coming up on this morning's washington journal your nationwide calls and comments live. gabe roth reacts to the new code of ethics adopted by the supreme court in roll calls david lerman talks about his article on the latest budget. host: good morning it is saturday, 11/18/2023 congress sent a stopgap spending bill avoiding a government shut down but amplifying divisions within

the political parties. president biden also met was she's impeding to improve relations between the two superpower. we want to hear your opinions on the top stories this week. we are still following developments in the israel/hamas war and the ethics report released on george santos. the supreme court also released its own code of ethics and we will have a guest on that later. first we want to hear your calls dial-in at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, for independents (202) 748-8002 or text us at (202) 748-8003 or find us at

social media. to the meeting with president biden and xi jinping he was at a press conference after that meeting with the chinese leader and he spoke about the resumption of military to military dialogue with china. [video clip] >> we are re-assuming military to military direct contact. that is been cut off and that is how accidents and misunderstandings happen. we are back to open, clear communications. vital miscalculations can cause real trouble with the country like china or any other major country. i think we're making real progress there as well.

i welcome the positive steps we've taken today and it's important for the world to say where using american diploma cy. we made sure there was no misunderstanding, in the months ahead we are going to continue to preserve and pursue high-level diplomacy in both directions to keep the lines of communications open between president xi and me. we agreed that either one of us could pick up the phone call directly and both would be heard. another story we are following that broke yesterday is van altman is out as the openai's ceo after a skirmish of the board. openai pushed out sam altman out

saying he was not being consistently candid in his communication following a series of classes over the company's direction with members of the ai board. it's board concluded that altman which it did not specify where hindering its ability to exercise his responsibility. the board no longer has confidence in his ability to lead openai. we are still looking for your calls on your top news stories those numbers are (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents. let's start with lisa on our democratic line. caller: i'm talking about the

judges decision to keep trump on the ballot which is the most ridiculous decision they can make. by that standard, the president is the highest military officer in the land over all military. not to mention the fact the original law against insurrection says whomever, does not restrict anyone. this idea that it does not specifically say the president is ridiculous. especially when the founding fathers did not want a tyrant like trump in the white house to destroy the constitution. it lacks common sense and that

is the problem. we have no common sense and records. that's what i was going to say. host: thank you. other news where following where the tensions flaring on capitol hill as a result of the spending deal that avoided a government shutdown. tim burchett of tennessee accused kevin mccarthy of elbowing him in the kidneys on tuesday morning while he was talking to a reporter. he explained what happened to my new garage to -- manu raju. [video clip] >> i was giving an interview to npr and i got a clean shot to the kidneys and when i turned around, there was kevin. for a minute i couldn't think of what happened and then i chased

after him and as i've stated many times, he's a bully with $17 million in the security detail. he's the kind of guy who could throw a rock over the fence and run home to hide behind is mama's skirt. that's not the way we handle things in tennessee. >> he hate you with his elbow. -- hit you with his elbow. what you mean you taste him? >> i ran after him. you don't have to hit very hard to cause a lot of pain and as he always did, he denied it or blame somebody else.

it was a little heated but i backed off. everybody sighed. >> but he responded to you? >> he just asked like what are you talking about? who are you? that's symptomatic of the problems that he has had in his short tenure as speaker. host: once again we are taking your top news stories of the week. let's go next to glenn in illinois on the democratic line. caller: couple of things. the guy holding up all of the military promotions. host: tommy tuberville? caller: right.

and president trump and all the trouble he is causing around. i can't see the republicans going after trump the way they are going. the next thing you are going to do is have a dictator in the white house and biden is doing a terrific job and all of these red states should look at all the blacktop going down on the highways with all this money that biden is putting out. he is doing things for the country that trump never did. they get on the wall again, what is his name? will be there to collect the money like you did the last time.

when you took all this money for the wall and now he is sucking up to donald again. that's about it. but it perturbed me to no end. and i am actually a vet and i took my coat off and i think these congressman's need to come up with the note. host: let's now hear from mike in maryland. on an independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i agree with the gentleman before me. i have a rhetorical question. why is donald trump not a

domestic terrorist with those comments he made last week. it just doesn't make sense that is not recognized. i consider him a white supremacist domestic terrorist. and i hope everyone has a good day today. host: now let's hear from norm in pennsylvania, go ahead norm. caller: hello? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i am calling all of these people calling in about the republicans. one of they talk about the democrats and what is going on with all of that stuff? what about the riots going on at the dnc and all that. you never cover stuff like that. host: is that your top news

story of the week the riot at the dnc? ok, thank you norm. let's go to stephen in lexington, kentucky. caller: good morning, happy saturday. this is the first time i've had the privilege of talking to you. my biggest story is our presidents failure of handling the israeli/palestine conflict. i can kind of tell that they are a little older than i am and a huge generational gap and race cap on how people are perceiving this war in the middle east. new polls show that biden is having trouble with his constituents and the people who support him like myself. i wanted to vote for him again but now me and my friends and

family members, we have a feeling that he is not hearing us. he is called genocide joe because of the way he's handling this word. my biggest story is a disconnect between our president and his supporters in the american people. his votes will be split different ways because of this. this is the time for a third party and i am a democrat. thank you for having me. host: here's a story from cnn politics about those protests outside the dnc that the protest encapsulate progressive angst that could imperil biden's campaign. israel could not have asked for a better friended israel but rising anger inside the democratic party around israeli

attack on gaza is causing restlessness among younger voters it appears to be an increasing political risk. they exacerbate their weaknesses in his party which may pose the biggest risk to his second term. on the independent line let's go to and in north carolina. caller: last time i was cut off really quick and i heard other people express their opinions. i wanted to comment about being on the ticket for presidency. i read the 14th amendment and it

says the office of an i am 79 years old in history was my major in college. one thing i heard all my life, you would run for the office of the president. he's an officer of our country. he ran it became the officer of the presidency. he is the officer over all of our military and tommy tuberville has made a mockery of that part of our government. i hope all these republicans listen to me. i am an independent and i listen to all the channels on tv and i never heard of anybody as hateful as sean hannity in that

group on fox. i have tried to listen to them and give them the benefit of the doubt but i wonder if they would be making fun of roosevelt now because his presidency was from a wheelchair. i have arthritis in my hips and knees and i walked just like joe biden and i am very well-versed. , intelligent person. i watch sean hannity pick out clips and snippets and watch the whole speech on joe biden every time he and trump gives one. i have never heard anything, they call him a tossed salad.

what about trump? he doesn't give speeches he stands up there and throws out stuff. host: i do want to follow-up what you were mentioning as well as the earlier caller about the colorado judge that rule that trump engaged in an insurrection but can still run for president. that came in the case that argued trump was barred from returning to office. in politico, a colorado judge turned away a challenge to prevent trump from running for office using the 14th amendment. a handful of other states have also turned away those challenges.

the top stories from william, number one the process for stopping fentanyl, e release progress in reference to the ongoing cts between israel and hamas in the continuing rolution passed by congress and goodbye george santos as well as the division of the electorate by political french and congress. that was william from middleton, connecticut. let's hear from laura in spokane, washington on the republican line. caller: my top story this week was watching these rapid marches going through our country and these people assaulting people and tearing things up and

jumping up and down for a so called genocide when there is no genocide. israel has been there for 3000 years. jewish people had been there for 5000 years. hamas has had control of the palestinians since 2006. there has never been an apartheid of the palestinian people. here they are demanding the genocide of the jewish people and i think that's just disgusting. and these people are so violent while marching, just like rabid dogs. there was not an insurrection you don't know what you're talking about. all this crop about trump when you have biden and their he was taking billions of dollars from china and every other country he can get it out of.

things are getting into the arrears in this country. that's all i have to say. thank you. host: thank you laura. on x there is a comment, my top news story is there is no government shutdown. congress has me re they did the bear minimum tke the nation running so they can reach their goal of going to vacation early. on the democratic line you will hear from tim in alabama. caller: good morning. my top story is what is going on over in palestine. with the u.s. and israel. biden has inherited, the united

states have been supporting israel since 1948. he is supporting the genocide going on from netanyahu on the palestinian people. they talk about october 7, but you have to look about what has been going on with the palestinian people. they have 19 prisons over and israel where they have kept 6000 palestinians and torturing them over there. the palestinians are fed up with that. they have been brutalized daily in the streets of israel. the other thing which i think is important, when i say genocide, the jewish people are not the

only ones who have genocide. the american indian were killed by the millions. the african people were killed by the millions. more than 6 million, 20 million africans lost their lives coming over here and over 100 million indians lost their lives when the spanish took over this continent. the main thing i would like to point out, the reason all of this is going on in the middle east which is for land and resources. today it is palestine, tomorrow it will be another north african or muslim country because they want to take over the mineral resources. host: let's hear from de in nashville, tennessee on the

independent line. caller: hey, good morning. i just really wanted to say what the country is going on, the direction. i know people hate donald trump but they need to think about their children, grandchildren. this country is not going to survive another four years with the administration you have in there now. people don't realize that donald trump was a disrupter in the one world order. the globalist actually run this country, not joe biden, not the obamas or the clintons. it is all run by globalist. they are told what to do by them.

if people don't really wake up they are going to wish and pray they did have a donald trump in office when this election is over next year. host: next up we have marshall on our republican line, go ahead. caller: hey good morning, thank you for taking my call. i pray you give me the time you gave the independent. there is so much going on in the country but i would like to give a little bit of pushback. recently on youtube, wikipedia has quit calling the insurrection and insurrection they call it a capital attack. this was no insurrection. they use the term to make it worse than it was. the fact that we have da's and judges, mostly democrats and democratic states bringing

donald trump into court to stop him from running for president. the american people see this. the only people who don't say are willing -- who don't see it are willingly blind. the democrats are going to find some way to cause chaos in this country to stop the next election or to interfere like the fbi in the mainstream media along with social media. these are facts. on a greater scale, we have a president and i appreciate what the color said about globalization. we have a president that is a puppet. he stood and told the american

people that if you don't get vaccinated you won't work. you will be able to go to a restaurant. these are words of a dictator. thankfully, he was stopped by the constitution and the people would not stand for. the fact that he would think he could even do that. democratic voters need to wake up and see what's going on in our country. as the globalization of the world and we can have an america stands above all other nations as a beacon of light. to the democrat party and many republicans america needs to fall in line. host: something you have mentioned is the attack on the capitol on january 6. speaker johnson has said he will make 44,000 hours of footage

available to the general public. a story about that announcement and how speaker johnson said he will publicly release thousands of hours of footage from the attack on the capital making good on the promise he made to far right members. the newly elected speaker said the first tranche will be released on a public committee website with the rest of the 44 hundred hours posted over the next several months. a viewing room will also be set up in the capital. some of that is available online now and available at c ha.house.gov. all video footage released to media outlets will be uploaded to a viewing room

for public access. the subcommittee will continue to populate the viewing room with additional footage for public review and this will be on the website and that link is not up yet but we will have that for you. on x, they have the same story senator johnson following through with releasing the january 6 tapes. the cha subcommittee reading room is up and there is video on there already. you will be able to find that online as well through the house subcommittee's website. let's hear from dorothy in baltimore, maryland. caller: i hope i can have enough

time as i have a lot to say. this is a strange country. you have an ex-president who was found guilty of sexual abuse by a jury. this is not a conspiracy. a former president he was found guilty for stealing from his charity. this is not a conspiracy. he was also found guilty for a fraudulent university and this is not made up. this was in court. why in the world would you want someone to lead, even if the republicans want someone there. why would you choose that kind of man?

