the central limits of the treaty while they negotiate something new, but President Trump deferred.
	And so just this week, his deputies, Under Secretary of State from Tom Donano, laid out why the Trump administration did not pursue this option to continue some of these restrictions.
	And he says the United States wants a better or stronger nuclear restraint architecture involving other states, including China.
	So the problem, however, is that without these limits, the United States and Russia could, in theory, increase the number of nuclear warheads they put in their long-range bombers and missiles for the first time in more than 35 years.
	So let's keep in mind what these numbers are and what these weapons are.
	These are the most dangerous weapons that exist on Earth.
	The United States and Russia have a total of about the United States about 3,700 nuclear weapons, the Russians just over 4,000.
	The U.S. and Russia deploy about 1,550 on no more than 700 missiles and bombers.
	So that is an enormous amount of nuclear firepower, more than enough to destroy both countries several times over.
	And they could begin to increase.
	And there are some in the United States, in Congress, who want to begin increasing to counter China, which is now increasing its smaller arsenal, but still deadly arsenal.
	China has about 600 total nuclear weapons, and now about 300 of those weapons are in long-range ballistic missiles, and they're adding more.
	So this is a very uncertain period.
	We are without arms control, which has provided guardrails throughout the course of the nuclear age.
	And I think from the perspective of the Arms Control Association and many other experts, we are concerned that the Trump administration has not put forward a plan or a strategy.
	There's been a lot of talk about what they would like to do, but they haven't outlined exactly how they want to do it.
	So this is a very difficult period, and there are going to be a lot of questions and debates as we go further into 2026.
	Let me ask you, as far as the old treaty itself, was it a good treaty?
	Well, I think it was a very strong treaty given what it was supposed to do.
	In 2008, the previous agreement, the START 1 agreement negotiated by Ronald Reagan, was due to expire.
	So when Barack Obama came into office, he knew that something needed to be done to replace this arrangement, quickly negotiated, with a lot of preparation, the New START agreement with the Russians.
	There was a vigorous debate in the Senate over ratification, but it was approved by a bipartisan majority for ratification.
	And it entered into force and it put in place new kinds of inspections to not just monitor warheads, I'm sorry, missiles as the previous agreements did, but also the warheads, the bombs on the missiles.
	So, you know, it's been criticized by some Republicans and some nuclear weapons proponents because it didn't cover all types of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapon systems, didn't cover tactical nuclear weapons, and more recently, it was criticized because it didn't include Chinese nuclear weapons.
	Well, it wasn't designed to do that, and there's nothing that has stopped the United States from pursuing talks and negotiations with these other countries to deal with those other kinds of weapons.
	Going to show people the highlights of the START treaty that you just talked about.
	Now that that has gone away, what is the sense of both countries is that if we even, we don't have a formal agreement, but we're going to honor what the agreement said.
	What's the sense of those countries committing to that?
	And does it matter?
	Well, it matters.
	You know, there is no formal or informal agreement, apparently, between President Putin and President Trump not to exceed the limits set by the old New START treaty.
	I don't believe that Russia intends to increase the number of deployed nuclear weapons anytime soon.
	Their statements suggest that if the United States does, they will.
	Now, how could the United States and Russia quickly increase their nuclear arsenals?
	Not all of the United States and Russian missiles carry the maximum loading of bombs, of warheads.
	So they could take some of these reserve warheads out of storage and put them onto the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, the submarine-launched ballistic missiles, but that would take many months to do.
	I mean, it's not expensive, but it is a process that requires bringing submarines back in and pulling the missiles out of the ground.
	So that would take many months.
	So it is very important, I think, for the two sides to exercise restraint while they may resume talks.
	I mean, President Trump said in a social media post he would like to see U.S. and Russian expert teams get back together.
	But as of this morning, there is no plan, there's no sign that they're actually going to do that on a particular date.
