♪ announcer: 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? no, it is more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled places so students from low income families can get the tools to be ready for anything. announcer: comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a for rc to democracy. -- giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ host: the "washington journal" for april 10. president biden's budget request for fiscal year 2023 includes over $800 billion for national security with over $770 million going. democrats have criticized the

figure because it is too high. for our next hour, we will get your opinion on if u.s. defense spending should be. if you say yes that it should increase, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001 is the number to call. if you are not sure, you can call (202) 748-8002 and tell us why. you can post on facebook and twitter if you wish. you can also follow the show on instagram. that 2023 budget request available online, but specifically when it goes to matters of spending of the defense department, $773 billion requested for that, specifically for the pentagon that is reflecting a 4% boost. when you look at the individual armed forces, it is a 1.7% increase for the army and 4.8% increase for the navy, a one .6% increase for the marine corps. when it comes to the air

force, 3.7% increase. space force getting a 35% increase. that is the 2023 request that was enacted for 2022. when it comes to the department of defense and how the figure breaks down, the $773 billion figure, again, 4.1% increase, $130 billion meant for matters of research and development. $40 billion for seapower. that would include nine battleships and $12 billion to modernize army and marine corps fighting vehicles. this of course also includes a 4.6% pay raise for members of the military and civilian personnel as well. it would put $3 billion to address the effects of climate change. $459 million to make implement the recommendations of the independent review commission on

sexual assault. and also money set aside to address extremism behavior in the ranks. featuring the head of the defense department, secretary lloyd austin was talking about the request made by the president and what he think it will do for the defense department. sec. austin: the strategy advances our goals in three main ways, forging integrated deterrents, campaigning, and building enduring advantages. an integrated deterrence means combining our strengths across all war finding ways to maximum effect to ward off potential conflict. campaigning these day-to-day efforts to maintain and sustain advantage. and to complicate preparations for aggression. and to build enduring advantages, we need to accelerate more development,

acquiring the technology that our war fighters need, and so our budget seeks more than $130 billion, as you pointed out, mr. chairman, for resource development, testing, and evaluation. that is the largest r&d request this department has ever made. it is nearly a 10% increase over last year, which was the department's previous high water mark. this includes $2 billion for artificial intelligence, $250 million for 5g, nearly $28 billion for space capabilities, and another $11 billion to protect our networks and develop a cyber mission force. this budget maintains our edge but it does not take that edge for granted. quite frankly, mr. chairman, in the 21st century you either innovate or you get left behind. host: again, that hearing if you want to see more of this at our website at c-span.org. for the topic of an increase or if the budget for defense should be increased, you can call and let us know on the line.

(202) 748-8000 if you say yes, it should. (202) 748-8001 if you say no, it shouldn't. if perhaps you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. you can post on our social media sites as well. the news also highlights the request for modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad. $334.4 billion. $6 million for the columbia classic marine. $3.6 million for the next generation intercontinental ballistic missiles. on sundays on c-span, you get the ability, some of you from outside of the united states to call. this is from paul in the united kingdom. you are the first stop. caller: i think there should be more spending on defense because it is very

important. host: as far as the uk's perspective and with the u.s. does on defense spending, what is your take? let me ask you that? caller: i just think in this world of unease, you need the defense spending. we need more defense and security, that is what i think. host: you said the world of unease. you have this same philosophy before the issue of russia and ukraine? caller: yes. yeah. i do. yeah. host: let's go to tom in florida, also on our yes line. go ahead. caller: good morning. when i look at the ukraine war, the russian army, they are not well trained. they need to spend more money training. look at the difference.

look at the missiles. we have new technology. they can destroy those russian tanks . i mean, the russians, they are not trained that well. they are not trained well. look at our armies. we train them. we have more time in the air, on land. you can experience. just look at the ukraine war. host: do you think that there are new threats now to the united states because of the events of russia and ukraine? caller: to be honest with you, if the u.n. stepped in and helped the ukrainians -- host: let me clarify. do you think there are threats to the united states specifically? caller: i mean, there is no threat. if we look back at history, how many times has the united states

had a war with the russians? let's see. let's say israel is a good example. who helped the muslims? it was russia. the united states and russia were fighting in the air. why are we so afraid? look at the technology of russia forget it is old-school, not accurate. ours is more accurate. host: that is tom in florida. for those of you not sure of increasing the defense funding, that is the position of andrea. hello. caller: hi. good morning. host: good morning. caller: when the chauffeur started, i noticed -- when the show first started, i noticed the percentages. the very bottom, i noticed the space force was increased 34%. in comparison to the other ones,

which we should be focusing in in the united states to protect us, i feel like we are spending more money on the space force. and then the graphs and the following comments about the climate protection and such, it just seemed like $3 million in comparison to space force, we are not focusing on where we are right now. as far as protecting us with increasing or decreasing the defense spending, i think that there should be more money in increasing our technology. perhaps i think that has happened before. we can be more prepared for that. i am not sure about how much or where it should go. i just don't think it should go

so much into the spaceports right now. host: ok. that is andrea new york on the not sure line. she brings up the topic of space force. there is a request for the 2023 budget. it says that space is vital to u.s. national security and integral to modern warfare. the white house sent a summary document. improving the resilience of u.s.-based architectures to bolster deterrence and increase survivability during hostilities. the dod says the 2023 budget recognizes "china as the key strategic competitor and russia as an acute threat to the interest of the u.s. and allies. it breaks down the spaceports budget, three point $6 billion for procurement of satellite services, for billion dollars for operation maintenance, $15.8 billion for research, development, and testing, and 8600 active-duty guardians of the spaceports. if you want to read more, it is