he did cause and insurrection. they can call it what they want. they harm police officers and beat them up to try to get to them to stop the election. they wanted the vice president to do something he wasn't even legally able to do. every person testifying against tromp are republicans he had in his own cabinet and administration. people who worked closely with him. from chiefs of staff to five-star generals said that trump is not capable of running a country. the economy that trump left in shambles.

our economy was good the day he was inaugurated. we need to stop praising someone with his character. thank you for listening. host: from our text message line, bob in belton, missouri said that his top story of the week is republicans have not done a single bill in nine months. what could be wrong with the year? let's hear from jim in north dakota on a republican line. caller: hi. can you hear me? host: yes i can hear you. caller: this is a great show. i am a conservative and she made some good points. a lot of great calls about fox news. real sincerity coming through the airwaves. i agree about that with fox news i don't watch it much anymore either.

my top story would be the riots at the dnc. you didn't show any images of it and it was pretty harrowing. the democrats inside the building one of them said he felt he was at january 6 again. of course fox news is the only one who shows things like that. they were very angry those young democrats. it was not an insurrection but it was a riot. host: we are showing images of that on the screen now. caller: 75 million trump supporters were at work. i was working in north dakota came out for a smoke and someone

tells me about it. i had no idea i was supposed to go there to take over the government. it was a couple of 1000 idiots and they were punished pretty badly for it. i remember #disrupt january 20. there were riots during the inauguration there were cars set on fire and people were attacked. during the george floyd thing, they pulled down a statue and set a church on fire. trump was taken into an underground bunker. host: i wanted to give a little more detail since you brought up the protest. we have some information about it.

at least one person was arrested with demonstrators calling for cease-fire in gaza where they illegally and violently protested outside the dnc. lawmakers who are inside of the building for a fundraiser set on x like capitol police evacuated them from the building and all members of congress were evacuated from the area. demonstration organizer said that 100 participants suffered injuries after being pepper sprayed and pushed by police. next up we have john in michigan on her independent mind. go ahead. caller: hi, my name is john from michigan in about a week ago on msnbc we know about the disinformation with reference to the election in 2020.

i am wondering when the republican conventions are taking place when they start doing those with trump and nikki haley and ron desantis and vivek ramaswamy. if trump wins the first one and nikki wentz the first, second and third. host: the republican national convention for 2024 is scheduled for july 15-18. caller: if trump does not win the popular one or because the nominee if all of a sudden he is going to have a fit and save the election was rigged. i don't know what's going to

happen. that's just one of the questions i have. host: one of the other stories we've been following this morning is the controversy on the hill with members of congress having disagreements with each other over the funding bill. we had one of our earlier viewers mention that they notice nothing got done by republicans in congress this year with a similar sentiment on wednesday by texas republican chip roy who called out fellow republicans for their inaction on cutting spending. [video clip] >> for the life of me i do not understand how you can go to the trouble of campaigning, raising money, coming to this town as a member of a party who advisedly stands for something. stands for reducing spending and

eliminating debt, securing the border, strong military, ending though wokeness killing our schools and kids. and then do nothing about it. one thing i want my republican colleagues to give me one thing that i can go campaign on to say we did. anybody sitting in the complex if you want to come to the floor and explained to me one material, meaningful thing the republican majority has done besides well, i guess it's not as bad as the democrats. host: back to your calls, michael is in new york on the democratic line. caller: yes, good morning. host: make sure you turn down the volume on your tv. caller: i did.

let me just say this, if you are watching and listening to all the news articles that are top stories here. i think the one that worries me the most at this point is what is going on in israel and what they're doing over there. quite frankly, i think that is a powder keg and i think the palestinians and israelites they are a division themselves and in the middle east things can erupt out there. we have to be stronger on foreign policy when it comes to trying to obtain piece and when we have divisions in our own country the way we do that affects the outcome. we have to bring it together. i don't know how we are going to do this with all the division of politics we have today. we have a lot going on in this

country and donald trump is stirring the pot. i am telling you right now guys, do not buy into his rhetoric and stories he's telling because a lot of things he is telling you is just not true. a lot of times this man has been caught lying even on the stand. donald trump has done all these things that has hurt this country and let's try to come together and come to grips with things. thus something of grave importance we need to stop protesting from happening let's get together as a country and liked someone to put this country back together and donald trump is not it. host: bob is in maine on our republican line, go ahead bob. caller: good morning everyone. my top story would have to be

the release of the january 6 videos. i watch some of them already and there's a lot of them out already on that website. i can't believe that was mentioned, you mention five stories and that was not one of them. three years we've been going through hell because of the democrats and the news media and it seems like this is the end of it. watch the videos. you have a cop that his fist bumping one of the rioters. just go watch the videos, sad. host: those videos are available at cha.house.gov. and you can

see some of those clips now and there's quite a few that have been posted already. next up, john in virginia on our independent line. go ahead john. caller: good morning. there are so many top stories, trumped arrangement syndrome should be one. for the life of me i can understand, some people hate him with such a passion. they have trouble even talking. it's like they will have a heart attack just spinning his name out. they get themselves so worked up. my top story would be the election denial. to me, i still think and i don't know one way or another if the last election was completely honest but people get so upset

about it. it was never fully investigated and to tell the truth whether it was honest or not it doesn't matter now. it's over. but people get so worked up about it and they cause someone an election denier if they don't buy it hook, line and sinker. you're allowed to question things. and to say that 40 judges ruled it was legal none of the judges heard the case. when you think logically about it, if i was a judge what judge would want to hear that case? what if you herded an you found out there was irregularities, what is the solution then? there is no answer. you can't have another election two years later so nobody wanted to open that can of worms.

people have the intelligence to question it but people don't want to hear it. if stacey abrams question her election and nobody cared. they say oh well, that stacy and they ignore it. the reason it makes people so mad in the back of their mind they know there were problems. host: on x we have a comment from jersey girl who says i thinthfact that judge in colorado found the president trump engaged in insurrection was important. a former president sworn to uphold and defend the constitution tried to overthrow the government. that colorado judge in that political article said trump engaged in insurrection but that he could run for president and not be removed from the ballot

under the 14th amendment despite the efforts by progressive activists. the trump campaign released a statement saying we applaud colorado which is another nail in the coffin of the un-american ballot challenges, 14 ballot challenges have been defeated. these cases represent the cynical and blatant attempts to interfere with the upcoming election by desperate democrats. next up let's hear from josie in indiana on the democratic line. caller: good morning, my biggest story of the week were three things. the retrenchment between china

and the united states. president biden got some concessions from the chinese and he did not step back from referring to president xi as a dictator when questioned about it. they understand the balance in world power which i think the former president lacked a great deal of that knowledge. number two, the pugnacious actions of the republicans in the house ed public hearing room. to be elected is to understand you must govern and i haven't seen any governing from the republicans in the house of representatives. i think republicans in the senate are working to go against tommy tuberville who was absolutely ridiculously holding

up so many promotions in our military endocrine that are military is weak and comparing his responsibilities as a football coach to those of the general or career military man having to go to a rack. to iraq. i'm listening to people saying that people speak with venom about the former president. did anyone pay attention to the fact that the former president refers to his enemies, people who oppose him as poison and vermin? does anyone realize that language is comparable to what took place in germany in the early 1930's?

anyone understanding it is the constitution that holds this country together and when they act out of the constitution legal actions must be taken. the gentleman who was watching the tapes of the insurrection advising people to watch it. if i had 44,000 hours left of my life, my opinion would not change. there was violence and they did want to hang vice president pence and they did go in looking for nancy pelosi. we have to come together but we must understand that to do so, we have to have people who want to govern our country not tear down. host: josie mentioned some of the conflicts on capitol hill this week. on tuesday, markwayne mullin challenge the president of the teamsters union to a fight during a hearing.

here is that confrontation from tuesday's hearing with bernie sanders trying to intervene. [video clip] >> let's talk about mr. o'brien and his behaviors. last time we had a back and forth. after you left here you got excited that the keyword and you tweeted it me, 1, 2, 3, 4, five times. the last one said, a ceo who pretends like he is self-made. i wish you were in the truck with me when i was building my plumbing company myself and my wife was running my office because i remember working pretty long hours. what a clown, a fraud. always has been, always will be. quit the tough guide act in the senate hearings. you know where to find me

anyplace, anytime cowboy. this is a time, this is the place if you want to run your mouth we can finish it here. >> ok that's fine. >> you want to do it right now? stander brought up now. >> you stand your butt up. >> you are a united states senator. you have your time. >> can i respond? >> no you can't. this is a hearing. >> i don't like thugs. >> i don't like you. >> i did challenge you and i accepted your challenge. and you went quiet. >> no, i didn't go quiet.

you challenge me to cage match like a 12-year-old schoolyard bill lee. >> said in a mall and i the mic. if you have questions on economic issues. when i hear this talk about physical abuse. host: next step andy on our republican line. caller: good morning i wanted to speak about another subject. this lady called in earlier and said that unions or democrats sorry, republicans were not following the constitution. well, these unions are illegal and unconstitutional. you are ganging up on the consumer. there are evil, greedy people so

they will increase inflation to get more tax revenue. anyone who said that trump lied asking him what he lied about of any significance? the biggest story for me for the week was one that hardly anyone heard about it was president xi who ordered women of reproductive age to go home and stop working, have babies and take care of the elderly. their policy of one child in the family did not work. and we have the same situation in america with women who don't reproduce in all the abortions and we have to bring in emigration for those who have

been killed, not born. diversity is not a strength he said. that's my little thing about it this morning. host: here's a story from reuters about what andy was mentioning. president xi said chinese women must start a new trend of family. women have a critical role in establishing a new trend of family as they deal with a aging population and a record decline in birthrates. the role of women has been a part of the discussion with the new leadership team. let's hear from ken in tampa florida on our independent line. caller: good morning. host: good morning.

caller: there are so many things to say, as far as any story the bottom line with most of the callers is that north americans are misinformed and uneducated. 90% of everything happening in this country is due to racism. i called a few years ago when donald trump started running for office with the slogan make america great again. name a time when america was great for everyone? from police enforcement, people applying for loans, getting jobs. when it comes to immigration?

