♪ host: good morning on this thursday, december 14. yesterday all 220 one republicans voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry into president biden.

all democrats present voted against the inquiry. we will get your take. if you support it dial-in at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. you can also text us with your thoughts at (202) 748-8002. --(202) 748-8003. include your first name, city and state four go to facebook.com and you can post on x. the vote was 221-212, along party lines. we want to know what you think of this effort by house republicans to formalize this impeachment inquiry into president biden and his son and other family members' businesses. we will get to your thoughts in a minute. after the vote the three committee chairs investigating president biden, james comer of kentucky, jim jordan of ohio,

and missouri republican jason smith who chairs the ways and means committee. they went to the microphones and talked to reporters. here is what they had to say. [video] >> well, i think we have made our point clear today. evidence uncovered has shown a very disturbing trend by the biden family. we have spent months on this investigation accumulating evidence. we have a simple question. what did the bidens do to receive the tens of millions of dollars to receive our enemies -- the tens of millions from our enemies around the world? we are united as a conference. we expect to have people honor our subpoenas. we want to wrap this investigation up. obviously, you get to the deposition phase before you wrap up an investigation. that is where we are.

we are pleased with the vote today. it will send a message to the white house. we expect you to comply with our information requests and subpoenass. i will turn it over to chairman jordan. >> the house has now spoken, pretty loudly and clearly with every single republican voting in favor of moving into this official impeachment inquiry phase of our constitutional duty to do oversight. when a majority of the house goes on record in support of an official impeachment inquiry with the power that resides solely in the house of representatives, i think that sends a message. we now think this helps us get the key witnesses we want. there were three names missing. one was the president of the united states. the others are two lawyers we want to talk to. the doj is refusing us to talk to jack daly.

we think this is a strong message from the house and the republican conference and every member voted for it. thank you all very much. host: he heard there from two other committee chairs investigating president biden. before the vote took place on the house floor, jamie raskin, democrat of maryland who is the ranking member of the oversight committee had this to say about republicans' efforts. [video] >> the reason mysteries are called whodunits is they start with a crime and you have to figure out who did it. the biden investigation is a who did it. what is the crime? that gets very tedious very fast. after 11 months of this, no one can tell us what president

biden's crime was. much less where it happened, when it happened, what the motive was, who the perpetrators were or who the victims were. maybe the funniest thing i saw yesterday in the rules committee when a congressman kept asking congressman russian dol -- -- he said he did not know it was but that is why we need an impeachment investigation to find out. negus kept asking what it would be looking for. finally, he set a hind crime -- high crime or misdemeanor. yes, but which one? negus was involved with the real impeachment investigation into the clinical insurrection against this congress, the vice president, against the constitution and against the election of 2020. we did not need sherlock holmes and a magnifying glass to find the presidential crime with

donald trump. it came right into this house and smashed us in the face. it is true that chairman comber has collected amount of evidence. tens of thousands of pages of documents. dozens of interviews with government officials. all of it clearly shows that joe biden committed no crime. even their own witnesses that they called to the only public hearing they had said there is not remotely enough evidence to justify impeachment. host: you heard from both sides. shelley and charleston camillus virginia. you oppose this formalizing of an impeachment inquiry. tell us what. caller: yes. if they had evidence which democrats had with former president trump, it is like jamie raskin said.

they would come and smack them in the face, but they have nothing because they are looking for something. if you are looking into someone you can always find something t -- exceedin -- excuse me. complain about. i will use a different word. if they had something, a scintilla of evidence, they would be all over the tv everywhere. and screaming it from the rooftops. host: republicans argue they need this formalizing of an impeachment inquiry because the white house is blocking them from evidence. the white house lawyer issued a november 17 letter challenging the legitimacy of the inquiry and demanding subpoenas and request for interviews with the biden family members and white house aides be rescinded.

gop lawmakers rallied behind the idea, strengthening the house's legal hand by moving to that vote yesterday to authorize the investigation with the vote. they felt like they had to do this because the white house is saying it is not legitimate without the vote that happened yesterday. how do you respond, shelley? caller:caller: let's see what happens. i've got nothing. host: theresa and tennessee come you support moving forward with this impeachment inquiry. caller: good morning. you just stole my thunder. you said everything i was going to say. the gop had to bring this impeachment inquiry because the doj has blocked them at every move. they do have evidence. they pointed out tons of evidence yesterday and that hearing on watching. for the democrats to, and say they have no evidence, they have

suspicious report records from banks. they received $15 million from foreign nationals. they had bank accounts and shell companies. the media -- there is no evidence whatsoever. there is evidence. the question being this is not an impeachment. it is impeachment inquiry. if there is nothing that joe biden did wrong, you would think he and his party before the election would be glad to have this inquiry over with and him not be impeached. host: how do you respond to republican senator chuck grassley of iowa that he has seen no evidence president biden wa involved in his son hunte biden's foreign business dealings? caller: i also member chuck

grassley sankey saw bank accounts. i remember chuck grassley saying i saw bank accounts and checks. what about the checks that was given to joe biden for supposed loans? where is the loan contracts? where is the check that coincides with that? you are not going to see evidence if you don't want to see it. there is more evidence against joe biden then there ever was against trump. host: teresa's opinion. the washington post reporting the foundation of the impeachment inquiry outlined by jordan in a briefing with reporters last week rest on it an unsubstantiated allegation that has become the linchpin of conspiracy theories and false claims regarding the biden family's purported criminal conduct. republicans have alleged that evidence that joe biden as vice president pushed for the firing

of ukraine's top prosecutor to squash a probe into the former owner of burisma, where hunter biden sat on the board. u.s. officials, ukrainian anticorruption activist and some republic and everybody that allegation. as part of the year-long inquiry house republicans also have elevated claims that the biden administration slowed an investigation into hunter biden's financial background. but that testimony has been disputed repeatedly by officials involved in the case. michelle in maryland opposing this effort. caller: good morning. i want to make the point that the republican voters should think abouwhat's happening here. republicans are doing this action at the behest of donald trump. they cannot stand agait nald trump who just wants to protect

his own brand. he wants to bring government t a standstill so he can look like the one who is gng to save the day. if the rubcans will not stand up against dond trump they are not going to stand up for the american people against corpations and against wealthy people who want to just rob from the middle class and from the poor. host: tie this back to the impeachment inquiry. caller: that's what i'm saying. i'm opposed to this impeachment inquiry. i believe it is all at the direction of donald trump. there is no basis for it. they should speak to people to say we have a government that is not looking in the interest of the people. they will just bend to the whim of anyone who can benefit them. any person, any corporation, any foreign government. host: isaac in woodbridge,

virginia. you support moving forward with this inquiry. good morning. caller: how are you doing, greta? host: good morning. caller: it is not for the reasons most people would think. i want to turn back the clock for about the first time when the democrats did the same thing to president trump at the time. if you look at the poll ratings before impeachment and after, before impeachment his approval rating was about 45%. after his impeachment it jumped to about 50%. i told democrats at the time if the democrats want to continue this impeachment thing then that could potentially shoot them both on the foot. they are doing trump a huge favor. they are giving him a huge gift. whatever dirt you want to throw

at your opposition, that will ricochet back at you. host: you think the gift is being returned? caller: that's right. by that logic that means if the republicans move forward, that means biden's approval rating will go up and that will give trump -- that will give biden an upper edge over trump and the 2024 election for him to gain victory. host: understood. we will see what other viewers think of that idea. we want to get your thoughts. also happening yesterday, hunter biden was supposed to testify behind closed doors before the three committees investigating this impeachment inquiry and looking into the business ties. he defied the subpoena and went before reporters.