	It's going to take time, as it always has, for U.S. and Russian negotiators to hammer out some kind of new agreement to supersede New START, especially if the Trump administration wants a quote-unquote better deal.
	And in this case, the Trump administration wants to bring in China, I believe.
	Russia wants to bring in Europe maybe into the factoring.
	Are those deal breakers, do you think, in any future negotiations?
	Well, let's keep in mind that the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain, all nuclear-armed countries, they have legal obligations under a different treaty called the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to engage in good faith negotiations to end the arms race and on disarmament.
	Now, Russia and the United States have 90% of the world's nuclear weapons.
	The Chinese insist, and I think it's a valid point, that they have the greatest responsibility to reduce their arsenals, but the Chinese and the British and the French have responsibilities too.
	Now, President Trump, since about 2020, and end of his first term, has insisted that China be somehow involved.
	But the one problem is that having a three-way negotiation is much more complex.
	I mean, the two of us are sitting here, imagine we had another person, we're trying to work something out.
	The Chinese have refused that format.
	The Chinese have not necessarily refused bilateral talks.
	So it's going to be interesting to see if the Trump administration tries to pursue the failed trilateral approach, which I wish the Chinese would agree to, but they're not going to, or a bilateral approach.
	President Biden's team and the Chinese team met actually bilaterally in November of 2023 on these issues.
	It was one meeting, didn't continue, but the Chinese might agree to that format.
	If Britain and France are invited, I mean, that would take a lot of energy on the part of President Trump.
	They have much smaller arsenals.
	I personally don't think they need to be involved in a five-way negotiation, but they too could pledge not to increase their nuclear arsenal numbers.
	Darryl Kimball is with us, and if you want to ask him about the current status of nuclear agreement between the United States, Russia, other countries, you can call the phone lines 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and 202-748-8002 for independents.
	You can text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.
	You talked about inspections.
	Has Russia always been transparent in allowing the inspections process?
	Well, inspections have always been a key issue and challenge in these negotiations through the years.
	But the New STAR Treaty had two basic forms of verification and monitoring.
	One was the two sides exchanged data on each other's detailed information on each other's arsenals.
	And then on-site inspections were taking place many times each year to verify the accuracy of those declarations.
	And those inspections, however, were suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic.
	They were not resumed because they couldn't agree on exactly how to resume.
	And then something called the massive Russian invasion of Ukraine took place.
	Russia expressed its displeasure with the United States' support for Ukraine's defense by suspending implementation of New START, which meant that they formally said, okay, we're not going to allow inspections to continue.
	And then they stopped the data exchanges.
	But the Russians did agree to continue to abide by the central limits of the treaty.
	And the U.S. and Russia then each had to verify as best they could through national technical means of intelligence, satellites, other means.
	So this will be an issue in any future negotiation.
	You know, how do you verify the number of nuclear weapons the two sides have agreed could be deployed or stored, et cetera.
	And each kind of agreement requires a different verification system.
	This is Deborah in Ohio for our guest on our line for Republicans.
	You're on with Daryl Kimball.
	Go ahead.
	Good morning.
	Just like Stalin in Yalta, Russia cheats.
	You know, after Yalta, Stalin went back and immediately started backing off what he agreed to with Churchill and FDR.
	And then in the Bush administration, when we wanted to put missile defense in Poland, Condoleezza Rice and Bob Gates, Secretary of Defense, tried desperately to get Russia to agree to that and said to Russia, you can come in and inspect these Patriot missiles every six months.
	Russia never agreed, never would agree.
	And so I don't see how you deal.
	I mean, we have to try to deal with Russia, but knowing that they will be non-compliant, how do you deal with that?
	Well, as I said, verification is always a tough issue, especially in countries that are not as transparent as the United States.
	But it is not correct to say that Russia always cheats.
	There have been several compliance disputes through the years.
	But the point of these agreements is that you negotiate mutual limits or reductions in these arsenals and the systems that deliver them.