, donald trump was in office, obama was in office. host: what was your top story for this week? caller: chip roy. he gets out there and says to the republicans and he's a staunch conservative. name one thing we have done. but like what i said in the beginning, it's all about skin color. he said he's sick and tired of hearing about diversity training. why? why would he say something like that? racism. and at the end of the day, america needs to get past skin color. if they get past that we will be a great country. donald trump knows how to tap into the majority of americans especially people of my age group and older.

they said they are afraid. you know what they are afraid of? their own shadow. because there shadow produces a color. we have over 535 people in congress, one hundred senators, 435 house. white men still controlled the majority whether you are a republican or democrat. they still control it. host: you mentioned chip roy in the floor speech he gave that according to the hill lasted almost one hour where he argued that republicans were doing a disservice to those honored with monuments and died for u.s. freedom. we are giving it all away all of those who fought for those freedoms because we are too cowardly to stand up and do our jobs.

he was complaining about not shutting down the government and the inability to pass the spending bill. next up, randy in wisconsin on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i agree with the last guy in a way. if you are not white and colored people, stop talking about it. it will all work out. as president biden, what is he done for this country? how many millions of people, we don't know these people. we are going to have a disaster in this country.

they're bringing all those pills and to kill all of our people. that southern border is number one in my book. we have to get that done. there are two world wars going on here. what has he done? nothing. what a c talk about? climate change. climate change as mother nature. that money that they're throwing out there, billions for climate change where is it going? it's going into the politicians pocket on the democratic side. they are building fancy places all over the world to live in. that's where the money is going. another thing, i have an idea. all kids coming out of high school and this is serious.

should take four years of college mandatory. all these branches of the military we have a training problem. everything you can get in college you can get through the military. host: i want to get one more call, and neil in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. my top story of the week is the stupidity of the republicans the support donald trump after all of the wrongdoing he has done. he supported the january 6 attack. he clearly should not be able to be on the ballot in these republicans still support him

after all the wrongdoing and evidence it has come out. it is ridiculous and they vote marjorie taylor greene and all she's trying to do is defund everybody. ron wright the comedian said you can't fix stupid. these republicans are just stupid. host: that is all the time i have for because right now. coming up next were going to dig into the new code of ethics that the supreme court unveiled with gabe roth with the transparency group fix the court. and with our spotlight on podcast segment they averted a government cq roll call shutdown so we will have cq roll call david lerman on. that's just ahead.

♪ ♪ >> monday, watch the conclusion of c-span's series in partnership with the library of partnership -- congress books that shaped america with the words of cesar chavez. it is a collection of speeches by the civil rights activist. the book retells the history of the farm labor movement and expense have chavez used nonviolent methods to deliver his message for better pay and working conditions for migrant arm workers. miriam powell, journalist and author of a biography titled the crusades of cesar chavez will discuss the book. watch books that shaped america featuring the words of cesar chavez monday live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now,

our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. be sure to scan the qr code to listen to our companion podcast where you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. ♪ ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage of the miami book fair. jonathan i, author of king, a legacy of martin luther king. antenna glut p.m. eastern on afterwards, stanford university's author of the world's high c, on her journey to become the leading scientist in the world of ai.

she is interviewed by jeremy sue. watch every sunday on-span two or four online at any time at book tv.org. ♪ >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed, a republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word forward. from the nation's capital to wherever you are because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by gabe roth, the executive director of fix the

court. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you remind our viewers what fix the court is in how your funded? guest: fix the court is a title one nonprofit organization that advocates for openness and transparency and accountability in the federal courts primarily in the u.s. supreme court. we have been doing this for about nine years. we are funded through donations from regular people and foundations. this -- specifically, we have gotten one big donation from a nonpartisan tech focused transparency foundation. generally, average people -- it is average people donating to help keep us going. host: talk about this new supreme court's ethics code. what is in it and how big of a deal as it? guest: it is a big deal because they have never done this in their 234 year history. we can talk about if it is a perfect code, but it is laid out

in a way that is similar to the lower courts code of conduct which has not -- it lays out general principle saying what constitutes ethical behavior. everything from not participating in political activity to upholding the integrity of the judiciary through their independence, to treating people who come into the courtroom with dignity and respect. it lays out general principles and a code of conduct is never going to be beyond general principle. i think there were missing pieces to it that for me and advocates that made the document, on the one hand, we get something, on the hand, it is not what we were hoping for. host: what were you hoping for? guest: there is three main holes in the document. there is certain insertions that are like, are you excusing justice thomas's behavior? is that something that justice

alito did? there is no enforcement mechanism. if i justice fails to live up to the canons in the code, what we do? there is no way to hold them accountable beyond impeachment and removal, which is never going to happen. there is no enforcement mechanisms. second, they are not creating an internal office that says, we are going to be a consistent guide for what consisted -- constitutes ethical behavior for the justices. prior to monday, each justice had the ability to go to a lot prefers her, -- a law professor. there was consistent advice being emanated from the court to help justices navigate ethical conundrums so there is no ethics office. third, there is no way to file a complaint against the justice.

you are a lower court judge, there has been a federal law since 1980 that says any person can file a complaint against any judge. there is a way to say -- 99% of these complaints are employees who usually go through them and say, these are the frivolous ones and the serious ones. any complaint, any misconduct, any ethical behavior, it can be looked into by a body of judicial peers. they can say, this was unethical behavior. we received this complaint. here is a reprimand. here is ethics training. here is anti-harassment training. here is a private reprimand because maybe it does not arise to the level where it needs to be made public, but talk to you in private to fix the problem. there was no inbox, no

enforcement mechanisms. host: the supreme court issued a statement when they came out with these ethics rules, saying the court long had the equivalent ofmon-law ethics rules, the body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions, codes of conduct and historic practic the absence of a cod has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the ices of this court, unlike all jurists in this country, regard themselves as unreed by any ethics rules. to dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this code which largely represents the codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct. does this clear up any misunderstanding? guest: oh, god, no. that paragraph makes it worse. i do not know if you can put the

full screen graphic back on, but what you are reading -- looking at the words that say, dispel the misunderstanding. what misunderstanding? there are justices. each of them has had ethics classes. they have not responded adequately to these ethics classes. some are worse than others. it is us, the public, that has a misunderstanding? i think it is the justices that have a misunderstanding, saying they are trying to dispel this misunderstanding we are not beholden to ethics rules is just ridiculous. i hate using the term gas lighting because it is being thrown around so much these days. but, it is an equivalent of that. for years, there have been -- going back decades, we can talk about school leah or ginsberg or other justices not on the court. brennan got $100,000 when he was on the court.

there are many justices that have failed to uphold their ethical responsibilities. i do not think it is the public that has a misunderstanding about ethics. i think it is justices who have misunderstandings about their response billy's. even with the code, there is no guarantee they are going to step it up when it comes to moral character. host: given there is this ethics code, what if you could look back at controversies we have heard about recently regarding justices taking gifts, excepting luxury vacations are getting perks with book deals? how would this code handle that? what would be different? guest: i think the disclosures are not changing. there is a federal law that says every judicial officer has to file every annual disclosure report stating their finances, their trips, their, appointments

their spousal income. the law is still in effect. it is not like, now we have this code and have to report more. no, we have this code and we are doing the half-ass reporting we have been doing the past 40 years. you have to look at the language of the code, the part that makes the connection between what is in it and what has happened recently. to give one example, there was a -- the nra foundation had a flyer about a decade ago where it said, come meet my husband, justice thomas. you look at the code and it says, the justice can't knowingly participate in these fundraisers. is that excusing that behavior? is that excusing that pamphlet from the nra? justice alito, did he knowingly put on -- go on a trip with paul singer?

anyone who is reading a newspaper between 2007 and 2014 when paul singer had cases in the supreme court knew that pulsing or ran ml capital -- new that paul singer ran ml capital. that whole period, you are telling me alito was knowingly or unknowingly going on a trip with a guy that had a case between the supreme court? in terms of gifts, the code is digging in here. it says the justices have to follow the judicial conference regulations now in effect. there are these new regulations passed in march that apply to the justices and lower court judges that say anytime you go on a private plane, that does not count as personal hospitality and you have to report it. anytime you stay at a resort that is owned by a llc, you have to report it. there is no way a plane is personal hospitality. you have to report private

planes. regardless, this is excusing the lack of reporting of private planes,, of resorts and saying going forward the regulations now in effect say you have to report them. that is all that matters when there are still dozens of trips that -- you know about it, your viewers know about it, from thomases disclosures that have not -- from thomases wife that have not appeared on the disclosure in that is an oversight that the language of the code is unfortunately excusing. host: we are going to be getting to your calls and questions shortly. please start calling in at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents on (202) 748-8002. gabe, you are not the only one who is disappointed with this code of ethics. the due -- the committee chair dick durbin expressed concerns about this code of conduct. here is a portion of his comments from the senate floor on monday. [video clip]

>> got a glance at this code of conduct for justices of the supreme court, it is similar to the standards that apply to all other lower court federal judges. the court's code of conduct important canons of the conduct, including canons on upholding integrity and avoiding impropriety in the appearance of impropriety. all of these are important steps, but they have all shard on what they could expect the supreme court issues a code of conduct. it specifically notes on a, for the most part, these principles are not new. that is a problem. the courts previous practices were plainly inadequate. the courts new code of conduct has not appeared to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable for violations of code. it leaves a wide range of

decisions up to the discretion of individual justices, including decisions on recusal from sitting on cases. i'm still reviewing the court's new code of conduct. for now, i will note the courts new adoption of this code marks a step in the right direction. it may fall short of the ethical standards which other federal judges are held to, and that is unacceptable. if it falls short, the american people will ultimately have the last word. and the integrity of the court is an issue. we are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal of the highest court in the land, that language with the lowest standard of ethics in our federal government. but, this released today, long overdue. begins a dialogue which could end and restoring the integrity of the court. host: gabe, what can congress do here? can congress impose an ethics code on the supreme court if

they deem this one to be insufficient? guest: i think congress does have a role to play and i think moving forward with the senate judiciary ethics and transparency act would be helpful. that bill does say it needs to have an ethics code, but the bill continues in the seven other sections that's as part of being ethical is tightening up the refusal -- the recusal whirls. -- rules. expanding it so you are in organization or individual and have spent millions of dollars pushing for a judicial confirmation, and then you have a case before the justices, the justice is required to recuse for six years after that gift was made. you have flown the justice around on a private plane, the justice for six years has to be recused of cases at the benefactor -- if the benefactor has cases before the supreme court. the bill talks about amicus briefs.

