>> this has to be a negotiation. republicans think they can get what they want without any bipartisan compromise. that is not the answer. that is not the answer.

we will need to literally kneecap ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process. >> apparently some colleagues with it russia trampled a sovereign nation in europe then do what it takes to enforce america's own sovereign borders. ♪ host: a test on president biden's international aid package for ukraine, israel and taiwan fails after republicans blocked the effort. they say any aid needs to be tied to immigration changes. we will get your reaction to the debate. here's how you can dial into join the conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, your line this morning is (202) 748-8002. border residents, we want to

hear from you at (202) 748-8003. that is the same line that all of you can text to. include your first name, city and state, for go to facebook.com/c-span or or x. the president yesterday addressing the senate and remarks from the white house. here is a little bit more of his argument before the vote took place in the senate. [video] pres. biden: if putin takes ukraine, he will not stop there. he will keep going. he made that pretty clear. putin attacks and nato ally if he gets going. we are committed as a nato member to defend every inch of nato territory. it will be something we don't seek and we don't have today. american troops fighting in russian -- fighting russian

troops if he moves into other parts of nato. make no mistake. today's vote will be longer membered. history will judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom's cause. we can't let putin win. we can't let putin win. it's in our overwhelming national interest and international interest of all of our friends at a disruption to our ability to supply ukraine clearly expands putin's position. host: president biden urging the senate to vote for his international -- to vote to move forward on his international aid package. it was a procedural vote. it failed. the new york times noting -- the wall street journal, the 49 senators backed the measure and 51 were against. falling short of the 60 vote threshold needed to

advance the bill. chuck schumer voted in favor originally, but then changed his vote to preserve the right to bring up the bill again. senator bernie sanders, independent of vermont, caucuses with the democrats, voted against it because he thinks any aid to israel needs to be tied to conditions on civilians in gaza. that is what happened yesterday. now it is your turn to tell washington what you think. do you agree or disagree with what happened? here's the argument from republican minority leader mitch mcconnell on the floor. [video] sen. mcconnell: it was not always like this. democrats did not always have such a hard time following the logic that national security begins right here at home. i am reminded of the code commission president reagan set up in the mid-1980's to assess the importance of peace and

security in the western hemisphere. it was a bipartisan exercise that included everyone from henry kissinger to the former chair of the d&c and the president -- dnc and the president of the afl-cio. they concluded america's security depends on the inherent security of its land borders. our adversaries would reap a major strategic coup to impose on the united states the burden of defending our southern approaches. a major strategic coup for our adversaries. that is what a past generation of democrats understood. logic implicitly when it pertained to the threat of soviet influence. that logic applies even more today to the instability, cartel

violence, terror and drugs pouring over our southern border. but in today's democratic party some of our colleagues appear to be so terrified of the radical base that they are convinced open borders or with jeopardizing u.s. security around the world. host: you heard the argument from the president and now the republican side. time to turn to all of you. democratic color in arizona -- caller in arizona. what do you think in this debate over eight ukraine and border security/ ? -- aid to ukraine and border security? caller: they ought to send aid to ukraine. if they don't, putin is going to run russia over there and then china is going to jump in --

what is that country over there by china? host: taiwan? caller: taiwan, yeah. the republicans, i don't know what they think. they always throw in the border thing. they have not had an answer for the border for ages. the speaker, i don't know what we are going to do with who we have now. two know what's up or down. -- he don't know what's up or down. putin, he is going to start a domino effect. host: talking about what message this sends to china as many national security experts

believe they are threatening taiwan. there is money in this international aid package for taiwan security as well. bob virginia, independent. -- in virginia, independent. caller: you look nice this morning. i think joe biden's polls are down because he will not do nothing about the border. he needs to step in and agree with the republicans on this deal. all these people that are coming into this country have no place to go except new york and places where they freeze to death. we have to do something to slow this stuff down. they should be putting money down in these countries to help those people in their own countries and they are not doing it. i'm an independent. i'm looking for third-party. i think joe biden is too old and trump has committed treason as far as i'm concerned. that is my opinion.

y'all have a nice day. host: on the issue of compromising with republicans there have been negotiations occurring between democrats and senate democrats and senate republicans. a grupo bipartisan lawmakers -- group of bipartisan lawmakers negotiating on some sort of deal for changes to immigration policy. those talks fell apart before the weekend. senate majority leader chuck schumer decided to hold this test vote to get republicans on record voting against this ukraine aid moving forward -- moving forward on it i should say. president biden at the white house yesterday talked about negotiations over immigration policy. here is what he said. [video] pres. biden: extreme republicans are playing chicken with national security, folding ukraine's funding hostage for extreme border policies. we need real solutions.

i support real solutions at the border. i put forward a copper has a plan the first day i came in to office. i made it clear that we need congress to make changes to fix what is a broken immigration system. because we know it is broken. i'm willing to do significantly more. but in terms of changes the policy and provide resources we need at the border, i'm ready to change policy as well. i have asked for billions of dollars for border agents. republicans have to decide if they want to political issue or a solution to the border. do they really want a solution that cannot be sustained as it is now? we need a real solution. my team has been engaged in negotiations with the senate democrats and republicans on border security. democrats have put forward a bipartisan compromise on the table. leaders schumer and senate democrats also offered to let

republicans propose amendments to the proposal. republicans have rejected this. we don't want you to even introduce your proposal. we are not going to -- the democrats say you can amend it anyway you want. we don't want to do that. this has to be a negotiation. republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise. that is not the answer. that is not the answer. now they are willing to literally kneecap ukraine on the battlefield and damage our national security in the process. host: what is your reaction to president biden and his view of how republicans are handling these negotiations? the associated press reporting that aides and allies to the president have said he's willing to accept new restrictions on asylum and potentially other republican-led policy changes, particularly as the numbers of

the border continue to rise. to supplement a funding -- supplemental funding request seeking $14 billion for the border is part of the package for 80 ukraine, israel and taiwan. increased attention capacity for migrant families and hiring more integrated -- immigration court judges. there's a backlog of one million cases. it is only increasing. some maggots are released into the u.s. and wait for years before they are told whether they qualify for asylum. on the other side of the aisle, senator john thune, republican of south dakota, a member of the republican leadership in that chamber had this to say yesterday. [video] sen. thune: i support aid to israel, taiwan and ukraine. it is in our national security interest to support these allies. i want to see us take up this

national security supplemental. but national security begins at home. we can't pass a bill to advance american interest abroad while ignoring the national security crisis at our own border. we owe the american people better than that. the democratic leader needs to take the republicans series. we said this must address the national security crisis at the border and we will continue to hold to that principal. while we recognize that any negotiation that neither side will get what it wants, it must have real teeth. cosmetic measures are not acceptable. we can't afford anything less than real solutions to our nation's border crisis. this president -- mr. president, 10,000 individuals were counted on sunday and another 10,000 on

monday. it went up to 11,000 yesterday. now 12000 and is single day. things are getting worse, not better. we have an obligation to do everything we can to get this crisis under control. this administration, as i said, something they had no interest in doing. host: john thune on the floor yesterday. who do you agree with in this debate? the democrats, president biden, or the republicans? in the house the republicans have the same view as their colleagues in the upper chamber. they want to see some immigration changes. as you heard from senator thune, with some real teeth. should these be separate issues? dan in louisville, kentucky. republican. let's hear from you. dan in louisville?

dan, i'm sorry. can you call back on a better line. you are very muffled. michelle and he -- in maryland. caller: i wish she would stop calling at the democratic line and republican line. there are no republicans. the republican party is dead. they died during the insurrection. host: stick to the topic please. caller: they are projecting everything that they do on the democrats. that is all they ever do. they run and hide. i will trade every palestinian and every person who comes over the border for every one of the trump trash party. host: bradley and marietta, georgia. democratic caller. caller: good morning. that last caller -- it's hard to disagree with her. trump is working with the

russians. they're trying to screw over ukraine. i never thought i would see that it where i'm the one defending the fbi and the military from these so-called -- host: what about ukraine aid? where do you fall in this debate? caller: they have to give ukraine aid. those people are fighting for us. they are saving us money. it is not about that. the republicans want to solve the border issues. they are traitors. i'm so disappointed in republicans. i cannot believe they would sell out ukraine. host: frank in kentucky, independent. caller: yes. i'm a veteran. , u.s. naval academy graduate. i'm having to wait over six to seven months for this v.a. pact act and if it and the v.a. has all my records and they are sitting on my records.