	And then you don't just trust, you go verify.
	I mean, this was Ronald Reagan's Trust But Verify line.
	And that is the fundamental philosophy behind how the United States has, Republicans and Democratic administrations, pursued these agreements.
	If there is a compliance dispute, you know, you need to pursue the mechanisms that you've got through the treaty to resolve it.
	But ultimately, that is the best we can do.
	Is better than not having any agreement or any verification.
	Then we have a situation in which everybody is operating with worst-case assumptions.
	And before we had nuclear arms control agreements in the 1960s, if you recall, there were concerns about the so-called missile gap.
	In the 1960 presidential election, Nixon and Kennedy were arguing about whether the Russians were ahead with the number of missiles or not.
	And so there was an alleged Soviet missile gap that turned out to be untrue.
	And we didn't know about that because we didn't have the insights that we have had for many years through these arms control agreements with the inspections.
	Kenneth?
	Kenneth in Virginia Independent Line.
	Go ahead, please.
	You're next.
	Yes, good morning.
	I'm curious.
	I have a question about China and how it figures into this.
	You mentioned a three-way or a multiple party agreement.
	It's more difficult.
	But wouldn't that be more efficient if, I mean, we've gotten of it now.
	And it's to the point where our leader might end up winning the Nobel Prize by curing global warming because he started a nuclear winter, you know?
	So let's talk about the Chinese.
	So, I mean, China has historically had a much smaller nuclear arsenal.
	They detonated their first nuclear device in 1964.
	For many decades, they had an arsenal of around 100 to 200 nuclear weapons.
	In recent years, in about the last decade, they have begun to, in a very ambitious program, modernize their nuclear arsenal, increasing the number of nuclear weapons as a whole, but also building modern, sophisticated, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles in their western desert.
	So, you know, this is of concern because they're now at 600 nuclear weapons.
	The U.S. intelligence community and others believe they could have a total of about 1,000 nuclear weapons total by the year 2030.
	But they've never been part of a bilateral negotiation with the United States because their arsenal has always been smaller.
	So this is new territory for the Chinese, for the United States.
Building Confidence Through Direct Talks 00:15:31
	And as I said before, the format of talks matters a lot.
	And I think, you know, President Trump has talked about wanting to get the Chinese somehow involved.
	He tried in 2020 when the New STAR Treaty was going to expire the first time in 2021 when he was talking with the Russians.
	The U.S. senior representative invited the Chinese to attend on Twitter, not in a formal way, not in a serious way.
	And the Chinese were a bit perplexed.
	What do you want us to be there for?
	You're negotiating with the Russians.
	So we need, first of all, a serious proposal from the United States, which unfortunately President Trump has not put forward in the last year to the Chinese.
	And, you know, we need the Chinese to be a lot more cooperative and to understand they too have a responsibility to negotiate methods to prevent an arms race.
	So my suggestion would be a bilateral track with the Chinese, a bilateral track with the Russians.
	The United States, being in both negotiations, can certainly keep in mind what's happening in one might affect the other.
	But if we want to see progress, that is the better we've got a better chance of results in that way.
	You mentioned Thomas Donano before.
	He's mentioned in a story in the Wall Street Journal this morning accusing Beijing of secretly conducting low explosive power tests.
	Is this an arm twisting measure into the larger idea of bringing them to the table?
	Well, there are a couple of things going on here.
	So this brings us to the subject of nuclear weapons test explosions and another treaty that bans nuclear weapons test explosions.
	So, you know, the most visible symbol of the arms race during the Cold War were the atmospheric nuclear tests that the United States and the Soviet Union, others conducted until the limited test ban treaty of 1963.
	Then, after the Soviet Union fell apart, the U.S. and Russia agreed to suspend nuclear test explosions, which were taking place underground, and negotiate a global treaty to ban all nuclear weapons tests.