they are supposed to be expert briefs that help the court understand arcane issues, but in reality it has been three men in a trench coat where one major donor is funding these different institutes, so there can be more transparency around briefs. finally, that bill would also have gift regulations that are as stringent as memories of congress. right now if you are a member of congress -- i always use this example, senator lee and senator durbin, lose the asset institute. if you fly somewhere in january, the public is not going to hear about it for 17 months. it was filed 30 days after they came back. it said how much it cost. it is important to know how much the flight cost, the hotels, the entertainment, but the agenda was and who went with them.

the fact the justices have to do a full percentage of what i mentioned and sometimes they do not file for up to 18 months after the fact when it is time to do accountability work is ridiculous. having rules that would require reporting of trips and gifts which is in the bill would be important. there should be an inspector general for the judiciary. senator grassley introduced bills -- on the democratic side, senator blumenthal said he would like to see an inspector general. having a disinterested, third neutral party would be helpful for the -- four, friendly all of us, including the judea sherry to have. host: justice alito said i know this is a controversial view but i am willing to say it.

no provision in the constitution gives them the authority to regulate the supreme court, period. that is what he ldhe wall street journal in july. is he right? guest: of course not. he is wrong and he knows he is wrong. look at their docket. 99.8% of their docket is appellate terrace diction. the appellate jurisdiction is set through congress. i do not know why he is being so flustery there. congress has all sorts of ways to regulate congress. they regulate where they sit, when they sit. their budget is regulated by congress. they get $150 million a year from taxpayers with very few conditions. only in the last few months -- i have been pushing for this forever -- only in the last few months have members of congress said, we will give you $150 million but withhold nonsecurity

funding until you adopt a formal code of conduct. just saying, congress tries to change policy all sorts of different ranches and agencies fund the money they give them. why are they not doing that for the supreme court? the power of the purse -- we could talk about that, but the power of the purse is where congress can say, you want your $150 million. fine, but it is going to come with conditions related to accountability. host: we have lots of questions coming in. dale in our load -- dale in arnold, missouri on the democratic line. caller: i would like to speak with mr. roth about ginny thomas'connection. and clarence thomas.

shouldn't he be regulated by the attorney general because of the amount of fraud that the supreme court has been committed? i hear you saying they are entitled to $150 million, but there should be paperwork sent in to our merrick garland, our attorney general, make sure that if it is not turned in at the right time then some charges should be brought on. host: let's let gabe respond. guest: that is a great point. in the federal law passed after watergate, it says for everyone -- the justices make about 300 thousand dollars a year and have financial disclosure requirements, their investments, their transactions. justice thomas has had plenty of opportunity to fix those errors, but he has willfully not. it says in the federal law of the judicial conference has reasonable cause to believe a

justice or lower court judge has willfully omitted information about his disclosures, the judicial policymakers can refer that individual including a justice to the ginny -- to the attorney general. the penalties, there are criminal penalties which are attenuated. there are several penalties of something like $50,000 per violation. i absolutely think that justice thomas's wallet should be lighter because of these omissions for years and years. the excuses he has made do not hold water. there are others who want a constitutional crisis of merrick garland bringing criminal and others who want the crisis of having justice thomas impeached. i am more of a practical person. he is not going to get -- we are not going to get 67 senators to remove him. there is clear federal statutes that says civil penalties for willful omissions from your

disclosures. i am in touch with the committee that is in charge of forwarding that referral to the attorney general. i asked them what they're doing every week and have yet to get an answer form them -- from them. hoadley, we get something soon. i agree with you that the attorney general's should ensure the justices are doing their required paperwork correctly. host: we have got questions from mike in keyport, new jersey asking about justice thomas and his wife and her harine political activity. i nder how these ethics policies impact family members of the justices. guest: yes, the ethics code does mention family. it says that family members should not be soliciting gifts, just like justices should not be soliciting gifts. but, there is this weird reference to the student loan payments about how if a

justice's nephew has student loans, that does not mean the justice can read -- can participate in the student loan case. is that some reference to justice thomas is pseudo-adoption of his grandnephew? harlan crow to pay $100,000? that was weird. that aside, this is -- there are definitely within the code provisions that are akin to the old saying about caesar's wife. even caesar's wife should be on reproach. there are definitely some justices whose political activities do touch on the business of the court in ways i think are unseemly. but, it is one of those things that could have gone farther and could have been more clear about what political activities are not allowed and which are not. it is more vague than it needs to be. host: on our independent mind, ron is in north carolina.

caller: yes, i wanted to comment. i love c-span. anyway, i am surprised our soldiers that are injured and -- we are not doing -- host: do you have questions forgave about the supreme court ethics rules? or ethics code, i should say? caller: no. host: let's stick to that for now. let's move to david in palm city, florida on our republican line. go ahead, david. caller: good morning. a couple comments and a couple questions. i really have not been made aware over the years about all the justices and their things, that they just did their own ethics. this fix the court was established in 2021 after the

three republican court nominees were installed. arabella is one of the major funders of fix the court, which is heavily involved with democratic politics. dick durbin came out of the blue with all of this. it seems to me that this is just a way of dirtying off the republican presidential nominees and to try and convince the american people that the courts should somehow be packed. host: make sure we give gave a chance to respond. do you want to ask your question and we will give gave a chance to respond to both? caller: sure. now that they have made this action, is fix the court going to disband because you have

achieved your goal? , or are you now going to continue your efforts to speak to the people through the election cycle three pressure point? guest: just to dispel some inaccurate information, fix the court has been around since 2014. something called the coalition for court transparency, we are not associated with arabella advisors. we did get funding from the new venture funds for a number of years, but broke off and now are our own 501(c)(3) separate from them. if you go to fix the court.com, a code of ethics is one of them. there are no cameras in the supreme court. i believe if a camera could be put in the back, you could livestream and see what is going on in the courtroom. there are no term limits on the

subreport yet. a bipartisan report came out a couple weeks ago in favor of fix the courts term limits. some justices own stocks and are not filling out their financial disclosures. in a transparent way, so we have got to work about that. the justice public appearance are all but hidden from the american public. we are bringing -- we are working on bringing more transparency to the justices when they leave washington, d.c. that does not cover the lower courts. the lower courts has an anti-harassment law we are working on. this database of lower court opinions and filings and dockets, it costs $.10 per page to read. we are working with republicans and democrats to make it free for the american people and not a slush fund for the judiciary. we have more work to do.

things could be better. we have five, if not more, other fixes to work on. host: i am looking at your website now, fix the courts.com. you list the fixes we are talking about. media and public access, the code of ethics, stocks and refusals, financial disclosures, public appearances. that is at fix the courts.com. let's hear from phil in portland, oregon on our democratic line. caller: oh, hello, c-span. thank you for taking my call. thank you, mr. roth. i know your website mentions term limits, but the dirty secret in washington is, it is a wash with billions and billions of corruptive dollars, both domestically and from international sources. term limits will help entirely.

they are opposed to it because it reduces their ability to be corrupt. it would intensify if they are likely to be corrupt. it will be found out sooner, rather than later. host: let's give gave a chance to respond. guest: i think there is a point to be made about term limits leading to our corruption or -- leading to more corruption or a revolving door problem for elected officials. you are -- -- let's say i am from tennessee originally, you are in the tennessee gatehouse for six terms for two years each. after those six years, you are going to work for this lobbying company and cash in on your inside knowledge and it pushes out the people. we are talking about a term limit of 18 years on the supreme court, but not changing tenure in the federal judiciary. article three section one is clear, it says justices should hold their offices during their behavior.

which a justice after serving 18 years would have for life, so they would be making their $300,000 a year and working like david souter does right now and sandra day o'connor and marshall and brennan and others did. they each serve longer than 18 years. each served longer than 18 years. -- after they retired, they worked on the lower court. 18 years is pretty much what the justices served pre-1970. after 1970, with the increasing partisanship, you have justices timing their retirement, aiming out when they are going to leave so they can have a like-minded successor and it is making the court more corrupt to not have term limits. i think there is a way to separate term limits for the judicial branch. the u.s. is the only country in the world that does not have a

term limit for democracy or a retirement age for the top court. there is a way to separate term limits from the judiciary and the political branches. host: let's hear from bob in north carolina on the republican line. caller: hi. first, i have a comment and then i have a question for mr. roth. the comment that i have is, and this is just for c-span and producers, whenever you have someone on like mr. roth, it might be a good idea to also put on someone like james taranto, who i read his article through wall street journal and he talks about the supreme court. it might be a good way to moderate or at least provide a balance to fix the court mr. roth. the question that i have for mr.

roth is, you made a comment earlier that congress has the right to pass laws regarding the supreme court. and this was based upon -- and maybe i don't have that paraphrased correctly but it was from the comment you read from what samuel alito had to say. so, my question to you is, it is my understanding, at least according to marbury v madison, which is a supreme court review, which means the supreme court has judicial review. is that correct? guest: yeah. i think what you are implying is if congress passes a law saying a justice can't participate in a case where one of the

justices gave a party a gift for six years after the gift was received, the justices can come along and say that law is unconstitutional. i just don't see it happening. none of the things the court is advocating for is that controversial or -- we are not trying to change the outcomes. there are cases where i would like to change the outcomes. chief justice marshall was conflicted in the marbury versus madison case but did not recuse. from a larger perspective, if we get to the point where a majority of the house and 60 senators and the president signed a law that says a justice can't participate in a case when a party in that case has given the justice a gift for six years, there is consensus.

there is broad consensus around it. i don't know who would file a lawsuit. would a justice file a lawsuit or would he and she have to recuse from the court if the lawsuit got to the supreme court? there is a good example. last year, in the wall street journal, september of 2021, there was an article saying lower court judges were participating in cases despite financial interests in those cases. i think it is like 155 and it was a thousand cases. john cornyn and chris coons, a republican and democrat got together and passed a law saying that if you are a lower court judge or justice, you have to put your financial dispersions online and you have to file a transaction report within 45 days of that transaction. the justices could have said it

is unconstitutional. but instead, they are following that law. it passed unanimously so that helps. but it was a very popular law based on a report by the wall street journal. when john roberts sold a few stocks last year, he put that online. every justice including retired justices have put their financial disclosures in the database. it is smart for accountability. host: let's get to some comments on social media. they need to increase the number of justices to reflect the number of circuit courts which is 13. guest: yeah. there are a lot of reasons people want to expand the court. i think that reason is a little too cute. congressman adler mentioned it. ok, yeah, i guess.

