leadership must not put off our most basic jobs, like intelligently funding our federal government and providing for our armed forces before the very last minute. basic duties like the appropriations process and the national defense authorization act need more thoughtfulness, more bipartisanship and more regular order. and then let's not be shoved into late december after the senate democrats waste literally months looking for ways to placate the radical left. the american people elect add bipartisan government and voted to change washington so this democratic leadership needs to change accordingly. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government who are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> homework can be hard, but squatting in a diner for

internet work is even harder, that's why we're providing lower income students access to affordable internet, so homework can just be homework. cox, connect to compete. >> cox supportsc-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in, lawmakers this week are working on executive and judicial nominations. no votes are currently scheduled in the senate. members are expect today recess this afternoon for their weekly party lunches. and now, live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the earth belongs to you and everything in it. we look to you in every season of life's pilgrimage because you remain the champion that

initiates and experts our faith. lord, help us to maximize today's pobilities with humble and grateful hearts. for give our past faults and failures and empower us to press forward with faith toward a productive tomorrow. bless our lawmakers, the members of their staffs. may the words of their lips and meditations of their hearts bring glory to you. let not life's weariness or this world's confusion rob them of their trust in you. we pray in your sovereign name.

amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

mr. warnock: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. warnock: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

professor hathaway thinks o getting a short time. >> guest: glad to be here. >> host: could you talk what your background and experience particularly at the pentagon comes to classified documents? >> guest: yeah. so worked for a year at the pentagon as a special counsel to the general counsel and in that job i had top-secret special information clearance which is a highest level of clearance deals government provides. in that role at a chance to work with lots of class a document at all levels, confidential level,

at the secret level and at the top secret level. those are three levels of documents and when i left government and came back to work at my regular job as a professor at yale i i reflected back one work i've been doing and all the classified document i hate seeing. one the most striking aspects of that was realizing so much of what it worked with, so much of the classified material was kind of ordinary information and probably shouldn't have been classified in the first place. >> host: you talked about those three levels of distinction when it comes to classification. can you describe what exactly they mean when you call something secret or top secret or confidential? >> guest: yes. these three levels reflect evaluations by the government of how much damage it's going to do to national security for that information to be released. this unclassified information, the view is that's not going to do any damage to national security, confidential could do

some damage to nasa security and then escalate from there. then it goes to secret, significant damage to national security and the top-secret is the highest damage to u.s. national security. the classification is supposed to reflect how important the information is and a damaging it would be for that information to get out but in my experience reality didn't always reflect that. >> host: why is that? >> guest: the way the documents were, when you're making a decision and working with his materials if you have derivative classification authority which is what i had, which means i can't classify information but whenever i'm writing a document i have to assess what level should be classified at based on information i'm including. if i'm using information from another document and that is classified top secret, my document also sweet classified top secret, even if most of it is unclassified. 99% is unclassified by one fact in there that's top-secret, , tn the document has to be top-secret. if i'm not really rigorous about

what's called paragraph marking the document, so in theory everyone who does it is supposed to mark everything a paragraph, but truthfully in the busy jobs people generally don't do that. what happens is every time someone is a light under previous document is classified at certain level theft also classified at a that level ate highest possible level. it has of this magnifying effect, and more and more and more documents the classified at the highest level. it's also the fact when you're working come sitting at your desk and making a decision, how are going to classify this document, top-secret, maybe it could be unclassified, there is literally no consequences at least in the job i was in for classifying something more highly then is absolutely necessary but he's a class i simply ask unclassified or as secret and it should of an top-secret, that could be very damaging because you are potentially giving access to people should have access and

that could have severe consequences to your job. you could get fired. in theory you potentially could be criminally prosecuted. the dangers of getting it wrong on the downside are very extreme but the danger of getting it wrong by classifying something more highly are very limited for you as a person is working in government. that creates these incentives to just classify things that higher-level. >> host: because of those incentives, what's your guess as far as how much classified material gets produced on a yearly basis? >> guest: i don't have, i have a rough guess based on some facts. the facts are the last time the government tried to count, it estimator about 50 million documents a year. 50 million classified documents a year. in 2017 it gave up even trying to count because they really don't have good records and agencies count these things differently. it's probably got up since then. i doubt it's gone much below

that. we are talking millions and millions of new documents being created every year. in theory we should be declassified documents and wealthy the same pace but truthfully the declassification process is not anywhere close to keeping up with the classification process. we are creating 50 million new classified documents everything your on top of everything well rehab. it's become this huge edifice of classified information the government has to try to protect. >> host: our guest will join until 8:45 a.m. to answer questions about the process of classifying documents here in washington. you can call and ask you questions. texas you questions or comments, too. professor hathaway, something is classified what happens to it? >> guest: what happens is there stiffer rules for how you have to store those documents

and whether and how you can transport those documents. if something is a top-secret document it has to be kept in a special compartmented information facility and refer to as a skiff. if you're going to work with those documents, read the stock would just been a skiff to do it. secret documents at the own set of rules. they have to be kept in a secure location but they don't necessary to be kept in a skiff or read and work with within a skiff. the same for confidential information. when i worked at the pentagon you have three different computer systems on the same desk. you are sitting at her desk switching between these different computer system. the physical documents i i ket physically and different storage facilities. these days almost everything is electronic and they are completely separate computer systems and completely separate computer storage systems for each of these classified systems. if you're working in a

top-secret system, you can only to make it with other top-secret systems. you can't get on the web or if you're on your seek a computer you only communicate to communicate with other secret systems and the same thing has been classified systems. it's all segregated and manage very carefully by the government in order to try to protect the secrets as effectively as against. >> host: as an example if you had a document and i wanted to see what would have to go through to see that document? >> guest: you couldn't it was classified and lusty red clearance. to get clearance to generally you have to be working for the u.s. government, either directly as a government employee or working for a contractor that has the capacity to provide clearance. there's some former government employees and send the work with the government were also able to get clearances, private military contractors, people who continue to do legal work or provide consultation or information to the u.s. government.

not a reporter i'm sorry this is not going to get access to this and less a gets leaked. that would be illegal. that person leaking that information to you potentially could be criminally prosecuted and if you retained information and use it knowing that it's classic information you could be criminally prosecuted. there is the threat of criminal prosecution hanging all over this term what the reason i asked and i probably should've clarified even if i did have clearance, now at a stage now and ultimately will talk about this where classified document s are showing up in homes of various presidents in that case embrace of the legislators. what's the chain of custody of the document? because i suppose in asking, seeking of that information there's a process. >> guest: it depends, right? somebody like the vice president has access to everything. he's got a computer access on his computer and injuries got

paper documents being provided to them on a regular that are all levels. and that material is going to be provided to him in paper form. i don't know exactly what his preferences are. he probably looks of things electronically, different high-level government officials have different kinds of preferences. what you're supposed to do if you take a top-secret document out of the skiff there is a very specific process that it is supposed to be followed. they can be done but it has to be sealed in a certain way and has to be a careful chain of custody. you're really not support to transport it. i did have permission to take anything out of the building. i could take materials from one skiff to another but i had to be sealed but then was in the bag was in a bag was in a bag and headed directly for more office to office to the other. there is a lot of very stringent rules are somewhat at my level which was a very low level paper somebody at the vice presidents level he's dealing with classified documents on a regular basis, and the problem

we have in evaluating what happened with president biden is what are these documents? we don't know that much about what they contained and at what level they were classified. top-secret documents of the kind that were removed by president trump and being held at mar-a-lago have these big very imposing coversheet that say top-secret. if you seen the fbi photo that kind of materials that were scattered on the ground, you could see the of this red stripes on been a big top-secret language on them. those are kind of hard to miss. things classes at lower levels like secret use of a line at the top that is often in red if it's printed on a color printer this has secret. it wouldn't be impossible to miss that, although that would be my level that would be very irresponsible and nothing ever left my office that was classified. the confidential level, of course that material tends to be

less closely held and less protected although it's also governed by these, many of these classification rules. without knowing whether it was a top-secret document, whether it was confidential, whether it was secret, it's hard to evaluate the secret and confidential documents is eager to see this getting mixed in with unclassified documents. you can see a binder that gets put together that is number of documents in it. one of the documents might be a confidential or secret document and somebody could it take the binder up and bring it home and doesn't realize within that is a top-secret document. you can say that shouldn't have been done, it should of been prepared more closely. what they should've done if that's the case is that binder should that top-secret sticker on the front indicating it contained secret of top-secret whatever the level was. but truthfully when people are busy they don't always follow those rules closely. i think on top of it, it's

important remember against a lot of this information is pretty unremarkable. so it's not crazy to imagine somebody thought that's not that big of a deal. i just read the same thing more or less in the "new york times" this morning. i'm putting it into a pile of documents. that mental thinking is this a secret that needs to be protected because at such an unusual information that i will have access to, very few number of people. without knowing what exactly in the document is hard to evaluate how problematic it is. we don't know what level is classified at but it's not an impossible to imagine someone is working all day long with his classified documents, that he would get mixed in with the classified document and, therefore, transported after he leaves. we don't know enough exactitude lightweight that. >> host: let's hear from tom in fort myers, florida, democrat's line for oona hathaway, former pentagon special counsel comic good morning, pedro. enjoy the conversation this morning.

