3-s of the yeas and nays are >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers are low income families can get ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning, the conversation on upcoming congressional action on infrastructure and reconciliation legislation as well as government funding and debt limit deadlines with georgia republican congresswoman buddy carter.

and budget and ways and means committee member, demi pennsylvania -- democratic pennsylvania congressman. also joe biden's u.n. speech. "washington journal >> on this vote the yeas are 220 and the neas are -- host: when funding expires the house passed on a partyline vote a package to fund the government through december of this year and suspend the debt limit through december 16, 2022. while the senate is expected to vote either later this week or early next week senate republicans have vowed to block

it. your reaction to what is happening to washington. democrats (202)-748-8000, republicans (202)-748-8001, independents (202)-748-8002. you can text us at (202)-748-8003 and you can join us on facebook, twitter and instagram. we will get to your phone calls, texts and tweets in a minute. last night before the house passed the debt ceiling raise in the funding of the government here is the speaker of the house meeting her pitch to lawmakers. >> this funding will also include the suspension of the debt limit through december 2022. addressing the debt limit is

about protecting the full credit of the united states which the founders wrote into the constitution in the 14th amendment. the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. this is not about future spending. no, this is about paying bills already incurred including social security recipients, veterans and millions who have benefited from the covid relief legislation last december. as i have said before, congress is ironclad in its commitment to never letting the credit of the united states, under threat. a commitment that has long been bipartisan. our approach is modeled after legislation proposed by gop senators in recent years.

since 2011 each of the seven times the debt limit has been addressed congress has done so on a bipartisan basis, including three times during the trump administration when the debt rose $7.8 trillion. much of that incurred in terms of honoring the commitment on covid but a big chunk of it in a tax scam to give benefits to the top 1%. just 3% of the current debt has been accumulated under the biden administration. threatening to force the united states into default would be reckless beyond measure. republicans tried this years ago and even the thought of not honoring the full faith and credit lowers our credit rating. host: the speaker of the house

making the argument on the floor lawmakers should move forward with raising the debt ceiling and funding the government through december of this year. republicans are arguing they don't want to go along with this and they shouldn't go along with this because democrats have lower spending plans. listen to the republican of pennsylvania dan mauser. [video clip] >> the national debt threatens to burden future generations and limit prosperity. after spending $5 trillion in the last year, $3.6 trillion for covid relief, it is time to address the issue. the democrat majority has rushed headlong toward excessive and unnecessary spending. working families are already feeling the impact of the $1.9 trillion spending bill which drives record inflation. now democrats are moving forward

with a $3.5 trillion may be $5 trillion spending spree which is not only the single largest bill ever brought before congress, spending bill that is, it is the largest tax bill, largest anti-domestic energy bill, largest entitlement bill, largest amnesty bill ever. the only thing that got cut was the $1 billion from the iron dome funding for defense of israel. the bill would actually limit private sector growth which is the source of the revenue, the golden goose if you will, and would crowd out any benefit spending would have. this comes from the wharton school of business. this is nothing short of suffocating free-market capitalism. democrats are asking republicans to sign a blank check for reckless spending.

the democrats are asking us to suspend the debt ceiling for the remainder of their time and the majority to finance reckless spending while we stand on the sidelines, which we are not going to do. as the senate minority leader put it, this is like signing a loan before a heavy gamble trip to las vegas. democrats want unlimited authority to finance big government socialist agenda leaving the american people to pay for these irresponsible policies in more ways than one. we cannot stand for this. host: the republican argument against raising the debt ceiling. we want to turn to you. it is your turn to tell washington what you think. wayne in brentwood, tennessee what do. you think they should do in washington? caller: dan mauser is correct spirit i have 10 grandchildren under the age of six.

the inflation that is going to result will be the most onerous tax on poor people in the united states. i think he is absolutely correct. we should not extend the debt limit. host: you react to democrats saying it is not about future spending but the spending done under the trump administration? it would pay for the cares act which got bipartisan support and signed by the president for covid-19 relief and they argue the tax hikes under the trump administration? caller: i think when you are bankrupt it does not matter how you got there. we are bankrupt right now with the debt that we have. we cannot pay it off. the definition of bankruptcy is owing more money than you can pay. it doesn't matter how we got there, we have to make a move.

you cannot continue to spend money that you do not have no matter who started it. host: tony in connecticut, independent. what do you think? caller: good morning. i think we are only shown half the story. i spoke to you last month when you showed the last spending bill and i said, you only showed half of the money. and it is not just c-span, this is the rest of the media. you only show the high-level stuff. that is half the amount. you admitted to me on tv that we will look into it. i watch you guys every day. you still show just half of the stuff everybody is looking at and not what people are voting for. maybe we could get some honesty and get a legitimate debate if

we saw all the money being spent. not just like on the infrastructure bill. they took $1 billion out of the israeli budget? are they nuts? i don't understand this country. someone do the math on the trillions of dollars we are going to spend once the interest rate goes up. oh, my god. host: larry in chicago texted to say, can someone what is the point of the debt ceiling if it is not followed? why is this always discussed when it keeps happening all the time? from the washington post editorial board, a cap on the amount of debt the united states can incur does not authorize any new spending. it just allows the government to finance spending congress already has approved because federal revenue comes in waves and because the united states

runs the deficit the government can rely for only so long on its monthly income. the treasury must issue bonds to cover the gaps between what the government means to pay and the actual means. dealing with the debt limit is a bipartisan exercise in part because failing to do so would be catastrophic. right now from the wall street journal they report the treasury department is currently using emergency measures to cover america's bills until the debt limit is raised or suspended. glenn in texas, republican. it is your turn. caller: good morning. i am opposed to extending the debt limit because that is giving the democrats more money to go out and campaign in their

upcoming election in 2022. i would like to see the republicans either get more democrats online to quell this trillion dollars spending joe biden is wanting to do. we have got to get this guy out of office. in eight muncie brought the united states from greatness to poorness. he has ruined this country in eight months. it will take 10, 20 years to get back on the american stage as far as being a superpower in the world. host: temple, texas, democrat caller. what do you think of the debt ceiling? ardell, you are muffled. caller: ok. when the republicans were in charge of the debt ceiling they

had a unanimous vote with the democrats and they had money they were giving to all the rich people and corporations and they did very good for the people that needed the money. but now it has turned around. when the democrats want to give money to us, the normal americans, the republicans don't want to vote unanimous. they want to vote that we don't get anything. why did the republicans feel it is all right to give money to the ceos and corporations but when it comes time to give money to the people they got a problem with that?

the money belongs to the people. we pay more taxes than the corporations or the ceos do. when it is time to spend money it is time to spend money on the people. host: jonathan in auburn, georgia, independent. what is your message to washington on this debate? caller: from my understanding the democrats are in control. all they need is a 51 majority vote on reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling on their own. [laughs] host: reconciliation is separate. a continuing resolution that would fund the government through december of this year and then they would have to come up with spending levels by that next deadline. they tied this to raising the debt ceiling through december

2022. putting it on the plate of republicans of whether or not they are going to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling, pay our bills, or let there be a government shutdown. caller: from what mitch mcconnell said yesterday he was saying what i just said. democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they can do it. 51 vote majority will do it. host: amy in hawaii, democratic caller. caller: hello? host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i am rooting for the bill because president biden is doing a really good job and i think they should vote for the bill. it would help a lot of people that really need it. that is what i am for. host: bernard in new york.

caller: good morning, c-span. i am going to make this statement that you might think is outrageous. intelligent people might understand it. what we are doing here is trying to destroy america. this is not happenstance what is going on. this is part of the plan that has been going on for more than 50 years. it seems to take over america to turn it into a one-party, socialist/communist system where the only ones that the democratic party will dominate america. we will turn into a fascist country. host: the previous caller said democrats want to raise the debt

ceiling and that they should do it on their own. politico with the headline, shutdown patch. the house and debt fix to the senate demise. all but four republicans said they would vote against it. kennedy and a few other senators are likely to vote -- they said the funding bill needs at least 10 republicans to make it through the upper chamber and it is expected to fall short. there is a 60 vote threshold in the senate. they do need republicans to vote for this package. listen to the majority leader chuck schumer making the argument on the floor. [video clip] >> we know the republican justification for forcing default is totally dishonest, plain and simple. don't ask me. just listen to the wall street journal.

quote, "congress would still need to raise the debt limit this fall even if no new major spending programs were enacted. " our continuing resolution would suspend the debt limit through december 2022, commence threat with the debt incurred as a result of passing the bipartisan $908 billion covid legislation last year. remember, that was drafted by republicans, voted for by republicans, put on the floor by leader mcconnel who voted for it, and signed by a republican president. democrats work with our colleagues to pass this bill because it was the right thing to do for our families, small businesses and suffering communities. our cr is now carefully tailored

to account for this debt. this is as reasonable as it gets. for republicans to suddenly throw their hands in the air and abscond from the responsibility to pay debt that they proudly supported is nothing short of a dine and dash of epic proportions. host: that was chuck schumer urging republicans to vote for the debt ceiling. on twitter, democrats want to raise taxes on your income, your retirement savings and your debt. everyone will end up paying more. if the democrats want to go it alone on the spending, they are going to have to go alone on raising the debt ceiling.

kevin cramer, they should have no problem raising the debt ceiling on their own either. ivy in the bronx, democratic caller. caller: i think we should go with biden's plan and they should raise the debt ceiling. i think the republicans are always throwing out a red herring because when they are in office they do exactly what you said, they raise the debt ceiling for themselves. i have to budget my home. i am always including the debt that i occur. i am making sure i pay off my debt and take care of my utilities, my rent, my food.

as inflation grows it is going to grow. the republicans just don't want to take the money from the rich. they still stick with trickle-down economics and we seen that does not work. host: on twitter derek says, let's not honor the ridiculous tax breaks for the wealthy. you have mitchell in new jersey, we have seen this movie before. the full facing credit of the united states is perpetually being used as a ludicrous cudgel by republicans to manipulate their base and influence spending. each side will try to call each other's bluff but this will get past. we really should raise the debt limit to an amount so hide this never becomes an issue again. dave in illinois, debt does not matter under republican presidents, just biden. dan says, my grocery bills have risen, my state is raising my electric bills for green energy. the inflation needs to stop.

kenny in georgia, good morning. what do you say? caller: i got the issue fixed. if you look at the debt clock, gold should be priced at $20,000 per ounce. if we went back on the gold standard, we could use our reserves to pay off all the debt if they wanted to give up all the gold or a significant portion of it. that is the answer which i suspect eventually we are going to get to because the rest of the world is going to lose faith in the dollar and it will come to that eventually. host: richard in louisville, kentucky, republican. what do you think is happening here in washington? caller: first off, you have to understand just because you are republican does not mean you are conservative. if you go back and look at the spending bills when donald trump

was president and we had controlled congress, you had conservative tea party members that said, this is not and they voted against it. but because you had every drunken sailor on the democrats and a bunch like mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy on the republicans they passed it. you had a gentleman a second ago saying we need to pay off the debt. you are never going to pay off the debt, you just kick the can down the road. look at your grandchildren in the eyes and say, i'm going to make it so miserable for you when you grow up there is a chance you will have nothing. do not allow the debt ceiling to rise. host: here is what the treasury secretary wrote in a recent wall street journal piece. "the u.s. has never defaulted. not once. doing so would likely precipitate a historic financial crisis that would compound the damage of the continuing public health emergency.