again, i don't support port expansion personally or professionally. i understand the reasons why people want to do it. i don't think the oversight of circuit courts is the reason we need to expand. host:er o, dion says lifetime appointed judges weoming an ethics code without oversight to police their unethical actions is what we got from the u.s. supreme court this week. guest: i mean, that's not inaccurate. the lower courts have been policing themselves that are not great. but at least, i will give an example and nothing like this is happening as far as the court there was a harassment scandal in 2017 from a judge in the ninth circuit in san francisco. there is a law that says when there is a complaint filed against a judge, the chief justice of the united states,

john roberts has the ability to move that. chief justice moved the complaint to judges off the west coast. he moved it to be second or third circuit on the east coast. the judge resigned which was the right outcome. but there should be someone else besides the nine policing the nine. host: let's go to joseph in boston, massachusetts on the independent line. caller: good morning. doesn't that $16,000 of income have to be reported to the -- given that $16,000 of income has to be reported to the irs -- i assume he didn't report them. and with that come to the justice department? guest: that's an interesting question. that is something the senate finance committee is looking into. what were the tax implications

of voting for the acceptance of the gift from justice thomas. i think, the way i understand the tax law is that if you are the receiver of the gift, there are ways to sort of defer reporting on that or not have a tax hit. but also if you are the giver of the gift, if you are writing off that gift, that has tax implications. i'm not a great expert on this but i know this is something the senate finance committee is looking into to see if we are trying to get some tax returns. that investigation is ongoing. we don't have a full update on that yet. hopefully we will have more soon. host: jeff is in spring hill, florida on the democratic line. caller: i had two points i wanted to make. first of all, we need to get the

supreme court in the hands of politics. when you have -- i'm going to use examples here. if you have a sexual predator appointing a sexual predator to the supreme court and it is unanimously passed by a political party with a political agenda, you end up with bad ethics. secondly, the united states does a lot of hiring and the use of polygraphs in order to do that. this is legal because no one's freedom is being threatened. i believe 90% or better of the united states people believe polygraphs are accurate. i'd like to know if there is anything of those two statements that is even possible to make happen. guest: it's very difficult on

the appointments clause, the appointments for the justices that you mentioned. currently, as you know, the president nominates and the senate gives its advice to consent to appoint judges in the lower circuit. there are models for this that exist in the state court. sometimes the state court and supreme court justices are elected. sometimes there is a nonpartisan judicial nominating commission. there is a great one in alaska that has republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, representatives from the native alaskan population that comes together and decide to the best person for the job would be. sometimes the commission will send three names to the governor and the governor appoints. there are better ways to do the appointing of the justices than what we currently have. unfortunately, that would require a constitutional amendment. on the second point, justices

are required when they are nominated to undergo fbi background checks. generally, polygraphs are not part of that. i would have no problem adding that to it. but that would be something that senate -- the senate judiciary committee would have to decide on and they have not done that to this point. host: we have carl in beltsville, maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. first, mr. roth, i appreciate your efforts and what you're doing because it is needed. the common thing, the supreme court is supposed to be a political. -- apolitical. not republican, democrat or independent. what needs to be modified or changed is the rule of appointment for the judges. political parties and let's say when mitch mcconnell did not want to give -- put up the democrat choice, barack obama's choice when justice ginsburg

passed away, things like that have caused it to be political. my question is why do we have rules or ethics or checks and balances in the constitution if they won't be adhered to by either side, democrat or republican? what's the point of having them if you're going to circumvent them because the judges are judges? and if congress chose to withhold the $150 million, how would that affect the judicial process in regards to be supreme court? guest: i'll answer your second question first. i think, under the constitution, the justices have to get their salaries. during their term, you can't reduce their salaries. including the retired officers -- offices, you are only talking $3.5 million a year. it's the other $146.5 million that we are talking about. i think that -- i think the

court would still be able to function, honestly. i don't want to get rid of their security. there are threats against justices both left and right. the u.s. marshals service is taking a lot of care to protect justices when they go from there home and to and from speaking engagements. they do physical security. they have the justices around d.c. and have security in the building. i think yeah, let's take away their perks. have the justices do it themselves and see if they like doing that. there are ways to bring the justices to the table on accountability measures that are based on the budget. the court could function with a smaller percentage of that 150

million dollars. on checks and balances, we need a full-scale reimagining of what ethics in government is like. we've had several presidents, pretty much all the presidents in my lifetime have had some major scandal or another dealing with ethics. i think we are in a bad place when it comes to the and we need stronger laws and stronger leadership. it is hard when the people in congress writing the laws themselves are not ethical. i share your concern. host: one more call before we let you go. anne in new york city on the democratic line. caller: i don't believe this is a legitimate court and i think justice roberts should have asked clarence thomas to resign as well as alito. i'm concerned, is it the 14th amendment where trump would come before the supreme court about whether or not he is allowed to run for president? and would clarence thomas then have to recuse himself from

sitting on that judgment? guest: i don't think he would but it's up to him. there is no way to force him off the case. if that case goes to the supreme court, i think he would be participating in it. host: that's all the time we have for today. thank you so much, gabe roth. we appreciate your time and your expertise. coming up in about 30 minutes on our weekly spotlight on podcasts segment, congress averted a government shut down. we will have david give us a preview. first, we want to return to our question of the day. what is your top news story of the week in either washington or world affairs? the numbers are on the screen. you can start calling in now. ♪ >> friday nights, watch c-span's

2024 campaign trail. a weekly roundup of c-span's campaign coverage, providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling across the country and what they are saying to voters. this, along with firsthand accounts, updating poll numbers and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail. friday nights at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or download on c-span now, the free mobile app or wherever you get podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view for politics. ♪ >> c-span's studentcam documentary competition is back, celebrating 20 years with this year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create 5-6 minute video addressing one of

these questions. in the next 20 years, what's the most important change you would like to see in america or, over the past 20 years, what has been the most important change in america? as we do each year, we are giving away 100,000 dollars in total prizes with a grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate in this year's competition has the opportunity to share in an additional portion of $50,000. the deadline is -- 19th. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. a republic thrive. get informed, straight from the source. c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to

wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are taking your calls on your top news story of the week. you can call in at (202) 748-8000 on the democratic line. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. please, make sure to include your name and where you are from. some of the top news stories we are watching this week are the summit between president biden and resident xi jinping of china. also, the fact that a government shutdown was averted even as tempers were flaring in the halls of capitol hill. the israel-hamas war continues with the casualties in gaza continuing to rise.

we had an ethics report out on republican representative george santos. and, as we just heard from our guest, dave roth about the supreme court code of ethics. on the avoidance of a government shutdown, here is house minority leader hakeem jeffries settled braiding -- celebrating the passage of the short-term funding bill. >> there were three principal objectives with respect to continuing resolution. first, no spending cuts. mission accomplished. second, no extreme right wing policy changes. mission accomplished. third, no government shutdown. mission accomplished. at this point, it is important for the congress to come together, democrats and

republicans, on a bipartisan path forward to fully funding the government. it should be obvious to anyone who is watching that house republicans are unable to govern on their own. period,. , no further observation necessary. the events of today should make that clear. as has been the case from the events of this congress, beginning with january 3, all the way through to this moment. from the beginning of this congress, house democrats have said we will work to find bipartisan, common ground with our republican colleagues on any issue, whenever and wherever possible for the good of the people. the jobs of the congress is to

solve problems for hard-working american taxpayers. and as -- that is what house democrats are prepared to continue to do, as long as we have reasonable partners on the other of the aisle, who are willing to join us in fighting to make life better for everyday americans, as opposed to literally fighting each other. host: my was house minority leader hakeem jeffries. another story we are following this morning is that firmer -- former first lady rosalind carter has entered hospice care. there is the washington post with that news, saying the former first lady has started hospice care at her home according to the carter center, six months after her family shared she was diagnosed with dementia. she and president carter are spending time with each other and their family. the carter center said in a statement, the carter family

continues to ask for privacy and remains grateful for the outpouring of love and support. if you are interested in seeing more about the life of rosalind carter, we have more on our c-span website, and archive on her public appearances. you can find a at c-span.org. let's go to your calls for your top news story of the week. we will start with todd in el cajon, california on our republican line. caller: does it have to be one of those four or five subjects? host: know, your top news story of the week. -- no, your top news story of the week. caller: this is what can be done to solve the debt problem. we can have the legislative branch have the president write an executive order, having them cancel the debt by printing or stamping a coin for the amount of the debt. remember, it is a private

company. it's a bank, revoke charter, pay off the debt, pay off the money ourselves and we will have to set up a check or however it is done electronically and get rid of the source. thank you. host: ok. next up, we have marvin in chattanooga, tennessee. on our democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm glad you gave that excerpt about rosalind, the first lady, rosalynn carter. i had some comments i was going to make about jimmy carter, the arabs and jews, going back to 1980. i think they would not be appropriate at this time. but there should be no bigger news for me than what is going on with this genocide attempt by netanyahu, with the hamas and palestinian people. i can't see how you can

distinguish one from the other. i'm a vietnam veteran and i never knew a south vietnamese soldier from a north vietnamese soldier. this avenue toward genocide is being supported by the united states, being supported by britain and being supported by france. all the other things happening in this country with the debt ceiling and the shutdown happens every presidential election. this is just business as usual. but there is no greater concern about what's happening this week than the world is responding in mass. i know they are mostly arabs but the truth does not have a name or ethnicity attached to it. if this thing is bleeding into american politics, this thing is

bleeding into american security with arabs and jews in our country, it's going to affect everybody in our country eventually. and i guarantee you, if nothing is done immediately with this conflict, it will bleed over into the federal reserve. and if you don't understand that, you don't understand the power that these jews have. host: to your point about it bleeding into u.s. politics, there is a story in the new york times that more than 500 u.s. officials have signed a letter protesting bidens israel policy, representing some 40 government agencies and reflecting growing internal dissent over the administration's support of israel's military campaign in gaza. and there were more than 500 political appointees and staffers and they sent the letter on tuesday. the new york times has mentioned it is part of the growing internal dissent with the

administration over the support of the war. it calls on the president to seek immediate cease-fire in the gaza strip and to push for israel to allow humanitarian aid in the territory. it is one of several protest letters from officials throughout the biden administration. next up, let's hear from dave in texas on our republican line. go ahead, dave. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i'd like a deal with the issue of diversity, equity and inclusion. we have driven that into our government to the point where it is ridiculous. you have to check all of these different boxes. you know what? i would like to ask anybody who believes that is a good policy to apply that to their college alma mater, when it comes to

their football team. i'd like to see the new york jets apply it so that we have x number of women, the nba, the celtics should have x number of people under six feet tall. host: is this your top news story for this week, dave? or did any of these other stories catch your ayako -- your eye? caller: they are trying to apply it to the supreme court as well as all of these ethics regulations. we didn't have any problem for 250 years, until this year. until the democrats found it egregious. why don't they find it egregious with the democrat appointees? host: speaking of the supreme court, someone set i lost

spect when john roberts decided to allow the most destructive ruling to amic politics imaginable. money is not free speech. what a crazy notion. next, we have jay in waldorf, maryland on our democratic line. caller: hi. the situation in gaza, not many people mention this. the threat of nuclear war is increasing under this thing. you have an israeli minister, even though he was censored, they said they should drop an atomic bomb on gaza. iranian said they want to destroy israel with a nuclear weapon. the threat of nuclear war is increasing. along with the ukraine war. that is two reasons why we need

to have peace in ukraine and gaza because of the growing threat of nuclear war. it could be a situation where it has already carried over. you have rebels launching conventional missiles at israel. accidents can happen, miscalculations. you can have a situation where israel fires, accidentally, from a submarine that they tended to use in conventional war. they introduce it first and then the muslims and pakistan israel. there are all kinds of possibilities. the chances of nuclear war are increasing every day. the u.s. needs to comply with the u.n.. we did this for decades.