yet we have billions and billions of dollars to send to ukraine, to taiwan and now israel. we sent $3 billion a year to israel. they are committing genocide in the middle east while our navy is getting shot at. this is on comprehensive -- un comprehensive to me. our security is a mess in the middle east and europe and the deal with the taiwanese. they are a small nation and without as they get taken over. we have comments national chinese at the border, at the southern border of america. we have folks from africa. these are mostly males. this is not about saving poor people that want opportunity. this is about an invasion. we need to wake up and joe biden is too old and trump, he

committed treason. host: i'm not following your argument. are you for the billions in aid or not? caller: how about we take care of our own first? charity starts at home. i'm a veteran waiting six to seven months for a decision on my pact act due to burn pits in past wars that were unnecessary. host: got it, frank. ed in laurel, maryland. democratic caller. caller: good morning and happy holidays to everybody. i am for sending aid to ukraine. i just want to mention this. from 2016 to 2018, trump had all government.hes of the passedlaws. passed zero laws to deal with

th border. but having said that, this is not a winnin issue for the democratic party also. this is not hill that you want t on. if the democrats and joe think at sending 110,000 migrants to new york city in about six months, if the think that is a good thing, i don't think that's right. host: you think the president needs to compromise here? caller: i think he does. sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil. this is not the hill that you want to die on. we have bigger things to deal with. go ahead and make a deal and send the eight to --aid to

ukraine, israel and let's move the country. thank you. host: earlier in the week, the white house arguing that money for ukraine is running out from previous authorizations from congress. they are getting to the end of that pot. jake sullivan saying there is no other magical pot of money. ukraine is saying to the united states we are running out of money. they are making the argument that they will lose the battle against russia. i want to read for you two lead paragraphs from two different papers and how they framed yesterday's vote in the senate. this is the wall street journal with her headline, republicans blockade bill for ukraine. president biden's push to pass billions in new aid for ukraine stalled on wednesday. the setback could inject new

urgency and bipartisan talks over border security measures, publicans have demanded as a condition for their support. this is how the new york times frames the vote in their newspaper this morning. republicans on wednesday blocked an emergency spending bill to fund the war in ukraine, demeaning strict order restrictions in exchange and severely jeopardizing president biden's push to replenish the warchest of american allies before the end of the year. we want to know this mning your take on this vote and debapening in congress. randy from paul beach garden, florida. republican -- palm beach garden , florida. caller: i am dumbfounded when some of the democrats get on here and they are anti-trump, anti-trump. anything the republican party does they will try to shoot down. we have to look at the facts. first off, reckless spending by

joe biden. he's already spent a ton of money out to ukraine -- sent a ton of money to ukraine and all over the world. our southern border -- the donovan talked about -- the gentleman talked about sending the migrants up to cities like new york they claimed they were refugee cities. now they can't take it. it's the hypocrisy. we are for everybody, but don't send them to my city. we have a serious problem right now with inflation. you can't just start spending billions upon billions of dollars. your last caller from maryland said trump did nothing to secure the national border down south. what about the wall that got put up? all those miles of wall. all of a sudden joe biden comes in and starts taking it down. he starts selling office supplies so they cannot finish the wall. it is absolute insanity.

the wall was our best protection. host: how do you know that, randy? what evidence do you have the wall was working? caller: guess what? some people were dropping kids over the wall but at least 10,000 people a day, 12,000 people a day are not just waltzing across like i saw in the news just yesterday. some area were 70 broke apart the wall -- somebody broke apart the wall. they could not stop the people. it was a rush of people coming through. host: randy in palm beach gardens repeating the statistics you heard from senator john thune. 8000, 10000 and his many as 12,000 illegals crossing in recent days. he also heard him talk at how much money has been spent so far in aid to ukraine by the united states. it has topped $100 billion since russia invaded ukraine in february of 2022.

the latest package, the test vote failed yesterday on this international aid package. it was around $60 billion for ukraine. the wall street journal notes the funds earmarked for ukraine include nearly $12 billion to keep the key government -- kyiv government afloat and $3.2 billion for benefits the refugees. it includes $14 billion for israel, including for missile defense systems and money to bolster the indo pacific, which the u.s. sees as critical for providing a safeguard for taiwan against any threats from china. it omitted elements of biden's original request, such as money for child care, one reason bernie sanders, independent of vermont voted no. he also cited that no more aid to israel unless there are certain strings attached on how they are conducting the war

against hamas. here is washington post this morning with this additional headline on that topic. senate democrats pressed biden for a closer eye on use of u.s. weaponry. a group of senate democrats urged the president to do more to protect civilians in gaza, writing in a letter sent tuesday that the united states should ensure weapons it's transferred to israel are not being used in a way that violates international law. the letter expressed concern about a lack of transparency on this transfers. the letter was led by elizabeth warren. it came as the senate prepared to vote on this move on a package that would send $14 billion in additional aid to israel, as well as billions more to ukraine. senator bernie sanders, one of the signatories, culture conditions on the aid to israel that he would vote against it, which he did on the test vote. tim kaine of virginia, martin heinrich of new mexico and jeff merkley of oregon also

signed onto the letter requesting a briefing for answers to a lengthy list of questions about the u.s.'s posture on israel's military strategy. earl in texas on the border. good morning to you. why do you come down on this debate? caller: well, i agree with what senator thune talked about. all these people -- now they want to back out. host: all right. diane in ann arbor, michigan. democratic caller. caller: hello. it seems to be a movement around the world where democracies are falling to dictatorships.

this war is based on that. ukraine wants to stay a democracy. russia wanted to become a dictatorship -- once it to become a dictatorship -- wants it to become a dictatorship. this is old information where many republicans favored putin over biden. it says americans view him slightly more positive than the due leading democratic officials. between putin and president biden it is a tossup that lands in putin's favor. can you imagine? my father gave up years of his life fighting for democracy when hitler wanted to become a dictatorship around the world. my father gave up a part of his life or that and many others did, too.

we will disregard democracy for dictatorshipss? viewing putin more highly? my father would have been shocked. i am sad to see him gone but i'm glad he is not seeing this. it is a shame on our country that democracy is not -- we are not defending democracy in ukraine. you can pull in all the issues you want but the question of the day is, do you favor democracy or dictatorship in ukraine? thank you. host: that is how diane sees it. more calls coming up on this debate. we want to know from you. do you agree with democrats or republicans? you may have learned yesterday the former speaker kevin mccarthy has decided to not seek reelection and he will resign from congress at the end of this year. not serving out his full term. mccarthy's departure already

slims the republican majority. mr. santos and mr. mccarthy and expect the departure early next year of representative bill johnson of ohio will leave speaker mike johnson with a mere two-seat advantage. here is the former speaker announcing his resignation. [video] rep. mccarthy: every moment crane with a great deal of devotion and responsibility. given my best -- giving my best to all of you has been my greatest honor. i am proud of what we have accomplished. we want to house majority -- won the house majority twice. we elected more women, veterans and minorities to congress than ever before. we reduced the deficit by over $2 trillion while protecting the full faith and credit of our nation. we kept our government operating at our troops paid while wars broke out around the world.

traveling the country and serving with all of you i have encountered far more people that want to build something than those who want to tear it down. i have faith in this country, because america is more than a country. america is an idea. today i'm driven by the same purpose that i felt when i arrived in congress. but now it is time to pursue my passions in a new arena. while i will be departing at the end of this year, i will never, ever give up fighting for this country that i love so much. host: kevin mccarthy, the former speaker they're talking about why he has decided to leave congress. our question for all of you this morning on today's washington journal is about thi debate over tying funding forne to border security and immigration changes.