default could trigger a spike in interest rates, steep drop in stock prices and other financial turmoil. our current economic recovery would reverse into recession. with billions of dollars of growth and millions of jobs lost." jonathan in virginia. caller: good morning. the debt ceiling discussion in congress is political theater. congress discussing the debt limit is like lions getting together and promising to only zero when they are hungry. because we have a fiat currency system money can be created out of thin air so there is no real tangible limit on the amount of money we can create. when richard nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971 to fund the vietnam war he

destroyed the integrity of our currency and now the chickens are coming home to roost. get ready, america. there is nothing we can do to stop it. have a pleasant day, greta. host: this is from politico's reporting about what passed in the house last night and is being sent to the senate. they will vote later this week or early next week and political reports this package would keep the government funded at current levels through december 3, presenting a preholiday spending deadline. it also includes $28.6 billion in disaster aid, including for red states, as well as $6.3 billion for afghan refugees. all of that tied to a debt fix as well.

it is headed to the senate and will meet its demise there. lenesta in florida, democratic caller. caller: mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy would do anything to destroy anything joe biden has in place. this is all political theater. they did not complain when trump ran up the deficit by cutting off taxes from the rich. this is all political gauge for the gop hypocrisy. i vote that we extended the debt and let the republicans shut down government if that is what they want in their future. host: aaron in baltimore, maryland. caller: i am calling to give my opinion on the debt ceiling

debacle which is political theater. the debt came through the trump administration. biden wants to add another couple of trillion. we are in trouble and somebody has got to get a grip on washington, d.c. and the people who run this country. host: james in indiana. when your social security payments to stop don't point your finger at the democrat party. mitch and the republicans want to shut down the government because they do not know how to govern. vote these guys out. terrance in michigan, we will go to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is not theater if we default. that is a reality i think republicans are willing to go.

they don't want government to work. i don't know how many times you and me taxpayers are going to bail out corporations and banks. the largest employer in this country is the pentagon at 3 million. is that socialism? i don't think so but we have to figure out how to pay for this debt. i hope we can do something in this country. it is pretty clear we are stagnant, we cannot even fill a pothole in this country. there are so many things that we could do here. raising the debt ceiling is going to be one of those things that has to be done. you have to figure out how to pay for it but it is clear in this country we are stagnant and incapable of doing anything, and clearly republicans like that

government. they do not want government to work. this is not going to be theater if the republicans go ahead and look down the road of defaulting. we will see the repercussions of that like we have not seen the repercussions already of republicans and how they operate. host: he mentions infrastructure separate from what the house passed. they passed a continuing resolution to keep agencies funded at current levels through december 3 and they tied that to raising the debt ceiling until december 2020 two. they also need to deal this week under democratic control the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill and they want to move forward on the build back better plan by the president.

that is also happening here in washington. we go to paul in florida, and republican. caller: good morning. you know what i long for? i long for the return to a piece of history with the united states you will never see in history books. that which people my age, over 70 years old, remember well and that is the days when people would hardly ever even vote. it sounds bad at first but the reason was the democrats and republicans agreed on so much stuff there was no difference between them. why vote? they pretty much merely wanted

the same thing. that was the boring history of politics in the united states and i would love to return to those days. host: ok. caller: as far as the current situation is concerned there was nothing the democrats haven't said the republicans have not said to the democrats when it comes to the debt ceiling. they say the same thing against each other with the other is in power. come on, that is what is going on. but there is one element people need to realize is happening that is different. when donald trump had his tax reduction and all that stuff going on he had a 10 year plan for balancing the budget. the democrats don't have that. as a matter of fact, even after the congressional budget office said these changes don't pay for themselves the democrats were

still out there saying it pays for it. here is the signal to me. the government does not have any intention whatsoever of paying the debt it is racking up. none whatsoever. what does that mean for the average american? there is only one way to pay it off. it will pay off, believe me. the inflation of roller coasters is not going to stop and the only way to pay it off is to inflate past the value, the value of the dollar, to the point where the economy balances and that is going to devastate the lowest tier of our economy. host: i have got to leave it there. we are going to take a break. if you have called in, hang on the line. for others thinking of calling, please do so. when we come back we talked to republican buddy carter of georgia and later brendan boyle

of pennsylvania. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: today the president of the children's defense fund and economist douglas holtz aiken will testify on the coronavirus crisis. watch a live beginning at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org or on the free c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: you can be part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's video competition. if you are a middle high school student, create a five or six minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? it must show supporting and opposing points of view on a federal policy or program that affects you or your community

using c-span video clips which can be accessed at c-span.org. it awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have the shot of the grand prize with $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. to get started visit the website at studentcam.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us is congressman buddy carter, republican of georgia and member of the budget committee. how did you vote last night on the package to raise the debt ceiling and continue funding the government? guest: i voted no along with 210 of my colleagues. host: why? guest: first of all, we need to decouple these things. what the speaker is trying to do

is to get cute, if you will, and combine things that would entice one to vote for something and at the same time include the debt limit, which i am not going to vote to extend because that will just give them the opportunity, them being the democrats, to pass the $3.5 trillion socialist wishlist. host: when republicans were in control and president trump was president did you vote for the tax cut? caller: absolutely. guest: tax cuts were one of the signature pieces of legislation that were passed by that republican administration and i think it was a great stimulus and proving to be just that. host: did you vote for the cares act? guest: i voted for the cares act, yes. the first four bills, i guess

you could say there were five, but i did vote for it yes. host: you heard the speaker on the floor say, raising the debt ceiling is to pay for those two things that you voted for. how do you respond? guest: i think that is erroneous and intentionally misleading on her part. obviously a pandemic is an extraordinary event that has happened that all of us have never experienced in our lifetime and certainly called for extraordinary measures and we did that when we passed the cares act. i would say the cares act was good for our country and provided the paycheck protection program which saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in my district alone.

it was something that was very much needed. that was one part of it and there were other parts that were certainly beneficial to all of us and beneficial to the systems of this country. host: why's it erroneous for the speaker to say we have to pay that bill? we promised to spend that money and now we have to pay it. guest: i think it is erroneous because what her intention is is to raise the debt limit so that the democrats the $3.5 trillion socialist wishlist. that is the reason they are trying to increase the debt limit. have got to get spending under control. i am a father of three and grandfather of soon to be six. what we are doing here is settling future generations with the debt they are not going to be able to overcome. we've got to get the debt in

order. what it is going to result in is going to be lower quality of life for our children and grandchildren and that is just something i am not willing to do. host: the washington post says a cap on the amount of debt does not authorize any new spending, it just allows the government to finance spending congress is already approved. because federal revenue comes in waves and the united states runs the deficit the government can rely for only so long on its monthly income. the treasury must issue bonds to cover the gap between what congress has promised to pay and the government's means to pay it. failing to do so would be catastrophic. your response. guest: look, nobody wants to see a scenario where we default. i don't think that is the intent of republicans or democrats but

at the same time we have proven time and time again that we cannot control spending. i will go as far as to say that is republicans and democrats. we need something extraordinary to make us become accountable, fiscally, and perhaps this is it. you can make the argument you have already spent the money. i did not authorize this relief package. i was not in favor of it. i voted against it. we have got to get this under control and it is going to take something extraordinary to force us to get under control. host: don in california, republican. caller: i have a few things to say. the first is the sad, sorry excuses from the democrats.

the first, trump did it. you went to harvard, you went to yale to make an excuse like a child who says my brother did it, i want to do it? that really blows my mind and the saddest excuse is to get in front of the camera and say, hey, we are so bad at managing the money that we are going to go into default unless we raise the debt limit and the default will hurt you. i am not sorry for it one bit. you are going to have to raise the debt limit or you are going to hurt, not me. i am going to keep getting my checks. i cannot believe this stuff coming out of washington, d.c. now days. i am in california. i am paying $5 a gallon for gas, i am paying more on electricity then anyone else in the country, and then the

government says it wants more of my money like i/o them. -- i owe them. you guys have become a sad -- i don't even know what to call it -- caricature. host: let's get a response. guest: i think these are valid points made by the caller. you talk about the price of gas, you talk about the fact inflation has run rampant in the democrats will argue, it is transitory. as soon as we get the supply chain worked out they will go away. i don't believe that for one minute and i don't believe the caller believes that. the cost of gas has gone up 37% and what is this package going to do? it is going to build more inflation and cause more inflation. inflation is nothing more than tax. it is nothing more than a pay cut for people. that is what we have to keep in mind and that is what this 3.5

trillion dollar socialist wishlist is going to do. what is going on in washington right now is all tied into what the democrats are trying to do with this $3.5 trillion socialist wishlist. we could resolve these problems we have right now with the debt limit, the infrastructure, we could pass the $1.1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill although i do have concerns about it. nevertheless, we could get that done if the democrats would do away with this $3.5 trillion monstrosity they are proposing. by the way, it is really not $3.5 trillion it is $5 trillion and this is bernie sanders proposal. $68 trillion over the next 10 years, adding $17 trillion to the national debt. it is already around $27

trillion, $28 trillion. this is ridiculous. host: romney in san jose, california, independent. ronnie, are you with us? last call. mike in long beach, california, democratic caller. caller: i am actually independent. i am just looking at everything historically and this debt started during the ronald sagan administration in this belief of a trickle down theory that by cutting taxes for the higher income people you would get an extraordinary growth. we did get good growth during his years but that has quite a bit to do with the baby boom generation getting into their

peak spending years. bill clinton bounced that budget but in january 2021 we did have a balanced budget. because there is a trickle down that bush put into place in 2001 and 2003 which created the annual deficit we see today, add in trump's tax breaks and we have the debt we are bringing about today. we are not bankrupt. it is time to start raising taxes and somebody has got to pay. host: let's take that argument. congressman? guest: what we have got is a spending problem. what we have to do is cut up the credit cards in washington, d.c. it has been proven time and again the tax cuts, it does stimulate the economy.

i would watch much rather give the ability to spend the money to the people instead of the government. that has been proven not to work time and time again. the tax cuts that were put in place did stimulate the economy. you mentioned yourself during the reagan years that the tax cuts, the trickle down effect, it did have a positive influence. that is what we need to do. but we need to keep in mind the problem in washington, d.c. is a spending problem. until we get control of our spending in congress, both among democrats and republicans, we are always going to have this problem. host: laura in spokane, washington, republican. caller: good morning. pleasure to talk to you. my concern is the amount -- the government gathers 3.6 trillion

dollars every year in taxes and i want to know why that is not enough? [laughs] it is a lot of money but here we have this big bill that does nothing for the country. it does something for somebody's agenda but nothing for the country or american people. when president trump went in he got the money he needed to build up the military, people could stay in business because those did not just go to the rich. they went straight to the employees and that helped families, it helped businesses, they could get business equipment, get employees. it was going really well. but to add this $3.5 trillion and another $1.5 trillion, i don't believe we have the right kind of people that can handle that kind of money responsibly. host: congressman?