	That treaty is the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
	China has signed, Russia has signed, the United States has signed, 180 other countries have signed and ratified, but we're legally obligated not to conduct nuclear test explosions.
	So the accusation here is a serious one, and if true, it is a serious problem.
	Tom Donano did not provide any further information about how they know this.
	The Trump administration has not proposed a solution to this.
	I think the appropriate thing to do at this point is to try to engage the Chinese in direct talks to resolve this dispute, to find new ways to build confidence that no country, even the United States or Russia, are conducting nuclear test explosions of any yield at their former test sites.
	But what Danana was also saying in this speech, I mean, he lays out a list of long grievances about China's nuclear buildup, possible Chinese and Russian nuclear testing, and the United States needing to pursue a different approach to arms control other than a bilateral approach.
	Well, certainly, arms control needs to adapt to deal with today's nuclear challenges, but it also requires solutions.
	And my main criticism, which is also mentioned in that Wall Street Journal article, is that the Trump administration has been in office for six years.
	They have complained a lot.
	Some of these complaints are very valid about the behavior of other countries.
	But they have not put forward serious plans or solutions to address these problems.
	And we simply don't have results.
	So I'm glad that President Trump wants to pursue arms control.
	He says the right things, but he has to walk the talk.
	And now is the time when we need to see a serious approach to how we deal with China's possible nuclear test explosions and how we deal with this potential three-way nuclear arms race.
	Our guest is the executive director of the Arms Control Association.
	Describe that for our viewers.
	Well, the Arms Control Association has been around since 1971, just before the first U.S.-Russian agreement was negotiated on arms control.
	We're an independent membership-based organization.
	We publish a monthly journal, Arms Control Today.
	So we provide information and we're a platform for ideas about the most dangerous weapons, particularly nuclear weapons.
	You mentioned Ukraine.
	Does that bring a new layer of complication to achieve what the U.S. wants to see with Russia?
	Well, it certainly has been a huge complicating factor.
	Throughout the history of the U.S., Russian-U.S.-Soviet relationship, we've had extreme differences on lots of different issues.
	And yet, nuclear arms control has always been a topic that two sides have been able to talk about because nuclear weapons represent a common threat.
	But with Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which really began back in 2013, remember, this aggression on the part of Russia has complicated the dialogue between the U.S. and Russia.
	And it has always put the talks about reducing nuclear threats on the back burner.
	And Russia also, as I said before, they penalized the United States, tried to penalize the United States, because the United States was supporting Ukraine's defense, as it should have, by saying, we're not going to talk about strategic stability, nuclear arms control talks with you until you drop that support.
	So right now, it's not so much of an impediment because the Russians are willing to talk to the Americans about nuclear arms control and vice versa.
	But as we know from reading the headlines, the Ukraine issue still dominates most of the diplomatic back and forth between the United States and Russia.
	Now, a new headline is just emerging today, the president giving the U.S. and Russia, or Ukraine and Russia until June a deadline to reach some type of agreement.
	Right.
	So this is what is taking up most of the bandwidth in the White House State Department.
	That's what Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are talking with Putin's advisors and cronies about for most of the time.
	We don't have Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control Tom Donano talking to his counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rabkov, right now.
	That's what we need to see happening.
	And those two men and their expert teams need to sit down.
	And by the way, the next round of U.S.-Russian arms control talks on a new agreement, it's going to be more complicated than New Start was back in 2010.
	Why?
	Because they need to address the issue of how do we limit strategic nuclear weapons, which is what Newstart covered, the long-range systems, but then intermediate-range systems.
	There was a treaty, the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that Ronald Reagan negotiated.
	It eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range weapons, mainly in Europe.
	That treaty is gone because of a compliance dispute with the Russians in 2019.
	Then there are the sub-strategic nuclear weapons, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons.
	They're still extremely dangerous and large detonations, but they're carried on short-range systems.
	The Russians have a relatively large stockpile of about 1,000 in storage that could be brought forward in a regional conflict.