there are the lines in your screen. the special line for border residents. you can text well with your first name, city and state to (202) 748-8003. or join us on facebook.com/c-span, or on x, @cspanwj. omb director young argued the president is willing to compromise on border security. the washington times headline, biden's emergency war aid falls short after that test vote to move forward on the aid package. it was a procedural vote. democrats refused the republican border security demands. in this article by ramsey touch berry, some suggested it was time for mr. biden and mr. mcconnell to take the negotiating rains from the rank-and-file members -- reigns

from rank-and-file members. there's been a group trying to come to a deal on border security changes in have not been successful. the law street editorial board making the same argument. ukraine emergency. the way out of the mess is for mr. biden to get serious about an immigration compromise. tell his negotiators to cut a deal with the gop and sell it to democrats and the country as necessary to get his supplement delayed bill through a divided congress. mr. biden campaigned as a pragmatist who could cut bipartisan deals. well, here we are. ukraine and israel are political emergencies and the commander-in-chief has to do what it takes to get a deal done. do you agree with the wall street journal editorial board? john and virginia, independent -- in virginia, independent. caller: good morning, c-span. can you hear me? host: good morning. caller: i agree with that article.

the world is a volatile place right now. to one of the previous caller's points about world war ii, how could we be so stupid to allow history to repeat itself? with the rise of nations that are clearly adversaries to america getting more and more power and becoming more emboldened. specifically to the bill, senate republicans -- if they are tying these things together it is probably because they know there is no way the sub lamentable past the house with the crazies and the freedom caucus without any immigration reform in it. the senate can pass awesome supplementals all day long and it will not pass the house until they actually puts in the unit that will allow the speaker to sell it to the members that are holding his party hostage.

host: john, there is speculation, political observers noting there is a no ukraine aid ever caucus in the republican party. you will need votes in the house that comes out of the senate. we heard from the hispanic caucus chair who was reluctant to vote for changes to asylum policy, etc. how do you get this done? you need to, credit goats. -- democratic votes. the president cannot go too far because he will lose democratic votes. caller: absolutely. i'm not familiar with by the negotiations broke down about the immigration reforms specifically but there has got to be a center of the party, a center of the democrats, the hawkish republicans that understand foreign policy and want to send the aid and the

reasonable democrats to understand foreign policy and want to send the eight. i have to believe they are over 220 of them to pass this legislation. you want to talk about loyalty to the country and doing the right thing. mccarthy, he was the first one that took it to the last second to do the right thing to get a budget together cr passed and lost his seat. the next one up, you have to do the same thing. the right thing to do is pass the supplemental. have some border stuff in there. get it passed. if you are vacated, sorry. do what is right for the country. it is not about you anymore. get the deal done and send the aid to where it needs to go would have some reasonable provisions for the border. have a lot of reasonable provisions. there has to be a centrist part of the house that will get 220

votes and get that bill. it may not be exactly what wiki johnson in the speakership but it -- what will keep johnson in the speakership but it has to get done. i really do believe there are some people in the house on both sides, far left and far right that do not get what is happening in the world or just don't care. they are there to get clicks. host: this opinion piece written today in the washington post goes into what you are arguing here. it is by columnist who was a columnist on european affairs. why the usaid for ukraine -- u.s. aid for ukraine is a bargain. in less than two years the direct u.s. military financial and humanitarian commitment to ukraine is unquestionably significant. in just 21 months washington's direct aid comes to more than

1/5 of its inflation-adjusted funding for israel since its founding 75 years ago. but by other measures the pot of money approved by congress to resist russian president labor putting's work regression -- vladimir putin's war of aggression looks modest. with some republicans certain americans have done enough and with funding increasingly also at risk in europe where right-wing populists oppose it. nearly half of americans now say the united states is spending too much on ukraine, yet at this point u.s. allies in europe have promised nearly twice the amount approved by congress, according to the keel institute which tracks contributions. there is a tulsa within the european union over a chunk of its pledge for ukraine, roughly $55 billion in budget support through 2027. the hungarian president has threatened to hold it up. eu diplomats remain convinced

the money will be delivered eventually. altogether the u.s. share amounts to less than one third of all outside funding directed to helping ukraine stave off the onslaught. this amount the u.s. share amounts to one third of all outside funding directly to helping ukraine. if you measure each donor country's contribution against this gross to mr. product, the west burden -- gross domestic product, the west burden is less than about 20 other countries. the u.s. is sacrificing less to be countries like germany and britain, as smaller ones on europe's eastern flank that fear they will be next on moscow's menu if putin succeed in ukraine. he goes on to history here. the cost of deploying u.s. troops to defend vulnerable nato allies against a nuclear armed power is imponderable. it would be huge judging by the price paid for other u.s. wars

in this century, which dwarfed congress's appropriations for ukraine. university researchers who study america's post-911 conflict found 20 years of fighting in afghanistan, iraq and syria drained $8 trillion from the u.s. coffers. about a quarter of that in future dollars earmarked for u.s. military veterans. president biden siding the brown study noted the afghan war alone cost taxpayers more than $300 million a day for decades. that's about triple what was spent for ukraine utterly 650 days. those say we have given enough to ukraine. if you are one of them, no more aid to ukraine, we want to hear from you this morning. david in concordh carolina. republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. merry christmas

my question is what is ukraine they have all these countries little piece of land.r this they say we will give them aid. there is something behind this. i can't grasp what they are protecng there is something between those two countries. you have a country like -- host: the argument made in the piece we were reading as they are countries that many believe putin goes after after ukraine. some of which you are nato allies. then we will be obligated to put boots on the ground that point. if we put boots on the ground, the cost is a lot more. that is the argument being made. caller: that is what gets me about the veterans, pulling all this money away from

them. what is ukraine worth to us? israel, it is biblically written. they are coming in from land, sea and air. look at what happened in malibu yesterday. 12,000 everyday without any concern. we are opening up. pearl harbor's anniversary was yesterday. you woke up a sleeping giant. we are open to everybody in the role now and know but he seems to understand what is happening here. host: del in springfield, illinois. democratic caller. caller: happy holiday to everybody. my thought is the military-industrial complex is so strong that it once war. good cells weapons for other countries -- it wants wars.

it cells weapons for other countries. at what point do we think ukraine or taiwan or israel need to sit down and have a diplomatic solution to their thing? you made a comment that russia after ukraine would look to nato. it was precisely the cause of russia's invasion of ukraine that it does not go into nato. that was the point of it. if it wanted to go into nato, it could have gone prior to ukraine. the red line that russia did was ukraine will not be part of nato. that is why they did that. if you listen to bbc, ukraine soldiers recently are in their last stance. the first tier or second tier left, died, wounded or sick. people that are coming up soldiers are weak.

in terms of taiwan funding, are we serious that of china went to invade taiwan it would get assistance from taiwan? unless taiwan is a nuclear threat there is no possibility that taiwan could face china. that's impossible. in terms of israel, we provide $4 billion for every year and now we are giving them $14 billion. israel is a top gdp country. the civilian population, we say we are going to give $14 billion to israel but the gaza people only get $7 billion. where are our priorities? why are we funding these wars? it does not make sense for us to give weapons so we have a better life here. let's go the diplomatic route. it is the spirit of this country. we don't want to prolong war so

russia can become weak. at what point do we say we're going to stop funding these wars? thank you. have a wonderful new year. i will talk to you next year after 30 days. host: john from san antonio, texas. where you come down on this debate? caller: i'm just wondering if maybe you have the figures for how much aid we sent crimea and how much aid we sent georgia. i don't remember sending all this kind of aid to them. i know you read from the papers and maybe have those figures. i know a lot of money flowed to ukraine when obama was president as well. it seems like a lot of money flows to ukraine when democrats are in power. host: ned in annapolis. independent. caller: how are you? good morning. the gentleman from -- the two

cinnamon from texas and illinois and the young lady from ann arbor, boy, do i relate to them. fortunately i'm not nearly as articulate. i don't have to worry about a lawyer chasing me down for plagiarism. i want to focus on just the border. i don't know what is happening on the border. i have tried to read about it. i gets world out -- swirled out. we need to get the money to ukraine. let the republicans have their bill. i for roost the summary. the summary took forever to read. god knows what the bill is like. as i read through that summary it is not going to be put into place in two or three months. it will take years to implement that bill. can the 13.1 billion dollars proposed by president biden, is that sufficient for a down payment for the first year of this bill? if the bill is as lousy as everybody says, we can fix it