a neutral zone along the gaza-israel border and the lebanese-israel border. we need a two state solution. it can't be apartheid and separated like they tried in south africa. we my story is when you have not said anything about about a young white student in las vegas that was killed by seven or eight young black thugs. had it been the other way around, that probably would have

been on your list. i hope they are treated as adults and get what they deserve, but, you know, you all should let people know what is going on. host: next up is mary in philadelphia on our democratic line. caller: yes. good morning, c-span. you know, my top story is the israel and hamas war and also the supreme court ethics code. now, we have -- i have been following these wars for profit for decades, israel and hamas, ukraine, iraq, afghanistan. you know, if we stop funding these wars for profit, if we stop funding these wars where we have to borrow money to back these other countries, then they

would negotiate under diplomacy. you know, there's no way in the world that we should be borrowing money to fund israel when they were listed as the richest country in that region with no oil based on the international stock exchange. there's no way we should be funding ukraine when msnbc had an interview with american businesses that were over in ukraine stating that they open putin back taxes -- they owe putin back taxes in the billions of dollars. you can pull out this information. you know, we should not be borrowing money to back these other countries when they can negotiate peace on their own. host: sorry, mary. thought you were done. susan is in south carolina on

our republican line. caller: hey. a story that i heard this week was in bridgeport, connecticut, in the city's race for the mayor, that it was found that his secretary or someone that worked for him, wanda, was stuffing the ballot boxes. and so that election was deemed -- well, anyhow, they are going to have it over again. and then, in maryland -- host: quickly, susan, looks like i'm looking at an article here from the connecticut insider where it says that connecticut election regulators have voted to investigate the bridgeport

city councilmember. just wanted to point out this was for a local election with accusations that ballots were improperly handled in that local election. so go ahead, susan. what was your other point? caller: there was another incident in maryland where a man taped someone spilling ballots out of his mailbox because he went to vote and it had him already voting, so i think they are investigating that too. elections are not secure all the time as the democrats want to say they are. host: next we have rhonda in kansas city, missouri on our democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i first want to address my opinion on the supreme court because i find it offensive that the highest court in the land has no checks and balances and they are clearly making fools of us because they make purchases, befriend rich people to make decisions that affect a nation, and the republicans want to act and pretend like that's ok and it is not. i look at those people who were put into a position of power. look what roe v. wade has done. the supreme court disturbs me, but more than anything, i don't want to miss my opportunity to encourage everybody to quit focusing on the environment. all this racism is stirring up feelings of violence where if we don't practice being human, we are going to continue to not respect each other.

the wars are about the fact that one person wants to make them better than another person and that is just illogical and unacceptable. thank you for listening to me. i hope everybody looks inside at what we are doing to our immediate environment and our godly principles. host: pam is in chicago, illinois owner independent line. caller: hi. my big issue is that jihad has invaded our college campuses and jihadi is a holy war, a religious war, against all nonfundamental muslims, including christians and jews, and hamas is a jihadi, isis-like organization, killers just like isis. isis. and israel just had 11 9/11,

so -- 9/11's, so this is a war against everyone. everyone has to wake up. look at these demonstrators. look at the violence, the hatred. and many of them are ignorant about what the real issues are, but it's time to wake up and focus on what's going on in america, because israel is like the canary in the coal mine, and it's coming our way. it's already here and we need to focus on it. thank you. host: the associated press reported on a rally earlier this week, thousands of supporters of israel rally in washington crying never again. this was people gathering by the thousands on the national mall under heavy security tuesday voicing solidarity against the fight against hamas and crying never again. the march for israel offered a resounding and bipartisan endorsement of one of america's

closest allies as criticism has intensified over israel's offensive in gaza, which was set off by the bloody hamas incursion on october the seventh. next up, we have beverly in swains borough, georgia, on our republican line. caller: hi. first i would like to say i was always a republican up until, well, trump, but other than that, i one to talk about the israeli-hamas war -- i want to talk about the israeli- hamas war. you find a high concentration of muslims and christian and jewish religions inside of israel, so this is not just -- it's not against the jewish. it's not against the muslims. it's not against the others. it is just terror.

that hamas want israel to go down. and that dates back to the 1970's. and if you read the history, you have got 1200 killed in israelis and another 100000 and palestinians -- another 100,000 in palestinians. it is time for them to take a pause. host: next is armand in salt lake city, utah on our democratic line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a question for everybody, democrats, republicans, palestinians and israelis. from day one which israel was created, always occupation,

settlement, and expansion. settlement, expanding. now hamas, if you call them terrorists, ben gurion was called a terror list -- was called a terrorist. every single palestinian, they are not crazy to start to fight, except they are taking the lives -- occupation, than settlement, then the government of israel comes and defends the israelis and the palestinians react, says, those are terrorists. where is your conscience? it's impossible. the second israel stops occupation, the second it stops

occupation, i believe that problem will be solved. host: william is in ohio on the independent line. go ahead, william. caller: hello. i am calling about trump's rhetoric this week about doing this and that. he sounds like he wants to be a dictator. doesn't he realize this is a democracy? 8 million more people voted against him and for him and we are going to vote against him again, so thank you very much. host: i should say thalar today former president donald trump will speak to voters at a commit to caucus event ifort dodge, iowa. we will have live coverage starting at 4 p.m. on c-span,

c-span now and c-span.org. next, we have ron in north prairie, wisconsin on our independent line. caller: hi. i'm not a very political person but i've been watching your show and i've been a little bit disturbed by the level of racism involved in the israeli -palestine conflict and i'm curious, like, why we have to have a religious state. that seems antidemocratic. i would love to see a country that can cover the rights of all individuals within the region whether they be israeli or palestinian. why isn't the international community doing more to do something on that regard? thank you. host: ok. next up, clara and kansas city, missouri on our republican line

-- clear -- clara in kansas city, missouri on a republican line. sorry about that. go ahead. we can hear you now. caller: mi still with you -- am i still with you? host: yes. you are still with me, clara. go ahead. caller: i would like to say there are over 40 arab nations and only one jewish or israeli nation and so that seems -- i don't know how they could be committing genocide when there are one billion arabs in the world and only 16 million jews in the world. so that doesn't even sound right mathematically, that israel is committing genocide against arabs when the jews are so few

in number. they are less than 3% -- not 3%, but only 16 million in the whole world, so that doesn't even sound right, and for that man that called someone the father of israel or of the jews, that is not true. the jews are the children of jacob. jacob is israel. jacob's name was changed to israel and he is the father of the israelites or israelis or the jews. those are facts. so we need to get it straight if people want to hold on against their prejudices and hatred of jews, ok, but at least tell the truth about the matter. thank you.

have a nice day. bye-bye. host: we will speak to andriy in sumner, south carolina on our democratic line. go ahead, audrey. caller: the ballot that was sorted in alabama and nobody is talking about it and that's one of my concerns. host: ok. thank you. that's all of our time for calls for now. after the break, our weekly spotlight on podcast segment with cq roll call's david lerman, host of the cq budget podcast, who will give us a preview of the spending fights to come on capitol hill. we will be right back.

but tv has provided viewers with 92,000 hours on the latest literary discussions on history, politics and biography. you can walk -- you can watch but tv every sunday that she can watch book tv -- you can watch book tv every sunday. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our collection of products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit or -- nonprofit

operation. shop now at c-spanshop.org. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, citizens are informed. our republic thrives. get informed from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. you can see the opinion that matters the most is your own. c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined now by david lerman, host of the cq budget podcast with roll call and also the budget tracker editor. tell us about your podcast in particular. it should be obvious from the

name but what does cq budget focus on? guest: it does focus on the budget. we do a weekly podcast at cq roll call where i talk with a lot of reporters and editors with expertise covering appropriations and budget and tax policy day in and day out on capitol hill. we bring them in once a week to discuss whatever's going on at the time, where appropriat ions bills stand, where the budget is, taxes. we talk about it, size up the week, tell listeners what to look for. host: who are your listeners and what do you hope to get out of it? guest: it caters mostly to people who need to know the ins and outs of capitol hill. so they would tend to be either lawmakers or congressional staff or lobbyists or business people

who want to stay up-to-date on what congress is doing at the time, how things are going. a little bit more of the minutia, the inner workings of government, than a typical mass broadcast audience. host: we might have been saying that we are headed for a government shutdown, but that was avoided. how did the house speaker pull this off? guest: yeah. it's been a whirlwind, 10 weeks or so, the house has been in session, wrestling, getting mad at each other. it was not easy. this was a test for the new speaker, mike johnson, who i would venture to say, 10 weeks ago, no one had heard of. he was a household name. he came out of the blue. he was a backbencher but he was the only guy house republicans could agree on after weeks of turmoil, and this was his first big test, was can he avoid a government shutdown? kind of a big deal. it would not have looked good if

right as he starts office, you know, he would shut the government down. he did manage to avoid that, to his credit, but he did it in a way that kicked off a good part -- that ticked off a good part of his own party and it will be interesting to see what repercussions there are now from that because the last speaker kind of did the same thing, if you remember. kevin mccarthy in september did a similar stopgap funding measure and needed democratic support to get it across the finish line and republicans were not happy. they wanted more spending cuts, did not like business as usual. you have these rebellious conservatives known as the house freedom caucus who are really adamant that they want to see things change, they want a smaller government, less spending, and they weren't