the washington post says hunter biden's decision to skip the deposition only strengthened speaker johnson's argument among republican lawmakers. the president's son made a statement reiterating he was willing to testify in a public hearing related to the inquiry but republicans do not want an open process where they can see their tactics or hear what i have to say. here is a little from the hunter biden statement. inquiry >> to suggest it is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond absurd. it is shameless. there is no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen. james comer, jim jordan, jason smith and their colleagues have

distorted the facts by cherry picking lines from a bank statement, manipulating texts i sent, editing the testimony of my friends and former business partners, and misstating personal information that was stolen from me. there is no fairness or decency in what these republicans are doing. they have lied over and over about every aspect of my personal and professional life. their lives have become the false facts believed by too many people. no matter how many times it is debunked they continue to insist my father's support of ukraine against russia is a result of a nonexistent bribe. they displayed naked photos of me during an oversight hearing.

they have taken the light of my dad's love -- the light of my dad's love for me and presented it as darkness. they have no shame. the same committee chairman have engaged in unprecedented political interference in what would have already been a five-year investigation of me. yet here im, mr. chairman. -- here im, mr. chairman -- here i am, mr. chairman when you said we can bring people into for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose. i have chosen. i am here to testify in a public hearing today to answer any of the committee's legitimate questions. republicans do not want an open process where americans can see their tactics, expose their

baseless inquiry, or hear what i have to say. what are they afraid of? i am here. i am ready. host: before the capitol yesterday hunter biden delivering a statement. the chair of the oversight committee has been the lead into this impeachment inquiry. he responded to that statement by hunter biden. here is what he had to say. [video] >> in the beginning joe biden said he never met with any of these individuals. now he know he met with all these individuals. the narrative when we started was that no money ever transferred to the bidens while joe biden was vice president. now we know a huge percentage of the money transferred while joe biden was vice president. the majority of shell companies were incorporated while joe biden was vice president. we have a lot of questions about some very concerning transfers.

that is what we have the thousands of pages of bank records. we have been transparent with the media. this has been the most transparent congressional investigation since i have been in congress for seven years. we have reduced four bank memorandums with bank statements. this is a concern. this is about public corruption at the highest level. the president's son does not get to set the rules. he's had a pretty good run with the department of justice, with the irs, and with the fbi. these two committees are going to hold firm. we have taken steps to go buy the book in this investigation. now we are in the phase where we do depositions. what he did today is unacceptable. host: chair of the oversight committee james comer. now we want to hear back to your calls, what you think of this back-and-forth. diane in jacksonville, florida. you will pose.

caller: yes, i do oppose. i think they are wasting taxpayer money and time when they should be working on our budget. listen, i'm not absorbing hunter biden. he's basically admitted he did wrong. where does that link him to the president? if we start linking our children to the crimes -- parents to the crimes of our children then we should be investigating donald trump for that, because his children also received a large sum of money. nevertheless, back to hunter biden. i do believe that young man has issues. they need to be investigated but i doot believe it has anything to do with joe biden. if it does then so be it.

as a republican myself i think we should be working on our budget. we should be working on trying to make things better for the american people. i am not concerned right now about a tit-for-tat. that is basically all this is. host: do you think republicans should pursue contempt of congress against hunter biden for not complying with that subpoena yesterday? caller: no. if you look back to the trump trial, how many people actually showed up? most of them did not show up. the ones that showed up, including jim jordan, all they did was say i don't remember or they said no comment, fifth amendment rights or whatever. when you go pleading the fifth

you are basically wasting my time. host: that argument was made by adam kinzinger, the former congressman from illinois. he was one of two republicans along with liz cheney who sat on the january 6 committee. yesterday in an interview with cnn he called jim jordan a hypocrite on this issue of following through on subpoenas. he said he's for the sanctity of the subpoena by the u.s. congress until he is the one that gets subpoenaed by the u.s. congress. he voted against enforcing subpoenas against people like steve bannon and people like mark meadows. he went on to say this is the hypocrisy that is mindnumbing from jim jordan. there is this in the washington post. ask generally yesterday if the president think congressional subpoenas could be adhered to, the white house books person said i am not going to speak to

that. i'm just not. asked whether the president had the same position as he did in 2021 when he said those who don't comply should be prosecuted by the justice department, she said i don't have anything to add. the washington post notes this morning if the house approves the contempt resolution against hunter biden and goes to the justice department which will decide whether to pursue the contempt referral, contempt of congress as a misdemeanor criminal offense that could result in up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. let's go to mark and carlisle, pennsylvania, supporting this impeachment inquiry. hi mark. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points. please don't cut me off. number one point is, how does joe biden who has been in the

public light for so many years worth millions of dollars? not only the bidens. the clintons, the obamas. these people are just leeches. i think not only them but we need to investigate hello c, schumer. whoever is a -- pelosi and schumer. whoever is a multimillionaire in congress. let me finish and then you can ask what you want. he bought a house for two point something million in cash. he always claimed he was a poor senator. he dropped out of the race in the 1980's because he lied. he has lied his whole life. ask me whatever you would like. i'm sick of fake republicans calling on the republican line talking about trump. trump is a legitimate businessman. that is what he does. hunter and joe are not

businessman. host: the point i would make is there are very wealthy republican lawmakers as well. he hung up. you can find out how joe biden made money after he left the white house when he served as vice president. those are public records. eric in canoga park, california. you will pose. caller: yes. isn't the whole point moot because it happened when he was vice president? hunter biden is not running for president. joe biden has nothing to do with this. just one of the point with that caller, he made his money by book deals, as many past presidents have made their money. both deals. -- book deals. and speeches. you can look at their taxes, like most presidents do who show their taxes. unlike president trump.

i think this whole thing is to put biden in a bad light because he's doing a great job so far for what he was given. they are just trying to set it up for trump to take over. i just think it is an embarrassment. this is not the way. we are losing our democracy with the way these people are working in the house. that is all i have to say. host: mark in ohio. caller: mary christmas to you, your family and to the c-span staff. what joe biden is doing is -- we have homeland security. i am 68 years old. i have never seen this country in such bad shape. we have homeland security but we

are the least secure now. we have an open border. that is treasonous. read the constitution. the federal government only has the right to pass the senate -- for the defense of the nation. this is treason nothing more than treason. the democratic callers, don't forget the fake dossier hillary clinton -- can they think? do they have a memory? it was not that long ago, folks. host: you brought up border security and that reminds me of an update for all of you this morning. a couple of headlines in the papers this morning. this one from the new york times. the white house considering immigration crackdown for aid to ukraine. tying aid to ukraine to immigration policy is still underway. there is a possibility of a deal

in the making. this is the last week for the house and senate to be in session before the break for the holiday. we will have to wait and see if they can get a deal before they leave here in the nation's capital. yesterday the senate passed the defense bill turning back the right wing is what the new york times says. the senate overwhelmingly passed on 886 billion on defense bill that would set pentagon policy and provide a 5.2% pay raise for military personnel, defying hard right republicans who tried and failed to attach deeply partisan restrictions on abortion. the vote 87-13 to approve the legislation, and permit components of a key and a

pacific security partnership with britain and australia, and direct hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to ukraine and israel. the ukraine and israel programs authorized by the bill are distinct from a $111 billion spending bill to send additional weapons to those countries. among other ask managers that is currently stalled in congress. this is separate. the ndaa bill is separate from the debate for money to ukraine. it has money in it as well. the defense bill would extend into 2025 a program that allows the intelligence committee to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign individuals located outside the united states. section 702 of fisa. it has prompted a backlash in the house for many republicans are angry at their leadership

for agreeing to drop a number of provisions the hardliners attached over the summer. this is now coming to the house today for a vote. it's effective the pass with a coalition of republicans and democrats. ella in north carolina, you oppose. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: we are listening. why do you oppose this impeachment inquiry? caller: i don't. they keep saying -- i don't know where to start. let's talk about the border. they keep saying they are coming in. biden ain't doing it. they are already here. what can we do? they are already here. they are here in north carolina. they are here. what can we do? host: who is there?