	The U.S. has about 250.
	That's an issue that we want to get our arms around.
	And then we've all heard about President Trump's Golden Dome concept.
	What it really is is expanded strategic missile defense scheme.
	That has always been a controversial part of the U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons dialogue because if one side has effective strategic missile defenses or partially effective, it can knock down a portion of the other country's offensive force.
	So the Russians look at this and they say, well, if you're going to build a defense against 200, 400 of our missiles, we're going to build 200, 400, 500 more.
	So it leads to an action-reaction cycle.
	So all these issues are going to be, if the two sides get together, part of the mix, and how they decide to put all this together in one package, which would be extremely difficult, or have a series of agreements.
	That is a big question.
	And we haven't heard from the Trump administration about how they seek to deal with this.
	Let's hear from Pat, the New Jersey Republican line.
	Go ahead.
	Hello.
	My question is, even if the U.S. and Russia reach agreement on arms control, if China is not willing to go along with it, will there be greater dangers on the Asian continent?
	Will India or even Pakistan try to keep up with China increasing the supply of nuclear weapons on a single continent?
	Thank you.
	Well, it's a great question because each of the world's nine nuclear-armed countries do tend to look at what one another is doing.
	India's greatest concern in terms of nuclear armaments is Pakistan, but they also look to China.
	India has about 175 nuclear weapons.
	Pakistan has a similar number.
	So at some point, India may want to adjust the size of its arsenal, how it is deployed.
	They're building sea-based missiles to follow what China is trying to do.
	But let me get back to what China's buildup means for the United States, and can we negotiate limits with the Russians even without China?
	As I said, the United States and Russia have right now about 1,550, 1,600 deployed strategic weapons.
	China has about 300 to 400 nuclear warheads on long-range systems that can reach the U.S.
	The U.S. has, in my view, in the view of many defense experts, more nuclear firepower than necessary to deter Russia and certainly China.
	And if China builds up, we may want to rethink how many nuclear weapons we have, how they are deployed.
	But it does not make any sense, from my perspective, not to have limits on U.S. and Russian arsenals as we try to engage with China to stop and then reverse their buildup.
	Why is that?
	Because if the United States begins building up the size of its arsenal, or Russia does, the two of us are going to get into an action-reaction cycle.
	And the Chinese are going to see that.
	And they're likely going to accelerate, not slow down, their buildup.
	And they may go to the farther end of what they're capable of doing.
	So, you know, it's very important that the United States and Russia continue to exercise restraint.
	And, you know, China's buildup, the other thing we should keep in mind of strategic nuclear weapons, it's not pointed at or designed to deter India's nuclear arsenal.
	It's not really focused on Japan or South Korea.
	The Chinese are likely concerned about their ability to have a strategic retaliatory attack on the U.S. if they're attacked.
	In other words, they want to be able to threaten to be able to hit back at the U.S.
	And if they only have a relatively small number of strategic nuclear missiles that could be hit in a first strike, knocked out, they might not have that retaliatory potential.
	So they're building up the number of missiles.
	I don't support that, but that is the logic of arms racing and nuclear deterrence.
	And so we need to understand that our actions are affecting their calculations.
	We're going to show folks a graph that the Arms Control Association has of suspected weapons buildup in 2025.
	And as we do that, we'll hear from Patty.
	Patty in Wisconsin, Democrats line.
	You're on with our guest, Daryl Kimball.
	Go ahead.
	Mr. Kimball, thank you for this life and death information.
	I'm a grandmother, but we've had lots of military and current military service people currently serving now.
	That being said, I don't want my grandchildren drafted for people's eagles, and I'm so fearful.
	And please keep us informed.
	And if we could just be kinder to one another.
	But I'm afraid of President Trump because he's so aggressive.
	happened in South America just pushes all the buttons and please give us more advice.
	Thank you.