later. we can't fix ukraine later if putin wins. that is my story and i'm sticking to it. thank you. host: ed in tennessee, republican. hi, ed. caller: greta, the republicans, they know that biden will not do nothing about that border. host: all right. caller: when biden took office, there are folks come across that border when biden took office. they went in there. i saw it on tv. signed orders for -- when he did

that he opened up the border. it is nobody's fault but biden. host: at last night's debate the foreign policy was discussed. the gop presidential primary debate last night took place in alabama. the headlines out of that from the wall street journal. nikki haley draws fire at gop debate. take a look at a couple of exchanges last night. this was sponsored by news nation. the gop candidates talking about foreign policy. [video] >> there was no one happier now than putin. all the attention erica had on ukraine suddenly went to israel. that is what they were hoping is going to happen. we need to make sure we have full clarity that there is a reason again that taiwanese want to help ukrainians. they know if ukraine wins, china will not invade taiwan. there's a reason ukrainians want

to help israelis. they know if iran wins russia wins. what wins all of that is a strong america, not a weak america. that is what joe biden has given us. [applause] >> foreign policy experience is not the same as foreign policy wisdom. i want everyone to know i was the first person to say we need a reasonable piece dealing ukraine. now a lot of the neocons are coming along to that position with the exception of nikki haley and joe biden, who still support this pointless war in ukraine. i think those with foreign policy experience, one thing joe biden and nikki haley have in common is neither of them could even state for you three provinces in eastern ukraine that they want to send out troops to actually fight for. look at that. this is what i want people to understand. she has no idea what the hell the names of the provinces are but she was to send our troops

and military crippen to go fight it. reject the myth they have been selling you. some i had a cup of coffee at the u.n. and makes a billion bucks after it has real foreign policy extremes. look at that blank expression. she has no idea of the provinces. >> enough. let me just say something here. his reasonable piece dealing ukraine, he made it clear. give them all the land of already stolen. promise putin you will never put ukraine in russia and then trust putin not to have a relationship with china. let me tell you something. >> that is not my deal. >> that's exactly what you said. you say it at every debate. don't interrupt me. i did interrupt you. >> tell them how you want to send their kids to die. >> you go out on this stump and you say something. all of us see it on video. we confront you on the stage.

you say you didn't say it and you back away. i'm not done yet. >> aldine. -- hold on. hold on. >> this is the worst -- fourth debate you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in america. [cheers] host: from last night's gop primary debate in alabama sponsored by news nation. another moment from the debate. this time and a change between nikki haley and governor ron desantis over china. [video] >> this is where trump went wrong. trump was good on trade but that is all he was with china. here he allowed fentanyl to continue to come over. he continued to allow -- he would give them technology that would build up their military and hurt us. he allowed the chinese infiltration for them to buy it foreign land to put money in our universities and continue to do

things that were harmful for america. we now have a spy base in cuba and in police stations and trump did not do any thing about it. >> this is rich. when she was governor she was the number one ranked governor of bringing the ccp into her state. she wrote a love letter to the chinese ambassador saying how great a friend china is. it's on rondesantis.com. as governor she stood in front of a chinese flag and sank you know works for them, talking about this chinese company. she has been very weak on china. the rhetoric is different but her donors, these wall street liberal donors, they make money in china. they are not going to let her be tough on china. she will cave to the donors. she will not stand up for you. [applause] >> 15 seconds. >> he's mad because those wall street donors used to support him and now they support me.

he has a chinese company that he just did a rally there last year. they have given you $340,000 in campaign money. >> it's an american company. >> they are tied to the communist party. janco solar is another one. they gave $2 million in subsidies. >> i prevented them from buying land in the state of florida. nikki haley -- to the universities in south carolina. i rejected them. i have a record of standing up and doing was right. >> you have a record of lies. >> even the liberal media groups that usually if i say the sky is blue they will fact-check me and say it's wrong, they looked at her charges and said it was totally false and they could not find one instance of me recruiting a chinese business coming to florida. we never recruited any chinese businesses in florida. host: republican presidential contenders minus the former president trump at last night's fourth primary bait.

happening on capitol hill today the house intelligence committee meets to debate reauthorization of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act which allows the federal government to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the united states to prevent potential terror threats. a lot of debate about this 702 over the many decades since 9/11. authorization is set to expire at the end of december. you can watch live at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span3, on the free c-span now video at, or online at c-span.org. at 11:00 a.m. eastern time, kurt campbell, president biden's nominee to be deputy secretary of state testified at his hearing before the senate foreign relations committee. he is currently serving as national security uncil coordinator for the end of pacific.- indo pacific. watch live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on cpan3, on c-span now, or

online at c-span.org. then there is another esidential debate. this is the lesser-known candidates forum. the new hampshire institute of politi is hosting a forum for these contenders to share their policy positions and campaign platfos. the event is takinglace in manchester, new hampshire. we will have live coverage at 4:00 p.m. on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. back to our conversation about this debate on capitol hill. do you find ukraine and aid to taiwan and israel without changes to our nation's immigration policies? a test vote failed yesterday after republicans blocked the president's aid package insisting it includes changes to immigration policies. do you agree or disagree?

democratic caller. thanks for hanging on the line. it is your turn. caller: good morning, greta. we should fund ukraine but the taliban republicans are all over the place on this issue and the border issue. putin is going to go after the contiguous countries to russia. they are going to eventually attack one of our nato countries and we are going to be paying. we are going to be paying either with funds or with our troops. that is just -- then everyone for be complaining about that. as far as the borders concerned, joe biden put forth on day one and immigration bill proposal -- an immigration bill proposal and

said to the republicans you can amend it anyway you want to amend it. they chose not to because it is an election issue. shut up, taliban republicans and just do what you are supposed to do and stop listening to fox news and waiting for them to tell you what you should be saying and thinking and doing. host: we will go to brooklyn. frederick. independent. caller: how are you this morning? host: good morning, patrick. caller: i completely agree that we have to support ukraine. we have to support taiwan. we have to support israel. they are completely separate issues, as is the border. the border is separate. these are not the same. they are just not. piggybacking on the previous caller, yes.

there was a bill on day one. that is how this is solved. the border has been an issue the right has been complaining about for 20 something years. the only solution is a legislative one. that is it. the congress, senators, the house and the white house have to work together. there is no magic wand the executive branch has for this. if the republicans want a solution to the border they can have one. it has been an option for over 20 years. host: jesse is next in florida, republican. what you say? -- what do you say? jesse, are you there in florida, republican caller?

one last chance for jesse, a republican. james in hampton, hampshire. democratic caller. caller: greetings. i have a comment to make about that. number one, as a person who spent time ukraine my feeling is that it is probably very important we prevent any american involvement in ukraine directly. if we have to spend money, we have to spend money. in the end we don't want american troops involved there. they are essentially doing the fighting for us. we are spending money. they are going to event russian expansion and occupation into an independent nation. host: i will leave it there because we will go to capitol hill next.