we are talking about the biden impeachment inquiry. jodey in arizona. caller: good morning. i would like these people that are opposing it just to think for a second how in the world would a lifetime senator and his wife, a college professor, own several multimillion dollar homes. joe biden has been living high on the hog at our expense, at our demise, selling influence to our enemies so he can be eating steak and lobster every night while the rest of us are -- most of us are scrambling to afford top ramen to eat. do any of them -- how could any of them still support joe biden?

almost three years of him letting in anybody. they cannot these people -- vet these people. thousands coming in a day. most likely to harm us. he's doing this because he hates all of us. all of us. anybody that supports joe biden needs to have their head examined. host: why do you think the president hates all of us americans? caller: look at the border. host: ok. debbie and everett, washington -- in everett, washington. opposing. caller: i want everybody to know that the house has gotten all the bank records from joe biden and jill biden. they have in those bank records

that they won't -- he loaned his brother $200,000. he loaned him $40,000. he has the receipts for the wire transfers that joe biden made to his brother. when his brother paid him $240,000, that was to pay off that loan. when it comes to the small amount of money that he loaned his son, he was paying car payments for him. his son paid him back exactly the same amount. now you don't have to have -- make a loan contract when you're not charging interest and when you are not -- and it's a family member. since when do you do paperwork

for loaning people money in your family? it is ridiculous. host: debbie's thoughts. let's go back to the house debate on the floor yesterday with the ways and means committee chair jason smith of missouri. his committee as part of -- one of the three committees investigating president biden and his family. here is what he had to say. [video] >> president biden has hidden from the wreck and people his knowledge of and role in his family's overseas business dealings. even in the face of overwhelming evidence showing his knowledge and involvement, president biden still refuses to come clean. so far two key doj witnesses have failed to show for congressionally subpoenaed depositions after doj directed them not to appear.

other witnesses have refused to answer certain questions from investigators. the biden administration has refused to turn over many of the documents requested by congress, claiming this inquiry was not properly authorized. let there be no mistake. today's vote asserts congress's authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather all the evidence to proceed. with our investigation the american people deserve answers. here is what we know so far. the investing -- existence of multiple email aliases suggests that joe biden was deliberately trying to conceal his activities in the public, including one on one communication with a key hunter biden business partner during his vice presidency. we also learned investigators were blocked from looking into potential campaign-finance

crimes by the biden campaign. host: jason smith, the chair of the ways and means committee yesterday. from the democratic side, eric swalwell of california. [video] >> this is a continuation of the insurrection that came here on january 6. they have never accepted joe biden is the president. the architect of the idea that you can overturn the election is the current speaker of the house. it did not work and now we are here where they will try to use this house to overturn the election through this inquiry. the problem is they have zero evidence. the only crime is that joe biden blew out donald trump in the 2020 election. that is a problem because this place is the largest law firm in d.c. with lawyers working on behalf of just one client, donald trump, at the expense of everything else that matters.

i want to give james comer some credit. after 50,000 pages of depositions and secret hearings and closed hearings i think if we give them enough time he's going to prove that hunter biden is joe biden's son. host: your thoughts on the debates yesterday and vote in the house to move forward officially with an impeachment inquiry into president biden. support, dial in at (202) 748-8000. oppose, (202) 748-8001. from the front pages of the national newspapers this morning. the wall street journal. gop sets probing bid to tie biden to son posey businesses -- son's businesses. it says republicans have not uncovered evidence that the president profited from his

family posey overseas endeavors -- family's overseas endeavors. the front page of the new york times. approved despite no proof of biden crime. the house voted yesterday to formerly open and impeachment inquiry, pushing forward with a year-long gop investigation that has failed to produce evidence of anything approaching high crimes or misdemeanors. that is how the wall street journal and new york times brands at this morning. lewis in new jersey, let's hear from you. caller: good morning. the first thing is --biden has filled the country which is a high crime. i want to ask america and everybody listening who in the world would give somebody with a

substance abuse $5 million to invest for them? all the money was transferred. if there is loans, you have to show where you pay the loans out to and they can't do that. hunter biden lying again. the house says he can have hearings on tv but they were they have it private. the trump impeachment, which they all knew was fabricated. install well -- stalwell? come on. sleeping with the chinese agent. host: john in clifton park, new york. caller: good morning. thank you for what you do and a best holiday to all you people.

i currently oppose the situation due to two things. primarily, you play the clip of the chairperson whining about the macon public -- the american public. [indiscernible] what was being said and done. that way they could judge for themselves as to what they felt about the situation instead of it being behind closed doors. second and most importantly, in his haste to answer the reporter yesterday james comer came out with this statement that it is political and then he caught himself and said congressional

investigation. his true intent came out with this. there should have been a hearing. it should have been an open hearing where the american people had the opportunity to judge for themselves instead of hearing from one side or the other what would be leaked out, which they always are in these types of situations. once again, i think you and your colleagues at c-span for everything you do. host: can i ask you before you go, what are your impressions of hunter biden and his uncle's businesses? caller: i have no idea. i don't really follow it that closely. what it amounts to is the fact that a situation like this -- situations like these, i always pay attention. i always look for these types of

committee hearings so i can hear exactly what comes out of person's mouth. i don't like the fact that msnbc and fox news will clip it to their advantage. they will clip them to their advantage. basically what it amounts to is the fact that they had the opportunity yesterday to discover that. yet they turned around and they make all these claims but their words cannot -- kevin mccarthy came out years ago with the situation involving benghazi. we had our mark when he initially ran for speakership when paul ryan was around. he came up with the fact that the real facts -- what the

country was going through. i apologize. what it amounted to was yesterday was an opportunity for people like myself who really don't follow it to basically know the circumstances. host: i will move on because there is more than just yesterday for folks to listen to. go into our video library. putting keywords like comer, the rules committee hearing that happened earlier this week. there was lots of debate and that hours long hearing as well about this investigation into what republicans are saying, etc. you can listen for yourself and

follow the debate that has happened over this past year and see what lawmakers have been saying about it. terry in iowa. you support. caller: hello. please don't cut me off. lme as much time as you did this last guy. host: we are listening. caller: it's ironic that i call in to you greta over and over about hunter biden and his laptop and the corruption. you guys blew it off and blew it off and blew it off. that is why i support this. i am for exposing the media. you guys are unreal. the hypocrisy is unreal. the way you guys spin this is unreal. the answers to questions you present people, the newspaper

articles you pull out. put this back to trump. think of the weight you approached it when they were doing mr. trump. your colors are showing big time, greta. you are giddy about it. you think you have something here. the bottom line is you don't have anything. all you guys in the media and the democrats that are trying to keep their jobs and are about power for the ones that control this thing from the beginning. this thing should have been squashed clear back with trump and the laptop and the election. that is the whole thing here. it is all about what everybody has done and the coup that went on to try to keep donald trump from being president. host: ok. jay, boston, opposed. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