	Well one thing that brings us all together is we need peace.
	We want to avoid war.
	We need to find ways to protect our country and build international security.
	And I mean one thing I would say is that the United States, Russia, China, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, I mean, we need to find effective ways to reduce nuclear dangers.
	And I personally disagree with President Trump on a lot of policies, but one reassuring thing is that he does seem to understand some of the fundamentals about nuclear weapons, that they are too expensive, we have too many of them, and that a nuclear conflict, if it were to break out, would be catastrophic and it must be avoided.
	And he's also said that he wants to negotiate, or as he puts it, denuclearization with Russia and China.
	But what I think we all need to think about is even as we've got many other issues to deal with, healthcare, education, crime, immigration issues, climate, this is one of the most important issues facing the United States and the world.
	So members of Congress need to hear from all of you about how you feel.
	They need to speak up and ask hard questions of the executive branch, which has almost total control over policy in this area.
	We need to be asking questions about how much our tax dollars are being used to spend on nuclear weapons.
	I would just note that the United States is on track to spend about $1 trillion to modernize the existing nuclear arsenal.
	That's an enormous sum of money.
	And if we get into an arms race that is possible without effective constraints and arms control agreements yet to be negotiated, it would cost even more.
	So we need to be asking hard questions.
	We need to demand more of our elected leaders to act to deal with this threat.
U.S. Spending on Nuclear Weapons 00:06:54
	Richard is joining us from Massachusetts.
	Richard, on our independent line, go ahead.
	Good morning.
	Darrell, I spoke to you on June 14th of the previous, not last year, but the year before.
	I was involved with the NOETOC cleanup and building the Ruined Dome.
	Hello again.
	I tried to get in touch with you and you never got back to me, but I just want to make a comment.
	Out of the 4,000 guys that cleaned up NOETOC with no protection, and it's well documented, okay, there's only 300 of us still left.
	We want compensation.
	Tomorrow it's going to be 50 years.
	I want those veterans and myself compensated for what we did and how they lied and how the widows and the children after their husbands died cleaning up NOETOC got no benefits whatsoever.
	That's my comment.
	Okay.
	You'll have to put some context to it, please.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Well, listen, I apologize for not getting back to you.
	I got a lot of inquiries, but I will get back to you.
	Look back at the email.
	But what the caller is referring to, the Iwana Talk Dome.
	So the United States, in the early days of the Cold War, conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific.
	And these were extremely dirty, very large nuclear test explosions, displaced islanders in the Marshall Islands chain.
	And one of these tests that was detonated on a small atoll created an enormous amount of radioactive contamination that the United States government had to go back and try to contain by putting a concrete dome over a large portion of the residual waste and contamination.
	And it was American soldiers and workers who did that work.
	And the caller was one of the people who was involved in this.
	It was extremely dirty work.
	Those workers have been suffering health problems for years and years.
	There are hundreds of thousands of people who worked at nuclear weapons production plants around the United States.
	I grew up near one of them in southwest Ohio, who have suffered from radiation and chemical exposure at these plants.
	And then there are all of the people who have suffered from the fallout from nuclear test explosions conducted in the United States, mainly in Nevada, 100 nuclear, atmospheric nuclear test explosions, who are still suffering today from radiation-related illnesses.
	There are some programs that have been established to help with Department of Energy nuclear weapons workers.
	There's a program called the Radiation Effects Compensation Act.
	Congress just barely extended last year that covers many, but not all of the downwinders.
	But the workers at Iwanatak Atoll, where the room at Dome is, they apparently are not covered well enough.
	So we have a legacy of contamination and people who've been affected that our government has not provided justice for if they ever really could.
	Here's the map that we referenced earlier when it comes to the Arms Control Association, the 2025 Estimated Global Nuclear Warhead Inventories.
	You can see that at their website.
	With that in mind, I want to talk to you about a headline out of yesterday about the U.S. and Iran approaching talks over the program.