getting it out of kevin mccarthy, and there was a backlash. so we avoided a government shutdown in september and the price was kevin mccarthy lost his job over that. the question now, course, is will mike johnson lose his job in a similar fashion? so far, the answer seems to be no. the conservatives, they like mike johnson. he was one of them. he is himself conservative and there's no one waiting in the wings to be speaker so who else would they have to do it? i think now they're willing to give him a chance still and see how things play out but they were not happy with the stopgap funding measure. we will see what happens so it will be interesting to see in the next month or two how this plays out, and this was an unusual kind of funding deal. what johnson called a laddered

continuing resolution. host: which most of us have never heard of. guest: nor did we. we did not know what he meant when he first said it. what he meant was instead of funding all government programs up to a certain date, he was going to this two-tiered approach where some of the funding will run through mid-january and the rest will expire in early february. the idea was to placate his conservative base with that because what the conservative base hates is when all the funding gets bundled up into one big package that usually gets past right before christmas when everyone is rushing to get out of town, called an honda biz package, and they did not -- called an omnibus package, and they did not want that. so what johnson did is extend that into the new year and bifurcate it in the two little packages so you don't have this

one big package that conservatives say leads to this excessive spending because no one has time to read the bill. so he was able to do that. he was able to avoid that on the biz package -- that omnibus package, but was not able to cut spending. he's continuing to cut funding at current levels and that's not what the conservative base wanted at all so they are not happy. host: one of the criticisms i have heard about this laddered approach is there's no agreement still on top line spending numbers, so what effectively will happen is that you will may be passed some spending bills in one of these buckets without knowing what your overall numbers are, leaving the second bucket kind of up in the air. host: that is right -- guest: that is right. they know they need to come to an agreement on these topline line, overall spending limits.

you cannot really appropriate unless you know how much your total will be for the year. they don't have that yet and it's been a real struggle. they need a bipartisan deal to get that. the thinking would be they would get that before these final packages get approved in january and february. host: so, then, what -- neither party really gets everything that it once in this continuing resolution or this funding bill. what was in it for the republicans who did vote for it even though they needed the democratic support? guest: what was in it for republicans was this bifurcated system, this two-tiered funding extension, so you can avoid a massive package at the end of the year, but what was not in it for them was spending cuts. the other thing that was in it for some republicans was the

president requested over $100 billion in emergency spending for israel, for ukraine, for taiwan and more stuff. none of that was in this package either. a growing number of the republican base does not want to see more aid to ukraine. they are suspicious that it's going to waste now. it's too much. they are not willing to back another package and this, by not including any money in this package, johnson was spared another internal party fight over ukraine money, so he saves -- he pushes that off for another day. so they get that for now but that is it. they were not very happy. we saw caucus members chip roy and company held a press conference after this and, you know, vented their frustration yet again that they were letting what they call nancy pelosi

spending levels to continue into the new year. host: we want to hear your calls and questions on this topic about the spending deal or laddered cr, which is a new thing. our democratic line once more is (202) 748-8000, republicans on (202) 748-8001, independents on (202) 748-8002. the way the votes played out, the democrats and republicans who got on board, does how these members voted give us any indication for what negotiations on the actual appropriations bills might look like moving forward? host: well, it's still a huge battle. nothing resolved. just by extending current funding does not resolve any of the tough questions here because, you know, the house and senate -- the senate is controlled by democrats, the house by republicans. they are on different universes

now in terms of spending. we thought they actually had a deal and overall spending back in the spring. folks might remember. they reached a deal under kevin mccarthy to set the debt limit to avoid a default and as part of that deal they put new caps in place for the current fiscal year. we kind of thought that cleared the way for appropriations and they had a deal and that turned out not to be the case because the house and senate interpreted those spending gaps differently and so the bills that were a little higher than the spending caps and their house -- and the house bills were lower than the cap spirit you have that discrepancy -- then the caps. that discrepancy has not been resolved. they are about $75 billion apart. host: no small amount. guest: i guess in the context of

$1.5 trillion in overall discretionary spending for the year it is not massive, but $75 billion is not pocket change. it's almost what we spend just for the education department. it's three times what we spend for nasa. so it's a significant amount of money and that difference has to be resolved and they don't have a lot of time. host: both of the chambers are out until after the holiday and then are expected to focus on the first of these two deadlines, january 19, which is when they're going to return. in this first bucket, we have appropriations bills for agriculture, energy, water, construction, the v.a., transportation and hud. where did these bills stand in the house and senate? guest: the first four of these bills is -- those are what's

in the package. that will expire january 19. the hope is that the easier, less contentious bills to pass so maybe they can work out the differences on those first and get that enacted into law by the january 19 deadline. the harder ones are to come, which is defense, particularly the big bill that steered to the heart of many democrats, funding health and human services and labor and education. that's the biggest nondefense bill of the year. those are really contentious. that bill in particular includes all these policy writers that republicans want, antiabortion stuff, culture war stuff, that will be hard to resolve, so whether they can do those in time, who knows? there's not a lot of time. congress is out for the

thanksgiving week. they come back and they have three weeks and then they break again for christmas and the deadlines creep up pretty quick. we are not at all confident in what's going to happen. host: lots of questions coming in for you. mike in bismarck, north dakota on our republican line. caller: i have a comment. it seems like this has been going on for a long time, where we can get -- we cannot get everyone together to work on a budget. continuing resolutions are just the thing of the day and everybody does them. both parties are guilty of this and i think the way to get everybody back online is to say if you're not going to pass a budget like you're supposed to do, then if you pass a continuing resolution, there's an automatic budget cut of 10% to every budget. we need a way to force these people to do the job. there's nothing forcing them to do their job.

the american people at home, we have to do our job every day. these guys go to washington, driven by special interests. they don't do anything so i think we need to force a way for them to sit down at the table and do their job and automatic budget cuts would hurt. host: david, what mike describes has been done before. guest: the caller makes a good point, which is they don't get their work done on time. i looked it up. it might surprise your viewers to know the last time congress actually passed all its appropriations bills on time. any guests? host: i think it was in the 1990's. guest: it was. it turns out you have to go back to 1996. the 1997 fiscal year was the last time they did not need one of these stopgap measures that all the bills could be funded by the deadline. the federal fiscal year starts

october 1. and even then, they did not go by the book and pass all the individual spending bills separately. they had to package some of them up together. the last time they went on the book and past individual bills was 1994. host: wow. guest: so think about that for a minute because the caller makes a good point. if my math is right, and it's early and i fully have one cup of coffee so far, but that's nearly 30 years ago, the last time they nearly passed all the individual spending bills on time. host: so what about what the caller brought up? guest: there's been all kinds of proposals brought up over the years to reform the budget process. the problem is everybody wants to see a change but nobody can agree on how to change it and the devil is in the details. there's been talk of biennial budgeting, do a two-year budgeting cycle, which is still being kicked around.

the idea the caller brought up about a penalty for not getting it done on time. there is a provision in law now that they passed as part of the debt limit deal in the spring that says if funding is not in place by january 1, there's a 1% across-the-board cut that would kick in, but not until the end of april, so it's -- i don't know how much of a threat that really is, because the idea that nothing would be done by next april seems far-fetched to me because most of the federal fiscal year would already be gone. you are right. there is an argument to make that they need tougher penalties to kind of enforce this to get stuff done on time or change the budget process so it works more efficiently. host: let's hear from zame in buie, maryland on the democratic line. caller: i think what really needs to be said is what the

republicans want to cut out of the spending budgets. first off, you are talking about 800 fewer customs and border protection agents and officers, over 100,000 children, 60,000 plus children with access to childcare, over 50,000 seniors robbed of meals on wheels. people don't think about that. nearly 300,000 households, including 20,000 veterans and 80,000 seniors, would lose vouchers, putting them at risk of homelessness. we need to talk about are these the cuts republicans are talking about when they talk about cutting the spending? they are always complaining about spending. what about the people that are going to be affected? thank you. guest: and that is the arguments

democrats make, that a lot of the cuts republicans are pushing for in the house go too far and they are too severe and real people get hurt when you cut -- when you try to cut programs that deeply, and that is the argument, the debate they are having, and that is why there's such a disconnect over spending levels now. host: we have question on from jay sanders, who says i don't get why the laddered cr is a big deal. what's break -- what's wrong with breaking up the workload for funding bills? guest: nothing inherently. and the budget bills are supposed to be broken up. they break up all federal agencies into 12 bills so they are passed in pieces. that is actually how the process is supposed to work.

the criticism is these are not the final bills for the year. this was a short-term funding extension to give lawmakers more time to craft the full year bills. the thinking was there's some concern that if the short-term funding expires at different times, it makes it much more confusing and complicated to get the final bills done, because we are setting up a series of fiscal clips here. we cannot all just shoot for one deadline to get everything done. it's going to be a little complicated was the concern democrats have. when johnson first proposed this laddered idea, the concept was even more stages, more deadlines. they settled on just two pieces, i think, to accommodate some of that concern that maybe it will be too complicated to have one million deadlines we have to be -- host: john is in mount rainer, maryland on our independent line.

caller: hi. i have a comment and a question. it's confusing to me why anybody in congress, in particular republicans, would shy away from providing funding for supporting allies in these conflicts, like in ukraine. we cannot turn our back on our allies. otherwise, the rest of your allies are going to go, what the heck? you know, like, the leader of the free world is backing away from their obligation. so obviously they need support and so we have to do that. my question is is there any kind of somewhat recent historical precedent for how congress is work together -- congress has worked together, both republicans and democrats, to

come up with reasonable funding proposals and, you know, say, sometime in the 20th century? host: before you respond to that, i want to point out the white house has asked congress for $106 billion in supplemental neys including aid for ukraine, israel and humanitarian d countering china and border security. so now if you would like to respond. guest: he makes a good point. a lot in that package you just pointed to is for ukraine, something like $60 billion of it is for ukraine. and there was, for a long time, for over a year, i think, strong bipartisan support for ukraine funding. it did not become this partisan issue until just very recently now where you have a growing

number of house republicans skeptical. $60 billion is a huge chunk after all this piecemeal funding . it is supposed to last through the next fiscal year is why it is so big. that is a lot of money. there is now this skepticism among some of the republicans that, particular the trump wing of the party -- that, particularly the trump wing of the party, is this a rabbit hole we are going down? there's frustration that this war could go on forever. there's some concern is the money being well spent? in the end, though, i think there's still bipartisan support for ukraine funding. you still have a sizable part of the republican party that does support ukraine funding led by mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader, who is

strongly backing the ukraine effort, so you do have that, but a growing number of republicans are upset. what they are fighting for now is the new republican position on this seems to be we will not provide anymore ukraine funding unless we package it with border policy changes at the southern border to control the migrant flow at the southern border and their argument is, you know, we are not going to defend ukraine's border if we cannot defend our own. so therefore, we went to see not just the funding biden would provide for the southern border, but actual immigration policy changes that will curb the flow of migrants, changes in asylum laws and such, so you curb that flow. they say that is their bottom line now for any more ukraine funding. the problem with that is immigration is probably the

biggest partisan issue in congress. it is emotional. congress has tried for years to overhaul the immigration laws. they have never been able to succeed now in i don't know how long and the idea that they are going to reach a bipartisan deal on immigration policy to get ukraine funding past relatively quickly is going to be a tall order. there are some quiet bipartisan talks going on in the senate to see if there's common ground or they can find a deal on immigration that might satisfy the republican base enough to support some ukraine funding but they are nowhere yet and time is going to run out and it will be interesting to see whether they can put something together that will satisfy enough republicans to support that emergency spending package. host: larry is in southport, north carolina on a republican line. caller: hello.