the difference in this case -- i'm opposing the impeachment simply because it's a waste of time. a few days ago mitt romney, republican, senator mitt romney said it. he said we know they'll the evidence you have is that hunter happens to be the president's son. we all know that. why waste the time? you will not have any votes. the wreck and people are going to answer that question. either biden is going to be president or not. that we know. the other thing i'm surprised people don't know, compare hunterit trump. trump was a president. he was in the white house. hunter happens to be the son of a president. if you going to -- the crime of the son or whatever he has done, hunter has -- hunter has done

some bad stuff. we all know that. compare hinted donald trump the same way. donald trump was president. wasting all this time and effort and money in the congress simply because they were trying to impeach donald trump. donald trump was the president. that is something we already know. obviously, he thought the election was rigged. all those things that are embarrassments for the united states all over the world. but hunter biden is the son obviously, he's a shady character. we all know that. what does that have to do with the father? host: in other news this morning on the economy, front page of the wall street journal. the fed has started the pivot towards lowering interest rates. officials do not rule out further increases while penciling in three eases in 2024

of interest rates. let's listen to the fed chairman jerome powell from yesterday. [video] >> looking back on the past year you talked about navigating by the stars under cloudy skies. can you talk about the ways the economy surprised you most this year when you thought it would behave one way? >> i think forecasters generally -- you go back a year, they were broadcasting ever session for 2023. that includes fed forecasters at essentially all forecasters. a very high proportion. not only did that happen, we had a strong year. that was a combination of strong demand but also real gains on the supply side. this was the year when labor force participation act up, where immigration picked up, where the distortions to supply and demand from the pandemic,

the shortages and the bottlenecks really begin to unwind. we had significant supply-side gains with strong demand. but got what looks like a 2.5% growth year one potential growth is your might have been higher than that just because of the healing on the supply-side. that was a surprise to just about everybody. i think the inflation forecast is roughly what people wrote down a year ago but in a different setting. i would say the labor market because the stronger growth has been significantly better. if you look back at the sep from a year ago there was an increase in unemployment. that did not really happen. we are still at 3.7%. we have seen strong growth, still a tight labor market but one that is coming back into balance with the swift support from the supply-side. a greater supply of labor. that is what we see. i think the combination was not

anticipated broadly. host: on the economic front jerome powell yesterday. you can watch the entire news conference if you go to c-span.org. back to our conversation about the house overwhelmingly -- along party lines overwhelmingly with republican votes unanimously approved an inquiry into -- and impeachment inquiry into president biden. we are asking if you support or oppose. tim in fairview, pennsylvania. we will move on to roseann in wisconsin rapids, wisconsin, opposing. caller: i am opposing because this is turning into other things besides what it is about. people calling up. the woman who said joe biden hates americans because he is letting all the illegal immigrants. i'm sorry but when trump was at

the end of his presidency and the numbers were not there that showed he was going to probably went the race he had the world stage. he gets up in front of the entire world and sets joe up for a problem because they cannot work together. talk about power grabbing. joe biden is not for letting everybody and anybody into this country. he got on the world stage, trump, and said everyone joe is going to let all of the illegal immigrants in here. that is what is going to happen. host: what is your view of the impeachment inquiry? are you saying you oppose because it is political and tied to these policy issues? caller: absolutely, yes i do. why is it a problem for them to have these hearings in front of the entire country? we have a right as citizens to see what's going on.

they want to do this and have him do a deposition behind closed doors. why? he can do that in front of the american people. i don't understand why they want to do it almost cloak and dagger. host: rosanna poses. mark supports in zachary, louisiana. caller: i wish you would have clarified to everybody calling in that this is not an impeachment of joe biden. host: i think i have, over and over i have called in impeachment inquiry. caller: sometimes it goes over people's heads. they are not investigating to impeach joe biden. they are investigating to see if there is anything there. it would have helped if president biden would not have lied when he said i did not have any meetings with any of my son's businesspeople.

it would have helped if he had not lied about that. i don't have no problem with this. if it had been trump in his son and trump lied then do the inquiry. you are doing what you are supposed to do. i don't get how people can be upset that they are doing this. they do have these business dealings with millions of dollars going to somebody who was not professional in any manner that he would want to do that unless you were trying to reach the president. you were trying to buy end with the president. yes. they have a right to do what they are doing. that is their job to do this. president biden did not help when he lied, you know? he lied. he said he did not meet any of hunter biden's business partners

but he did. let's see where it goes. let's see if there's anything there. if there is nothing there, fine. host: mark's thoughts in louisiana. glenn -- gwen in birmingham, alabama. caller: i have not called in a long time. how are you? that sentiment that called seems as if he wanted to impeach him from c-span . that was very rude what he was saying to you. i oppose because the american people, ask yourself, what are the republican party doing for us? what are they doing? nothing. i have not seen anything the republican party are doing for the american people.

stop illegals from coming to america. this is all they are doing. upholding donald trump. that is what the republican party is doing. they played by whatever the donald trump is doing. i'm angry. i'm upset. i'm a senior citizen. we are not getting nothing done about our benefits and medicare, medicaid. i'm from alabama, one of the poorest red states in the united states of america. people are -- with bs going on. you know what god said in the bible. thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. i want to as the american people this. if you are a parent tell me you know everything your children has done. tell me as a parent that you know everything your children have done. i have been a child myself and i

know my parents did not know everything i have done. i'm sick and tired of this of what is going on in america. the american people need to wake up. we are letting the republican party scapegoat us and get by with doing nothing for us. how can we let this happen in america? host: the house voting yesterday along party lines 221, all republicans, and 212, all democrats present voting against moving forward formalizing an investigation into president biden. this impeachment inquiry is now a formal process because of this vote yesterday. mark in pennsylvania, you support it. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning to you too and america. we have some anger out there from the republican party. i have done the research on this. i have a book in front of me of all the crimes that the bidens

did. it is the report on the biden laptop by marco polo. 658 pages long. it lays out everything hunter biden and also all the shell companies he created. hunter made a statement yesterday that he was he responsible with money. i guess he's irresponsible filling at his tax returns. he put down deductions for prostitutes and porn websites as a deduction for business. the way this works is back four years ago joe biden admitted to the crime, which was a quid pro quo with ukraine by firing the prosecutor. the democrats said that was our foreign policy at the time. they haven't covered all the documents from that time. there was no document that said that they were planning on firing that prosecutor. it said the guy was doing a good job and they were happy with the

work he was doing. unless they can show documents that was the foreign policy we have the democrats lying to cover for joe biden's crimes. they knew it was a crime. he does not have to receive any money whatsoever. if he helps any of his family members with this little stuff, that is bribery. he will be impeached for that. the problem is, as you saw with jamie raskin and these other people who like to do the spin machine, they take everything that is factual and lie about it. his own business partner stated right after the head up her his mouth was being pressured by this prosecutor -- barisma was being pressured by the prosecutor, he ran to ukraine and said if they don't fire him he would not give them a billion dollars. that's a quid pro quo. the game is over. now they have checks that literally go to joe biden. that woman that said they have the texaco back to the brother,

that is a lie. i have not seen any documents related to that. we saw the two checks. one for $40,000 that is 10% to the big guy out of a $400,000 payment that ran through a shell company. it was paid directly to joe biden from his brother. that is proof enough that is getting money from this corruption. the classified documents at u penn. i believe it was the chinese person had access to it. all this stuff just lines up perfectly. bob belinsky was a business partner of hunter's that was going to be 10% for the bigeye. he actually met with his father. host: would you support a public hearing with hunter biden to ask about these items you have brought up? for him to be before cameras, lawmakers getting to ask about the claims of 10% for the bigeye, all those -- big guy.