joining us there is congressman tom tiffany, republican of wisconsin joining us to talk about this very issue. congressman, you probably heard the caller making the argument we should fund ukraine so we can avoid u.s. troops on the ground in europe defending our nato allies. how do you respond to him? guest: i think the issue of ukraine should be separated out. we are looking at the supper mental bill coming forward. one of your callers earlier mentioned let's separate these things out. i think that is an important principle. people don't want these issues mashed together. israel, the border, ukraine, whatever. i think there is room to support ukraine but we are seeing increasingly the people are skeptical. one of the main things i think we need to do at this point is just like the israel aid that came out of the house a couple of weeks ago, we had it as a pay for. we took money from someplace

else to pay for that rather than adding on to the debt that is burdening the american people and leading to the inflation we have. if there is any additional military aid, it should be done as a pay for. the other thing that should be done is it should only be for military aid, not humanitarian aid. often time these over $100 billion that have gone to ukraine are being used for other purposes. the europeans should take care of the humanitarian aid. we should only be helping militarily if we do that with ukraine. host: to do that with ukraine. host: explain why we would not help on the humanitarian part as well? guest: because the europeans have to carry some of the weight. that is part of the problem. we have been carrying the burden for decades in europe. and there was a reason to do that. at this point, the europeans have to put more into -- they have to have more skin in the

game. we fought two world wars over the last 100 years on european soil. we should not have americans going over and fighting a third world war. the europeans need to carry. they need to have skin in the game and they need to carry a significant part of this rather than americans. we have enough problems here at home including over $33 trillion in debt and a border that is basically a borderless country. we need to take care of our problems at home first. host: according to the opinion piece today in "the washington post," he cites the numbers by the pl institute who track -- the keel institute. "the u.s. share amounts to less than one third of all outside funding direct thing -- directed to helping ukraine. if you measure each donor country's contribution against the gross domestic product the

u.s. burden is less than 20 other countries. in fact by that measure, the united states is sacra fighting or sacrificing less than big country such as germany and britain and smaller ones on europe's eastern flank some of which fear that they will be next on moscow's menu." how do you respond? guest: some will rationalize sending unlimited amounts of money to ukraine and the american people are saying no. i think back to the land hyson lease -- the lend-lease bill. i was one of only 10 people who voted against that bill. and now we have over 100 members that are saying hold on, we need to rethink how we are providing aid and -- providing aid to ukraine. the europeans, it is in their backyard and they need to carry some of the weight.

america is doing plenty and has done plenty to stabilize europe not just now but all over the previous decades since world war ii. host: president biden said that he is willing to compromise with republicans on changes to immigration policy. where would you compromise on immigration? what could you agree to? guest: we have already compromised with hr two. i encourage viewers to look at hr to. -- hr2. that was a compromise bill that secures our border which is ultimately what it does. that's what needs to be done at this point. to compromise will leave an open border. we have 12,000 illegal immigrants coming in every single day in america. president obama's secretary, the department of homeland security

said that 1000 is a crisis. president biden has the means at his disposal to be able to secure the border. he does not need any money or anything like that. all he needs to do is use policy that are there to secure the border and he needs to do so soon. host: how could you call it compromising when it was a republican sponsored bill and did democrats work on the bill with you? guest: certainly none voted for it but that is part of their ideology, open borders. for example, having worked for -- permits was not included in the final bill. that was something that we wanted to include in regards to work permits and requirements in that type of thing. that was left behind. there were compromises made, but

it secures the border and that what needs to be done. i know senator durbin talked about removing the immigration parole part of it. that provides a huge loophole to people to come in. as we have seen with secretary mae arcus -- secretary mayorkas he will use every loophole to bring people in america which is undermining the american way of life. host: the former speaker kevin mccarthy announced that he will end this term at the end of the year. what was your reaction when you heard that news? guest: i am sorry to see them leaving congress. i understand why he is doing it. he reached the pinnacle of the house being the speaker of the house, and i thought he did a good job in the short time he was speaker. i wish him the best of luck. it reduces our numbers by another person. continuing to narrow our majority.

and it makes it more difficult to be able to pass legislation. i just wish representative mccarthy the best. he served honorably for over a decade in the house of representatives. host: picking up on your point, with his exit along with george santos and another of your colleagues, that will leave in the new year the speaker, speaker mike johnson, with a mere two seat advantage. guest: yes. the narrow majority that we had is becoming narrower. and that adds to the challenges that the new speaker has. host: so with that, what is your prediction for funding the government when this current cr runs out in january? guest: we will figure that out. for example i think there is room for legislation to get done. in the judiciary yesterday, we passed a fisa reform bill.

that was done on a bipartisan basis. there were only two members in the judiciary committee and the vote was something like 36-2. that will head to the floor. there is legislation that we can get done and important legislation that we can get done even with the narrow majority. host: we appreciate your time. thank you very much for joining us this morning. guest: good to join you. host: let us go to mason in dayton, ohio. democratic caller who has been holding and waiting for us to come back to him on this debate over aid to ukraine. do you tie it to border security? hello, mason. caller: it is actually a she, not a he. host: i am us are -- i am sorry, i should not have assumed. caller: it is fine. because of what was just said i

am going to reverse and start with republicans and the stance on putting the border with ukraine and israel funding. let us start with the fact that they are not being very honest and they are just absolutely wrong on this. they are playing fast and loose with our security and the security of the world as it stands. i am not for war. i have family. my dad is military, he was a major in the army. my father-in-law was in the military. we live in a military town. war is not on my horizon. and if you do not want war to be on the u.s. horizon we have to fund ukraine and israel. and that is protecting democracy, not only ours at home, around the world. and where we do see one string

tied to the border to ukraine and israel is the reason for the influx and the amount of people coming across the southern border is due to the refugees because the world is on fire with war. people are trying to go where democracies are safe and there is no war. that is here at home as well as other nations throughout the world. if the gop is serious about wanting to fix the problem at the border, the problem with the border is immigration policy. that is the problem. we really do need a comprehensive immigration bill to fix that. up until today, the only thing republicans have done to pass comprehensive immigration is obstruct every single time the democrats have tried to put any type of immigration reform forward. they do not want to do it and they simply say no and do not

want to be in the process. host: are you talking about over the decades where there has been bipartisan groups of senators that have been working on comprehensive immigration reform? caller: yes. we can go back further. but it started under clinton trying to reform the immigration and refugee policies. also, ando obama -- under obama, he tried to get it through how the republicans wanted to do it. he was ready to do an omnibus or a bill at a time because the immigration policies are broken. the amnesty policies are broken. it is not going to help the world being at war because that will give us more people coming here. host: does it give you -- what -- could you agree that the prospects are higher to make

these changes after decades of trying, that the prospects are higher when you are in a crux situation like this and tying the issue to an aide package that in some circles needs to get past? they are calling it an emergency. caller: and i do believe it draws everyone's eyes to the problem and everyone needs to be accountable for what they want to do. but just because we see that there is an emergency right now that we need to address does not mean we have to tie the border to the funding ukraine and israel protection while we can do both at the same time. the deal could be let us pass this immigration reform on the floor. and once that passes we will

pass aid to ukraine and israel. i do not know -- i am not sure that republicans want to get a deal done on the border. i think they like having the issue at hand and they like to say that democrats won 10 open border and that is not true. so, i think both are necessities and both need to get done and everyone needs to be realistic in order to protect the country and our security and liberties at home. we need to be honest and open. host: thank you for the call. steve in massachusetts. republican. caller: good morning. i am asking you do not hang up on me, you've hung up on me twice when i've called and i know the ideologies are different. i noticed that your finger moves towards the button. host: how about you get to your point. caller: i think all three issues

are border issues. israel is a border issue, so as ukraine and our southern border is a border issue. we talk about democracy but so many people want socialism. ok. so it is not just about democracy. and i don't understand, a lot of our debt, $33 trillion is from war. ok. why are we -- why do not -- why don't we loan israel and ukraine money instead of giving it away? we are in debt. and third, if anybody thinks and i know you said this this morning if they go into full dust if we go into poland have to have boots on the ground. i do not believe that because nobody had boots on the ground in iraq with us because we are nato.

israel is nato, correct? they have no boots on the ground from us correct? why would we have to have boots on the ground which they -- if they went into poland which i do not believe that putin had done. i wish biden had negotiated for them for the 45 days or however many days it was. and did he talk to putin once about negotiating anything or compromising anything? zelenskyy wants us to pay for his next election that should have happened already. host: steve the invasion into iraq was with the united states along with forces from australia, denmark, netherland, poland, and great britain. operation iraqi freedom, there were other countries fighting alongside the united states. matthew in waterton, new york. democratic caller. good morning.

caller: you still there? host: we are listening. caller: on the wars, the afghanistan war and the iraqi war, war bonds should have been sold for the wars because they took the money out of social security to pay for the wars and they did not replace the money, they did not put the money back for wine. and two, on immigration they did not do anything about immigration since ronald reagan. that is why you have 25 million undocumented americans in this country. three, to keep the wages low and bus the unions and keep people in poverty. you have 50 million americans in this country because of what has been done under the republican group further the last for -- for the last 50 years. as a taxpayer i am not happy.