guest: i think she hit the nail on the head. i think this young lady is correct. it does not matter if it is $3.76 trillion or $1 trillion. if you cannot control what you spend, it does not matter how much you bring in. what we have got is a spending problem. if you are going to bring in 3.7 $6 trillion, you have to spend that amount. if you bring in $1 trillion, you need to only spend $1 trillion. the problem is spending. how do we do it up here? we say these are the programs we bought and this is how much it is going to cost. we are going to spend that much money. well, we are only bringing in $3.76 trillion but we wanted 5 trillion so we're just going to go into debt. sooner or later it catches up

with you and it is now catching up with us. until we can be fiscally responsible and only spend what we bring in that is when we get things under control. i was a small businessman over 32 years. you think i could have revenue of $1 million and spent $2 million? i could never do that. if i had revenue of $1 million i was going, to have to either figure out how i was going to increase revenue or i was going to have to cut expenses to be appropriate with that $1 million. that is what we need to be doing in washington, d.c. host: lee roy in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: i basically want to say it seems when the republicans get an office they do what they want to do and there is nobody to stop them. they run roughshod over the top

of the democrats and do whatever they want to do. when trump got in office he let the rich people bring all of those hidden taxes they have offshore flood in for literally nothing that obama was trying to stop. they got that. you might as well say almost tax free and then trump turns around and gives a tax cut for the rich on top of that. i mean, we always got money for this country or that country or this country and it is the working people here they are taking the money from but they feel like they have a problem sharing the money and spreading the money around to help people that is here. host: let's get a response. congressman?

guest: i can understand the frustration. it is frustrating to me too. president trump had the policy of america first and that meant we were going to make sure we were taking care of our own. it is important to take care and to help and be humanitarian and other countries, i get that. but we cannot take our eye off of what is going on in america. look, we all want everybody to pay their fair share whether you are rich, poor, middle class. you want everyone to pay their fair share and i think that is incumbent upon us as lawmakers and as members of congress and legislature to make sure that is indeed happening. i am committed to trying to do that and have been since i have been up here. host: under the tax cuts passed by republicans and president trump did you make sure that the wealthy were paying their

fair share? guest: that seems to be the democrats' rally cry. fair share, what is fair share? let's face it, this war on rich people and those who have been successful in capitalism and i have been both. i have been poor and i am comfortable. i am not wealthy but i am comfortable. it is frustrating for people to pay in and see all of this waste. i am constantly reminding myself of that. whenever i am voting on the bill i think of it in terms of, wait a minute. what about the guy like my dad who worked shift work in a paper mill for an hourly wage? what are they thinking about this and how's it going to

impact them and is it going to help them? i also want to think about those people who are stimulating the economy and investing in our economy. how's it going to affect them if they are going to be creating jobs? there is a fine line here but i am growing weary of this fair share argument that joe biden has been making all the time. it is wearing thin i will tell you that. host: john in north carolina, republican. caller: thanks. i cannot believe what is going on up in washington. i am most 78 years old. my wife and i live on $1800 a month. i remember when gas is over two dollars a gallon, all the food is going up.

i don't understand it. people like me, that is who is hitting hard and i wish they could do something. do not let people intimidate you. host: congressman? guest: what a great call and this is what we were talking about about inflation. $1800 a month trying to make ends meet and yet, gases going up, food is going up, and the staples we have to have are going up. inflation is a tax. it is a tax on everyone. that is what we have to keep in mind. this $3.5 trillion socialist wish list is to build more inflation. it is the build more inflation act and that is what it is going to do. it is going to hurt people like the caller.

that is the people it is going to hurt the most. when we talk about inflation who does it hurt the most? it hurts low income and middle-low income people. they are the ones that can least afford it. that is what we have to keep in mind and this monstrosity of a bill is going to do nothing more than increase inflation. host: joel in michigan, democratic line. caller: first of all, i will say this. when trump got into office gallon was $2.28. it got up to $2.89 during his administration and nobody cares about that. the gas rate right now is the same increase as it was under trump. in 2018i was paying two point $89 a gallon.

when trump got in it was $2.89. as far as the tax rebate, i would advise you to go and look up the icap reports where they said that was a buyback program and that is what i cap reported. they reported there are companies like chevron and halliburton who pay no taxes, make millions of dollars, and receive millions of dollars in tax rebates. it is not for the poor people. it is a republican corporate welfare system where the rich get richer. host: we will have the congressman respond. guest: first of all, out of all due respect, i have to disagree. tax cuts do work and they do

help lower income people and middle income people. you have more money to spend. inflation is nothing more than a tax and it is going to hurt people on fixed incomes. if we can get more money into the economy through the tax cuts, there is more money for people to spend and that just has a beneficial effect on the whole system. that is what was accomplished during the trump administration and that is why our economy was running. now we get joe biden in office and what happens? we have inflation through the roof. we have gas going up. food going up, all those things we have to have are going up in price and now we find the money that we have doesn't go as far as it did before. that's a problem.

host: morton in virginia, independent. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: the advise the congressman is using in regards to a balance sheet and that he cannot spend more than he brought in and revenue is a ludicrous device trying to apply this to the federal budget. a business cannot spend money into existence. a family sitting at the kitchen table with a credit card stack and checkbook cannot spend money into existence. the taxes are not needed to fund government revenue. let me say that one more time. taxes for government revenue and expenditure are not needed. the government spends new money into existence, it then recovers that in the form of taxes to hold down inflation.

you need to turn things upside down and look at it a different direction. it is called modern monetary theory and pretty well tested. thank you very much. host: congressman? guest: that is certainly an interesting perspective. i apologize but i would have to look at that more before i comment on it. i do think that we need more business people in washington, d.c. and more business thinking minds. people like myself have signed the front of a paycheck and understand what it is like to sweat, to make sure that you have got enough money in your checking account to cover the people who are depending on you and working with you and for you. that is what i think the kind of

business model we need to be using in washington, d.c. as far as generating money and just putting more money? i think that is irresponsible. host: vivian in tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning. why don't you republicans eliminate the debt limit? we are the only country that do that. when you was in there i watched you. you did this to this country. biden came in and it was over. you know what? i am sick and tired of republicans. all of you have the same talking points. it is about time the democrats call you all out. during the pandemic trump was the president. people died because of him. you did not hold this man responsible. the lobbyists are paying you off. we have all seen it now.

we are suffering in georgia when you're up there don't want people to vote, people with no water, people can't afford medicine. how can you sit up there with a straight face and say this to america? host: vivian, there are a lot of issues. is there one question for the congressman? caller: yes. why are you doing this to us? the debt limit needs to be eliminated. we are the only country that do that. host: congressman? guest: why are we doing this? why are we trying to be fiscally responsible? because of my children, my grandchildren and my grandchildren's children. if we continue on this track, this country is going to diminish and diminish significantly. this is intergenerational theft. settling our future generations with this much in debt. this is unacceptable and you

responsible on our part. you know, every generation wants the next generation to have a better. this may be the first time that we don't see that happening. i know i had it better than my dad's generation. my dad had it better than his dad's generation. and i'm not sure that my children, and i'm certainly not sure that my grandchildren are going to have as good as i had it. that is the reason why it will take tough choices and tough decisions to be made to get our fiscal house in order. and we've got to do that. that is the responsibility we've been charged with, the responsibility that we take very seriously, and that we will make sure that we do. always appreciate the conversation with you. thank you very much. we will continue with this topic and the passage of a package last night in the house along

party line votes to raise the debt ceiling and continue funding the government. it heads now to the senate. senate republicans say that it won't pass because all but four has said they won't vote for the package. joe, maine, independent. we don't have the congressman anymore, but what you think about this debate? caller: i am so sorry that i missed the governor -- whoever he was. the congressman. the question i had for him is what is his definition of a live? the republican tax bill that was passed put all kinds of debt on it. when in the last four years that he vote against any, any budget raise or any tax bill that went to the top 1%. i wanted to ask the gentleman if he did that, the people that

will be taxed on the bill that he is fighting for. straight out, the money in this new budget bill we are trying to pass today has nothing to do with the debt. the republicans made this lie up . all of a sudden -- that budget money was supposed to be paid for. it has nothing to do with this bill that is in congress today. he sat there and he lied about it and you confronted him on it. he never answered the question, because -- and another thing that i wanted to ask him, i couldn't send in my tax return on a postcard the last three years. you do remember the promise of getting a postcard to get your taxes on? you remember that republican promise? host: hehost: never did nothing about that. chicago, republican, your turn.

caller: it is so ridiculous to hear congressman buddy make the argument that he wants to be fiscally responsible. was it fiscally responsible to extend the secret service detail to all of trump's adult children for months and months and months beyond -- host: are you a republican? caller: on occasion, but it is hard to find decent republicans nowadays. we do have one in illinois, kissinger has been trying to keep the party straight, but it is obviously now the maggot party -- the maga party. would be republicans be all right with hunter biden getting secret service detail for months on end? host: thomas, what do you think should happen in washington?

should the senate republicans joined democrats, enough of them, to raise the debt ceiling fund the government through december? caller: i really think we won't get anything done with the republican party. you have four supreme court justices and raise the debt. they promised to stop the war, they didn't do that. everything that they promise has always benefited them, not the people of america. first, they need to stop cutting the income that they receive from serving in the congress. they need to cut their budget. they are millionaires, it takes millions of dollars to run for office. you have to stand behind them,

all of the people getting paid. if you consider all of the money going to pay bills, some of the poorer states are getting more money than new york a state that pays more taxes. they are not considering child education, food stamps -- they want to cut food stamps and social programs that are beneficial. they want to prioritize veterans. they are not considering any of those things. the only thing they are considering is to make the country a place of division. host: republicans are saying we will vote to fund the government , just untie it from raising the debt ceiling. the headline, mcconnell and shelby, the chair of the committee that oversees this in

the senate, offered government funding bill without the debt ceiling tied to it. esther, canton, ohio, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. can biden understand all these things? i apologize for that, but my checkbook it has zero balance, that means i don't have no money. i would think that we need to have something to balance here. if money is coming in, money is going out, you and i have to live on a budget. if our house payment is $500, we cannot pay $400. host: let me stop you and read, in case you missed it, from the washington post editorial board. they explain the debt ceiling this way. a cap on the amount of debt that the united states can incur. the debt limit does not

authorize any new spending. it just allows the government to finance spending congress has already approved. because federal revenue comes in waves and because the united states runs a deficit government can rely for only so long on its monthly income. the treasury must issue bonds to cover the gaps between what congress has promised to pay and the government's means to pay it. dealing with the debt limit is typically bipartisan in part because failing to do so would be catastrophic, defaulting on our debt. does that help you understand a little bit? caller: to me it is bankruptcy. either way we are going to have inflation like venezuela and have nothing here, or we are going to have to do something here and work together is how i see it. host: should republicans when they controlled the congress a mr. trump was the president, should they have done something then?