why not have a public hearing? caller: i have watched all these hearings on tv. they are dog and pony shows. the democrats, they basically just wasted five minutes saying that is not true and going into a rant. host: if you do it behind closed doors, these depositions come etc., and then the republicans give reporters certain information that they discovered behind closed worse, democrats argue they are just cherry picking evidence rather than having it all out in the open. caller: i agree, there should be transparency but i want to see the deposition. a lawyer asking them all these questions. forgive this five-minute back-and-forth. it is really hard to get a cohesive thought process going. post: no lawmakers getting there five minutes and haven't had lawyers deposing them to make it

public. caller: absolutely. i would love to see what he is forced to answer the questions without being covered by a democrat. let them have the position and i'm sure he wouldn't agree to that, but the bottom line is that is the way you get proper information. asking the question until they answer it at not go into a smear campaign. host: i've got to leave it there because we are at the top of the hour. when we come back you will talk to lawmakers about yesterday's revote and the continued gradient border money. later, democrat of california and progressive caucus. stay with us. ♪ announcer: we connected manicotti eastern, c-span's encore presentation of our 10

part series books that shaped america. c-span partners with the library of congress that explores key pieces of literature that had a profound impact on our country monday night, 37 page pamphlet by thomas payne. watch c-span's encore presentation of books that shaped america weeknights at 9:00 eastern on sees them, or go to c-span.org to view the series and learn more about each book featured. american history tv, saturdays and c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 3:30 p.m. eastern, from the george washington symposium held at mount vernon, discussion on the united states constitution and how it has all over more than two centuries. 8:00 p.m. eastern, university of kentucky english professor peter

-- talked about how cold war politics shaped literature from africa, asia, and the caribbean. in on the presidency, the conversation on the presidency and the press hosted by the john f. kennedy presidential library and museum. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at the span.org/history. >> c-span studentcam documentary competition is back celebrating 20 years. with this year's theme, looking forward while considering the past. asking middle and high school students to create a 5-6 minute video addressing one of these bastions in the next 20 years, what is the most important

change you like to see in america, or over the past 20 years, what is the most important change in america? as we do each year, you're giving away $100,000 in total rises with a grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate in the competition at the opportunity to share a portion of an additional $50,000 competition deadline is friday, january 19, 20. for information, visit our website. washington journal continues. host: at air table this morning, republican rich mccormick from georgia. thank you very much for being here. member of the foreign affairs committee. how did you vote on moving forward with -- officially with this impeachment inquiry into president biden? guest: i voted for it. a strong showing very resolutely voted for. host: why?

guest: i think there's always surprises in the republican party that it was going to hold out. i think there's enough evidence right now a very suspicious behavior, it way beyond coincidental that needs to be exposed and looked into. certainly if it was on my account, my bank account, my family, we have the same exact schedule, i would be looked into for sure, so why not? host: they have been investigating for a year. there are republicans like chuck grassley who say i haven't seen any evidence of wrongdoing by the president after a year of investigating. >> i don't think that is accurate at all. if you were to take the number of accounts associated with his name on it which on its lane, when you talked about donor payments but you can see where the loan was made which is unexplained, when you talk about every time an account goes from five different countries, you have 20 different accounts and then it is transferred over to

the big guy, that is unexplained. you know how much scrutiny we are under in congress for everything that goes into my bank account? every single dollar, every single investment that goes into my account is that with a fine toothed comb every single year. why wouldn't the president, who has a son who is working for a four agency that had no qualifications for that who has received millions of dollars and five other family members who have received millions of dollars in 20 different bank accounts, but every time they make a deposit in the president's account, why wouldn't that be up for grabs? why wouldn't that be something we would look into just like you would if my account was having the same exact thing? everyone would be talking about it. this is just what we should do. host: when you run for president are you under that same scrutiny? guest: absolutely. host: so why wasn't it found if there was wrongdoing when he ran for president? guest: i have no idea.

the inquiry process is what started. when you start looking into it. this is exactly what we are looking at. i can lie on my forms. we see members of congress lie on forms and get in trouble for that. that's exactly what is going on. when he said i didn't know anything about it and then he showed he did, it was like, my bad, i knew about it. and then he turns to me and he's like well, he has been caught in several lies already. it's not like we haven't found anything, we've found several things that disqualified him from the truth already and his account is also very concerning. host: moving on to the defense authorization bill, it passed the senate yesterday. 87-13. it includes reauthorizing section 702 and also has money for ukraine and israel. that is separate from this debate over supplemental, about $111 billion.

>> i'm going to vote for it. i know it is going to be controversial and i will take a lot of fruit at home. there are some real concerns with having it expire. i don't like the way it is right now, it has been abused. they talked about how it has already been paid down through the egregious behavior of the fbi that is already been addressed, but it needs to be addressed in other ways and we are going to do that as we passed the bill on that. this is a time where we obviously have security concerns. to have the military not funded during the christmas period. you have some things going around the world have to be addressed. i think it is the right thing to do. we don't have the senate. we don't have the white house. we are going to be the bad guys.

it is not everything i want. we need to have an adjustment for cost-of-living haven't had for decades. still have tons of military people on food stamps. it doesn't have the most fixes, it doesn't have other things that we wanted, that is what we have in congress especially when you have a split house. host: do you like what you're speaker negotiated here, that inclusion of the 702 and the money for israel and ukraine. two time that all on this defense authorization bill. guest: i don't know the inner details, the inner workings of what they had to negotiate. it is not up to me, it is just not. being the speaker is exceedingly challenging. i know that it doesn't matter who the speaker is, perhaps --

the house has to be in order and regardless, i wish i could have been there to back him, but i wasn't and i don't know exactly how that went. host: outline the military experience for our viewers. guest: i spent 16 years in the marine corps mostly as a helicopter pilot. the marines over in korea. spent a couple tories in the persian gulf, taurus to africa, and then i got out, went to medical school, did my last tour in afghanistan and then retired in 2017. host: 20 years in the u.s. marine corps in the navy. so what do you like about the defense authorization bill for our military men and women? >> first of all, it does continue to fund the military so we don't have any sort of gap in pay. it does have some meager

accommodations for pay increases for the military. we probably need closer to 30% for adjusted cost-of-living. it does have some consequential behavioral changes as far as what we allow in the military as far as the way we approach military. it does limit what agencies institute advice and where they contend their money. people who are basically biased against conservative news agencies saying they were lying and that should be advertised. advertisers also recruiting people into the military from conservative venues. and i think that was first of all about advertising. i got my mba, i know marketing. if you are going to advertised people coming into the military, it was pretty biased. we are paying for that bias now, so that is one of the other good things going on. host: 50 to cause. democratic caller, texas, you

are on first. >> yes, good morning for you and the representative. i'm 75 years old. we have more military bases in texas than anyone can take care of the border. i want to say one thing about the border. since 1836 they been crossing the border, and like i said, i'm 75 years of age. my people, like people did not get in texas part of the emancipation proclamation. that's why we have juneteenth, 1865, that is when we were released. what bothers me about

congressman mccormick and a lot of congressman and people like chip roy ander crenshaw, they all know texas right now, gasoline, $2.31. our inflation come a little higher, but when you are 75 years old and ronald reagan had interest rates at 20%, this is nothing. we had social security increase, 8.3% last year. 3.2% this year. and i hear people from jersey -- host: can you get to your question? caller: yes. i want to get to the question. why are y'all spending so much money on the border when the border has -- we've spent trillions of dollars on the border.