when senator moynihan left the senate it was like one of the last speeches before he left was about this idea that we classify way too much, way too many documents. he thought there should be, we should ease away from that, to get away from that. i think there was momentum to do that, and then along came the 9/11 i think probably, more than anything else, and sandy berger took the document out after 9/11 and he rest in peace now, he's died but that raised that issue. it moved on and now, listening to you this morning, oona, you seem to think that just your talk today is that we do way over classify things and that the law is hard to comply with. i think that was hillary clinton's problem with the server, separating her personal

former government things. she even had conversations with former secretary of state colin powell about that issue, how he was having problems complying with the law. and that's my question for this morning is, what is the exact law that we're talking about here, that classify these documents? i think it's, my understanding is it's a rather new law that was the together by press people and good government types and everybody that wanted everything that's generated in the government to stay and the government, in the future they could come along and, you know -- >> host: got your point. thank you for the question. ms. hathaway. >> guest: it's a great question and you're right, senator moynihan saw this way before anybody else. and was a big advocate for trying to deal with this problem, and this was before

things that really spiraled out of control. even then he said look at where classify way too much. this is that her government because it means government can't tell people what it's doing and it really handcuffs people and government from talking to ordinary americans about work that they're doing ever people for in government from getting information from outside of government. it hamstrings congress. congress is working with his class of the document they might get briefings on things but they kept other constituents what to know because if the briefings are classified they can't share that information. it really is not good for democracy and i was part of his point. you're right he was way ahead of his time. as to what is the law, here's the crazy thing. it's actually an executive order. it's not even a law that was passed by congress that classifies all this information. an executive order is just an order issued by the president that says you've got to keep this information classified, and you've got to manage and keep this information from the

public. so there's a long executive order. the most recent one, presidents have been issuing this beginning with fdr and more or less most presidents issue a new one. biden hasn't issued one and trump did not issue it actually but the last one was from barack obama, still in effect. that governs the several levels is one that says there are three different levels and here's the rules that govern them and quite elaborate and spells of all e rules about managing the material. but it's back up by laws passed by congress that say if you release information and there's a bunch of different laws that's kind of a crazy quilt of laws, but more or less they say if you release information that is damaging to national security either intentionally, or knowingly come you can be held criminally liable. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: mr. president, a few moments before you assumed the chair, senator murray opened the senate as president pro tem for the first time. kudos, congratulations. she's a great, great member. she's chair of appropriations, and now ppt, and it was a wonderful thing to see her open up the senate for the first time as ppt. so congratulations to murray, and to all of us for having such a good president pro tem. now, on to business. in no time at all, the house republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. have you ever seen anything like this? we aren't even in a month into the new congress, and already the house gop has shown the american people they've been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. on their first day of voting, the very first day, house republicans decided their first order of business as the new

majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. amazing. that's their first thing. and at the same time as they did that, they would blow a hole $100 billion in the deficit. because, according to cbo, the amount of money brought into the federal treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats, very wealthy tax cheats, would far exceed the expenditure made for the new irs agents. the deficit would come down if we passed this legislation, for all the talk on the other side we've got to bring down the deficit. not when it comes to closing tax loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay smaller percentage than most americans. uh-uh. wow. apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1% was not enough for republicans five

years ago. they did that in the trump tax bill. now they want to make things easier, even easier for tax cheats. and then a few days later, the house republicans double down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the senate. but again, the extreme, the extreme maga fringe element of the republican party seems to be controlling the whole entity. we hope that doesn't last for long. we in the senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-women, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. right off the bat, the house republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they are in, the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. now, make no mistake, mr. president, democrats want to

work with a competent and capable republican party wherever possible, to make life better for average americans. democrats are united in this commitment, because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. later today, in fact, i'll be joined -- i will join president biden, leader jeffries and a number of senate and house colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the american people. house republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism, so powerful that now they're even giving proposals like a national sales tax -- a national sales tax -- serious consideration. according to some house republicans, house leadership has agreed to give gop radicals a vote on a 30% national sales tax on all goods across the board. that means right now, as inflation finally begins to drop, republicans are looking to

make americans pay 30% more for everything they buy. look, if republicans want to have a debate with democrats on their national sales tax bill, we'll be happy to have it. we love to hear republicans explain to the american people why it's a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries to diapers, and everything in between. we'd love to hear republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they spent a lifetime for retirement. and we'd love to hear republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year, while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. if republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they're welcome to make their case, make our day. i think many within the republicans' own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is especially a dimwitted idea. even grover nor quist, whose

ideas on tax are far away from most americans, and he's one of the most conservative voices out there, he cald it, quote -- he called it, quote, a terrible idea. even steve forbes said this would make the average new home in america cost a hundred thousand dollars more. young family, you want to buy a home? some of our republican friends want to add a hundred thousand dollars to the cost of buying that home. and, of course, it would raise bills by thousands more. and yet, yet, despite the insanity of this idea, the house republican leadership has bent to the maga wing of the republican party and promised a vote. if this is how house republicans want to spend their time, taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats, be our guest. once again, mr. president, this is at central quandary of the new republican majority. by bending to the demands of the

maga hard right, speaking mccarthy has guaranteed that republicans will have to constantly cater to the women's of the maga wing, at the expense of the american people. now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and i'm sure the american people are glad that we have a democratic majority in the senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals. because, when extremists run the show, as it seems to be happening in the house, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. and no issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. over the next few months, we're going to hear more about the debt ceiling in congress, maybe more than any other issue. but the matter is very simple -- if the u.s. is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single

american will pay the price. a default means interest rates will spike on everything, from car loans to credit cards to mortgages. it means that americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. homes will lose their value. homes. the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggle and save for, so they can own a home, so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage, where they get equity, those homes will lose their value. if we default, god forbid, on the debt. because mortgage rate interests will soar, and people have less to pay for a home, and supply and demand says the price goes down, the value goes down. meanwhile, the millions of americans who saved for retirement, will see 401-k's lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. this is not some academic

argument in the clouds. this affects every american family and we're going to make sure they hear all about it. the consequences are as real as they get and the entire world is watching what we do here in congress. but rather than work with democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the house gop has immediately resorted to brinksman shap and hostage taking. they say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give into their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every american again in a very bad way. well, i say to my republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation, an obligation to show the american people precisely what kind of cuts are you talking about. are you going to hold social security -- are republicans going to hold social security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling? or pay raises for our troops? or support for veterans? or funding for police and fire

and first responders? or medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? republicans, you owe the american people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. remember, the house rules that approved that the gop approved are clear. they need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, but the entirety of the house debated -- let the entirety of the house debate and vote on it and let the american people see the cuts for themselves. for my gop colleagues, if you're serious about spending cuts, show us the math. show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda. because inevitably, what you're saying are cuts are vital to so many americans, so many americans. being in the majority means it won't be enough to behind behind rhetoric on casteful spheng. when it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts,

the details counts, the consequences are very, very real. unless republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, i fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk to -- of default and risk the great harm it will do to the american people. and should that happen, americans will see that default lies entirely in the hands of the radical gop. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

it is is you spend u.s. govet prosecutors and u.s. government had made the judgment that that's not good for the country and that journalists should be prosecuted for releasing this information if they find out who leaked the information, that person should be prosecuted but the journalist is not the one who should be prosecuted. and so no one has been indicted similarly since so some of the stairs may be slightly dampen but it has opened the door to the possibility that journalists could be prosecuted in the future and that's the part of the reason so many people reacted and what you described described to that indictment. >> host: there is a viewer off twitter makes the statement saying there is no question at the president can unilaterally declassify documents to require submission to any other executive authority would violate the constitution. >> guest: well, so the reason the president the president has the authority to issue this executive order is the president of course is

commander-in-chief and one with the chief authority to make determinations about how the information is going to be handled and managed. the only authority executive order relies on is the president's own constitutional authority. the president could in theory because he is the one whose authority is being created this executive order, the president could effectively violate his own executive order because the only person whose authority that rests on as a president's own constitutional authority. as a matter of practice the way in which presidents have done this has been doing which presidents have declassified information has not been to sort of just magically determine if the information is declassified, is to go through a process to ensure the information being declassified isn't going to do damage to national security. this is a matter this been litigated one of the issues that is at issue in the trump case, and so we will see where that leads.

>> host: in your opinion as far as the distinctions between president biden and where they found the documents and his reaction to it and president trump where they found the document and his reaction to it, is a difference of the reaction of the documents in question? >> guest: since we don't know much about the document the biden administration or president biden retained, , it's hard to say how different is. we do know documents that were held by president trump at mar-a-lago were top-secret special compartmented information documents which is the most highly classified information the u.s. government has. in particular, that it was a very classified compartmented programs that generally are kept under extreme lock and key and not taken out of the secured facilities and the were being stored in highly insecure facilities. we know that we don't know at the moment what the documents exactly were at the biden administration. it's hard to compare on that

scale whether they are as classified as information being held as a trump administration. what is really striking is that the reason we know about the documents that are being held, that were stored improperly in the biden home and office was because biden's staff discovered them and then disclosed them to the justice department and then invited fbi to investigate further and basically left in the kind of turn the home and office insight out. we saw a very different reaction from president trump who refused to return documents that were requested by the national archives, who has resisted investigations or there has been court ordered investigation, has not been cooperative with this process. that reaction has been extremely different and they do think that's because it reveals a

different intent to remove and retain the material. it suggests the biden removal was probably unintentional,, although again that something that remains to be investigated. >> host: this is tom woodridge virginia republican line for our guest oona hathaway of yale law school. >> caller: thank you, guys are getting on today. i live immersed in this environment, and what she's given everybody in america right now is a real kind of high-level broadbrush of how, how class of documents and things are handled. i think the more important thing here is not about what the trump hasn't classified documents or biden had classified documents. it is actually more about what was the intent, what was a purpose behind the retention of those documents, and was the negligence or was it malicious?

i'm not suggesting either of them were malicious because i believe they were probably both just inadvertent. they handle a lot of classified documents in the position as president or vice president, and so it's more than likely it's inadvertent. but as someone who is worked in the community for well over 20 years and handle top-secret, as i compartmented information over 20 years and i've never ever once, not once in virtually everybody i have worked with has never ever once in their life ever taken home top-secret classified documents inadvertently. that's understandable if the president's office was backed up or whatever that something got mixed in there. because some low-level staffer did it. but if either of those individuals personally stored classified documents in a way that was it was not supposed declassified or handle, deliberately on purpose

themselves, okay, that's were an investigation would normally even need to take place. >> host: okay. we will leave it there. thanks, don. >> guest: agree with that. really intent matters a lot here. you know, who did this and why. i think that these investigations are centering significantly on that. what information was being retained, what kinds of danger does a potential post a national security at that information was not kept in a secure location? the most important why was it remote? was it inadvertent, was an file, a three ring binder and nobody realized that there was some classified documents in there? or was their intent to take these materials and disregard for the fact they were highly classified and that they could do real damage to national security if someone who does not authorize access were to get access to them, given that they

were not being stored an adequate way? i think that is exactly what the investigation is going to have to be looking into. it's going to have to tell us, you know, what can we learn from interviewing people, from looking at information itself, looking at records about what was going on here and why these records were removed. and again right now we know more about the trump administration situation that we do about the biden administration. seems like a handful of documents and we don't know the love of classification. we know a little bit more about the trump situation because it's been more fully investigated and the been more news stories about it but will know more about both of them as his investigations unfold. >> host: professor hathaway, we saw something come out of the nixon administration the presidential records act of 1978. what does it do for confidential and secret documents? >> guest: what the presidential records act does is it basically says any official

document to have to be retained. they are the property of u.s. government. so you have to be keeping records carefully of all correspondence and all documents that are created, and those are supposed to be retained and managed by the u.s. government. that includes classified document as well, but it applies to all documents. it applies not just a classified information to it applies to all government documents and, in fact, we started working at the pentagon, this became an issue because it took a while for my e-mail to be activated and i couldn't do any work until that was activated because i couldn't work for my personal e-mail because that would not retain records of those e-mails properly to comply with the presidential records act. and so any like every e-mail, every correspondence, every formal document is supposed to be maintained by the u.s.