caller: well, to tell you the truth, i think we should have done things back in the 1950's, because it was different way back then than it is today and they had balanced budgets then and they did things and they did have a budget and they didn't have what we are having today. another thing is people took care of their people. i would never send my mother to a nursing home unless it was absolutely necessary. today they don't care for their folks like they did back then. if somebody was hungry, my grandmother, i remember during the depression years a hobo came to her house and she took bread off of her table to share with that man. i don't see that today. host: let me go on to richard in

tallahassee, florida. would you think about the debate in washington? caller: i think it is ridiculous. i have three comments. i think mr. buddy -- i forgot his last name, the previous gentleman. he was totally untruthful. he represented himself as being comfortable and not wealthy. his net worth in 2018 was $13 million. if he wants to cut the budget and balance the budget, he needs to put forth a motion for the congress to be paid minimum wage , and for their housing to be provided in public housing units. then they can do their work. that will cut the budget and help balance the budget. host: fred, texas, democratic caller. your turn. caller: america, our congress is

broken. congress, it is time for the american people to stand up and be counted. we are going to have to vote them out. we are going to have to vote the republicans out. that is the bottom line. host: kathy, delaware, republican. what do you think that your party should do? caller: thank you for taking my call. this legislation that is proposed, the most dangerous thing about it, not just the spending in the waste, but there is a proposal that the banks now have to send to the federal government any time $600 in deposits or more is made to an individual's bank. host: what proposal are you talking about? caller: i didn't know about it until someone mentioned it and i googled it and it said, yes, it

is in part of the legislation of one of the bills that is proposed, and it just shocked me that the government would be allowed to go into your bank account and force the banks to report anything that exceeds $600. host: what we are talking about is the house, all democrats voting for a proposal last night, a package, that raises the debt ceiling through december 2022 and continues running the federal government, giving spending money to agencies to continue operating through december of this month. that is what they voted for, all democrats voted for it, all republicans voted against it, it goes to the senate. we showed you the political headline throughout the morning where they report that it will

meet its -- politico headline throughout the morning where they report that it will meet its demise. george, texas, independent. caller: good morning. the strangest thing about the whole discussion is in 60-something odd years i don't know a single time when the actual budget outlay has ever been cut. they keep talking about cuts made in the past. they were always for the most part cut of expansion of growth rate, not actual cuts in the total aggregate budget. in the last 10 to 15 years we haven't even had a budget. they haven't done what their job is. where they are going with this, all of the people who keep saying that the tax has nothing to do with how much you can spend is insane. host: ohio, democratic caller.

caller: yes, i have been a registered democrat for many years. until donald trump came into office i finally voted republican. because of the situation in the current debt my family right now would owe $87,000 per person which would be $348,000 for me as a single mom with three kids. i worked three jobs. there is no way that i could ever pay $348,000 to the government. they have no right to increase the debt ceiling, because that would only increase from $87,000 per person to a whopping -- i don't even know. unlimited is what they are

saying. my question is when will the spending stop and when will we start budgeting? this is a scary number. i worked three jobs. because of donald trump i was able to do that. host: did you benefit from the tax cuts that republicans pass? caller: yes. during the covid i was able to get bonuses from my job that helped my family. i actually earned because of donald trump $30,000 more per year because of his administration. host: why did he do, though, that you were able to get that bonus? what was the policy? caller: obviously, covid impacted a lot of us. because of that and because the rich were able to give to the poor a lot of us, almost every

person working who is not getting unemployment, was getting bonuses left and right. because i didn't claim unemployment and decided to work like americans should -- we should work our backs to the bone -- we are single and our loan and our kids need food, that's the thing -- the right thing. host: good morning. caller: i am a real republican. i always vote republicans and i hope that the republicans stand strong when they go to vote. i think it is the right thing to do, i think when we work hard we deserve to get paid well. i hear too much of the other side saying give me, give me, give me, and i don't want work for host: will stop -- i don't want to work for it. caller: i had to vote for tom.

i never thought that he was a real republican. i liked a lot of the things that he did policy wise, but i did not like his rhetoric. i wasn't happy with that. i don't think we should raise the debt ceiling. i would like to get a real republican in next time. i enjoyed the one lady who talked about going back to the 1950's. it's true. we are nowhere near where we were the 1950's. i'm not saying that i want a lot of the social injustices that happened then, but a lot of the policies were good. i hope that republicans stand strong and vote against it. host: dan, illinois, independent. caller: the debt ceiling, you are aware people in the audience that the democrats do not need the republicans to pass the debt

ceiling. they can go to reconciliation and pass that without any republican votes. why is it so important that the republicans vote for a debt ceiling that they don't want to do? why don't the democrats go to reconciliation and pass it with their own votes? they don't need a single republican to pass the debt ceiling. is that correct, greta. host: taking it out of the continued resolution and putting it in reconciliation? caller: correct. the republican said that they would fund the government not vote on the debt ceiling. why not separate it and vote on the debt ceiling straight party lines, 50 to 50 and then ask kamala to bust it? all of the democrats want the republicans to vote for something they don't want to vote for.

host: why do you think they don't? caller: because they don't want to vote for it, greta. they don't want to vote on raising the debt ceiling. that's why they are not going to vote for it. telling the american people that the republicans are holding it up, they are not holding it up, they are not going to vote for something they don't believe in. is it against the law to not vote for something you don't believe in. is that how it works, greta? caller: i thought that i would call in and you would make my comments in regard to the federal debt. they should keep a cap on the national debt. it serves no purpose, just a political football.

do you understand why federal debt is different than personal debt? the federal debt never has to be paid off because they can rollover the debt every year and keep borrowing. as long as we can borrow money at zero interest rates it does not cost us anything. that issue -- i lost my train of thought. the deal is the government and their spending is a lot different than our personal debt. biden's plan to build back better is a capital investment for the future like buying a home. you can't pay for it all at once and expect to have the benefits of it in the future. that is what his plan is for the future and build back better.

host: going back to the previous caller who was arguing that the democrats can do this on their own, from the hill, reporting that republicans are fuming over democrats' decision to try to pass a $3.5 trillion spending bill on their own and is trying to force them to include a debt suspension in that measure. -- they hope to win back the house and the senate. that is what republicans are saying when they say that they can go it alone, that they can tie it, as the caller was saying, to reconciliation, which is the $3.5 trillion proposal. orlando, florida, republican. caller: hello. you have been talking about all of the money that the democrats are wanting to spend. it would be a different story if

a real american who lived here would get a little bit of the pie every now and then. but they want to give to this government, to that government, they want to give to all of the illegal aliens coming across our border while we sit here and we don't get a dime of it. we might get a scrap here or there, but then we are the ones who pay the taxes. that is why we are upset. because we never do get anything out of the money that they borrow and borrow and borrow. congress is sitting up there, they get their fact-checks, they get their retirement. they ain't got to worry about us little folks on the ground. we may get a crumb if you decide to drop one. but if we want to cross that border or we come in illegal,

you are going to take care of us like we are kings or queens. host: hi, john. caller: as americans we need to remember that compromise is not a dirty word. may i remind people who may have forgotten, when george herbert walker bush was president he said that trickle-down policy was voodoo economics. thank you, god bless america. host: anthony, democratic caller. caller: good morning, america. good morning, greta. it should be increased, i think that we need to expect more of our congress. the situation has gotten this way not overnight, not over one administration, but over several administrations. we need to be more progressive.

i am a retired military officer, and people say it shouldn't be. who would it impact? the military, federal employees will not get paid. the pay would be delayed. there are consequences. i think that the younger generation needs to be more involved and make these decisions that may make a change across america will stop things that will help the workforce go back to work, people having difficulty with covid, they don't have childcare providers, some of those things are called socialist programs. are they really? this is 2021. how many in america understand what true socialism is? could we be more progressive to make things better for common americans across the board? host: how do you respond to republican saying that democrats

can just raise the debt ceiling $3.5 trillion reconciliation package and they can go, as they say, alone. caller: as you mentioned, what their intent is, is to try to place blame on this administration when this has accumulated over several administrations. we need to expect more from our elected officials and collaborate to come up with a good compromise. host: carla, missouri, independent will stop good morning. caller: hello. one, people don't understand we have to pay interest on the debt that we incur. when the interest gets so high that it exceeds the national income, we are going to default. that is why people are so concerned. i don't know what the high

number is that we surpass that we will be in default to the people we borrowed the money from. that is my first point. my second is, is if we raise the debt ceiling to cover the expenses of the previous year, what are they going to do in when he 22? we are going -- in 2022? we are going to have to really raise the debt ceiling. caller: c-span, you are a national treasure. without you it would be difficult for anyone to find out what people thought around the country, because people are too reliant on social media. i want to give everyone a history lesson. the american republic would

persist until the congress realized that it could bribe the people with the people's money. that is all this ever is. this conversation about who is in power and how much they want to spend and how they want to spend it is all about a bribe. it is buying your votes. they don't care about whether or not their goal is successful or not, they only care about if they convinced you that they care about you. that is why there are never any results, because they don't really care about the results. they only care about what they convinced you to believe. this is true on both sides of the aisle. this is true on both sides of the aisle. republicans throw money into conservative things like national defense, and liberals throw money into social

programs. they all talk about infrastructure, but nothing gets done. they talk about immigration reform, but nothing gets done. these things, these conversations are all designed to trick you into believing that they care about you. they are only serving one thing, and that is their own campaign donations that they hope to get when they run for office again. it is not about us, it is about the bride with the people's own money. host: kentucky, democratic caller. caller: i would say no one that has called and has been affected by the national debt. i will never forget when alan greenspan, when bill clinton was in office and balance the budget and we were on track to pay off the national debt, alan greenspan said it might not be a good idea to pay off the national debt.

why, i don't know. it made no sense. the national debt was raised by the republicans many, many, many times. trump raised it almost a trillion dollars -- $8 trillion. it is crazy. that is pretty much my comment. thank you. host: idaho, independent. caller: the thing that bothers me is there is a scripture that says the love of money is the root of all people. another one says you're not supposed to covet. so you have a corvette, that's not good enough, i want a lamborghini. i bought this house in idaho because the average price of a home in california is $800,000. i bought this home brand-new for $160,000 and have been here for four years.

i would have to pay -- we look at where we are right now, the congress started the morning saying the pledge of allegiance and the prayer, they should have in the background there is a right going on song by the coasters. it is the case now where we have billions in another country, why don't we bring it here and sell it to the cartels of make a profit from it. trump said one thing we could all remember, the country is run by and prompt acts. the previous people are gone, but he is a multimilliona ire now. we are turning ourselves into insane people. it's a shame. host: james.

caller: it seems like nobody really understands, the republicans are so good at messaging. talking to all of this debt talking about all of the money --[indiscernible] host: it is a little difficult to understand you. we will take a short break and when we come back we will be joined by another member of congress. we will keep this conversation

going about the debt ceiling and funding the government. later, a discussion on president biden's speech at the united nations with stephen clemens. we will be right back. >> the rules make 476 amendments in order. we expect that members will spend most of their day considering and voting on them. later in the week we should see an abortion bill come to the floor which would prohibit certain restrictions from being placed on providers and patients. watch the house live on c-span, c-span. work, or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> joseph stalin had been dead for three years when his

successor stunned a closed gathering of communist officials with a litany of his predecessor's abuses meant to clear the way for reform from above. his secret speech of february 25, 1956 shattered the myth of stalin's infallibility. this is the way the harvard university press introduces "moscow 19 56" the silent spring authored by kathleen e smith. listen at c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcast. >> washington journal continues. host: with us is congressman brendan boyle. we have been talking about the vote in the house along party lines to approve raising the

debt ceiling and funding the government. how did you vote? guest: i voted yes. there are two major provisions in this piece of legislation. first, to avoid a government shutdown, no one wins and no one benefits by a government shutdown. i have been a member of congress now for several of them. they are all frustrating. they hurt our government workers and inconvenience a lot of people land cost more money than it would to just keep the government funded. the second provision is to avoid what would be a catastrophic failure to raise our debt ceiling. to be clear so folks understand, this does not issue new debt, it allows us to pay the debt that was already agreed to and run up in previous months and years.