guest: when you talk about the border, trillions of dollars, i'm not sure where your numbers are coming from. you want to talk about minorities and stuff, i understand there's all kinds of racial things and what you just said, but let's talk about the numbers. you want to talk about the record number of costs right now, the drug trafficking which is killed a record number of people in america. in invasion basically, nine point 6 million people this presidency, which would be the equivalent of 13 congressional seats if you do the numbers. if you talk about the overwhelming burden throughout the health care system, the welfare system, the education

system, the sheltering, even the sanctuary cities right now don't want this. this is a very unpopular thing to have a porous border to a sovereign nation were we cannot control who comes in, especially you have simply terrorists around the world we had about 1.7 million people, they can be right here. to harm you, to harm your family. as not good policy. we have record numbers, we've never seen it before. host: according to the wall street journal and new york times, there is a possible deal between the white house and republican on ukraine aid and changes to immigration policy. here's the wall street journal. white house offer moves border deal within reach, and it says the white house offer backed by democratic only if certain

thresholds are hit, such as daily illegal border crossings. some asylum-seekers be in immigration detention for the duration of the hearings, but it wasn't known whether the new requirement would apply to the migrant families or only single adults. the proposal would also rate the initial threshold for asylum-seekers. to expand that government rapid deportation authority to be used nationwide rather than just at the border. is that enough to secure your vote? guest: that's a tough one. when you talk about asylum, asylum has been abused. everybody comes to america is looking for a better life, i get that. i think anybody who has ever come to america is looking for a better life. that is not asylum.

you could make the case that you are trying to escape something, i get that. the remaining mexico policy i think of the best policy we should have. i don't think we are done negotiating on this. i think they're going to be looking at the votes. i would like to say until you get the hr to that we passed already to the house, it is a no go for me. host: your line is hr two. that is to control the house. that is what we do. we passed things because we have control of the house and is ocular with america. this isn't something that we just passed because we are just forcing through. america wants to secure our border. america wants a safer america. host: would have to get to the senate into the president's desk, though.

that is not negotiation, that is not compromise. host: let's go to richard who is savannah, georgia. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'd like to see the fairness dr. act connecting flight i would love to see that if you could possibly put that back in place. as far as the border goes, president five east first rule i guess would be to protect americans she's not doing. as far as the impeachment inquiry, but they did to trump and his kids, but they put him through for the last seven years. i appreciate you being from georgia and if you could get the fairness doctrine act i would love to have fairness intermediate which i believe has destroyed america.

guest: fairness in media is something we aspire to. we each have our own responsibility. i think it's going to be hard to address for a lot of people. we have a lot of discussion. ted cruz has addressed this multiple times on social media. it actually affect the outcome of the vote and you can see how close are getting over the years . host: rockaway park, new york, independent. caller: good morning. mr. mccormick, you are familiar with the constitution. on this illegal counsel has reiterated that you cannot indict a sitting president.

the only means of removal that our founding fathers were fortunate enough to see that we might have corrupt officials. now, you cannot be impeached, sanders cannot be impeached. ok, but now we have an impeachment court. impeachment is reserved for crimes committed while holding that office -- donald trump for all the stuff he did before he took office. so is it not true that impeachment is very sacred and reserved for crimes committed during the presidency? show me one piece of evidence, show me one piece of evidence. if you have all this evidence, since january 21 president --

took the office of president that joe biden has taken any bribes, received any money from his son. host: let's take that point. guest: first of all, we voted on and inquiry. that is finding the truth. i think anybody who doesn't want to find the truth is not having honest conversations to begin with. democrat or republican, if we have an inquiry it is to expose what money has been transferred, nothing ongoing. the fact that we are avoiding something that literally would compromise who you are at the president of the united states, that you received money from a foreign entity, from not one foreign entity, but five for entities. multiple times compromises you as a president right now. that is the inquiry we are having. host: kingston, new york, democratic caller. caller: good morning, sir. i'll start off obviously thanking you for a very impressive lifetime of service

to the country and i respect your positions and everything you done in support of the free world. i want to go into what you thought about the session and in the first place, i want to make two points. one is that if the standards of suspicion against biden are so compelling that you have to begin an with no true proof and no actual direct, as a matter of fact, in regular court you would be accused of a false accusation with trying to make these kind of claims, but this is political, of course. if those standards are so strong that suspicion alone could begin an impeachment inquiry, then why are those same standards held trump when it is not suspected,

it has been demonstrated how he abused power, how he abused finances, how his son-in-law who worked in office as opposed to a private citizen who is being processed. and persecuted at this time? i will leave that as it is. but the main thing and want to say is we know factually that president trump went to ukraine and said, told the lenski it doesn't matter if you actually have proof, just say there is an investigation. now it appears that trump has gone to his crony insurrectionists and congress like jim jordan and told them basically just say there an investigation, and that is where it appears to point to facts. host: we will have the condiment respond to you. guest: i see these partisan talking point over time. the thing that is frustrating me, it is almost like there's toaster conversations happening one about trump, one about

biden. this is about an impeachment process for inquiry for joe biden. it's funny, people talk about something in ukraine, but they don't talk about what joe biden bragged about on tv in front of a whole bunch of people saying i got them to drop the case. i got them to stop investigating my son where you don't get $1 billion. he literally said that and nobody wants to talk about that from the democratic side. they are like, there is no evidence. you ignore would biden literally has admitted to on tv in front of an audience, talking about literally leveraging his position as vice president of the united states to get a lawyer to back off his son investigating in order to get quid pro quo money which he said on tv and everybody wants to ignore that is it that is not something that happened. host: the washington post this morning on that claim says that

former u.s. officials, ukrainian anti-corrupt activists and even some republicans have rebutted that allegation. guest: i've heard them say it i've watched the clip. maybe i'm misunderstanding but it seemed like he was bribing somebody was looking into his son because if they kept on looking at his son he was not going to allow them to have $1 billion. i've watched the clip at least a dozen times. how would you interpret that differently than i am interpreting that? i'm just curious, anybody want to enter that? i'm happy to listen to their explanation. what else could he be saying? i don't get it. host: bob in atlanta, republican. caller: you look like the virginians that i used to know. i'm from norfork originally and you look like somebody that i expect to be from virginia, not like -- host: but he's from georgia. caller: to be brought up for

treason charges because when i served in 1970, 1971, i had to take in both to defend this country all enemies, domestic and abroad, and i'm sure he maybe had to take something like that when he became president. i'd like to know why he's not defending the southern border over something that is no less than an invasion and will damage this country irreparably can the future. guest: i think the public opinion has put him way underwater. the southern border is one of the biggest problems. one place, one state, it is not remote. it has literally been a burden to our entire country. even the democrats understand. when you have democrats say i hope we pass this, they can't save it openly, is because of the immense pressures inside the

political machine. but absolutely it has come to that. it costing us lives, it is costing us. we know that terrorists are coming across. we had a record number caught and 1.7 million who have not been caught enough that there has got to be a percentage of that people who would do us harm. it is absolutely the wrong thing to do, they encourage the wrong behavior. we are seeing record numbers, everything a month is increasing. i rest my case. host: wall street journal editorial board, with america betrayed ukraine? five and republicans would: a vietnam scale debacle. they write negotiators were still talking by our deadline and the optimistic cases that even if a deal doesn't emerge this week, congress can pass of the quickly in january before ukraine's needs are acute. but the slower the delivery, the longer the fighting last and the less likely that ukraine will be able to seize the initiative on the battlefield.