government and retained by the us government. that's why removal of documents belong to the government is a problem and that's part of how the whole back-and-forth with president trump started, is at the national archives were concerned that documents that were supposed to be retained and part of the records that are kept of the trump administration that are important to maintaining a complete and historical record and to ensure the future presidents want to access information have access to it, , they knew that certain documents had been removed. it wasn't even necessarily consider the classified documents being removed. it was concerned about sets the materials having been removed and, therefore, not available to the archives. that's how this all got started and then they realized along the way that among the documents that have been retained and removed were classified documents. that is a really important obligation and it's part of the reason when government officials set up their private e-mail

servers, which hillary clinton was not the first one to do, many people have done it, have done it before including colin powell as you mentioned, and many people in the trump administration apparently did the same as well. one of the concerns was setting up a private e-mail servers and using them come using private e-mail for government business is that unless your correspondent with somebody on the other end has a government email address, those records are not being kept properly in compliance with the presidential records act. that is another set of rules that are important. >> host: from any in washington state independent line. >> caller: good morning. just reading about a 2000 executive order signed january 21, 2009, by president barack obama where it states that vice president joe biden has the authority to declassify documents and less president obama disagrees. the big question i had is always

classified documents that apparently joe biden, president biden had, the national archives were never looking for them. so what's going on with that? >> guest: that's a great point. so this is a very different scenario with president biden. so as i understand it what's been reported, happened, is about they had, biden administration staff were looking through some of his personal records and tripped across just by coincidence, notice one of the documents there were looking at was a classified document, and aware that that was being inappropriately stored, notified the justice department. and that led to this process of investigating, was anything else and properly stored? and among those documents.

it wasn't that the national archives had requested this information. the wasn't that anybody racing to think they're been classified information improperly removed or retained. it was really just i mean in a way those staffers are heroic i think because it would've been very easy to just kind of sweep it under the rug and say, you know what, it's a lot easier if we don't say anything. we wouldn't know about it if they had not. they did the right thing. they did the right thing for democracy. they did the right thing for u.s. government. they disclose it. they went to the right channels. even though they knew was going to create his political firestorm, they knew was going to be a huge political headache. a new is going to be a challenge for the president, but also knew that this this is a right o do. that is right to disclose the fact that this information was being and properly stored and ensure there's nothing else that is being improperly stored.

and it president biden has been fully cooperative with that investigation, and basically kind of opened the house to be kind of investigative top to bottom to ensure that nothing else is being held there. i think that they handle this right, once they discovered this problem, and to my mind it's very different from the situation at mar-a-lago what seems to been intentional. the national archives repeatedly requested the information, president trump repeatedly refuse to provide information that was being requested and that's what ultimately led to the standoff and a court ordered investigation into what was being held, and actually opening these files at mar-a-lago and discovery has a lot of top secret stuff being held it there, , that really shouldn't have been. to my mind these are not equivalent but it's very hard for people to see, they hear classified information being missed stored in both places i think it must be kind of the

same thing. but it isn't the same thing. it's been quite different in terms of how it unfolded and again i had to be careful to say we don't know exactly what the documents were that were being held by president biden in his private home, but from what we've heard so far it doesn't seem to have been information that was classified at the same level, of importance that information those been held that mar-a-lago was. >> host: because the attorney general was looking into both these cases, what's the penalty for the possession of documents? not the reaction, not for the claims of kind to get them back but just holding them, what's the penalty? >> guest: if it was a possession and unintentional, so mens rea, intent matters here. i think if there was an intentional possession of the documents then probably they didn't personally remove them. they were probably moved by staff, my guess is rossi 12 discretion would suggest that there wouldn't likely be a

prosecution. but a think part of the reason that merrick garland have special counsel looking into this is that there is of course it's charlie for someone who works for the president to investigate both the former rival and future potential rival in a presidential race and his own boss. that's part of the reason he brought in the special counsel who can be distant from him politically and carry out these investigations and hopefully do a full investigation with a very objective point of view and make recommendation, determination about the right way to proceed with these, whether they should be a prosecution given what they discovered. >> host: our guest has been on hathaway, she's with video law school and is an international law professor for the law school and also served as the former pentagon special counsel here to talk a classification efforts of government documents. professor hathaway thanks for your time.

>> guest: thanks so much for having me turn we welcome back maya macguineas, , president for committee for a responsible federal budget here to talk about issues a debt ceiling and federal spending that will come back. >> guest: thank you bradley. >> host: remind people about the organization in a position you take when it comes to these issues is been a debt levels and such. >> guest: i run committee for responsible federal budget. it is bipartisan, focus on fiscal responsibility which basically i would define as their times to bargain in time to make sense to borrow that she should bar for economic reasons, not political reasons. we borrowed a lot just for the politics of it. we focus on sound fiscal policy. the enough to balance the budget does mean you should are wisely and responsibly and we are very bipartisan. our board is run by people from all on the spectrum of politics. our staff is all over the place. i'm a political independent so it is not about politics. it's about fiscal policy. >> host: when it comes to debt ceiling itself is is about fiscal policy or about politics

particularly the debate taking place on capitol hill? >> guest: i know it is being framed agreed to a sobbing political but there's a lot of policy in this discussion. the debt ceiling is something that absolutely has to be raised. there's no question that even talk of default is damaging to the country and the they, ue in the world. the issues being raised which is when you think about how to control our government borrowing, are given spin, the fact that a huge fiscal gap and this is one of the only times that conversation happens, that's a very legitimate discussion to have. a lot of politics going on. everything in washington about politics but is surfacing some truly important issues. >> host: before get to the politics of these extraordinaire measurably about what exactly does that mean for the federal government? >> guest: when you hit the debt ceiling, you stop just before you hit the designation you can't allow a default and there are some government trust fund you can take money out of it but other treasury bonds into and they the don't count te debt ceiling.

basically we are playing a game of three card monte with a bunch of different government trust fund. they will all be replenished, they will not harm those trust funds but is not the right way to do business. we should get back into the normal convention of raising the debt ceiling before we have to use the so-called extraordinary measures. they are becoming ordinary and we shouldn't come we lose weight into the last minute for everything. we really shouldn't on the debt ceiling and i would like to see us real this baxley supplicant of the actual debt ceiling as a limit, not these extraordinary measures which we don't have the precise knowledge of when they will run out of money to play this game. >> host: kevin mccarthy was on capitol hill the house speaker talk about issues of the debt ceiling him take of the conversations that foster about spending issues. i want to play what he had to say and get your response. >> i don't see why you would continue the past behavior. i would think from one standpoint you just, physically and debt ceiling. what that means we went to any

approach bills and just to and on the bill and i get into a budget? that's told off the table. we've got to change, i mean, i don't know if you have any children but if you had a child and you gave them a credit card and they kept raising it and they hit the limit, so you just raised it again, , clean increa, and again and again, would you just keep doing that i would you change the behavior? we are six months away. why do we sit down now and change this behavior? that we would put ourselves on a more fiscally strong position pic would make the future generation make our nation stronger and take the economics strong for this country. that's why we should sit down and i would welcome, it's a first conversation i had with the president avoiding speaker and consultant sit and talk with him about. who wants to put the nation some type of threat of a last-minute? nobody, nobody. that's why we're asking, let's

change our behavior now. let's sit down. he's the president. we are the majority in the house. the democrats are the majority in the senate, and that's exactly the way the founders designed congress to work, find the compromise and find the common sense compromise that puts us back onto a balanced budget that i believe every household, every state does this, every city, every county. why would the democrats that i can say just raise it with no discussion? nobody else can do that i don't think the american people want that. >> host: maya macguineas. >> guest: let me say for the most part thick with the speaker says makes an awful lot of sense. so the point is the debt ceiling is a moment when we pause, reassess our fiscal situation. anybody is looking at the numbers of the congressional budget office looks in of our debt and sustainable numbers knows it's not in good shape. we're not what we need to be fiscally. you take this moment and assess and think that we need to make changes. the speaker is rightly saying yes, absolutely we do need to make changes and this is the

time to talk about it. everything i say, no which we talk about the fall. they should not be of a hole in the debt ceiling hostage. that would be damaging. using it as an opportunity for a conversation absolutely. i'll make a couple points because you want to bring up politics and there's a lot of politics involved. when the density was increased under president trump, the same people were not making the same request. what i think was really outrageous was under the president trump's debt ceiling increases, we actually attached legislation that increase the debt by over, well over one children, almost $2 trillion in new borrowing as part of the debt ceiling increases. that is a terrible back which way to lift the debt ceiling. that was bipartisan support and really detrimental to the fiscal health of the country. it is frustrating to see people only care about the issue debating on who's in office or who is not. like i said everything is politics. i think what the speakers asking

for, let's sit down, talk about how to attach some reasonable measures that will deal with borrowing and spending does make a great deal of sense. i will point out one other thing. two other thinks it's okay. once you mention balancing the budget. we know can you be able to balance a budget in the next decade. it used to be a goal of balancing budget was reasonable and wish we were back there. the fiscal situation is now so bad because we have waited so long to address and we are borrowing more than $1 trillion per year heading towards $2 trillion per year. it's out of reach. will cost well over $14 trillion in savings and, frankly, this is a congress that hasn't saved more than a couple hundred billion in decades, in a decade. balancing the budget continues as not a reasonable goal. let's find a reasonable goal that instead of just putting out there is great talking point we can achieve. let's get the win on the fiscal health of the country. the second thing i want to point out is there's a lot of confusion as the lifting the

debt ceiling means you are authorizing new borrowing. that's not the case. what's happening is we are borrowing because legislation was passed that required us to borrow. we passed many, many tax cuts. we passed many, many spending increases. there was supported by republicans. they were supported by democrats but many of them are bipartisan. there should be no finger point because it goes all around. this is about legislation we already passed. we have to lift the debt ceiling to accommodate that. we should have the debt ceiling connected to the moment when you pass legislation, if you're going to say i'm passing this bill and require new borrowing, you should have to lift the debt ceiling densely have the accountability. but going forward it makes a lot of sense to say we're going to take policies we are not borrowing more. for all those people who want to be so fiscally responsible make sure we have this conversation, and applaud the notion of the conversation. i would encourage, i would encourage all lawmakers to

promise not to engage in new borrowing in the coming year. we have huge deficits and debt. we have inflation which borrowing makes worse. the economy is starting up that this is the time there's no justification to barmore. those who care about fiscal responsibility they should agree there to not going to pass legislation that adds to the debt. >> host: 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans and 202-748-8002 for independents. you can objection. the biden administration -- mr. mcconnell: the biden administration has spent two years turning its back -- two years of an open-border policy from democrats and two years of chaos and suffering as a result. last week customs and border

protection announced that an already record-breaking year-ended on a catastrophic note. illegal immigration apprehensions clocked at an all-time high of 2.7 million during the last fiscal year, by far the highest annual total ever recorded. but then -- but then december set an astonishing record all by itself. at over 250,000 apprehensions. last month was cbp's busiest month ever recorded. the american people are outraged at that willful failure. they rate immigration and border as one of the single biggest problems facing our country. second only to the economy.