host: go ahead, larry. caller: yes. that woman talked about cuts in spending to the needy just around it up in one word. i lost concentration. my dog is barking. host: maybe we can come back to you later. let's hear now from eric in north palm beach, florida. go ahead, eric. caller: thanks very much for joining the program, david -- thanks very much. enjoying the program, david. i look at the budget through the world almanac. i think it's a $3 trillion budget in total but we might have expenditures of $4 trillion. i tried to study the categories, including the military, and

that's where my question is primarily. in addition to the standing army, navy, air force and coast guard, can you explain how we have additional military expenditures that would include things like the cia, covert operations, drones and so-called enemy lists where we are hunting down people with drones, military assistance to other nato forces, so that the total military budget, rather than being something like $800 billion for the standing army, is much more than that. when you put all the military pieces together and related things like the cia and things, how much does that come to, and i don't know if i'm right with the $3 trillion -- host: let's let david start unpacking some of that. guest: you are close. the defense department does spend something like over $830

billion i think this year. defense makes up roughly half of all discretionary spending that congress fights over every year. it's a lot of money. it's big. and you are also right that that does not count some of the classified budget for the cia. the cia has its own budget. some of the classified programs would not show up when you look through pentagon defense budget. so overall, it's probably higher than even that. it's a lot of money. there is no question. that is what the pentagon says it costs to stand up an army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, space force now, and a lot of the progressive wing of the democratic party are critical of it. they say we spend way more than all other countries combined,

roughly, you know. we are the world's superpower and they question whether it is too much and they also point to all the waste that turns up in their, the fact that the pentagon cannot pass a clean audit of its books, so no one really knows where all the money goes. there's not that transparency and accountability they would like to see. there's these efforts to rein in the pentagon spending. the other criticism is they have spent all this money and when there's actually a water fight they need more money and emergency spending because that was not enough, what they gave us before, so it's a constant tug over how much to spend on defense. but it is huge. that's the biggest piece of discretionary spending. your overall figure, though, is not right. total federal spending is more

like $6 trillion, not $3 trillion. we should say all this money you hear congress fighting about is what's called discretionary spending that they appropriate every year. that's actually just a third of the federal budget people might be surprised to know. two thirds of the budget is actually on automatic pilot, entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, food stamps, things people are entitled to by law. host: i have pulled up an info graphic of what you're describing about the federal budget with 6.3 trillion dollars in outlays and $4.9 trillion in revenues. he gets to that mandatory and discretionary portion you were talking about. go ahead. guest: and that's another piece of this, kimberly, is that, you know, the conservative rebels here who are pushing for lower spending limits on discretionary

spending, they are laser focused on discretionary spending even though that is only one third of the budget, and if you talk to the congressional budget office, the nonpartisan official scorekeepers here of what congress actually spends, they will tell you discretionary spending is really not what's causing these huge deficits everybody is angry about. they are attacking the wrong problem. the problem is the entitlement spending. we have rising health care costs and so the cause of social security, medicare and medicaid are going through the roof and interest is rising and those are the main drivers of our deficit. it's not actually the spending fights you here in congress over discretionary spending. host: we will look at another chart from the cbo about that. we are looking at the federal budget in fiscal year 2022 where you see social security takes up

1.2 trillion dollars of that mandatory spending, medicare $747 billion, then medicaid. that discretionary spending for nondefense, which is mostly what we are talking about here, 910 billion dollars, defense $751 billion. guest: the cbo is protecting -- projecting something like $20 trillion in deficits over the coming decades. all they are fighting about is this tiny portion of the federal budget. it's like if you are 100,000 dollars in debt and are arguing over whether to buy a snickers bar or cookie or something. i mean, that is the scale of the problem that people do not recognize, that they are trying to squeeze everything out of discretionary spending to see what can be cut, and meanwhile all the real money, the big

money, is wrapped up in these entitlement programs that both parties are afraid to touch. they all know they are in trouble but there's never been bipartisan -- democrats don't want to raise payroll taxes and republicans don't want to cut benefits. so what do you do? host: next we have michael in claremont, california on our independent line. caller: you have a great grip on what's going on there. one of the problems when you see the defense budget, we are trying to keep up with china and have a posture around the world, so when you think about the $60 billion biden wants to put in for emergency spending on ukraine, a lot of people are saying that's a lot of money. we have given them something like $110 billion so far. the republicans came up with a bill that said we are going to find israel. that's a real emergency there

and we will cut spending to the irs program that costs 87 billion dollars or something, to hire all the irs agents. so we are trying to pay for the bill to israel, but my question for you is, when you talk about these programs that are nondiscretionary, again, no one wants to cut social security or defense or these other things because that's the real politics. you start losing -- doing that and you lose support from both bases. that is why i think they are focusing on this discretionary thing. one thing i want you to talk about is what is the true cost of all the illegal immigrants or aliens or migrants coming in? host: let's give david a chance to respond. guest: it's hard to calculate the cost of immigration. that is not something i have

really looked at in depth. a lot of the cities and states most affected by the immigration surges have their own numbers as to what it's costing them. a lot of that is born locally at the state level, not the federal level, so it's hard to quantify that in terms of a cost per migrants. but you raise -- your other point is right on, which is that the reason, i think, that they try to focus on discretionary spending only is because that is under their direct control. that is where lawmakers can most easily take a stand and say i will propose to cut this program by this amount. in the grand scheme of things it will not help the deficit that much, but it gives them credit as being an advocate for a fiscal restraint and conservative spending policies. they can argue it's a step in the right direction, which it is.

we cannot dismiss it entirely. cutting discretionary spending makes some impact on the deficit. host: deborah is in west chester, ohio on a republican line. caller: good morning for taking my call -- good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a question and a comment. my comment is i think the american people need a 28th amendment to the constitution, which we don't have. it would be the budget amendment. we would put greater order in there and things that make sense for the american people. no earmarks. i don't think people realize we went 10 years without earmarks and then they came back in the omnibus bill a year or so ago. and of the american people, and this audience in particular, you know, everyone tells you the chances of getting an

amendment through ratification are almost zero. i am calling as a concerned citizen. for our future, we would put the basics and there. and i would like to answer the question to the man talking about the cost of immigration. host: why don't we get a question in for david so we can talk to a couple more callers. guest: there was talk for years from conservatives for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. there's always been a push. first of all, for lawmakers, it's an easy thing to fight for because it makes you look like you are for fiscal conservatives -- fiscal conservativism and balancing your budget. families have to balance their check books, why can't congress be forced to balance its budget? critics say it's not that easy. you know, you cannot write a balanced budget amendment that

would not have exceptions in it for emergencies and then you get into fights over what's an emergency and if we go to war we cannot have a balanced budget. if there's a crisis, can we have a balanced budget. if we have to spend extra money, this will shift our balanced-budget battles into the courts to seal we violated the amendment. so there are some good reasons to be cautious about putting that into the constitution. you would have court fights over the budget which is now a political matter as to how much we should spend each year and on what. host: to the point about the cost of migrants coming into the country, the migration policy institute says revenues are unknown. officials have cited high costs.

chicago expects to have spent 255.7 million between august 2022 and end of 2023 and washington, d.c. spent 36.4 million dollars on migrant services by late august and expect the total to reach $55.8 million by october. guest: so you have to go state by state or city by city to measure the fiscal impact of immigration is the problem there. the color did raise another point, which was on earmarks. host: go ahead. guest: those are the pet projects, you could say, of lawmakers when they insert into a spending bill money for a project back home. there is criticism of those because in the past they have led to corruption at times. whether you like earmarks or don't like earmarks, they are a sideshow in terms of the deficit problem. i mean, they just don't amount to much money.

it's something like $9 billion. i would have to check that. but it's a tiny fraction. it will not make a measurable difference in the deficit. there's reason to be concerned about earmarks. they can lead to waste. lawmakers know best what their constituents need. we have a right to fund the projects we think are important. host: one last caller before we let you go. alan in each chicago, indiana on our democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. huge fan of washington journal. greatest show on the face of the earth. a couple comments and a question. what the heck did you do to your studio? host: renovated. caller: i like it. wow. and a bright red carpet. come on. host: any questions for david? caller: here's a comment.

go back 30 years, we had a booming economy and we were able to balance the budget, which bill clinton did. cuts for the poor and disadvantaged. he did put double the tax rate at 1.5%, from 21% to about 48%. we had eight years of economic growth. the last three years of a balanced budget and two years they even got at the end of it a $23 billion surplus. we got rid of reaganomics and that is the end. the question i want to ask the gentleman sitting there is freedom is not free and if the cuts they put back in for millionaires and billionaires --

we were not able to balance the budget or even meet all the costs of funding the government. host: let's get david to respond to that. guest: that is the age-old question, how much can one raise taxes? you know, democrats are more willing than republicans are. it's an age-old fight. it's never going to be resolved. you have to strike that balance between how much to raise and on whom. how do you structure the tax rates to be fair to all sides? how much to tax increases slowdown economic growth, as republicans would argue? fair game. that debate will rage ad infant -- add infinitum. host: thank you, david lerman of

cq roll call. thank you for your time. guest: good to be here. host: later today, we will have former presintonald trump, who will speak at the commit to uc event in fort dod, iowa. he will be talkg voters and we will have live coverage of that at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org, and we will be back here for another edition of watching journal tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern. have a great day. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023]