and he says ukraine's critics want to negotiate with russia, but why would mr. putin tell him now if he thinks he might win outright? an overrun ukraine would be a second afghanistan for president biden. the strategic damage mr. putin victorious, and emboldened china would be much worse than a debacle in kabul. republicans want to co-owned that world, and they will that they abandon ukraine after its people have sacrificed so many lives for two years guest: i'm glad you brought this up. i'm actually very much in support of ukraine. i just got back from a conference at the reagan library we had several secretaries of defense, several secretaries of state, a major array of both democrats and republicans, but every republican, every republican because it is a really important conversation, every single former secretary of defense i've talked to all the way back to reagan is very much

in support of ukraine. the strategic outcome of ukraine will not only impact all of europe, but the far east. china is paying attention to what is happening. they are looking at what they want to do in taiwan. 70% of the world's wealth go through a strategic quarter everyday. it is of strategic essence to keep ukraine -- first of all, we made a promise. to support a country that was invaded by a communist country. this is a battle of 70% of ukraine of the grain storage, an immense amount of steel, titanium, other resources that would make russia stronger, that would be able to support china, that would do everything to break of united states global leadership.

this is a very important battle we need to have, and that is why we have it written in. but i agree with the article, we've never won anything. evolution of warfare. i used to teach it and i will tell you, especially when you are ukraine fighting one of the largest economies in the world into rebuilding the army which was decimated by our weaponry when we took at 50% of their armor, 300,000 casualties if we are going to regain territory, europe and united states have to do their part to end this quickly because they want to outlast us. they know that the longer the war goes on, the less support you have everything a person who has strategic. in history that i know of is

making sure we do right. host: i have to ask you before you go about this back-and-forth and forth with your colleague marjorie taylor greene. claims were physically aggressive with her, can you explain what happened? guest: i actually went up to her and at this point in the conversation with somebody else, i place my hands on her shoulders and eyes that at least you and i can have an honest conversation. it's funny, i'm an er doctor. i believe in the power of touch. i get people hugs, i shake hands. if you look at the floor on any given day, just look at c-span and see how much touching there is. everybody touches everybody. i'm not going to touch her again, that's for sure. i'm sorry she took offense to that, but it certainly wasn't aggressive. that is what is so frustrating about this.

i've seen the story evolve, i consider myself a very friendly person. i want to get along with my colleagues. i don't go around insulting people. other people do that, i don't. i think that is beyond my reputation. i don't think of anything i would ever do on the floor. i'm an aggressive guy in certain circumstances but certainly not on the florida house of representatives where i want to get along with people. if you look at my rhetoric, when i give censorship en route -- receiving to leave, i have good relationships and i can talk to people and we can actually solve things. i am not there to make enemies, i am there to make friends. host: on a lighter note, you had some of your colleagues are planning -- guest: myself, morgan luttrell, navy seal, dank who makes skateboards actually agreed to a race.

our announcer got sick. it is friendly, it is fun. sometimes you have to be a knucklehead. that is that they have is about the marine corps, that's of camaraderie. looking forward to rescheduling that. host: in your skateboarding history as part of who you are and it is still part of who you are everyday. we got a shot of your shoes, right, these are skateboarding shoes. guest: i wear comfortable shoes. i am basically made for comfort. it is a good stress relief. host: we will be looking forward to that race, it will be on social media. thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: god bless, semper fi. host: only come back, we will continue our conversation on news of the day with emigrant judy chu of california, member of the ways and means committee and her progressive caucus. stay with us.

♪ announcer: all this month, watch the best of c-span q&a. on sunday, the book "the great pretender." about a 1973 experiment by stanford psychologist that was conducted to test the legitimacy of psychiatric hospitals in america. she talked about the experiment and the impact on the psychiatric profession, son annetta 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on her free c-span now at. -- app. announcer: book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, looked to the present coverage of the 2023 southern festival books, discussions on appellation, the kkk, tennessee history, and more.

panic like p.m. eastern, the atntic staff writer tim berta examines even joke a movement in america and its intersection with political issues in his book the kingdom, the power and the glory. each interview by messiah university history professor. watch every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedulender program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. traveling over the holidays? make c-span's bookshelf podcast part of your playlist. this into all of c-span podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place. features multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture from her signature program about books. afterwards, footnotes plus and q&a. this in the c-span bookshelf podcast feed this holiday season. you can find it and all of our

podcasts on the c-span now free mobile video ap or wherever you get your podcastp and on our website, c-span.org/podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse the latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where citizens are truly informed. i public thrive. informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are.

because the opinion that matters the most is your own. host: joining us this morning, judy chu. congresswoman, with begin with that. the vote to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. republicans argue the white house lawyer said that they would not cooperate because this inquiry was not formalized in a vote on the house floor of the u.s. house of representatives. that was why the vote was necessary yesterday. how do you respond? guest: it is an utter waste of time to do this inquiry. actually, there have been enormous amounts of materials that have been turned over to

those investigating, and what is obvious is that there is no evidence that president biden has done wrong doing and that he should be subject to impeachment. and let me just say, 36,000 pigeons -- pages of subpoena bank records, 2000 pages of --, dozens of hours of testimony, hundreds of pages of documents from the hunter biden investigation released by ways and means which is the committee that i'm on, so i've seen those. there is absolutely no evidence that president biden engaged in wrongdoing. and yes, republicans are insisting on continuing this wasteful investigation which, by the way, takes hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money and also

prevents us from doing the important work that we need to do. for instance, the funding for childcare ran out in september, and there are so many families that are suffering because they cannot find affordable childcare. this is a problem that we should be working on, not on a useless impeachment investigation of president biden. post: on the bank records, we heard it from your viewers this morning, anchor records point to a $400,000 payment, and then 10% of that, 40% is issued to joe biden when he was not president. and viewers saying that is the 10% for "the big guy." how do you respond when you hear allegations like that? guest: these are just innuendo. they do not know what this money went to. they made a big deal about

hunter biden's payments to president biden, and what we found out is that a private citizen and 2018, president biden make car payments for his son whose credit had suffered while he was addicted. hunter biden paid president biden back, and now republicans are saying this is a smoking gun which prove that president biden somehow got illegal payments. this is a series of payments that have to do with president biden supporting his son. and yes, everything is being turned into innuendo and suspicion which is totally unfounded. host: would you support hunter biden testifying in public? guest: i definitely think he should be able to testify in public because i think that the

american taxpayer should see what is really going on. and yes, he got himself into a lot of trouble. he should have paid his taxes. nonetheless, the question here is whether hunter biden's activity provided for some kind of benefit to president biden, and that is obviously not the case. that is why i think that hunter biden should be able to testify in congress. host: moving onto the debate over abortion, following overturning roe v. wade, this was in court yesterday, this is the new york times. agreeing to hear a challenge to the abortion pill. access to it, whether or not the fda can mail it or prescribing of it. what is your concern about this case? guest: i think the supreme court

did the right thing by agreeing that there will be a ruling of the lower courts that will drastically curtail access to medication abortion. this is all about a drug used in about half of all abortions today, and it has been used safely for 20 years. the fda did all the proper steps in improving 20 years ago, but now this one judging texas is saying that they did not. he's not a scientist, he is not a member of the fda. he is just a judge that is against abortion. so i think that it was the right step for the supreme court to review that erroneous ruling and certainly i stand by the fda's independent approval that is safe and effective.