i voted yes, the responsible vote, and now we need the senate to do the same. host: the hill reporting that republicans in the senate, where you would need 60 votes, are fuming over democrats' decision to try to pass a three point $5 trillion spending bill, the reconciliation bill, on their own and trying to force them to include the debt suspension in that measure. republicans believe it would force democrats to own the debt, providing fodder into next year's midterm election where they hope to win back the house and the senate. you have 60 votes in the senate, why not do it on your own? guest: republicans voted repeatedly to increase the debt ceiling when donald trump was president. now that there is a democrat in the white house, they wanted to play politics with it and suddenly have a different view. i'm pretty consistent.

i voted to raise the debt ceiling even when it was a republican in the white house. i am being consistent. it is time republican members of congress also be consistent. i would point out in terms of who "owns" the debt, while donald trump was president and we had republican in the white house the last four years, he was able to run up $8 trillion added to our national debt. no president in american history added more to our national debt in four years then donald trump and the republican congress that enabled him. let's be clear, this is their debt. now, months and years later, are we going to agree to pay for it? imagine if you are sitting at home and you had a wild few weeks and you had the credit card and you had a good time and he spent a lot of money. a month later you get the credit card bill and you decide to rip it up and not pay it. that is essentially the republican position. use the credit card and run up the debt, but when the bill comes due, refused to pay it.

host: how do democrats plan to repay the debt bill? guest: we voted for it last night and now it is time for the senate to do the same. host: but where is the money coming from? guest: for raising the debt ceiling, it is a little different. what we are saying is the full faith and credit of the united states, the majority of our debt is owned by taxpayers in terms of paying bonds. there are foreign countries as well who invest in that debt. it is a little more of a complicated issue than sometimes i think people realize, because people are sometimes not quite as aware of how much of this debt is actually owned by individual americans ourselves. host: what is the democrats' plan for raising revenue for the federal government? guest: that is a different question in light of the build back better act or

reconciliation bill of $3.5 trillion. i serve on the house ways and means committee and we have 41 hours worth of committee meetings, over i think 100 votes , and in the end we voted to raise taxes mostly by increase in the corporate rate from 21% to 26.5%. for most of the last several decades the corporate tax rate had been 35% and it was recently lowered to 21%. we would put it back up to 26 point 5%. we would issue a surcharge of 3% on those who make more than $5 million a year will stop we believe that's fair. we also approved several other measures as part of that package. in the end, we are able to say that every increase in spending that we are in favor of, paid family leave, childcare, universal pre-k, etc. -- every dime is paid for by revenue.

-- by revenue we just put up the votes for. host: if this reconciliation is approved in the house and the senate, the tax hikes would pay for what you want to do in the proposals? the safety net programs? it would not address the debt deficit in our country? guest: the good news is, unlike the $2 trillion republican tax cut which mostly went to the richest americans and none of which was paid for, in our proposal all we are saying is we are proposing to pay for. that is i think our responsibility, and i'm glad that we have the plan. i literally voted in committee to make sure we are able to pay for it. in terms of looking for the future, at deficit, debt, paying back down, right now primarily the united states does not have a deficit problem will stop we

have a growth problem, a lack of employment problem, those are the immediate concerns. in the long-term we have to pay attention to our national debt, especially as our aging demographic will make some of our most popular programs more expensive. that really tends to happen in the decade of the 30's. when we are having a conversation about the national debt, i remember the hysteria in the early 1990's when ross perot was running for president. people have to bear in mind that the debt in relation to our gdp is really the most proper measure. right now i do feel that long-term, while i am concerned about the rising debt, in the short term i'm really not. host: democrats in 2022 we will have to raise the debt ceiling again? guest: the debt ceiling is raised periodically. i can't remember how many times

that i voted for it. i do think that there is a better way. we are the only country on earth that has the concept of the debt ceiling, which if you think about it is odd. we have already appropriated the money months and years ago. we already committed it, already spent it, and now we are having a separate vote to decide if we are going to pay the obligations that we first made months and years ago. it doesn't make sense. i have legislation that i've had for years, going back three terms in congress, to simply abolish this concept of the debt ceiling altogether. an op-ed in the hill that ran several weeks ago on this topic. i think would make a lot of sense if you speak to economists, conservatives or liberals, many will tell you that the concept of the debt ceiling in the united states is outdated. the final point, 10 years ago in the summer of 2011, we came close to not raising the debt

ceiling. republicans had just taken over congress, barack obama was in the white house. we came so dangerously close to not raising the debt ceiling that we actually got a credit downgrade as a nation, which cost us billions of dollars. it doesn't make sense that we keep doing this to ourselves. host: california, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning greta and congressman. you keep touching on why the republicans shouldn't have to vote on this debt ceiling and why it can be in reconciliation. there is a difference in reconciliation, then there has to be the exact number put on the debt amount. we are at 20 $8 trillion right now and would have to raise it to $37 trillion. they would have to put an exact number on it will stop if you

haven't done the traditional way where the republicans also vote, you are not actually putting a dollar amount on the debt. correct me if i'm wrong, but that is what i've read and how it goes. host: thank you for that point. guest: the caller knows his stuff and that is a very technical point at the caller made which is why the approach that we passed last night is superior, because of that very technical reason. host: why did the house and items to the continuing resolution plus debt limit package that you passed last night versus a clean piece of legislation? guest: i don't think that is exactly accurate. i have been a part of a number of continuing resolutions. it mostly keeps in place what is already agreed to for this fiscal year. it just buys us a couple more

months so we can get to and agree to bipartisan spending package for the next fiscal year. it is a package that i'm pretty excited for. i know that there are a number of things in there that republicans want and have advocated for. i am confident we will ultimately get an agreed to spending package for the next fiscal year. it is a little frustrating we are not able to do it right now and we have to do this continuing resolution in the first place. host: wisconsin, independent. caller: i have a question and a comment. i'm not a big fan of either party. under trump we added $8 trillion to the national debt. why don't we get that back from china? there is obviously culpability for some of this pandemic will stop they owe us. including back to world war ii, i might add. get that money from china.

number two, we are talking about stimulus. the easiest way to stimulate the economy without adding any money to the national debt, without needing one dime from the federal treasury is to cancel the federal student loan program. cancel those loans come in to that massively failed big government lending -- cancel those loans, end that massively failed big government lending beast. guest: i've heard this question before. it is a natural question to raise. why not not pay our debt? while that might be personally very satisfying, the reality is our ability to borrow on the international marketss would dry up. the low interest rates from which we all benefit would suddenly skyrocket if the u.s. were to welsh on its financial

commitments. the same thing that would happen to an individually few were to suddenly stop paying the debt that you owe. that goes to your credit score. that's roughly analogous to what would happen to us as a nation. there's no question that it would lead to a global recession, if not a deep depression, which would include us. it's not really a plausible option. -- it's not really a plausible option. it is not just china that holds our debt. it is held by americans in terms of the bonds that we hold. that is the first point. the second point about china's culpability with covid, i think that when it comes to the who we need real answers in terms of the origin of covid, how initially the chinese communist government was in no way transparent about what was going

on in wuhan. those are legitimate questions that need to be answered. it is not, in any way, address the fact that the previous administration did such a bad job of handling covid in 2020. the united states, 4% of the world population, had 20% of the covid cases and war than 20% of the deaths related to covid. that was on the mismanagement of the previous occupant of the white house and his administration. that does not let china off the hook on why they were not more transparent once they knew that they had a pandemic on their hands. host: republican. caller: in regard to the pandemic 20,000 people from china flew to the united states every day, 602,000 per month. donald trump on january 30, 2020 stopped that.

600,000 from china every day. do you think that would have caused a problem? biden's response was it is hysteria and xenophobic. i reject what you said that trump did the wrong thing. i reject it 100%. you want to raise corporate taxes do you know who works for corporations? people. when you raise the taxes on corporations our job opportunities for promotions go down. you want to raise the taxes on corporations as if it is a whimsical thing from the wizard of oz. i don't like that. you are raising taxes on growth and expansion. that is what happens when you raise taxes on corporations. guest: for most of the last several decades the corporate tax rate was 35% will stop by the way, that was not the actual tax rate that they paid. that was the nominal tax rate. the effective tax rate was far lower. for many there tax rate ended up

being zero because of a corporate tax law and a set of regulations that is so riddled with loopholes. many corporations that we've seen from nonpartisan reporting are getting away literally with paying zero. i don't defend that. i think that they should pay their fair share. i would point out that the idea of going from 21% to 26.5% would suddenly lead to job losses, it is laughably wrong. it was 35% and we had the best economy in the world. i don't think that we should go back to 35%, that was the highest nominal rate in the world, but i think that the happy medium of ending up somewhere in the mid to high 20's, which would make us still competitive with our global competition, i think that that is the right place and it will raise revenue.

the final point on this is i'm sick and tired of the regular, hard-working americans who i represent in philadelphia paying their taxes, and then seeing some of the richest 1/10 of 1% get away with bloody murder. there is one set of rules for them and another set of rules for the average, ordinary american. in my district, for most workers, you are getting your pay through a paycheck, your wages. you are having payroll taxes, local income taxes, you are paying your fair share. the way that the very rich have been able to game the system, including the richest corporations, is a disgrace. democrats in congress are going to finally do something about it . host: savannah, georgia, democratic caller. caller: congressman carter is my congressman.

it is difficult to live down here some days. what i see is a growing rift between urban and rural, particularly in georgia's first district. with the previous congressman did not explain is what he would cut when he cut entire programs, decreased funding levels to win they become ineffective. i don't believe that we can tax our way to dryland or cut our way to dryland. no one explained what those cuts would mean or look like. everyone wants to cut because that sounds good, but when you talk about what that actually feels like after you make the cut, nobody is explaining that in real terms, and i think that that would help. sen. graham: the caller makes guest: -- guest: the caller makes a wonderful point. in the early 1980's when ronald reagan was president and he had a republican senate, they did

not cut spending, they increased spending. same when george bush was president and there was a republican congress. they would cut taxes deeply but not address spending. frankly, if you were to cut debt spending, everyone talks about waste, fraud, and abuse, the reality is the majority of our spending goes to popular programs that people need. the rhetoric for the last 40 years plus from the republican side is different in campaigns than in practice when they actually get in the office. i share the caller's concern about the growing urban/ rural divide. we are seeing not just cities, but suburbs become culturally more liberal while rural areas become culturally

more conservative. that divide is growing into something that we have to address and figure out how to bridge. we are one united states of america, and figuring out how we can remain united is something host: that should concern all of us. host:newport news, virginia. your question or comment? caller: i have a question. i would like to know why, as a country, we are sitting here talking about debt when we give money to every country, like the taliban and the afghans. it doesn't make sense. the people trying to cross the border. you are going to have more debt if you do that, because they will have to get on programs. i would like to know why that is. i pay my taxes and i don't know why you can't help our people

but help everybody else. host: can you hang on the line? can you tell her what percentage of our budget goes to foreign aid? guest: it is about .3%. this is a common misconception that we give away all of this money to other countries. in reality we spend very little on foreign aid. it is a lower percentage of our budget today than it was 50 years ago. i can understand, you work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, why is the u.s. giving x amount of dollars to some other country? a lot of times we are doing it because it is our foreign policy. a lot of the times we are doing it because we also get something in return. it is not always altruism or attempting to be good neighbors.