things should be better for people in this country. we should not have 15 million americans in poverty especially when we are supposed to be the greatest country. thank you and have a good day. host: thomas in florida. republican. caller: i have a little bit of a proposal which i will get to at the end. let us talk about the issues of ukraine, israel, and the border. i do not like how the republican party is tying the issues. they are separate and i do not think funding for one should pertain to the others. i do agree with the speaker that you had when he said we do not need additional funding for the border it is about policy. that is correct. i do think it is important to fund ukraine against putin. i think the defeat of putin will be beneficial for the u.s. and the world. there is an economic benefit in supplying ukraine with you -- with u.s. military arms. israel on the other hand is a

developed nation that vastly outweighs their opponent. i do not understand why we need to give israel money to defeat hamas when they already have the means to. it just does not seem practical or fair. the proposal i have, when you look at the economy and balancing the budget. i think we need to do something different. instead of having economists doing the roles, we should have mathematicians. economists have their biases and schools of thoughts. mathematicians are pure and look at facts and numbers. the person that i would recommend as secretary of treasury is clarence tau, the greatest living mathematician of all times. those are my thoughts. thank you so very much. host: doug in virginia, my credit caller. caller: yeah, if we do not fund ukraine were backing israel, we are not funding -- we are not

funding israel we are giving them weapons. we have got to support dust to secure our border. fund ukraine not with money with weapons and israel and get over this. if you want to find money for it cut the pay of all congress and the senate. cut their pay down to zero until they get things right. their whole -- the whole thing is a joke. i am 30 years military and i do not know where we are going. vietnam, you do not start looking at history and repeat itself. you are not can i help anybody overseas until they bombed pearl harbor again and then go we did not know about it. there are too many people getting killed in gaza, what about nagasaki and hiroshima? how may people were killed when we dropped the bombs? how may people were killed in germany when we carpet bombed

continuously? that is part of war. the only way you stop war is people stop hating. thank you. host: you might be interested in the world new section of "the wall street journal" where israel says it has killed half of hamas' battalion leaders. "it has killed about half of the mid-level commanders in gaza and deployed a deliberate strategy to disrupt the ability to flight -- to fight in the enclave. it says that the structure of hamas' wing is not widely known but israel estimates it has roughly 24 battalions, east -- each with 1000 or more fighters. it is reality -- the israeli military said it has significantly degraded at least 10 of those battalions by taking out mid-level commanders so it

believes there are 24 battalions with about 1000 or more fighters in each battalion and they have taken out 10 of the mid-level commanders." scott in kansas. independent. hello. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. and i love washington journal. my thoughts were taken up by a gentleman that called a few minutes ago. i believe in learning from history. the land-lease program in britain was a benefit and in israel especially, loaning them the money makes more sense and giving it to them. i also think history repeats itself in gaza. i agree with the military man that just called that war is terrible. but what needs to take place after the war is just as important.

and the marshall plan that helped germany and japan and other countries after the war turned those people into our allies and it eliminated some of the hatred that is going to continue to fester after this is over for the palestinians who are innocent in this thing. i understand why israel is doing what they are doing. but there needs to be a definite plan of rebuilding after this is over. those are some of my thoughts. i thank you for taking my call. host: scott in kansas there. we are goingo take a short break and when we come back mark cancn will discuss the impact of foreign wars on u.s. defense production and american jobs. we will be right back. >> all this month watch the best

of c-span's q&a. on sunday daryl davis who has been offended members of the ku klux klan and talks about his efforts to understand their hatred and to commence them that they are wrong. darrell davis sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. you can listen to that end all of our podcast on our free c-span now app. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures at history a look at the life and legacy of world war i general charles young with a history professor at texas a&m university, corpus christi. on the presidency, a discussion looking at julia garner tyler and how her marriage became

politicized and tied to the 1844 presidential election and the annexation of texas. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. find fl schedule in your program guide or watch online any time on c-span.org/history. booktv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 8:0p.m. eastern, the author of "what is killing america" looks at democrat run cities across america. at 10:00 p.m., jeff horwitz and author of "broken code: inside facebook and its fight to exposed its harmful secrets." he talks about the company and the challenges the platform has faced.

he is interviewed by sarah fryer. watch booktv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch any time on booktv.org. >> traveling over the holidays? make c-span's bookshelf podcasts one of -- on your playlist. they feature all of the nonfiction books in one place. they have mobile x -- episodes with critically acclaimed authors with current events and culture on the signature programs about books, afterwards, notes plus and q&a. listen to our bookshelf holiday feed this season. can find it on the c-span now free video app, where ever you get your podcasts or c-span.org/podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decorah, and accessories. -- home decor and accessories. every purchase help support our nonprofit organization. shop now at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is the retired marine colonel mark cancian, the international security program's senior advisor at the center for international intrastate test and strategic studies. that is talked about that vote in the senate, a vote to move to the international aid package was blocked by republicans over changes to immigration policy. your reaction to the hit -- to this debate. guest: i am still hopeful that

the democrats and republicans will find a way to push these packages forward. there is a clear deal to be made and the republicans feel strongly about immigration reform and funding. the democrats feel very strongly about aid to ukraine. there is a deal to be made there and hopefully they will continue to explore the possibilities because arguably both of them are needed. host: explain why this is needed in your opinion? guest: the aid to ukraine is needed to keep ukrainian military forces in the field. they are facing a -- an aggressive russia and without a continuous flow of weapons and munitions and supplies they will gradually lose military capability. initially the ability to launch attacks and the event -- and the ability to defend themselves.

all militaries in combat need the continuous flow. ukrainians are different, they need to maintain their armies in the field. host: they say they are running out of money and the white house says that the pot of money that you -- that the united states applies for weapons production is running out as well. how has the money for military assistance been used so far? what kind of weapons are we talking about and how has ukraine use them? and has it been successful? guest: the military support comes in a couple of forms. one form is actually u.s. forces in eastern europe. some of the money that is considered aid to ukraine actually supports u.s. forces in eastern europe which we sent to reassure the allies and deter putin. what we are giving to the ukrainians comes in two or three

forms. one of them is that they are purchasing weapons from the u.s. defense industry. this is a postwar kind of initiative because it will take two or three years for the industry to produce the weapons. we are also sending them out of the existing inventory so people have heard about the javelins and patriots and we can discuss some of those. and there is a pot of money to replace those systems. the legislation that allows us to send equipment to ukraine does not actually require it should be replaced. but because we are giving themselves much and it is top-of-the-line equipment, congress provides money to replace it. and finally there are services, what you might call services. this is training for the ukrainians on the weapon systems and providing a lot of intelligence to them.

we buy equipment from various allies, particularly old soviet equipment and send it to ukraine because they are accustomed to it. you have the three elements of the military support and then there is humanitarian and economic support. host: the biden administration adjusted with republicans saying that it is not only benefiting ukrainians on the battleground, but it benefits the u.s. because it adds to american jobs and our economy. you've also talked about that recently in a piece in october noting that 60% of the u.s. aid would be spent in the united states, benefiting armed forces and u.s. defense industry. explain. guest: there were two benefits. about 60% of what we call aid to ukraine is spent in the united states. for example if we provide a

weapon to ukraine and we need to replace it, that money is spent at a u.s. factory to build a new replacement system. and the same for equipment that we -- that ukraine buys from the defense industry, that is produced in the united states. benefit and that the defense industry can modernize their facilities, and they can expand. there has been a lot of concern about the ability of the united states to conduct an extended war, either against china or elsewhere in europe, and the money has allowed us to expand our defense industry, so we can meet these demands. host: talking little bit about the weapons being used. you touched on it, but which, is it a javelin, etc.? why do you think this is crucial

to ukraine's success? guest: well, it is crucial because all militaries need a continuous flow of supplies, as i mentioned earlier. it is a pretty good reminder that the ukrainian military has expanded by many times as a result of this war, and that expansion needs to be equipped. there have been a couple of weapons that have caught the popular imagination earlier in the war. there were javelin songs and sing javelin images, and javelin was important, maybe not the most popular anti-take weapon, but it caught popular imagination. a long-range rocket system caught imaginations. the patriot defense system, m1 tanks, all of those are important, but there's no such thing as a game changer. ukrainian military capabilities are the sum total of these weapons that they receive the