two-thirds -- two-thirds of the country disapproved of president biden's handling of immigration and the border. that's a 67% supermajority of americans who believe this administration is failing on border security. now, our democratic friends tie themselves in notes making -- knots, making excuses for why they can't do their job, enforce federal law, and secure our border. they pretend we can't enforce the laws on the border unless we find more ways to be even more generous to people who come here illegally. every local official who blocks to the -- who belongs to the democratic party, are rapidly losing patience with the biden administration's border incompetence. the democratic mayor of new york, eric adams, spent

months sounding the alarm on this administration's functionally open border. i said this is -- he said this is a national crisis, saying, quote, there's no more room, he said, no more room in new york. yet, the far left attacks him, the mayor of new york, for pointing out the problem. the democratic governor of colorado is taking a cue from governor abbott and govern desantis by arranging transportation to liberal jurisdictions that self-identified as so-called sanctuary cities. this is a growing bipartisan chorus begging, begging president biden to do his job and secure our nation. it doesn't take any new laws. it doesn't take some new, grand bargain or amnesty. the administration just needs to do its job. secure the border and let law

enforcement enforce our laws. the biden administration has all the tools and authorities it needs to tackle the crisis, if a solution were actually what they were after. now, on another matter, it's been a full year since putin escalated russia's brutal war against ukraine. nearly nine years since he began his military effort to take over a sovereign country, in early 2014. and putin's nonmilitary efforts to meddle in ukraine long predated open 20 -- open 2014. it's been 15 years since putin invaded georgia, and a few years before that, he said publicly the breakup of the soviet union was, quote, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. this former kgb agent, who's run

the kremlin for two decades, has been very, very consistent. repression at home, aggression abroad, assassinations, invasions, poisonings, and political interference. whenever the rest of the world responded with accommodation rather than with resolve, putin drew the natural conclusion that he could do whatever he wanted. but for the past 11 months, the brave men and women of ukraine have defied the odds. they've endured tremendous hardship and stood their ground. they've fought bravely for their families, their freedom, and their country. at every step of the way, investments from the united states and our allies have equipped the ukrainian people to exact a heavy price from the russian invaders. western assistance has played a

key role, but alas it's come too slowly and haltingly. despite my urging, the biden administration to act sooner, aid did not come early enough to help ukraine deter putin's escalation before it actually happened. nor to slow down russia's brutal and rapid advance in the east and the south. it has not come quickly enough to help ukraine sustain counsel offensive -- counteroffensive or fully defend cities against missile and drone attacks. the united states and our friends and partners have done enough to prevent ukraine from losing, from losing. but we've not yet done enough to help ukraine actually win. a pro tacted stalemate is neither in ukraine's interest nor ours. the solution that is both the most humane and the most advantageous to america's

interest is quite simple -- help ukraine win this war. we know what it will take to make this possible. as our colleague, senator wicker, said, we can shift this war immediately in ukraine's favor by providing a range of advanced weapons, including tanks, drones, and tactical missiles. as chairman mccaul, over in the house said this past weekend, it's not the u.s. that will be provocative if we send stronger assistance. quote, mr. putin is the provocative one. he invaded a sovereign territory, aggressively and up provoked. -- unprovoked. yet some of free tom's most -- freedom's most powerful friends remain hesitant. for many months, germany not only resisted calls to sends tanks to ukraine, but prevented other makeses from sending their own german-produced rep ard

tanks -- leopard tankings to ukraine. time is short. while ukraine hesitates, it should proactively and explicitly make clear other allies are free to do so. what about the biden administration here at home? the administration's latest deliveries failed to include -- failed to include, the longer-range missiles and more sophisticated munitions ukraine has been requesting literally for months, for months. so mr. president, ukraine's brave resistance deserves our continued praise, but more importantly it needs our concrete and consistent materiel support. ukraine's friends cannot keep self-deterring ourselves and letting the aggressors, the invaders, dictate the pace. so it's time, past time, for the

biden administration and our allies to get serious about helping ukraine finish the job and retake their country. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: to talk about issues of debt ceiling and federal spending. welcome back. reminded people about your organization in the position you take when it comes to spend again debt levels in such?

>> ironically for responsible federal budget, it's bipartisan, focuses on fiscal response ability which i would define as -- you should do it for economic reasons. we borrow a lot for the politics of an and focus on sound fiscal policy. doesn't mean you have to balance the budget but you borrow lively and responsibly. we are very bipartisan, the board is run on the spectrum of politics and staff is all over the place. it's not about politics but fiscal policy. >> is it about fiscal policy or politics? the debate taking place on capitol hill? >> it is framed as political but there are a lot of policies in this discussion, the debt ceiling has to be raised. there is no question even talk of default is damaging to the country and the economy but the issues being raised, we need to

think about how to control our government borrowing, government spending about the fact we have a huge fiscal gap in this is one of the only times the conversation happens, that is a legitimate discussion to have. a lot of politics going on, but it is surfacing some important issues. >> the next ordinary measures, what does that mean for the federal government? >> you stop before you hit the debt ceiling because you can't allow a default. there a government trust funds you take money out of and put other treasury bonds into, they don't count towards the debt ceiling. we are playing 3 card monte with a bunch of government trust funds. they will be replenished, not harm those trust funds but it's not the right way to do business. we should get back to the normal conventions of raising the debt ceiling before we have to use these extraordinary measures. they are becoming ordinary.

we shouldn't wait to the last minute for everything. we shouldn't on the debt ceiling and i would like to see us start looking at the actual debt ceiling is the limit, not the of store 9 measures which we don't have the precise knowledge of when they will run out of money. >> back to the politics, kevin mccarthy was on capitol hill, the house speaker talking issues of the debt ceiling particularly the conversation about spending issues. i want to play what he said and get your response. >> i don't see why you would continue the past behavior. there's a clean debt ceiling. what that means, we would just do a nominee, not even a budget, that's off the table. we've got to change -- i don't know if you have any children but if you gave them a credit card and they kept raising it and hit the limit, you raised it again, increased and again and

again, would you just keep doing that or change the behavior. we are 6 months away. why not sit down now and change this behavior, that we would put ourselves on a more fiscally strong position, let the future generation make us stronger and the economic stronger for this country, that is why we should sit down and i would welcome -- president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, on friday, a they've done for decades, americans from around the country, many of them young people, took to the streets of washington, d.c. to march for life. this year, of course, was a little different. because for the first time since the march began, nearly 50 years ago, pro lifers marched in a post-roe america. on june 24, 20 2erbgs the supreme court overturned -- 2022, the supreme court overturned roe v. wade and recognized that the constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that the founding document does not have the right to deprive one group of citizens

to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, simply because they are small and defenseless. mr. president, the supreme court's decision marked the writing of a -- righting of a constitutional wrong and opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong, the legalized killing of unborn americans. the dobbs decision overturning roe v. wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal. but it does allow state governments and the federal government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children. mr. president, the dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion. but the dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement. or the march for life. but a new beginning. the legal fight turns from the courts to congress and state legislatures, in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs. and has always belonged.

and the work to change hearts and minds and support moms and babies continues. the dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the democrat party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the way of these protections. to give one example of how far the abortion on demand caucus has taken things, two week ago the house of representatives took up legislation to ensure babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. almost every single democrat in the house of representatives voted against the legislation. that's 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies, who have already been born, already been born, can ledge legitimate -- legitimately be

left to die or, i suppose, be killed outright by the abortionists. that, mr. president, is a horrifying position, and there's much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent americans, our unborn children. so the march for life is today more important than ever. the march, of course, is one small facets of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every state around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need. but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet, because the march for life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn childen at great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every

year in this country hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. the institution reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020. 900,000. to put that number in perspective, 9 hoobt is -- 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the state of south dakota. the entire population of south dakota. that's a lot of lives lost, mr. president, a lot of love lost. our society is a poorer place without those babies. the march for life. thousands of geabs lose their lives to abortion and it reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws. mr. president, i am profoundly

grateful for all those who spent last friday marching for life and for all the men and women and young people in the pro-life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and to secure legal protections for unborn americans. i know there are many days when it fills like an uphill battle but you are all on the right side of history and i am confident that in the end life will prevail. mr. president, the gospel of matthew of jesus says see that you do not despise one of these little ones because i tell you angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven. again, let the little children come to me and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. there is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. and i pray to god will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon every

child born and unborn will enjoy the full protection of our laws. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> waiting for senator to come to the floor to speak. what is happening on capitol hill today, the senate judiciary can he holding hearing on practices in the live entertainment ticketing industry that are harming consumers and artists. this hearing is in response to ticketmaster after recent issue with the taylor swift concert sales the left millions of fans unable to purchase tickets or without their tickets even after purchase, the president and cfo of ticketmaster's parent company, live nation entertainment is testifying. in the house, lawmakers are considering two bills, when dealing with the civil service hiring systems, the other requiring federal agencies, the terms of all settlement agreements and online database. this week senate lawmakers are working on executive and judicial nominations. no votes are expected. >> when you pass a budget you should have to hit a certain target. hours right now is twice what it

has been historically, 97% of gdp. we should pick targets that gradually and realistically bring that down so it is not heading up the way it is with debt growing faster than the economy. we should have other measures in place so there are fiscal constraints and it is driven by politics, not economics. it makes sense to borrow sometimes, it made sense to borrow during covid. it does not make sense to borrow today. if we should shift to the budget processes to control that borrowing and take the power of the debt ceiling away and make it more appropriate like the point about climbing. >> democrats line from new jersey, rhonda, hello. >> good morning and happy new year to our fellow americans. you know, this really infuriates me and a lot of people that i

know, that the republican party would go in and deliberately bankrupt this country on purpose thinking they can blame joe biden and win another election. first of all, people like marjorie taylor green, would pay us back the $2 million she got forgiven as a loan from the economic package. $2 million this woman got, $2 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest americans in the country. just repeal that? what about the attack that donald trump did not pay $0.10 in taxes and lied for the last 5 years saying he was being audited. the republican party is a fascist party taking over our country. we are going to lose our country.