the reality is, more than 99% of our spending does not go to foreign aid. it goes to domestic concerns. host: what do you think? caller: i do understand that, and i do understand the amount of money that we spend, however when illegal aliens come in, you are going to have more debt because of aid that they get from our country. i don't understand that. host: let's take that point. guest: i do not support illegal immigration, i don't support people jumping the line above those going through the legal process. that said, most studies show that on net immigrants add more to our society financially than they take away.

there is a perception that people come here from other countries so that they can sit on welfare. in reality, most immigrants are some of the hardest working people that we have in our country. i am a little biased. i am the son of an immigrant and he is the hardest working person i know. we are a nation of immigrants. about 90% of us, myself included, are the sons, daughters, descendants of immigrants. it is what has built our country will stop having an orderly immigration system makes sense and we benefit from it. host: hagerstown, maryland, republican. caller: you asked him twice how we were going to pay for the debt, and he circled around it just like the speaker. circled around it and never answer the question. two, why are we giving money to the taliban?

they are giving them $50 billion or $60 billion, for what? to attack us? guest: that is not the case. i think i did answer previously, i literally just voted will stop one caller was criticizing me for increasing the corporate tax rate as well as the surcharge on those who make more than $5 million a year as well as other revenue increases attempting to change something on the tax side as it results to stock. we are paying for the increase in spending that we are proposing. talking about long-term the national debt that has been accrued before today, this is one of the controversial issues among economists.

would it be advisable to ever get to a situation in which we would have zero national debt? this was a realistic possibility in the 1990's, the last time, under bill clinton, that we had zero deficit. i don't think that we are going to have to worry anytime soon about paying down the national debt to zero, but i don't think that the national debt right now is our primary issue or concern. it's getting people back to work, it is getting growth in our economy, it is getting a more fair economy for our hard-working american people. those are the issues that we need to be focused on, not the long-term debt. host: vernon, democrat, texas, welcome to the conversation. caller: when you had congressman carter a minute ago, he would not talk.

when you asked him a question about the $2 trillion, he could not answer. when he -- when you asked if you voted for that he declined and went all around that. the question for the gentleman now is, is this a political stunt that mitch mcconnell is pulling to make you look bad in the midterms? i've read that that is what it is. this is going to devastate fixed income people like my mother in texas. it's going to devastate them and they are not going to get their social security on time will stop that's going to be a disaster. guest: the answer is yes. if we failed to raise the debt ceiling or have a government shutdown it will be because of mccarthy and mcconnell and other republicans who want one set of rules with a republican in the white house and a different set

when there is a democrat in the white house. i think that we should have the same set of rules and i voted accordingly. i voted for government funding when there was a republican in the white house, for debt ceiling, because it is the responsible thing to do. i call on my republican colleagues to do the responsible thing and qui playing politics, because at the end of the day real people will get hurt. host: democrats could avoid a default if they tight to the reconciliation bill. is that on the table as an option? guest: there is a technical reason, as a caller wisely pointed out, there is a technical reason why you really want to do it through what is called regular order, which means that republicans have to not filibuster it in the senate. the good news a republican house member, you can get away with not voting for

this. on entirely democratic votes, we passed it last night. but we need our 10 republican senators to agree to not filibuster this bill so it can be passed in the senate. that is by far the simplest and cleanest way and most straightforward way to do this. host: congressman brendan boyle, democrat from pennsylvania, we appreciate the conversation. guest: likewise, thank you. host: when we come back, we will talk with the hill's stephen clemons, talking about president biden's address to the u.n. yesterday and his foreign policy. ♪ >> this morning, testimony on global threats from the secretary of homeland security, fbi director and the director of the national counterterrorism center, life before the house homeland security committee at 9:00 eastern on c-span3, online

at cspan.org, or you can listen on the free c-span radio app. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. you will find events that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. >> weekends on c-span2 bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. saturday on american history tv at 8:00 a.m. eastern, a look at the 1863 new york city draft riots and civil war newspapers.

they discuss how citizens across the country experienced the events through the -- through the drawings and articles that chronicled them. on the presidency, ronald and nancy reagan, at 2:00, on the centennial of her birth. speakers include a nancy reagan biographer. august march the 40th anniversary of president reagan's tax cuts passed into law. we look back at the legacy of president reagan's economic agenda. book tv features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. the presidents -- how to raise a conservative daughter. she is interviewed by carrie lucas. then at 2:00, in chicago, we will feature interviews with miles harvey on his book, the king of confidence.

marsha channel and with her book, franchise, the golden arches in black america. watch american history tv and book tv every weekend on c-span2. find us -- find a full schedule on your program guide or visit cspan.org. ♪ >> "washington journal"

continues. host: joining us now is steve clemons, editor at large at the hill. you can find his reporting at thehill.com. as president biden addresses the united nations general sibley for the first time as president, people say the one thing that was missing was the banner headline, he didn't mention china. guest: i think he kind of did in pleasantly several times in his speech -- kind of did implicitly several times in his speech. when he was basically saying he did not want a cold war, that he had concerns about how technology was being used, how we were dealing with various dimensions of competition in the world, really the shadow puppet behind that conversation was in most cases china through that speech. implicitly, china was woven all throughout his speech.

host:host: his speech makes the front pages of most of the national papers this morning. what did he set out to accomplish, and did he do so? guest: i think president biden set out to give a grand speech along -- a long and sprawling speech to say america is back and things are back to normal, and that the very key elements are that there are new challenges, they are not traditional national security threats dealing with a global pandemic, dealing with security in the tech area, looking at some of these other -- climate was a huge piece of his speech and looking at nontraditional global risks and how the world needed to come back together with u.s. leadership. it did not solve all those problems, but it did lay out this notion that america was going to be a giver, it was going to provide support and help to other nations that needed it and it was going to

get back to providing and securing alliances to solve global threats and challenges. that is what we used to do and then there was a preemption of that during the trump administration. it had a very different feel in the speeches that president trump gave at the unit nations. this was a return to the notion that america was going to try and contribute to the graber -- to the greater global public good and i think he did send that signal. there were elements of disbelief in the media because he did not reflect on some of the trouble in our european relationship right now, with france, that feels -- in the french foreign minister's words, stabbed in the back. there are issues of how we exited afghanistan and the solvency of america's commitment in the world, they were not addressed in the speech either.

there were some rough patches but i did think america -- i did think biden sent a very clear message that marca first is over and america is going to be deeply engaged with other nations in trying to help them solve problems. host: we want to invite our viewers to join in this conversation. your questions or comments about the president's foreign policy. if you're a democrat, dial in at (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can also text us, first name, city and state, include that in your text at (202)-748-8003. steve clemons, is there a biden doctrine emerging after eight months of this presidency? guest: if you were to look at the biden doctrine, and i interviewed then vice president biden about the biden doctrine and he said it was knowing world leaders, where they are at, where you can push them and

where the circles of interest overlapped with american interest. we are seeing something more mature happen now with his approach to the world. he said it in his speech, we have to stop deploying the u.s. military is the way to fix all these problems out there. the military is not the solution to even the biggest crises or the medium crises we face in the world, that the policy is back, which is very much along the line of how joe biden thinks and operates, pushing diplomacy, and i think the overuse of the military in the past and getting out of what he called wars of yesterday and beginning to address challenges of tomorrow, i think he is doing something interesting, which is he is rias -- he is recalibrating what global threats are and he is also admitting that our toolkit for dealing with them is inadequate. that is the part we are seeing evolve as the biden doctrine, that traditional threats like

terrorism or superpower competition, they are still embedded but they were the lowest parts of the speech, not mentioned as much as climate impacts and the deaths related to the pandemic and dealing with or preparing for the next pandemic variants. we are seeing a much more complex approach to security than we have seen in many other presidencies in the past. host: he called it a new era of diplomacy. what does that mean? guest: it means he is going to have his team out there, working hard to try and align interests will stop he talked specifically about the indo pacific regions and those challenges, that get back -- that gets back to china. we are making sure there is navigation routes and there is freedom of commerce and movement and that big powers can't intimidate others into submission. i think in that realm, getting

diplomacy right, getting the american engagement with other parties right because america cannot do it all. as i said a moment ago, one of the things he talked about is how strong and how unified and overlapping the interests are in the transatlantic relationship with the european union. i think overall, president biden is right in that but we have had a very unusual dustup in the french-american relationship in which the ambassador from france was recalled. i tried to communicate this as a very grave issue, related to feeling is that the united states, one of the closest allies of france did not consult with it on a vital national security issue to france, involving the sale of french submarines to australia which is now going to buy those subs from the united states. it may sound like -- it may sound like a minor issue but to the french political leadership, it is a major issue.

that lines up with what we were talking about, turbocharging the state department and putting it back to solving problems around the world. we have also created some with our afghanistan departure but also in this french case. host: harvey is up first in new york, independent. question or comment about the biden administration's foreign policy? caller: thank you for having me on. we have at this particular point, about 450,000 combined american forces in 150 countries, which has been the lowest since world war ii. why are they worried about having too many forces overseas? some countries we have seven people, obviously this is for intelligence and not military purposes. it seems to me that they may

want to take a look at that. guest: thank you. one of the issues going on in the world as president biden said yesterday, that america's success is tied to other nations succeeding and that means on a relative basis, the growth of the u.s. economy over the last 70 years, we have continued to be a powerful economy but on a relative basis, america represents less of the overall global economy than it used to. that puts pressure on the kind of global infrastructure of military bases, military presence and military commitments of the united states. it was looked at as the absolute security guarantor and that level look of it -- of commitment strategy which president obama thought had become a real mistake, even president trump had become too overextended and that troops and

resources need to be drawn back. it was too easy for other nations to hijack or use various elements of the sprawling global intelligence and military presence of the united states and that made us weaker, not stronger. it made us less focused and i think one of the things that impressed me about president biden's speech was talking about the need with nato to develop a new strategic concept, to look at what those forces and how we approach real threats of the future in a way that is different and that may result in not having troops or a presence in 150 countries. there are a lot of people that are beginning to realize that as other nations become rich, as they have aspirations and develop a middle-class, having a u.s. military presence in those countries is not always stabilizing. it can be radicalizing as well and i think that is part of the tension and the give-and-take about where -- about what the future of u.s. troops will be.