training and resilience of their troops and of the ukrainian people. host: what is the long-term benefit to the united states and those countries that are in positions where they may be threatened in the weeks, months, years to come i other countries? guest: there are two things here. with regard to russia, it is much better to have ukrainians fight the russians with our equipment than have the russians attacked one of our nato allies, which would bring us into the fight and have our own military involvement, taking casualties of our own injured much better to wear down the russians with ukrainians. more broadly, relationships with countries around the world, those relationships depend on

credibility, it if united states abandons ukraine and russia is able to take more territory or overthrow the government, governments around the world are going to wonder whether the united states is really a reliable partner, and we worry particularly about the chinese as they look at taiwan, one of their neighbors, and we want to discourage them from aggressive moves. if they think united states is not a reliable ally, they might do something aggressive. host: is there a long-term risk in that we are jeopardizing our own military readiness in this country by producing and supplying weapons to ukraine and other countries? guest: there is some risk in the near-term, as inventories have been depleted and will be refilled, but that will take several years. on the other hand, because

russia, which was one of the main challenges of the united states them is now fully engaged, you have to be concerned that they are going to attack one of our nato allies while they are mired in war in ukraine. many of the weapons we need for a conflict with china in the western pacific are different than what are needed in ukraine could ukraine is mostly a ground war, whereas a conflict in the western pacific would be mostly air and naval. the risk is manageable. host: colonel mark cancian is with us. he will take your comments about the u.s. supply of military assistance in ukraine. you can dial, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and you can also remember, text

us at (202) 748-8003. or join us on facebook.com/c-span and on x with the handle @cspanwj. jv's first in arkansas, democratic caller. hi, jb. caller: hello, greta. my understanding is some years ago, we enticed ukraine into giving up their nuclear arsenal, whatever they had. russia would not be doing what they are doing. cannot i have your opinion on that? guest: yeah. when the soviet union fell apart , there were nuclear weapons in ukraine. ukraine agreed to have those deactivated, and the united states paid for that. there is some thought now about

whether that was a wise move on their heart there were some technical issues in that although they have to nuclear weapons, they did not have the codes and i love the technical information actually to use them. one of the lessons coming out of this experience is nuclear weapons might be the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty, and there might be some incentive for countries to build their own nuclear weapons. the united states is working really hard to discourage countries from doing that, but that is one of the reasons it is important for the united states to be credible as an ally, because if you look at the south koreans, for example, or the saudis, if they think the united states will not be reliable, that they will go to the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty, which is to build their own nuclear weapons. host: colonel cancian, yesterday in the paper, there were numbers of how russia's own forces in weapons have been depleted in

this fight against ukraine. are they in a position to attack another european country, or have they been crippled in this fight against ukraine? guest: well, they certainly are not in a position to attack another european country now, and it will take some time when the war ends to rebuild their military capabilities. there's a lot of debate about how long that will take. when you talk to countries in eastern europe, the baltic countries or poland, they worry that time may be very short, maybe as short as three or four years. other people think it might be a decade or two. the challenge is that the russians appeared to be intent on rebuilding their military capabilities after the war. they stated they wanted to do that, and they also appear to be aggressive as they were before the war. so the eastern european countries are very worried about

this and are preparing for a rapidly rearmed russia, when the war ends. host: jerry in ohio, republican. hi, jerry. caller: hi. go ahead. good morning. colonel, it seems like the russians are calling natural resources, and their allies are giving them weapons, and if all you're doing is giving ukraine's defensive weapons, i don't see how ukraine can win. it will last forever. guest: we are not just giving ukraine defensive weapons, we are giving them a wide variety, including offensive weapons, tanks, it looks like they may be getting an f-16 aircraft. so they are getting weapons that are both defensive and offensive. i think there are examples of

countries successfully defending their borders. i mean, for example, you go back to the first world war, and the french successfully defended their borders. the germans, of course, made inroads, but then they were eventually pushed out. more recently, you know, there is the iran-iraq war, and iraq held outcome after initially attacking iran, iraq defended their border. it is possible to have a successful defense over a period of time. host: we will go to massachusetts. john, an independent, good morning. caller: yes, good morning. colonel, i served in the military zone, 1975, 1976, dmz, korea. i was just wondering, the only thing that stopped us, the reason i'm talking to you on the phone today is because when those two officers were killed in operation paul bunyan, russia and china did not back north

korea. that's the only reason i'm able to talk to you. it was a suicide mission. i ran and everything are supplying each other. it is a dangerous situation. i'm just wondering about your opinion. host: are we in a dangerous situation right now, with iran and other threats? guest: well, there's no question that there are many threats out there in the world "new york times national security -- and the world, you know, national security environment around the world is very complex. iranians are sponsoring terrorism around the world commanding a surrogates that are attacking the united states and israel. the chinese are being very aggressive in the western pacific, south china sea, for example, on the other hand, when i talk to junior staff about this, and they express concerns about dangers in the world, which are very real, i say, you know, you should have been

around in the cold war. you serve in north korea 1975. north korea was very aggressive in those years. in fact, i was on okinawa in those years. we also have the soviet union. u.s. and soviet union had some 60,000 nuclear weapons aimed at each other. those weapons were at very high levels of readiness. the existential threat was very high. although the world is dangerous now, it is not as dangerous as it was during the cold war, and i think people need to keep that in perspective. host: rome, georgia, republican caller. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i've been wanting to ask the gentleman, i cannot remember, colonel, your name. host: mark cancian. caller: i think this is a problem where republicans may be, i've heard you mention about other people's borders. i mean, the united states knows

that ukraine can defend it. i think we would like to know when we have some knowledge on the checks and balances. we know wars -- the president has not made the case why t heir border is more important than our southern border, that is allowing 12,000 people to come through in one day. that is a very difficult pill to swallow. host: kelly, let's take your point. colonel? guest:, of course, this is the debate republicans are worried about the southern border, and there are many gifts of of aid to ukraine, but democrats particularly pushing 18 ukraine and borders in eastern europe. that is why i am hopeful there will be a deal between the two, u.s. southern border and aid to ukraine. host: henry, for deposit,

alabama, democratic caller. caller: now? host: your turn, henry, your question or comment, we are listening to you. caller: yes. i believe we should take maybe four b-52's, low then to the hilt, take some f-16's, do away with iran's oil field, and on the return, do away with the facilities where they are trying to build a bomb. i believe if you take away the finance, it will kill a lot of ills, especially in the middle east. host: all right, colonel, switching our attentions to the middle east tensions. guest: yeah.

i think the administration is very worried about iran and has made it clear that it will attack iranian surrogates. in effect, we have done that in iraq and syria. i would not be surprised if we took some shots at the ho uthis in yemen, another iranian surrogate. we've been very careful not to attack iran itself, because that would possibly lead to a very large conflict in the middle east, and i don't think there's a lot of interest in doing that, and there's also concerns that they might strike at the u.s. homeland. so i think attacks against surrogates, you are seeing those, you will see more in the future, tremendous reluctance to attack the arabian homeland and possibly start a large war. host: we are talking this morning with retired marine colonel mark cancian. a little bit about his career,

spent more than seven years as chief of the structure and investment division, the defense budget strategy, war funding and procurement program as well as nuclear weapons development and nonproliferation activities in the department energy. he served as infantry, artillery, civil affairs officer, oversee tors in vietnam , desert storm to he has a ba at harvard business school, and he is here with us this morning until the top of the hour to answer your questions, battlefield questions and budget questions as well. that was an ohio, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, my question is about, you know, we are worried about defense overseas and everything, and right now, the biggest threat this country has is, i'm sorry, we have got an ex-

president who wants to be a dictator, and there ain't no way we should support this at all. if we are going to build up defense and he is going to try to take it over, it is crazy. i mean, he has wanted this country to be in chaos, so he could come in and be in all of our. it is crazy. 82 years ago today, the japanese attacked pearl harbor. we fought criminals then that tried to destroy democracy, and, you know, a man like that would try to destroy democracy, and we are worried about building of the defense. host: all right, colonel. guest: well, i'm going to put aside the question about what president trump might be like in a second term. i think that is, you know, "washington journal" will have another session on that. there's a lot of questions about what foreign policy, national

security of a trumpet second term would look like to trump has talked a lot about america first and seems to be very reluctant about using u.s. forces overseas. on the other hand, in his first term, he argued quite strongly for a strong military and built up the military and increased military budget. so a lot of uncertainty about what the national security policy of the second trump administration would look like. many of the allies are very concerned, because, you know, the rhetoric has been really old over the place. maybe as, you know, the campaigns play out, we will understand a little more. host: here is a viewer on x asking this, are we getting bang foou buck? we have seen uncompetitive markets in the united states and price gouging as a result. defense spending is pretty much uncompetitive, and even bidding is rigged.