>> host: thank you, rhonda. >> i will respond to the frustration, the anger and the real vitriol out there in this discussion. i get it, there's that anger on both sides. it will not allow us to fix these problems. i don't think that either party is trying to really harm the country. what they are trying to do is push an objective and in many ways, the ways it gets done, i will agree that threatening to default is not an acceptable way to go along with this but i also think pretending we don't have to make changes to our fiscal situation is not responsible. i think the answer is i remember the conversation, working together and build some trust, there's very little trust, they need to spend more time working to gather not leading us two teams. don't know how many people think

the smartest way to run the countries divide us into two teams and have people fight it out, this will not be in the best interests of the country, the best interests of republicans versus democrats and we see that is not helping us put in place good legislation in a sound way. building some trust, extending some understanding to understand more makes sense. i'm not saying all behavior is acceptable but there's a lot that isn't. the loss of truth, loss of trust, these are fundamental problems that affect our economic and political system and we can't function if we don't get them back. while i understand that you hold a lot of anger and people on the other side feel the same way about democrats, some of those frustrations are incredibly legitimate, the only way to solve the problem is to understand perspective on the other side. if they talk about having

conversations, that is important but what i fear from democrats as we won't be held hostage on this, that is right but they are saying they don't want to have a conversation. they need to, we need to have a conversation as quickly as possible and put good ideas out there. in the past decades we include improvement through the fiscal situation, many great ideas came out of these from pay as you go rules to government savings to fiscal permissions. things that tried to improve the situation. we need to go back to an era when that was the norm, not what we saw the past couple increases, not like we saw 10 years ago when people threaten to default but a healthy conversation about the fact that this country is borrowing so much that the debt is growing faster than the economy and the fastest-growing part of the budget as interest payments are going to triple over the next

decade, spending half $1 trillion on interest payments. this is not a healthy situation, we need them to have a discussion and make a not chaotic opportunity. >> host: what specific proposals would you make should this discussion take place? >> the easiest thing to be part of the debt ceiling increase, we need overall savings, a package to what you want to do is stabilize the debt as share of gdp of 7%, that would require $7 trillion in savings. that's a lot. we put out a plan to show how you could do that not because it is the perfect plan, but from the sidelines it is easier, things that could work and is helpful to look at. is that doable? probably too large. i would scale back and say let's find a package of $4 trillion in savings, won't fix the problem

but an impressive effort to save that much money. if that's too hard we can do what we have done in the past, attach an overall fiscal mission to the increase in the debt ceiling or pass it before. and raise the debt ceiling because of it. something that looks the entire budget, the fiscal situation is so bad all parts of the budget have to be on the table. those who say i won't touch taxes, it's not realistic. i will talk about this a little more, those who promise not to touch social security and medicare, not only is that not realistic, it is damaging to those programs because they have trust funds that are headed toward insolvency. changes have to be made. defense has to be on the table. the budget has to be looked at, figured out, what would be a balanced package. and the work of $4 trillion in savings done between now and summer.

i encourage them to look at bipartisan legislation that was passed, offered in previous congresses, some look at the entire budget. there's a trust act that looks at whatever different trust funds are headed towards insolvency, creating special working groups looking at how to fix those, nothing about what the outcome has to be. it says to lawmakers you have to take the time to start to evaluate how to fix these programs. first choice, let's have a package of savings, given how hard that would be i think the commission would make a lot of sense. >> host: from john in ohio, independent line, good morning. >> caller: let's call it like it is. the prior administration had carte blanche, spent as much as they want when they wanted, got three approval on budget, nobody complains, everybody went along

with the plan, they took $2 trillion from social security, gave $2 trillion in tax breaks to the rich, they didn't care about anything. there was no discussion, there was no disapproval and it continued to go on as long as they are in charge. but now there is someone else in charge and they are attacking this administration and trying to destroy the united states of america and make it the divided states of america, just kind of like going to see a bad show in vegas, you've got smoke and mirrors on one side and what goes on the other side. >> guest: the past administration, trump administration was one of the worst administrations we have seen fiscally. there were huge tax cuts, they were unpaid for but what is

lesser-known is their huge spending increases also unpaid for and additional tax cuts were bipartisan in nature, the trump administration oversaw increasing the debt over 10 years by $7 trillion. most of that was when the economy was very strong and no reason to be borrowing. the fiscal record was damaging. on top of that donald trump promise not to touch social security and medicare. i know that sounds good to pretty much everybody because they are important programs that do so much but social security and medicare have trust funds that are not going to be able to pay everything that has been promised. we have to make changes to those programs. there are many options for how we do so but doing nothing will mean there are across-the-board spending cuts when the trust funds don't have the money to pay benefits. that is what the law requires so when anybody promises you

whether it is donald trump or the aarp or people talking about how we shouldn't touch these programs, when somebody says don't touch social security and medicare they are driving us towards benefit cuts for people who depend on the program. anybody who is serious, politicians need to level with all of us. anyone who is serious will tell you we have to figure out how to make these programs solvent, wait until the last minute, makes those changes painful but it was alarming when donald trump said i won't touch social scary and medicare and people went along with that. i'm concerned to see the current administration picking up that same language. it is easy to demagogue this issue. hard to tell truth. i will get some angry callers in the next few minutes but those programs need to have changes so we can align benefits.

it's not fair to the american people to continue down this path. >> host: what's the least egregious change you could make to social security? >> guest: the real key is to put in changes gradually. nobody on the program or close to retirement is going to be affected by any of the benefit changes but you could raise the retirement age, start it gradually, start it down the road, we are living much longer. when social security started, life expectancy was 62. is different today when people are living to their 70s, 80s come a 90s and one hundreds. we have to adjust the program to put that in place. young people don't expect to get much out of social security and if we made the problem solvent, they have to work a few more years, that would be a reasonable trade-off. another issue, we calculate

inflation in a way that overstates it. we change it on the revenue side, could help social security final 2 policies, should slow the growth of benefits for people who don't depend on the program as much as look at lifting the payroll tax so we are taxing incomes, those things could make the programs solvent and make it strong for people who depend on it the most. >> host: a viewer in new jersey, what are the real girl -- real-world consequences of america defaults? >> we don't know because we've never done it before and let's hope we never find out but the issue here is the us treasury market, the fact we borrow by issuing treasuries, they are the backbone of the global financial system and people depend on the us when they look at us as economically and politically stable. this would call that into question. last time there was discussion of default we were downgraded. all those changes mean they can spoil stock markets, oil markets

throughout the globe but it can push up and will push up our interest rates. interest rates are incredibly influential and, we have so much debt. for one percentage point more than they are expecting that increases the interest payment, $230 billion a year, and that is more than most of the programs we passed in recent times. that's one percentage point. close to default or actual default would likely push interest rates way up. put us into recession, probably push the rest of the world into recession. it is one of those tipping points we should not find out. even getting close to it, even flirting with it, will make things more costly if people start to lose confidence in the us treasury market.

>> host: from texas, republican line, we hear from john. >> caller: you said viewers might get mad. let me share my frustration and give you examples of this problem. number one, raise the amount of money you pay on social security tax which whatever you make you will pay that 6% period, whether it is one dollar, a million, 10 million. number 2, only got two more. this was real critical. those on medicaid need to start paying what the elderly pay for their medicare. it is not right to have people get a free ride on somebody else's diamond. number 3, do away with the child tax credit. i know that sounds harsh but nobody should be rewarded for having children because the bottom half of america, this is tax season, when they file tax returns they are getting most federal withholdings if not all of it, than the government is

giving them free money. we don't have it and it is time to tell america the truth and start doing something about it. >> host: the caller called with actual ideas to make the fiscal situation, this is why politicians run away from this issue, talking about raising taxes or cutting spending, you are talking about both, that is incredibly difficult to do and what is required, i don't necessarily agree with each and every one of those but some of them. we can disagree how to make the situation better but if people are willing to put on the table this is what i would look at to reduce our borrowing we could have an honest discussion but to hear out of capitol hill absolute platitudes, waste, fraud, and abuse or don't worry about it, or have a spending in terms of policies, what i put on

the table which people won't love and what you put on the table and people won't love, that's the real issue. what could we do to bring our borrowing down? that's a productive contribution. >> there is a viewer who asks in that vein about the proposal they touted about a national sales tax. what do you think of the idea as far as getting money in the coffers. >> it is a consumption tax but our system is focused on income tax, there are two big issues, one is what do we tax? should be tax income, consumption, carbon, soda, alcohol, all sorts of things, lots of different taxes you can look at. income from corporations versus individuals, your tax base, the consumption tax, there's some appeal in that. it would center vies work and savings, a lot you can do from that.