host: our next guest in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i was wondering about what you thought on biden's tone in his speech. i listened to the speech live and in the beginning, he seemed to be strong, although lecturing and by the end of his speech, it seemed like he really had trouble getting his words out. guest: anne, i think -- it was a very long speech and when you begin to think about it and the various elements that president biden wrapped into that speech, discussing global covid vaccination strategies, human rights issues in various parts of the world, discussing israel-palestine issues, i did

see an element of unity in the speech but i think many others might not. i think president biden was trying to be both firm and resolute that in the decisions the united states is making and he referred to that obliquely, that we are worried about challenges of the futures -- of the future and not the wars of the past. he sounded stronger, resolute because i think he feels the criticism and concern from some parts of the world that that did not go as well as it might have and i think many people think it did not put the net it states in the best light. we can debate that point but i think that was there. largely as you go through the speech, what was he saying? we want to help other nations with their financial commitments and climate change or dealing with covid or developing infrastructure that is not corrupt and a lot of other elements that require partnership and i think in that

element of the speech, he was softer, more open, more willing to say we are willing to connect with other nations where they work. you are right, there was a change in tone. i didn't see the same thing you did of him having trouble getting words out. it was a long speech but i think he was softer in some ways and trying to show a more open and accessible america to the world than at the start of the speech. host: did he appear weak? nikki haley, the former ambassador to the united nations under the trip and administration saying he ignored threats in his speech and not name names, russia, china, north korea, venezuela, etc.. guest: i think he did mention north korea and venezuela specifically, that he did mention russia and china. he talked about the indo pacific presence and he did talk

obliquely, referencing russia's aggression without mentioning russia and how that would be met and responded to. let's take that for a moment and ask why didn't he talk about china and russia? he is sending a signal to them in my view, talking about alliances and america's engagement and purpose in the world. he could have said russia, stop the harassment of flights, stop the harassment of regional neighbors in the baltics. a big military exercise going on right now designed to provoke security concerns in the baltic regions. there a lot of things he might have done to do that, but i think his strategy whether it was right or wrong, is that he, by having what he talked about be clearly china and russia, he said you have a choice, we can marshal up and have a dark chapter of history next and if you continue, china and russia, to not live by global rules or

global standards and continue to harass your neighbors, trying to intimidate your neighbors and so on, or he could have called them out in a more specific way and then lead to a much more direct kind of war of words. i think biden is trying to say we have a big problem and climate and the pandemic and we need these nations to act like responsible stakeholders in the world and choose that path. i'm not agreeing it was the beast -- it was the best thing to do but i don't think it was weak i do think it made him vulnerable to criticisms. he talked very specifically about iran and wanting to continue to preempt iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. he talked about north korea as well, but i think he is also happy that around and saying the world has bigger fish to fry when it comes to security. we can debate whether that is the right direction, but that is what he thinks and i think it is part of the biden doctrine. host: mike in fairbanks,

independent. caller: good morning. good morning to what is left of america. biden's foreign policy is a joke. john kerry goes behind our back and makes backdoor deals with iran for them to explicitly get the bombs and every buddy knows that. the guy can't get a word out without slurring. he abandon our troops and allies to die. he stole the election. he is a total embarrassment and i am ashamed of washington scum. i want to know your opinion on that covid is just a tool and so is climate change. it is all a hoax and no one is going to fall for it. caller: it is good to hear your views. you and i believe think gravity operates a little differently. my view is that covid is real,

it is a global pandemic, the president started out his speech saying 4.5 million people died. those are individual people who died with their own stories. it is not bogus. but i will say about these issues and again, reasonable people can disagree but let's take afghanistan for a moment. afghanistan was a 20 year war. i think the conduct of how we managed that war in the beginning was justified. we took our eyes off of that ball and went and invaded iraq. afghanistan became the forgotten war at a certain point in american men and women were dying in a war that had lost, in my view, strategic consequence for the united states and looked to our competitors as a way to contain and even trap american power rather than america having mourned and will assets. reasonable people can disagree.

i have many friends that see this differently and their story is they saw america cut and run, abandon its allies, abandon oaks that were there and this communicated weakness to china and russia. i see it as the opposite and that is why programs like this are so important, that i can hear your view of the world and also tell you, being related to lots of midwestern families, generation after generation, people who have served in the united states military. my father was once stationed in fairbanks, alaska and those military families in a way, believe that they fought the cold war and china ended up somehow winning and that they have done generations of military service for this country, came back from some of these deployments and felt as if the economic support that they had, that the american dream wasn't working out for them as

they saw others in the new york finance arena, for instance, benefiting far more. this social contract around service to the country and what americans are feeling is coming undone. i talked to then vice president biden in 2016 who told me the problem in the nation in the problem with the democrat party in 2016 was the democrat party had become a party of snobs. this wasn't on the record statement he made to me and i think his insight and view was something trump also saw. too many of these families were feeling demeaned and left behind by circumstances and that is why joe biden in my view, came in and he knew that the ongoing ulcer of afghanistan, as messy as it was to get out, was something that was going to continue to leave many americans feeling like they didn't matter in that, particularly those who served the country and continued to be called on something that was really yesterday's war, not tomorrow's threat.

i respect your views, but i respectfully see it differently. host: what is the status of the iran nuclear deal and the possibility of renewing what the obama administration had done? guest: it is a great question and joe biden put a line in that he wanted to go back to jcpoa with both sides fully subscribed and fully compliant. the problem is to get there is very complicated it because in the back and forth, the truth is that many of the critics didn't believe iran would live up to the agreement. it was the united states that walked away from the agreement, not the iranians, but once we did that, iran began to break out of that agreement, began to make other kinds of progress and became very aggressive with inspectors of the international atomic energy agency inspectors and began to undo a lot of the

elements and another key part of the jcpoa agreement that people forget was that the knighted states was not going to impede or get in the way of a normalization of economic relations between iran and other states, and that is what iran did. that is why they wanted sanctions relief, they wanted economic partnership, they wanted investment in the country and for that, they were willing to tie down their nuclear program. they argued that the united states violated that and began trying to get countries not to invest in iran or began sanctioning or threatening other nations that were dealing with iran. not nuclear or security issues but an economic one. this is the complicity of the jcpoa. both sides have parts of their leadership that want to go back but the truth is, hardliners have been elected in iran and there is a substantial part of

the iranian political establishment and the supreme leader who are highly skeptical and don't believe that america can be a consistent partner, even though, and i want to remind people of this, the united states was part of the p5+1, five permanent nations and an extra, to deal with iran and it wasn't just the united states that negotiated this deal. we are one of a party of nations and we left that and i think it is going to be complicated. i think the status right now is we are in purgatory for this period of time and we need to see the next moves the iranian government makes. host: our next caller from ohio, democrat. caller: i want to start with a cliche, that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a duck. that sums up my thoughts about taiwan and i wonder if our

foreign policy establishment in this country, if our policy is evolving in any way vis-a-vis taiwan. guest: it is a great question, and the truth is that taiwan is perceived by our u.s. military and intelligence establishment as being under increasing pressure and even increasing threat, not immediately but in the next five to 10 year horizon , and a lot of our focus on america's focus on shifting to an indo pacific strategy is not just about taiwan but it's about chinese aggressiveness and trying to undo the status quo of relations. we've been watching with alarm how china has simply undone the democracy that existed and the

two systems one nation approach in hong kong, with very little leverage from the rest of the world. taiwan has very sophisticated military and defensive. capacity. it has alliances in -- defensive capacity. it has alliances in the region and any action taken by china against a wine -- against taiwan would inevitably involve japan. -- to the deterrence of chinese behavior but i have listened to the chairman and joint chiefs of staff on this, that the concern level on taiwan ought to be high . that doesn't mean we should panic but it also means we need to understand that there are dimensions regarding taiwanese security and that we care about taiwan. i think taiwan right now under its current leadership is not doing provocative things, not talking about independence from

china politically and becoming its own sovereign state, so i think there are a lot of elements trying to preserve the status quo and fundamentally comes down to how xi jinping and the chinese state looks at its point in history and whether they are willing to gamble a lot and i think that would be a really big global rupture, should they try to forcibly roll over taiwan and take taiwan. host: our next caller in washington, d.c., independent. caller: i would like to know why is it that we speak of the fact that reference the status we are in now and yet we have a way of making it seem so difficult

because you also have to try to put some status on the american side, which i am an american and we are behaving in a manner in which really does not look good if you want to put it in the layman terms and i would like to know, because in what you have said in response to the different comments, i respect that, but i also note that you have very clearly, and i will use just a few because i can say this, china for instance.

with china, if we have a lot of people who are privy to what is going on -- i'm 74 years old and have lived in america those 74 years, and i am not a professor of all these different status but it seems that we are kind of trying to admit our mistakes but yet not address them in a manner in which -- president biden --

host: in what way are we admitting our mistakes? caller: let's just say, going to iraq -- factors to say that that was a mistake. host: not admitting our mistakes. guest: you raise a very good point and i think you are asking something that is so important. the whole notion of what is a security threat is evolving and changing in the world. is it china's military or is climate change a bigger challenge? we look at pandemic and global health issues, that also adds a degree of complexity to these issues, and the world is not static as you said. sometimes we learn from mistakes and sometimes we repeat our behaviors and i think with regards to a nation like china which 30 years ago had a

pipsqueak economy, there was a lot of promise in what it wanted to do what it was there and now you've got essentially a regime in china that is not a democracy with a powerful economy and growing military. it is a substantial challenge potentially to american interests in the world and american interests used to be those kinds of interest that were prone markets, pro-human rights, pro-democracy, and i think we largely are and that is what the president was saying is that democracy is not in decline, we are not rolling back and we will meet this competition and we will be resilient in all of these other ways. we are going to have to demonstrate our ability to do that but as you pointed out, many of these different areas are evolving and changing and are not static and i think that is the nature of the smart foreign policy, the nature of what political debate is about. that is why we are having discussions on the show today

and it is good to stay engaged and always good to learn more because things will not remain the same as they were 50 years ago. host: you can follow all of these debates if you go to thehill.com. you can follow steve clemons on twitter. thank you for the conversation. we are to take a quick break and we come back, we will open up the phone lines and continue talking about foreign policy this morning or the debates happening in washington domestically. keep dialing in, we will be right back. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's true cam video competition. show us your -- we are asking

you to create a five to six minute document or that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? your documentary must show opposing and supporting points of view on federal policies that impact your community, using c-span clips that are easy to access and find. the studentcam competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. >> "washington journal" continues. host: for our last 25 minutes or so, we are opening up the phone lines to get your thoughts on any of the public policy debates happening in washington. we will go to jim in north carolina, independent what is on

your mind? caller: the world is a much safer place when the united states is strong and prosperous and president trump's policies made a strong and prosperous, but it is biden's policies that are making us appear to be weak and bumbling and the united states has to be strong and prosperous if the united states is going to try and help anybody else in the world. host: what do you mean that his policies make us look weak and bumbling? what do you .2? caller: most recently, the fiasco in afghanistan. the way he did that. the lack of control on our southern border. those things. resident biden likes to talk about -- he likes to use the phrase america is back, but under his policies, the only

thing we are back to is dependence on opec and back to the stagflation. you can see inflation is coming. host: let's listen to the president at his first united nations general assembly gathering in new york yesterday. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> all the major powers of the world have a duty to carefully manage their relationships so they do not tip responsible competition to conflict. the united states will compete and compete vigorously, and lead with our values and our strength. we will stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether it is changes to territory by force, economic coercion, exploitation or disinformation. we are not seeking a new cold

war or a world divided into rigid blocs. the united states is ready to work with any nation that steps up and pursues peaceful resolution to shared challenges, even if we have intense disagreements in other areas. host: president biden in new york yesterday at the united nations. if you missed his speech and you want to see it, you can find it on our website, cspan.org, along with other world leaders. tim in arkansas, independent. caller: good morning america. the self-described dictator biden who rules by executive order, my real question is who will biden surrender to next? first day in office, he surrendered our oil independence to russian oligarchs and opec.