	What are the talks and what do they center on?
	Well, these talks were the first since the United States bombed key Iranian nuclear sites back in June.
	That disrupted earlier talks with the Iranians about the status and the future of its nuclear program.
	So the talks on Friday covered a wide range of issues, including the nuclear program.
	There was no clear outcome yet.
	Iran, after the U.S. and Israeli strikes in June, still has a residual capacity to enrich uranium, even though its major facilities are currently disabled.
	They have a stockpile of some 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from previous work.
	And I think significantly, the U.S. and Israeli bombing led to the removal of the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who were there on the ground keeping an eye on what Iran was doing, what it had, et cetera.
	We need to get those inspectors back in to understand what the situation is, to make sure that Iran is not reconstituting the program in a way that could allow them to weaponize some of that material.
	There are no signs that they're doing that yet.
	And I hope that's a priority of the Trump administration.
	But we have to remember, Iran looks at this program and they believe that they have a right to a peaceful nuclear energy program.
	They want to have the option to enrich uranium.
	U.S. is saying you cannot enrich Iranium like all other non-nuclear weapons states are allowed to do.
	And Trump is threatening further military action if the Iranians do not agree to a long list of demands.
	Both sides need to be more flexible.
	Both sides need to zero in on what the most important areas of agreement are that would solve the most urgent nonproliferation issues.
	So it is a longer conversation, but I hope that they continue to work at this.
	This is an important issue still.
	And we have negotiated with the Iranians in the past.
	There was the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of.
	It was very effective in holding back Iran's pathways to the bomb, blocking the pathways.
	But Donald Trump pulled out of it in 2018.
	So it's now on him to address this issue.
	And I hope it is done diplomatically rather than with more bombs in a new war in the Middle East.
	Our guest website is armscontrol.org.
	Darrell Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association.
	Thanks for your time.
	Thank you.
	That's it for our program today.
C-SPAN Watchers 00:03:17
	A new edition of Washington Journal comes your way at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning.
	C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
	Coming up this morning, former Trump campaign advisor Steve Cortez on Trump immigration policies, the Latino vote, and campaign 2026, plus other political news of the week.
	Then the founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, David Becker, talks about recent actions by President Trump and his administration involving elections.
	C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
	Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN.
	C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
	So you interviewed the other night.
	I watched it about 2 o'clock in the morning.
	There was a little thing called C-SPAN, which I don't know how many people were watching.
	Don't worry, you were in prime time too, but they happen to have a little re-run.
	Do you really think that we don't remember what just happened last week?
	Thank goodness for C-SPAN, and we all should review the tape.
	Everyone wonders when they're watching C-SPAN what the conversations are on the floor.
	Now I'm about to read to you something that was published by C-SPAN.
	There's a lot of things that Congress fights about, that they disagree on.
	We can all watch that on C-SPAN.
	Millions of people across the country tuned into C-SPAN.
	Thank you!
	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 aboard 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?
	C-SPAN, democracy unfiltered.
	We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox.
	When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help.
	Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans.
	Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there.
	Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
	The four astronauts of NASA SpaceX Crew-12 are holding a pre-launch news conference Sunday.
	They're in quarantine ahead of their trip to the International Space Station and will be live from crew quarters at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
	That's at 11 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.

Chapters

00:00:00 Dramatic Shift in Enrollment
00:15:41 Priced Out: Rural Ohio's Health Crisis
00:30:36 Worries About Health Insurance Coverage
00:39:11 Universal Medicare Discussion
00:43:12 Gutfeld's Health Care Critique
00:48:01 Healthcare Insurance Debate
00:50:28 Town Forum Shutdown Demand
00:59:53 Hello Good News
01:15:31 Verification Challenges
01:32:08 Building Confidence Through Direct Talks
01:47:40 U.S. Spending on Nuclear Weapons
01:54:35 C-SPAN Watchers