americans are griping. guest: i'm not going to --well, it is not true that the bidding is rigged for defense contracts. there are very large companies, but they compete against each other. now, it is true that any industry, you know, that has essentially one customer is not going to be efficient. on the other hand, when you look around the world, you know, what weapons do people, do countries want to buy? they want to buy american weapons because they are proven on the battlefield. they are very effective. when we look at the conflicts the united states has been income of the weaponry has worked very well. for conventional conflicts, we have swept, you know, other militaries. so even though the defense industry may not be a model of

efficiency, it produces very effective weapons. host: we will take more of your phone calls here. we have got over 10 minutes left here in this conversation before the house gavels in for their legislative session today, so continue to call us with your battleground and budget questions and comments. back to x, here's another one from a viewer, please give your assessment of what you're could look like if ukraine -- europe could look like if ukraine falls to putin's russia. guest: the eastern europeans are terrified of that possible future. the pols, of course, have a long history of conflict with russia and suffering at the hands of russia. as a result, they are arming themselves to the teeth. they are buying many weapons in the united states and other countries in order to strengthen the military, in case there is a continuing threat on the eastern border. baltic countries, very concerned and very a post.

they are members but have small populations, and even though they spend proportionately a large money, 2.5% of the gdp, on military, and have conscription, unlike most companies, unlike the united states. as you move, you know, sort of further west, concerns ease off, because russia is relatively far away. but i would also got because these eastern countries are members of nato, if the russians were to attack one of them, the united states would be dragged into that fight, and i think we want to avoid that. the best way to avoid that is first arming those countries and helping them armed themselves, and then to arm the ukrainians, to keep the russians further away. host: jerry in long beach, washington, republican. your question or comment. caller: let me start by telling

you i'm 75 years old. when i was a kid in high school and whatnot, our government, colonel, i respect your rank and your service, but i was told that we've got to stop communism. we had 50,000 guys in vietnam, and since that time, we've been in vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, and god knows where else. i'm tired of war, sir. i'm so tired of war. earlier you mentioned we only spend, the united states is only one-third of the funding for the war. when is it going to stop? now, i understand that the ukrainians have lost other young men, either wounded or dead. wind is this thing stop? when are we going to stop supporting war everywhere? thank you, sir. host: and, colonel, you heard that from a public and lawmakers, we've heard it from our viewers, what is the endgame? guest: the question about the

endgame is a great question, because putin -- zelenskyy needs to articulate a theory of victory. in other words, how is he going to win this war? before the ukrainian counteroffensive began last june, the theory was that they would regain territory bite by bite. they had had a successful attack east of kharkiv. they had another successful attack at kherson, and the thinking was they might not drive the russians out completely, but they might take another chunk of territory, maybe even pushing off. unfortunately, the russians dug in, and the ukrainians were not able to get through the russian defensive zone.

now, both sides are sort of licking their wounds and rebuilding, and it is important for zelenskyy to articulate how he wants to win this war. is he going to try a strategy of attrition that is very difficult against a larger opponent? i suspect that he will want to launch another offensive in the spring, and people will want to know, ok, how is that going to be more successful? i think that is a very fair question, and ukrainians need to answer it. host: stephen in new york, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. can you hear me, colonel? guest: yeah. i can hear you. caller: great. on following up on another caller's question about i read in the middle east, and while it is somewhat outlandish to think we would attack iran directly, he asked why would we drop a bomb or stop the nuclear hip abilities in addition to supplying military aid to the

proxy? my question, as a follow-up, it is not more dangerous, you believe, then during the cold war in russia. what if iran does get a nuclear bomb, which they are very close to getting them and they refused to allow any spectators into c -- inspectors in to see what they are doing. do you think it will get more dangerous now that it was during the cold war, and how can we stop that? that is what worries me. guest: this is a very real concern, and it has been a concern of the united states for probably two decades. the problem about bombing iran to eliminate their nuclear capability is it is very hard to do that. a lot of the capability is underground and hard to get out. it is very spread out. so as a result, is not a

question of sending in, you know, one flight of b-52's. i mean, you would have to launch an entire air campaign over iran, which means beating down their air defenses, which means, you know, killing hundreds or maybe even thousands of iranians. so it is not an easy thing to do. you could, of course, set back nuclear program, but it would come at a very high cost. americans have not been very willing to do that. they would be, of course, very dangerous if they got nuclear weapons. the united states, i think, has been successful in deterring the use of nuclear weapons by adversaries, the north koreans, for example, we did not want them to get nuclear weapons. they are not a very responsible state, but on the other hand, we have been able to determine them so far. it is important to keep in mind even if they iranians do get a

nuclear weapon, it is bad news for israel and for many of the gulf states. i think we would help them with air and missile defenses, but their ability to strike the united states would not be very great. host: here is one from our viewer in a text. colonel, why can't we send air support to ukraine? the war keeps dragging on. guest: both sides drew red lines at the beginning of this war. putin drew two red lines, one was no nato troops in ukraine, and the other was no invasion of the russian homeland. and we have respected that. in return, we put down our own red line, which was no russian strikes on nato territory. they have respected that. sending u.s. forces into ukraine to fight the russians directly would be a major escalation,

where you might actually have russian temptations to use nuclear weapons. so it would be a major escalation, and you could not just, you know, send a squadron or two. you would have to send tens of thousands of u.s. aircraft into at least eastern europe and maybe into ukraine. it would be a major air campaign, a major commitment, and the united states, and i think most of the callers i've been hearing here, are very reluctant to put u.s. forces at risk. host: we will go down to oklahoma, jd, republican. caller: yeah. i was kind of wanting to ask the colonel if we were replacing the aircraft, like the tankers and old bombers that are, you know, 50 or 60 years old, at a significant pace to keep our forces active and secure.

host: yeah. a readiness question, jd. colonel yucca guest: guest: you asked about tankers and bombers, and there are programs to replace takers and bombers, which are very old, the tankers on average 40 years, mostly the kc135, and there's a new aircraft coming online, the kc46, to replace them, and it is slow. and the kc 46 has had a lot of problems. and the bombers, the same thing, there is a b-21 program, i think they just took their first flight a month or two ago. that will replace probably the b-1. the b-52's will probably be around for a wild. the joking air force is the last b-52 air pilot probably has not been born yet. he first came in to the force i

think 1962. they are still flying now, and they will be flying into the 2040's. it has been an extremely successful aircraft. so the air force does have programs to do that, they are coming online slowly, and they are trying to keep the older aircraft flying. host: any supply issues? we see that with other industries in recent years. what about military supply chains? guest: the military has had the same problems with supply chains as the civilian economy. those were disrupted by the pandemic. the military may have a little easier time, because many of these supply chains are restricted to the united states and allies, so they are not as dependent on, for example, china, as many civilian supply chains. but it has still been a problem, just a lot of work on these supply chains to make them more resilient. host: any issues with actually delivering the tanks and the other weapons that you talked

about to ukraine? guest: delivery to ukraine, no. most comes from drawdown, that is weapons that are in the u.s. stocks, so they are, you know, basically repaired and then sent over to ukraine, and they can arrive pretty quickly. the challenge is. replacing them. the pentagon is signing contracts to do that, but that is going to take 2, 3, 4 years, so there is a gap. host: all right, colonel mark cancian with the center for strategic & international studies, we thank you, sir. guest: thank you for having me on the show. host: the house will gavel in here in just a moment. live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives, gavel-to-gavel, right here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]