sales tax flat out can be very regressive. a sales tax, they exempt certain goods, create problems with inflation in those goods. if you look at how to do tax consumption, i am intrigued by progressive consumption tax, your first 50,000 of spending would be free, the next 200 would be a summary and then a higher rate because a reasonable distribution is progressive the way the income tax is. it is a reasonable discussion to have. we moved to consumption tax, one question is does it replace existing taxes or is on top of them? most discussion about this -- >> buddy carter has a proposal on incoming social security and medicare. >> if you want to tax consumption, you're right has to be and probably high because you don't have government consumption, that wouldn't make sense so the rate becomes prohibitive when they run the real numbers but in the end the bottom line is will it raise

enough revenue to meet how much spending we have. from the macro goal other than recessions and emergencies you want to make sure it is getting closer and we need to reduce spending and raise revenue. >> host: the president of committee for responsible federal budget, we go to milton in philadelphia, democrat line, good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i don't understand, republicans talk -- they are hostage takers. our way or the highway. they had no problem raising the debt ceiling under trump but with biden, there's a problem. my point is if you want to cut spending, tell us what you are going to cut. they are not telling us anything. they want biden and the democrats to walk the plank but not tell you what areas of spending they want to cut and it is hypocritical on that point. if you want spending cuts, tell for american people what you

want. then $2 trillion tax cut they are talking about, you know they are not talking about raising taxes but they want to cut programs of the programs will hit the poor people more so than the wealthy. >> host: something about those tax cuts, has president biden talked about rescinding those cuts as far as his proposal? >> it does not assume they would all be extended. we will have a big extension about whether they are extended or not. president bush passed big tax cuts and president obama extended the majority of those tax cuts. that would not be a responsible thing to to do in the coming years unless they are offset but we don't have money for more tax cuts without question. i agree about the point. i'm very sympathetic to the discussion we need to have, it

is bad and the debt ceiling is one of the only times the discussion is likely to happen, but there's a real hypocrisy that, the same people with the debt ceiling and lifted in a way that makes it worse. the fiscal situation, that was not true to the issue. this is a principal issue, how i see it as a principled issue. if somebody changes based on the politics of the moment, that's not a principled way to look at it. i'm concerned about people who say when our president is in office we are going to lift the debt ceiling no problem, but now that president biden is in office we are not willing to. that doesn't give any credibility. what i think is a reasonable position, which is make some changes while we are doing it. the other point, it is time for people to put specifics on the table and a real deadline and get this done in the next few

months, not weight until the last minute when there is a deadline. is their hypocrisy the way it has been handled? absolutely. is their legitimacy in wanting the discussion to happen? it is frustrating, the credibility is undermined, that is why this is so murky, the area about how to go forward on the issue but i think i was reading paul krugman's comment about this, all sorts of numbers on the interest payments which miss the point and get it wrong. i was thinking about how people change their minds depending who was in office and we see this with republicans now, president biden is in office. when paul krugman got a lot of influence, when he thought hillary clinton was going to be president he said it is time to borrow. he wrote a column called time to borrow and as soon as donald

trump ran and won to his surprise he said deficits matter again. this isn't an issue that depends on politics of the moment or who is in power but it is about economics and if you borrow too much it undermines the strength of your economy, pushes interest payments up in your budget which is happening now, they will probably be the record gdp in the decade. leaves you ill prepared whether it is covert or recession or some problem we have to borrow, it leaves us dependent on borrowing from other countries from whom we are not aligned and leaves us unable to make important investments to our social contract that reflect the moment we are living in. the social contract was created to make changes, our budget has been promised to so many programs, the biggest or fastest growing, interest on the debt,

doesn't leave us able to do that. the fiscal health of the country has to weaken our nation and people who play politics, it happens on all sides. people who pretend social security and medicare don't need to be strengthened when they do are doing a disservice and damage to the country lose the politics with fiscal policy worries me where we are headed because of it. >> please don't lead the debt school. >> he is sitting with this platform calling people names, putting things out of context. even if you read this column you see numbers that are misleading on the interest payments which are problem in the fiscal situation right now. you can't pretend it's not a problem but in particular can't pretend it is not a problem. only when the people you like our governing and not a problem when other people are. i say that to what is going on in capitol hill right now but also -- >> host: brian in michigan, independent line.

>> caller: just to mark time, when i was a senior in high school in the late 70s, we were $450 billion in debt. one politician said a little bit of debt is a good thing. fast forward to now. i am a capitalist. i believe in capitalism. it is not a 4 letter word but we really don't talk about it much anymore. our involvement in the european union since world war ii, i will be quick, the un, nato, we set it all up, i worked with those people over there for many years. they are not living up to their target. the european union, there gdp matches us. the european union is supposed to take care of their affairs. outside the globe, specifically to take our affairs, take care of them. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president,

we've seen this movie before. the senate finds itself in familiar territory. the united states narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we're staring down the barrel of another debt crisis. the u.s. hit the debt limit last thursday, according to the secretary of treasury, and now the treasury is using what they refer to efemme mystically as extraordinary measures in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. unless the congress takes action in the coming months, the american economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis. but here's what i find strange -- despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster,

the white house seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. president biden has drawn a red line. he said, we are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. in other words, he expects congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless, runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise. now, i don't want to despairage -- disparage drunken sailors, but it steams to me that that is the model for how the white house is responding. it's as if you or i were spending beyond our means on our credit card and then the issue or the credit card said, you know, you're going to have to pay the money back at some point, and you say, to heck with that. i want you to raise my credit

limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back. we know what happened happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well as it should. if we responded the way that the white house has responded. so what apparently the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. it can't cover the current bills. now it's roughly $30 trillion. and it expects somebody, anybody -- maybe nobody -- to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt. we know this is even a bigger problem in inflationary times

because the more money the federal government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices, some of the highest prices in 40 years, on everything from gasoline to food to housing and to the essentials of life. so why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say we're not going to talk, we're not even going to negotiate with the house when it comes to the debt ceiling. we're just going we're -- keep spending as much money as we can, wracking up more and more debt. i know president biden has children and grandchildren. is he concerned for their welfare? we are writing checks that we're not going to have to pay back, mr. president.

you and i are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, including those of president biden. so how responsible, or i should say how irresponsible is it for the president to say we're just going to keep on keeping on, and we're not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. we are not even going to entertain any reasonable idea or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole. well, the american people witnessed our democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last two years and chose a new direction in the

midterm election that gave republicans the house after two years in which our democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on this so-called american rescue plan and then another $700 billion or so on the so-called inflation reduction act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that's what it's called. in response, the voters gave republicans the majority in the house. i can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained democratic control of both houses and the white house. so the new reality of divided government means there's only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb. republicans and democrats have

to reach a compromise. i know the presiding officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the heisman to one another and say we're not even going to talk. i don't know why we are here as members of congress, or why you would want to be president of the united states when you would see such a big problem, growing bigger by the day, and say forget it, i'm not talking. i'm not going to try to solve the problem. that's somebody else's issue. that's not ours. i don't believe that's a responsible reaction, and i don't think most members of congress think it's a responsible reaction, but that's where we are today. but it needs to change. as we know, the reality of

republican control of the house means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling -- and there has to be a negotiation -- in reality has to be between the house and the white house. nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the house, i believe. i think that's pretty clear. but in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the house, it needs to get 60 votes in the senate and the president's signature. those are the facts. drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. instead of doling out marching orders, the president needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed, and to

negotiate a solution. nobody i know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. if that's true -- and i believe it is true -- then there's only one alternative, to try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concernef them -- about the ever increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we're going to have to pay to service that debt, and where that will come out of things like defense spending or other priorities.

president biden served as a member of the senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as president of the united states. in fact, he pointed to his record as president and vice president as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise. now i know in some corridors compromise is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator. none of us can say this is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they see. instead the president does have some record, a good record in one instance, of doing exactly what he refuses to do today. as vice president, joe biden helped negotiate the 2011 budget

control act, which was the last substantial act and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful washington spending. at that point our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2018 -- in 2001. revenues plummeted and it was clear something had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis. president obama was in the white house, congress was divided, democrats controlled the senate, republicans controlled the house in 2011. and as it turns out, then-vice president biden was a key negotiator. he helped broker the agreement working principally with then senator mcconnell, the republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support.

so here we are a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition without the solution. our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. federal spending has soared. a large part of that, mr. president, was roughly $5 trillion that democrats and republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the covid crisis in a way that addressed public health needs like coming up with a vaccine, and help sustain our economy during this crisis. but then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last two years, as i mentioned, with the aarp and the ira, to use a

couple of acronyms. but the american people have nowhere else to turn but here for us to address this problem. and now i think it's easy to engage in the blame game -- and we do it here all the time. in fact, here in washington, d.c. it's a world-class sport. but at some point you've got to quit pointing the finger and you've got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem. i'm not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. so this is the time for president biden to step up. he's president of the united

states, and he's done it before when he was vice president in 2011. all it would take to start this process is to invite the house, the senate, come sit around the table and discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail. so it's time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. presidents can't be a spectator. they can't sit on the sidelines. nobody in america expects a president of the united states to do that. and the fact is the president is not just a leader of the democratic party. he's the elected lead of the

united states of america, all 330 million-plus of us. so taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the house is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this, it's not an act of courage, it's not an act of leadership. we expect our presidents to make tough decisions just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions. i can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. i mentioned that a moment ago. who's going to pay the $30

trillion back we already owe. is the idea that we can continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? does anybody think that's a good idea? how -- if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt? handcuffing congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond. and i mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue to service that debt, to pay the bondholders on their investment. so this is not just a problem that can be punted. this is not -- this does not call for partisan responses.

this calls for statesmanship. it calls for leadership. and as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. we know that america's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. it's been building for decades. and lest anybody believe that i'm suggesting this is strictly a democratic problem, it's really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. somehow we became anesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. we point -- and it's true, we point to various crises we've had and we say we didn't have any other choice.

but now we do have a choice. we can respond to this responsible bring and to do our jobs. well, we need to get get out--- we need top get out-of-control spending habits in check. no household, no city council, no county government, no state government could possibly do what the federal government is doing. they have to live with a balanced budget. they have to live within their means. i'm not suggesting it's going to be easy because it's not. but it's not optional. one of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to regular appropriations process and funding the government each year. the idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriation process like we were forced to

do last year, backing it up to december the 23'd -- december the 23rd, is not the right way to do business. the house and senate appropriations committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the federal government. these bills are supposed to pass both chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is september 30. that didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. the democratic-led senate did not pass a single appropriations bill. instead -- and i understand why. the majority leader, senator schumer, the speaker, speaker pelosi, they realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them

immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. they could say yes to some and no to others. and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that ranking-and-file members of the senate and house would be left to vote yes or no. congress cannot continue to operate like this. we have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and continue to a regular on-time appropriations process. it's more transparent. it allows every member of the congress to participate, offer amendments, to debate and to

vote, something denied ranking-and-file members of congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. but we shouldn't stop there. we need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits, and the good news is there are a number of ideas that have been proposed. last congress senator romney,the senator from utah, introduced something he calls the trust act, which creates a process to save social security and to protect the critical lifeline for americans. social security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years, and this is a responsible way to save social security and to address what is roughly two-thirds -- part of a

two-thirds of the federal spending; in other words about a third of of it is discretionary spending. we appropriate the other two-thirds as mandatory or other automatic -- or automatic spending. i am a cosponsor of this legislation and would encourage the president and our democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion. i'm also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. as i said, republicans and democrats are responsible for where we are today. but it would finally make clear had a we have to live -- that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in america has to live under and every local, state government has to live with a balanced budget. now, that makes common sense. families that are in businesses across the country have no choice but to operate on a balanced budget. my state of texas has a balanced

budget requirement and lo and behold it started the current legislative intelligence a $33 billion surplus -- legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. my state has a $33 billion surplus, in part, i believe, because it's required by law to balance its budget each year. i've introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and i plan on doing so again this year. that should be part of the conversation. there are a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the federal government get its financial house in order, and i would hope that the president would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously, no matter how

inconvenient this may be for president biden. we are operating under a divided government. the drunken sailor approach may have worked when democrats controlled both houses of congress, but it won't succeed now. it's time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. it is the only path out of this mess. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

you want to texas on open form you can do that at 202-748-8003. right after this program the senate judiciary committee will take a look at the practices of and this in light of recent news back in november you may remember was demand for those taylor swift concert tickets which cost the website to crash. the committee was her testimony on ticket promotion and fees, competition andonsumer protection. you can see that right after this program at 10:00. you can watch on this channel c-span, along with her c-span now or watch online at c-span.org. again this is open form up until 10:00. the end of the program. this is from james in buffalo kentucky starting is up on a republican line. will overhead. you are on. >> caller: thank you, sir.