he opened up the border and surrendered border crossings to the mexican cartels. then he used the phony excuses to surrender afghanistan to the taliban, and it wasn't enough just to get out and give them the country. he had to leave behind $90 billion in weapons. who will he surrender to next? host: linda in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. i just had a comment. i am amazed that the guest you just had on the program can honestly say that he doesn't see any decline in president biden's mental state. i am just amazed that somebody could watch him speak and watch him when he goes on a stage and doesn't know where he is and is

totally confused when someone asks him a question. i can't believe intelligent people can't admit that. host: debbie in illinois, democratic color. caller: good morning. i was wondering, this abortion, if people would be pushing more birth control, we wouldn't have to be worried about all of the abortions, and i think we need to start educating children on what to do and what not to do, and also i think president biden is 10 times better than trump. thank you. host: we are and an open forum this morning. you can tell us what you think of any public policy debates happening in and around washington. you can text us your thoughts, just include your first name, city and state (202)-748-8003.

stephen arkansas, what an incredible job governor of texas did to control the invasion at the border in del rio with the texas department of public safety troopers and customs and border control. cleaning up the total disaster that joe biden alone has caused. enforce the laws now before it is too late. yesterday on capitol hill in a senate hearing on threats to the homeland, josh hawley of missouri question homeland security secretary mayorkas about the gathering of haitian refugees in del rio, texas. [video clip] >> you offered this temporary protected status illegally to haitian refugees. don't you think you bear responsibility for this latest crisis? >> let me speak to a number of things you have said. number one, temporary protected status was in fact extended to haitian nationals resident in

the united states before july 29. individuals who arrived after july 20 ninth are not eligible for temporary protected status. that is a provision of the law that we execute based on the circumstances that are contemplated in the legislation. >> i just want an answer, do you bear responsibility for the crisis in del rio? does that mean you are not >> >> going to answer you? i will answer you if you give me the opportunity. >> it is a yes or no question. >> the smuggling organizations -- >> yes or no? do you bear responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in del rio? >> it is my responsibility to address the human tragedy in del rio and we are doing so. we are executing it as the department of homeland security. >> you don't think you played

any role in fermenting this crisis that has ensnared so thousands of people. >> what we are learning from our interviews is that people are receiving false myth -- false information and misinformation from smuggling organizations that traffic in the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. host: the associated press with the headline this morning, according to one official, many migrants from this border camp in del rio are staying in the united states. they write that many haitian migrant camps -- migrants camped in the small texas border town are being released into the united states according to two officials, undercutting the biden administration's -- haitians have been freed on a quote, very large-scale in recent days according to one of these officials who put the figure in the thousands. the official who has direct knowledge of operations was not authorized to discuss the matter

on tuesday. many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days, an outcome that requires less processing time from border patrol agents and ordering an appearance in immigration court and points to the speed at which authorities are moving. the homeland security department has been bussing -- this week, added flights to tucson, arizona and they are processed by border patrol at those locations. our next caller from mississippi, independent. caller: i was calling about the reconciliation bill that for -- that the progressive said -- it is the only democracy in the middle east that i know of and unless we secure israel -- a less secure israel means a less secure world.

are they going to give thee aid to afghanistan with the taliban running it or will they give thee aid to palestine? do they know about the great reset? google the great reset and one world government. host: our next caller in oklahoma, democrat caller. caller: we are members of the american legion and i am hoping we can get social security. do you think we can get that? host: i don't know. tom in kansas, republican. caller: this is tom. i just had a comment on biden's speech. i think he did a good job. like usual, he tells people what the plan is.

what they think otherwise is what they see going on in the united states. all of our homeless, the border and the lack of transparency and also a way we withdrew from afghanistan and what they did to the french. that is my comment. host: robert on the republican line. caller: as a republican, i would like to thank president biden for the speech he gave yesterday . as the previous caller mentioned, he did a excellent job. i would like to thank the president for visiting all three

of the storm places. he did a great job on visiting all three places that were hit with storms and we respect the president. he is doing a great job. host: thanks for calling in texas, if trump was reelected, he would have pulled out of afghanistan by memorial day. our mishandling of the exit would have been handled the same under trump. our next caller in ohio. caller: two things. i live in southwest ohio and president biden despite the republican legislature in kentucky has an excellent job of getting people jabs and shots.

. anytime we see mitch mcconnell -- people are saying about president biden that they can't believe this or can't believe that and i'm sitting here thinking, here we are getting ready to go into 2022 and you have the entire republican party sitting here about to -- mr. trump. that is what i don't believe. you have a great day. host: cragin alabama, independent. what is on your mind this morning? caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to say that under donald trump, didn't he release 5000 taliban fighters? these are the same 5000 taliban fighters that killed our service

members in kabul and nobody on the publican side is even saying anything about that and the hypocrisy is astounding and i wish american people would get that together and start being for the constitution and not for a fascist dictator. host: happening on capitol hill at that same senate hearing on homeland threats, the fbi director talked about the rate of domestic terrorism investigations in this country. take a listen. [video clip] >> when it comes to homeland based terrorist threats, we have two buckets we focus on is the highest priority. what we call homegrown violent extremists which is a reference to people here radicalize by foreign terrorist organizations and ideologies, and then domestic violence -- domestic violent stream is to are radicalized from everything from

racist animus to antigovernment. the first bucket has been moving along quite consistently over the last few years. the domestic violent extremist bucket has been going up quite sick get lee over the last few years which is why we are now at 2700 domestic terrorism investigations when if you look back to and a half years ago, we were at more of 1000. it has been a significant jump and we are concerned that with develop in's and afghanistan, among other things, that there will be more inspiration to the first bucket as well, so i think we anticipate, unfortunately, growth in both categories as we look over the next couple of years. host: you can find key moments from yesterday's hearing if you go to our website, cspan.org and push the video player button and

gold stars will show up to show you where there were key moments or points of interest route that hearing. an update for all of you on the next step with a package that passed in the house to suspend the debt ceiling and continue funding the government. eric with bloomberg news reporting, it looks like under the senate rules, the earliest that they can vote on this legislation that passed in the house is this weekend. let's hear from dave in las vegas, independent. good morning to you. caller: i would like to make a statement. when trump and all these domestic terrorists tried to overthrow the united states government, why aren't they prosecuting him right now? he saw what happened and he is the only president who tried to

do this. he is a dictator. why doesn't the attorney general bring him up on charges and arrest him right now? he has divided this country, and that is my comment. until they do that, there is no law. host: house speaker nancy pelosi meets with the british prime minister after u.s. capitol leadership office and also senate leaders schumer and mcconnell with a bipartisan group of senators meeting this morning with the british prime minister on the senate side of the capital. jerome in california, democratic caller. caller: my issue is the texas abortion law. if anybody can go back to the 50's and you would recognize when abortion was illegal, women were dying left and right, getting abortions. abortion law does not stop

abortions. abortion law because people to get leg -- legal medical help or illegal medical help and the act of abortion is on the individual. it has nothing to do with the law. it will not prevent it, it will cause people to die. that is my comment. host: brian in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning. i'm calling because of the immigration. it is pretty funny that we don't have any common sense in this country that me as a citizen cannot walk anywhere near the white house, can't go near congress, can't go near the democratic house because of all the fences around it, but yet someday that we don't know can walk across the border and get a free pass, here is your meal ticket, your free vaccination, for people that we don't know who they are or what they are up to.

they could be mean or nice but i have to walk my eight-year-old child down the street not knowing who is there. it really comes down to common sense people. if you can't go to your house of representatives because of the fences around them but you can come in to the country, nobody knows who you are, there is something wrong. host: gallup news out with a new poll, eight months into president biden -- eight months after his inauguration, approval has fallen six percentage points, the lowest of his presidency. lizzie in indiana, democratic caller. caller: hello, thanks c-span. i agree with the caller a while back saying the former president should be arrested and there is treason, they just don't have it out here yet.

i wish that our government would wake up and look at it. we have insurrectionists. my senator sent me a letter saying he has the support of people that believe in the fraud, but not the people that don't believe in the fraud. there was no fraud. in indiana, trump was elected, so if there was fraud, then was that not true? host: another debate that is happening in washington, that continues throughout the year is climate change. at the u.n. general assembly in new york this week, the u.n. secretary general talked about how other countries are doing in meeting climate goals.

take a listen. [video clip] >> we need a 45% cut in emissions by 2030. a use -- a recent u.n. report made clear that emissions will go up by 16% by 2030. that would condemn us to temperature rises of at least 2.7 degrees, about preindustrial levels. meanwhile, a gap of at least 20 billion u.s. dollars inessential and promised climate finance to developing countries. we are weeks away from the climate conference in glascow. we are seemingly light years away from reaching our goals -- our targets. host: from the united nations general assembly in new york. the hill with this headline, the u.s. to purchase 500 million

more vaccine doses for the world. that is from thehill.com. sam from indianapolis, republican. caller: this is very important. i am a progressive republican and i understand they spent trillions, trillions on the last 20 years and afghanistan and it was a total waste and a wipeout and i don't care what happened but i called mitch mcconnell's office and i talked to charlene and i said that the government is requiring everyone to tighten their belts in the last 20 years whether it is medicaid or medicare or food stamps or whatever and they have the audacity to go into afghanistan and have a proxy war against communism and they are asking everyone to suffer and yet these idiots spent trillions of dollars wasted in afghanistan and these people went and fight

and i think it is a disgrace to both republicans and democrats. i am a fan of your show and god bless you. thank you for letting me say that. host: frank in california, democratic caller. your opinion? caller: i am a federal government employee and i just hope and i call on the leaders, mccarthy, mcconnell, pelosi and schumer to make sure they do their jobs and do the due diligence. we don't need another government shutdown. host: as a government employee, tell people who don't work for the government what happens when there has been government shutdowns in the past caller: caller:. we don't get paid but we still have to go to work. host: talk about previous shutdowns. what happened to you? caller: we have to save every

little that we can because we have to continue to pay our bills, and as a federal government employee and law enforcement officer, that is part of our obligation and it is very hard and stressful for families that are federal government employees that every year, we have to look at october and we are talking about a continuing resolution budget that we don't even know was going to pass. we also have to deal with this federal mandate of vaccinations. there are a lot of issues and i just want the public to know that it is important that we've got families and we go to work and we have to deal with this stuff with the mandates and vaccinations and now we have to worry about if we are going to continue to get paid for the rest of the year. host: do you always have to put money in a savings account because of this issue? caller: we do what we can. my wife is self-employed and she got hit a little hard when covid

hit just like every body else. not everybody is able to do it, but it is very stressful, especially when the holidays are coming around. i call on schumer and pelosi and mccarthy and mcconnell to please do your job and let's get a budget passed or continued resolution. host: the house passed it last year along party lines in it now goes to the senate and we have been showing politicos headline saying it will meet its demise there, republicans in the senate singhal not go along with passing the debt ceiling tied to a continuing resolution, that is the proposal that keeps the government running. there is that politico headline. we will leave it there this morning and the house is about to gavel in. thank you for watching and calling in will stop live coverage of the house here on c-span.