but republicans in congress are utilizing this issue so that they can ban abortion across the country. because if they ban this pill, it won't be available even in states like california were abortion is a right. host: the washington times notes today that seeking to limit version, that this pill featured here or these hills, the demand for them grows. what is the legal argument that you make for siding with the fda here? guest: the fda is an independent agency that went through the proper steps of approval. now, i want us to think about what could happen if a judge who had no scientific background

could ban any drug. we in america rely on certain drugs to keep us healthy and alive. if some independent judge who just had a thing about any drug could just ban it like that, what would it do to the system of health care in this country? this judge obviously has a bias. this judge took it out on this drug. but the implications of undoing the independent fda approval is enormous and we cannot let it stand. host: you optimistic or pessimistic about the outcome before this inquiry? guest: well, if the issue has to do with the standing of this judge to be able to make this determination, then i would feel

optimistic because this judge has no standing. host: let's go to joe in stamford, connecticut. republican caller. you're up first with the congresswoman. caller: good morning, how are you? a pleasure to speak to you, how are you? guest: good. caller: i'm not going to waste your time asking you a million questions about this impeachment inquiry, but i do have one question. how did hunter biden accumulate all that wealth without ever having a job? that's the only question i have for you. guest: well, hunter biden engaged in certain activities that he certainly has to account for. i think the issue here though is whether the president is held

responsible for the activities of his son. president biden is an honorable man loves his son. he has spent his life in service to the american people. hunter biden engaged in his own activities. he is now being held accountable for them, especially with regard to paying his taxes, but hunter biden's activities are completely separate from president biden. and president biden, after many thousands, i mean 36,000 bank records, 2000 pages of suspicious activity reports, there has been no evidence supporting this impeachment inquiry. impeachment is a very serious thing. it should not be thrown around just to start an investigation

on a person of such great importance as our president. so i would say the most important thing to keep in mind is that these are two separate people, and president biden has no credible evidence presented for this impeachment inquiry. host: congresswoman, i think that you are asked how did president biden emulate wealth when he hasn't had a job outside of the senate and the white house. guest: but i heard him say was hunter biden. post: and what about the president's money? that's what we've heard from viewers as well. how did he afford the home that he owned, etc.? guest: well president biden, of course, was able to serve in congress for many, many years

and he was able to have independent jobs when he was not in office. of course, there were those years that allowed into the, to get independent jobs while he was in between vice president and president. i do think that that would allow him to be able to get a house and invest in another house. but i would not say that that is excessive wealth. i would say that this is what you could normally get if you have a job that has lasted for many decades. host: kathleen in mississippi, democratic caller. caller: good morning.

i'm so tired. enough is enough. if you live in one of these 12 red states and we call in, we tried to call in, we go vote and we do everything and they bring us down to our needs. we have nothing. everything coming here, and biden is doing all he can. but they keep making biden look bad. i feel like i don't have to call him president. it is sad. to put in three inquiry for doing his job. that is my comment and i'm sticking to it. host: congresswoman, your reaction. guest: you know what i hear here? i hear frustration because there is so much that we have to

do and republicans are wasting time. there is so much that we have to do to deal with the everyday suffering that americans are encountering with a high cost of things, and i go back to childcare. we have a subsidy for childcare that allows for people to be able to afford this thing that can be very, very expensive for them, and that was because of the american rescue plan that democrats passed while we have control of the house, the senate, and the presidency. met cliff has already occurred in september and now childcare costs are going to truly increase. i can tell you there are other things on the horizon which of the affordability of rock band. right now because of what we passed during this last

congress, millions of americans get a $30 per month break on their broadband, and we know how much they rely on broadband for everyday things now. you cannot survive without it. but this will go away unless we are able to renew it in this coming year. and so these are the everyday things that we should be working on, not wasting our time on this inquiry into the investigation of an impeachment of five. host: west virginia, republican. caller: my answer is pretty similar to everybody else. what credentials did hunter biden have other than his influence with his daddy to be in bed with a communist country

and make the money he did off of it? china wouldn't even let him in the door. they wouldn't have let him been in the door if it wouldn't have been for his daddy. so you tell me what's going on. and hunter biden, he couldn't even make it in the military in this country. i'd like to see what kind of discharge he got. you probably got honorable discharge because of his daddy. and he is a druggie. the man ain't no good, he ain't no good. that is the way i look at it. you tell me that joe biden is a good president, he can even do anything about the border, you call that being a good president? i mean, give me a break. host: congresswoman? guest: well, there is no evidence that president biden engaged in wrongdoing. what i heard from this viewer are complaints about hunter

biden, but his son is different from the father. if there was any evidence that the father improperly helped hunter biden, i have not seen it. and i have not seen it after a year of investigating by house republicans. after hundreds of pages of documents that we were able to see in the ways and means committee about hunter biden's finances, i did not see any evidence that president biden helped him in any of these things or profited or benefited from this. and this is after 2000 pages of the suspicious activity reports, dozens of hours of testimony from hunter biden's business partners and other high-ranking the investigation has taken enormous amounts of taxpayers

money and time, and yet nothing has come after a year of this, no evidence that president biden benefited from hunter biden's activity. host: the viewer mentioned border security. from the reporting and the national newspaper this morning, there is a possible deal on the table between white house and republicans on tying ukraine aid immigration policy. have you heard about this possibility, what are you open to agreeing to one changes to immigration? guest: i am completely against tying border policy to ukraine funding. we know that ukraine funding is so important right now. if ukraine funding is allowed to lapse, then putin will be able to succeed in taking over ukraine, he will not stop there. he will continue onto the other

countries, and if he does, this war will become very, very expensive. it could even involve sending our troops over to europe. that would be an enormous cost to america. what we are investing in ukraine right now is a pittance compared to what could happen. but on border funding, there should be a completely separate bill of comprehensive immigration reform. when we look at our overall policy. our system is broken. and as a result, there are no legal pathways to get in, and that is loose exacerbating the situation at the border. now, our system in america allows for migrants to petition for asylum, and they have to present proof that they are leading political oppression or

religious oppression and persecution from different countries. that system is still in place. i certainly would be open to that. but i just think that tying this border policy to ukraine funding is the wrong thing to do. host: are you and other progressive members of the house, would you vote no if these changes to immigration policy are included in a supplemental bill for ukraine, israel aid and money for taiwan?

guest: i would need to look at the wording. the wording has been changing. caller: good morning. i have a question on the women with abortion taking this new drug. i don't know how long it takes for the abortion to kick in with a new drug. are you and other representatives willing to -- the psychological effects, and a young child looking back at them , it just drives them nuts what they just did. host: we are running out of time. congresswoman? guest: you know what i think

about is a young person who was forced to have an abortion because she was raped or violently assaulted, and i'm thinking specifically about the 10-year-old in ohio who was raped and then because abortion was denied to her in that state she had to go to india and she had to cross in order for her to get an abortion. think about this. a 10-year-old who has a baby, is she in a position to be able to raise this baby? that baby was a product of rape. beside that, that a 10-year-old body is not one that can necessarily handle a pregnancy. pregnancy is no small thing.

it causes many kinds of issues for the body. there needs to be immature body they can handle the rigors of present -- pregnancy. a 10-year-old body cannot do that. there are many situations that are like that where a pregnancy is not appropriate and it can be life-threatening. let's look at that recent case in texas, 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that had a genetic abnormality. the doctors said that a pregnancy would put her health and her future fertility at risk. she could die from that pregnancy, and that is why she asked for an exception from the texas court. they ultimately did not give it to her and she had to flee to another state in order to get an abortion they could save her life. these are the situations that

women across this country are facing. host: congresswoman judy chu, democrat of california sits on the ways and means committee. also a member of that progressive caucus. congresswoman, we appreciate your time this morning. you for being with us. the house is gambling and early this morning for legislative business. we are going to bring you to the floor live gavel-to-gavel coverage here on c-span.