always enjoyed your show and watch it all the time. one thing the lady did that come up with, look, i'm all for people coming into this country legally but always people there to come in illegally is costing our country a lot of money. they are getting on all types of programs and at the same token we can't even take care of our own people but yet we're taking care of other people. and this think about the democrats talking about all, the 99, or the 1% is getting tax cuts, while , while most e percenter, just look it up, are democrats. so if they're so concerned that they're getting tax cuts and why don't the democrats are forgetting those tax cuts send that money back? all be waiting for a check. should the knock consent back anything. >> host: from missouri, this is auto. go ahead. >> caller: i got a question about the amount of money

borrowed for social security trust fund by the federal government, how much interest in the all on the money they borrowed? >> host: as far as a meta painters, why is that? >> caller: they've got $37 trillion as to debt owed his country to how much did we borrow from ourselves? >> host: let's go to wayne. wayne is in new york in ticonderoga, republican line. >> caller: hello, yeah. i was wondering about it that have been much thought or dialogue around the thought of having a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget. i also have heard some interesting ideas on the country returning to the gold standard and if any of that would help in terms of potus making balanced budget decisions by our lawmakers. i think that would help a lot

and why do you think the gold standard aspect is an important one? >> caller: well because our dollar would be based on something real, tangible, as opposed to something that just can be manipulated. >> host: that's wayne in new york calling in on this open forum for a couple stories to share with you from the "new york times" reporting on the four number of oath keepers group convicted of sedition in the second trial if the the defendants originally were charged along with other movers of the group but their trial was broken off in a separate proceeding by the judge in the case because of space considerations in the courtroom. if you go down in the street says the decision came hours after jury found richard barnett, photographically speaker nancy pelosi's office, guilty on eight charges including obstruction of an

official proceeding and theft of government property. the earlier trial members of oath keepers resulted in more mixed outcomes with two of the five defendants found guilty of seditious conspiracy in the most serious charge during the early case acquitted mr. rhodes of two separate charge of the government depicted the fence in the second trial as low in the organizations power hierarchy and those in the first case the more readily employed as foot soldiers for the group rather than top operational coordinators to "new york times" picks up that story if you go to the "washington times" it highlights the story and most of the papers this morning, jeff warnock writing a former top fbi counterintelligence official who was involved in the trunk russia collusion investigation was arrested on charges of conspiring to violate u.s. sanctions on russia. according to prosecutors announcing that on monday. charles has been special agent charge of fbi counterintelligence counterintelligence division in new york is accused of taking secret payments from russian

billionaire in exchange for investigating arrival oligarch according to court documents. if you want to see more, that's a "washington times." if you want to see it there. from new hampshire democrat's line. hello. >> caller: good morning. how are you this morning? >> host: i'm fine thank you. go ahead. >> caller: i want to discuss the gun laws that need to be changed so badly. it's high time the united states congress stepped up especially the republicans. it's time -- [inaudible] how would the entry -- who cares about the nra? because of the shootings there's a lot more important than the nra making all these campaign contributions. i think it's time the republican party stopped taking contributions and step up and enact some common sense, and laws that are going to save lives --

[inaudible] , i'm going to in. i'm going to apologize, only because you're starting to break up. ronald, jericho new york independent line. >> caller: good morning. i would like to suggest with open forum that you dedicate more of the time just to have people call and give their opinions, like today, for example, after you mention open for him the first thing you got was a commercial, c-span, and what it has to offer. and now you and other posts interject news stories into this period of time. there's little enough time for people to call in. give them just 100% of the opportunity during this limited period of time with no interruptions, no interjections

of news stories and so forth. >> host: kahler, thank you for the call. it's always been our practice to kind of not only give you the chance to talk about what you want to talk about in this open forum but we do interject news of political import especially if it happens in congress and the white house so that's part of the forum. it's been part of that over the many years c-span is operated. and so thank you for the call. thank you for noticing. it's part of what we do, including telling you about this poll from abc news and it sells. one of the features of the poll sickest of a large majority of americans believe both president trump former president donald trump 77% and joe biden 64% active in a properly and how they handle classified documents after leaving office, however. when asked which was more serious, plurality said former president trump's actions were more serious concern. the result was a comment and

question for the white house press secretary at the white house briefing yesterday. here's how she responded to it. >> we had a poll that abc/ipsos i was taken before the most recent items were discovered. found city 4% of americans believe the president acted inappropriately given the way he handled classified files. how worried is the white house that this issue is hurting the president's trustworthiness in the eyes of americans? >> look, our focus is going to continue basically what i said to your colleagues onto living for the american people. that's good to be a focus. that's with the presence presence going to do everyday in and out which is what can we do to make the lives of americans a little bit better. that's what he has done. i have laid out the of stored pieces of legislation that the president was able to do, some of them in a bipartisan way and many of them piece of legislation that passed by his economic policy plan has changed the lives and will change lives of millions of americans across the country. that's going to be our focus.

i'm not going to go into a rabbit hole are going to details of thoughts about polls. that's not what am going to do from here. what we're going to do is talk to all of you every day about what our message is to the american people and continue have that healthy back and forth and talk about our policies, talk about what the president is doing again everyday with the vice president come with his team to make sure that we deal with issues that truly, truly matter to the american people. >> host: that full press briefing by the way available at our website at c-span.org or you could also go to the c-span now app if you're interested in seeing it there. from massachusetts this is john republican line. >> caller: [inaudible] , john in massachusetts, republican line. [inaudible] one more time for john. okay. folks at home, example for you as far as making sure that you're ready to go when your time comes up it makes you turn your television done, you are

paying attention to name is called appreciate that you jump right in with your question a, particularly during this open forum. from calvin in georgia democrat's line. hello. >> caller: how are you today? >> host: fine thank you. go ahead, i'm calling to say another way to trim something of the budget, if congressman would take a pay cut and pay for the own health insurance. i think that would help this country in a lot, a lot of ways. thank you. >> host: let's go to jim. jim in iowa. independent line. >> caller: yes. good morning. and i am independent. i vote for people, not for the parties. maybe there should be more of us. my comment is, if you go to any type of federal sales tax, i realize that's consumption.

however, if you are retired, middle-class worker, you paid your share all during your work career, and now we will be penalized especially if it replaces payroll taxes, which we paid, and now that number of for sales tax would have to be astronomically high. we would definitely be penalized. i do not think that a federal sales tax would be an equitable or fairway to have tax. >> host: let's hear from anthony. anthony up in pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. [laughing] good morning, pedro. good morning c-span. pedro, last months congressman al green was on your program talking about border security. i called in and asked him a

question. and to his credit he did know the answer to the question, and he told me that he would have his staff look it up. and get back to me. sure enough you did. he kept his word. distaff called me and i spoke personally to congressman green about what the question i asked him. the question asked about asylum was and how the asylum laws are being abused. the first question i asked him, what percentage of people who claim asylum actually show up for the asylum claims? he gave me a number that 249,379 people showed up for the asylum in 2022. out of that, 22,264 cases were granted asylum. that's less than 10% of the people that show up. now that's only in 2022. 2,374,000,000, i mean 2,334,000

people showed up at our border. some people are claiming asylum. everybody knows it's a sham that when they claim asylum. they are not showing up and when they do show up only 10% are getting granted. the second question i asked him was, how many people get removed out of that? to his credit again he said there is no database being kept the people who are removed. therefore, we all know that these people who are not granted asylum are not being removed unless they commit a crime. we have an open door policy with joe biden, basically the statistics show that. anybody who says the border is closed is crazy. asylum needs to be upheld and we need to continue to follow the law. pedro, one more thing. , let me ask you, were you surprised you got the call back?

>> caller: i'm not a big al green fan, to be honest, pedro. in the past i seen as, as a detriment to our congress. when he said that he did not know the answer and he would get back to me, i was impressed, and i'm still impressed. >> host: okay. that's anthony in pennsylvania. let's hear from the monte in north carolina in raleigh, democrat's line. >> caller: hey, good morning good morning to you and good morning to c-span. i am a lieutenant governor candidate here in north carolina so thank you for the time. regarding the last speaker in pennsylvania, he has great information regarding the open border and immigration. i know in north carolina we are a sanctuary state, and so we have seen an influx of immigrants coming from venezuela, come in from other parts of south america to north

carolina, and jobs have been easily accessible to them. different healthcare, ebt, public transit whereas the homeless population in north carolina continues to grow. congressman nichol made a very interesting point. yeah, he said that yes, we do need to allow immigrants to come into our nation, come into our state, but we need to have immigration laws and for individuals to become u.s. citizens or obtain green cards legally. i believe that the 118th congress has a long way to go but but i think if they continue to work with republicans and independents, the agenda will continue to be pushed. regarding what the press secretary said about the economy, i do believe that at this present time the biden-harris administration should look into reparations for

individuals of slavery, the sense of slavery and shout of slavery. once we address the social economic standpoint with black americans i think we can ride out this inflation, but it starts with a black american population first. >> host: that's the monterey in north carolina. the "washington post" reporting the house minority leader hakeem jeffries has formally recommended that adam schiff and eric swalwell be reappointed to the house intelligence committee escalating a clash with the house speaker who has now to deny spots on the panel to both of us california democrats, quote, it is my interest in you intend to break with a long stenhouse tradition of deference to the minority party intelligence committee recommendations and deny seats to ranking member schiff and eric swalwell. he wrote in a letter, quote the deny seats to do elected member of house democratic caucus counts to the sears and sober

mission of the commissioner robert is next come independent line in north carolina. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: yes, on the social security they keep mentioning when they stop the bill, everybody, average life expectancy was 62. so they made 65 65 when you . so basically they were setting us up right from the beginning because let's make it 65 to retire because everybody is dying at the average age of 62. what good is it if you're going to die before you get all that money? that was about plan. every time it comes to social security, that's important to the majority of the elderly and we are living longer now. but all you senators and all you house of representatives they are all the greatest benefits. they travel. when they travel out of the

country they bring their spouse with them. they have great insurance, great retirement. and guess what? when they break the law you can't even do anything. we have people in our congress and in our senate that are basically been breaking the law since this big steel b.s., okay. sandy, republican line in ohio. next up. >> caller: is it for me? >> host: if you are sandy from ohio, yes. you didn't say the names i wasn't sure. yeah, i'm calling about the one with his that we need to get rid of the guns, which is what biden said, but don't they take an oath to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights as in part of the constitution? and biden said no amendment is absolute, so people are getting fired for telling the truth

about things. so we have no free speech anymore and they banned words. by the way, the gun thing, this has never happened when i grew up, ever. so the problem is that nobody goes to church anymore and is taught right from wrong. broken families, no father in the house. the democrats will give you a bigger welfare check as long as you don't have a father to help your child grew up with being taught right from wrong. little kids with guns. it's ridiculous. and then red flag laws, like 20 times that one guy, that one kid, 20 times. i mean, all of these red flag laws and that the arrest the kid or putting in a mental facility? so they want this to happen. they want -- biden, i mean obama

sent guns to mexico so that people would get killed so there would be an uproar. >> host: that is sand in ohio. you or someone in your family are related to someone may have attempted to buy taylor swift tickets back in november which caused the ticketmaster website to crash. a lot of vitriol coming out of that and now that's resulted in a hearing that takes place today on the senate side. it is a senate judiciary committee. they are going to hear testimony on the ticket promotion of fees of ticketmaster, also issues of competition and consumer protection. live coverage as that room starts to fill up for this hearing that takes place setting about five minutes from now. you can see it live on this network if you want to follow along and you're moving out and about today, our c-span now out a bill is to you as one of the website if you want to sit there at c-span.org. you may have heard of the concept of sports betting. "washington post" picks up the

concept of political betting, with a website called predicted saying it is a website where you can place bets and when my political outcomes such as who would win an election with the bill might pass and trivial things like, time zone trump would say the words crooked hillary at a debate some of the topics. this story says there's some 800, 80,000 people use predicted. begin operating in 2014. most of the user the site to casually throwing a few bucks a on an election but there are thousands of steps as its discovery could be more than a hobby or a job. also predict or a category called super forecasters who spend hours watching c-span. they goes on from there but if you're interested in such a concept when it comes to betting on political outcomes, go to that site or go to the "washington post" for that. brenda in pennsylvania democrat's line, hello.

>> caller: good morning. i would like to recommend everybody to want to learn facts about life in the united states, any aspect of life in the united states, i recommend that you buy a copy of the world almanac book of facts. and to the previous caller, in that book you will find statistics from the department of homeland security on the number of people that are deported every year. okay? i i encourage people to buy a cy of the world almanac book of facts. now to to our budget. people want to make our national, our annual budget very simple but it's not. congress sets the budget a year in advance. and the amount of money they're counting on is a guesstimate. they don't actually know how much money they have to spend and they're trying to set a budget a year in advance. federal income tax, federal revenue fluctuates daily.

for example, when i retired i didn't call the treasury and say hey, you know what, i retired. you're not going to get my $15,000 in federal income tax so you better pair off $18,000 of spending. so like i said, income fluctuates daily. congress is just projecting how much they will spend in the kindest that a budget a year in advance, plus no one really knows how much national devastation is going to be from natural disasters. you know what they are. >> host: got it, , got it. let's hear from mark in minnesota, independent line. we are just about to start this hearing shortly so going and jump on in. >> caller: this is mark from milford new hampshire. i got a quick message for my fellow americans out there. stop voting for this broken two-party system that no longer works for any of us except the

chosen few like millionaires and billionaires. if you don't like what's going on, please vote for third-party presidential candidate in 2024. >> caller: okay. mark in new hampshire finishing off of this round of open for and

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session, they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask permission to complete my remarks before the recess. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. durbin: 50 years ago this last sunday, the supreme court ruled that reproductive health care in america is a constitutionally protected right and that americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable, when and whether to start a family. the case was called roe v. wade. for those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of americans, the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. when roe v. wade was decided, our nation had a long way to go living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. as one example, women who are often required that at that time in history to ask their husbands for permission to ask for credit cards and women would have to bring along a man to cosign for a credit card. can you imagine that?

50 years later we have a long way to go. roe was a breakthrough. well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. you see it was seven months ago today when six right-wing judicial activists on the supreme court sent us back in time. of course i'm referring to the supreme court decision in dobbs versus jackson women's health organization, the crowning achievement of a republican-led decades-long campaign to overturn roe and abolish reproductive rights in america. the dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the supreme court. it ripped away rights to individuals, handing it over to suits. this not only overturned a nearly 50-year old precedent

that had been reaffirmed many times, they reached it to have the -- justice alito said that an abortion is not constitutionally protected because it is not deeply rooted in the nation's history. he's wrong. whether you think about abortion -- when you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. he wrote, embarrassingly for the majority, it does provide support for abortion right. the dissent noted that it did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb, as justice alito himself conceded, it was determined whether if it was punished before the 19th century. there is no precedent for overturning roe. it wasn't originalism.

it wasn't textualism, it was an outcome based on historic cherry picking. someone asked a question the other day, after this decision, should the justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? over the past seven months, republican lawmakers have picked up where the thomas alito court led off. they ripped away rights for millions of americans. overturning roe v. wade has unleashed a health care crisis in our country. in seven months 24 states have banned or severely restricted access to abortion. many of the bans provide no exceptions even for rape and incest. and all of these bans have added layers and layiers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. if these republican lawmakers

had actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning roe, if they had listened to all the americans who took to the streets protesting or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, maybe they would understand the simple truth, you cannot ban abortion out of existence. the only thing they achieved was pushing women into dangerous situations. we have seen the barbaric corn commonsenses of the republican -- consequences of abortion bans. they put every woman in danger. christina zelke, is one of those women. she recently shared hir r -- her story. she and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnancy. it the doctors

couldn't detect a heartbeat and determined it was a miscarriage. when asked what to do next, the doctor recommended that her body be given time to pass the pregnancy tissue. she and her husband decided to move on with their lives many they soon drove from washington, d.c., to ohio to attend a family wedding. during the provides christina started bleeding. she assumed her body passed the pregnancy -- but later -- tissue. it was later when christina went to an emergency room in painsville, ohio. her doctor told her the pregnancy would end in miscarriage, but when she went to the hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her

care because of the abortion ban. while christina was in danger and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. she showed the records showing the miscarriage. she was sent home. later that day she returned to the e.r., by that time she had to lose consciousness. christina's family thought she was going to die. let's be blunt. the only reason her life was in peril was because of ohio's state law banning abortion. this is america's post-roe reality. women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking state laws. ohio's abortion ban subjects health care providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses and fines up to

$20,000. the law is so unclear in ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. when you hear stories like that about christina, imagine if it was a men and women member -- ar family, your wife, the mother of your children, people hon want to live desperate -- who want to live desperately. it is no surprise that americans are fleeing red states to access essential health care in blue states. my state of illinois has become a leader on reproductive freedom, a so-called oasis. every single state that we border restricted or ended abortion. so our health care facilities are indispensable. before roe was overturned, only 6% of women seeking abortions in illinois planned parenthood facilities traveled from out of

state. 6%. since the dobbs decision that has jumped to 30%. our health care leadership has -- earlier this month, the governor signed al bill into law protecting women traveling to illinois for reproductive care. sadly this has made illinois providers a target. two days ago after the governor signed that new law, somebody firebombed a planned parenthood clinic in abortion, one that doesn't perform abortions. the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care, even for a procedure as simple as a pap smear has taken on new risks. lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this in any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. if there's any doubt that the dobbs decision has unleashed

chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. before roe was overturned, we had the highest mortality rate in the world. america, the can highest in the developed work. as of 2020, those are more than 6% higher in states with abortion restrictions. this is not a problem without a solution. studies show more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. these mothers can be saved, and one way to prevent them is expanding access to postpartum health coverage. that's why i worked with illinois congresswoman robin kelly, to pass a law that gives states the option to expand health coverage under medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a year. we led this effort because in our state one-third of prabsy-related -- pregnancy-related deaths are after 60 days postpartum. for states that outlawed

abortion, you'd imagine they'd take advantage of this benefit to expand health coverage for expectant mothers under medicaid. sounds like a no-brainer, right? apparently not. today there are 15 states that have not extended medicaid postpartum coverage. 12 of these states also passed laws restricting abortion. if they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them health care coverage for a full year after the baby is born, to save their lives and the baby's life? if a woman living in idaho or south dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you've had your baby those states, idaho and south dakota, refused to cover your health care during the most critical, dangerous poet -- t up period. this no world in which this is described as pro life. we in the senate can make a difference for all the women in america abandoned by their

states, and we do do it by restoring and codifying reproductive freedom and passing pro-family policies like the mama act, which mandates medicaid expansion of postpartum coverage. unfortunately, it seems the new maga majority in the house has other plans. this last weekend majority leader sceef scalise -- steve scalise pledged that the overturning of roe was the first phase of this battle. those are his words. his republican colleagues have already made good on it. less than one month into the new congress, house republicans introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. here's my promise -- every one of those bills is destined to fail in it comes to the -- fail if it comes to the senate. they're going nowhere, because this majority and president biden understand all americans deserve reproductive rights. until we have a congress and supreme court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist anti-choice agenda.

mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate >> this week senate lawmakers are working on judicial and executive nominations. members are recessing for the weekly party beating. >> expect to be back at about 2:15 p.m. eastern. follow live coverage of the senate when members return here on c-span2. c-span-ish unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that's why charter has invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big d small. charter is connecting us. >> charterommunications supports c-span as a