spacenews.com. doug in california says yes to increased spending. hello, doug. caller: good morning. there is an old saying, which is if you want peace, prepare for war. i think right now our enemies in the world, not only russia, but china and, iran, north korea view this president as weak and that is why i think putin invaded ukraine now because he figured he could get away with it. i think it is encouraging that nato has pulled together. but if the united states does not maintain a strong military posture, one that is dominant, and one that ensures that any attack by any country will result in massive retaliation, then they are going to think about it. but if mr. putin likes his caviar and his comfortable position and likes living the

life he is living, then he needs to be able to sit back and consider what would happen if he did use a tactical nuclear weapon. i think that otherwise if we do not maintain a military dominance, we are just going to get run over. host: doug there in california. let's hear from someone on our no line. this is sharon in oxford, new york. caller: hi. host: hi. you're on. caller: so i'm voting no because i think that the military spending has increased or stayed the same, whatever has been requested has been given. however, other sectors such as health and human services, education there are places where the funding would be better spent. how do you have a strong military if you are not investing in education, if you

are not investing in health and human services? i think it is good that there is an increase in the investment for research. however, where do you get the people to go into research? where are you getting the people to go into cybersecurity if you are not improving science and stem education? thank you. host: ok. that is sharon in new york to several of you commenting. you can keep doing that during the course of the hour. (202) 748-8000 if you say yes to boosting the defense spending. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. independents -- i'm sorry, those of you who are not sure, (202) 748-8002. some members of congress reacting august budget request from the white house. a representative saying, i have delayed putting out a statement about the defense budget because it frankly would have been

mostly full of what you might expect from a sailor but here it goes, it sucks. a senator from new jersey, given the war and ukraine, competition with china, the ongoing conflict in the middle east, i am concerned the president's proposed budget may not address the looming threat against our national security and our country's interest abroad. and a represented saying just proposed budget -- saying next year's proposed budget, the build back better, guess what, one will easily clear the senate. this is some of the legislative positioning on this idea. we will read more throughout the hour. but again, you can take a look. the figures are out there when it comes to defense spending, particularly when it comes to dod. you can call and let us know what you think. one of the people thinking this increase was too high was senator elizabeth warren. she was at a recent hearing with

the defense secretary and talked about the budget request and her perspective on it. sen. warren: one of the things defense contractors left to do when they are flush with other cash courtesy of the taxpayers is to use it to boost their stock prices. the pentagon's top contractors spent $15.5 billion on net buybacks last year, sending their stock prices zooming up. that is the most of any year on record ever. but it is not just members of the congress who are using inflation as an excuse to ask for more money from the pentagon. i was actually troubled to hear some pentagon officials doing the same earlier this week. so, secretary austin, let me ask you directly, are you comfortable with the figure in the president's proposed budget? sec. austin: i am comfortable, and he was why, senator.

you may have heard me say earlier we have gone to great pains to develop the national defense strategy. we knew that our budget would have to match that strategy. and so we went through great pains to make sure that was the case. this is a robust budget. and i think it allows us to get the capabilities that we need to support our operational concepts. sen. warren: and you are good at this number without adding another $90 billion or $100 billion to it? sec. austin: yeah. this budget gives us what we need to get the operational capabilities. sen. warren: i think $773 billion to the pentagon is already way too high, but the notion that we need to increase the total by another $100 billion or $400 billion every year just invites defense

contractors to pick taxpayers' pockets. host: there is more to that hearing, by the way, if you want to go to our website, c-span.org, and search for it, you can find more of the exchanges when it comes to the defense budget request. in defense-related news, the navy is clear to decommission five guided missile cruisers following the passage of the fiscal year 2022 defense appropriations budget. this follows the defense policy bill and allows the navy to decommission the cruisers initially requested. congress did not spell out which five cruisers will leave the fleet according to the bill designed in december, and the navy is not sure which ones will go. the navy is moving forward with the formal process outlined if in the fy 22. in july, the navy's most recent

decommissioning memo identified seven ships, two of which will leave in february. more of that if you want to go to the website. let's hear from maryland. ken is there on our forget hello. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i have listened to other colors, which i have enjoyed everybody's comments and respect everyone's comments but very quickly, i would like to put it in simpler terms for any people out there that are maybe younger or that are listening this morning or that just like hearing things in simpler terms. there are two things in the world that are basic all the way down in the animal kingdom to the smallest memo. there is predator and prey. you never want to let your guard down. that is pretty basic. as far as health and human

services and education, increased spending that the california caller remarked on, i feel that has nothing to do with that. we certainly can increase spending in those areas and increase spending and keep our guard up in defense. host: i don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you used the predator and prey analogy, are using the increased analogy will allow us to be one versus the other? caller: it would in other words -- i am basing -- i am 58 years old so i am just basing it on things that my grandfather's talk to me about, my dad in my lifetime, which my grandfather was in world war ii. he was in burma. he was born in 1914, so you can do the math with world war ii. my other grandfather was born in 1905. they talk to me a lot. i was born in the 1960's and

experienced things through these years like a lot of us. basically, i think we are an experiment in america. we have not managed since world war ii to keep peace in our country and also peace in the world for the most part. nothing is perfect, but if we let our guard down, those bad players are still out there. host: got you. got you. thanks. philip in ohio on our no line. hello. good morning. caller: hello. i think your question is not asked to write. you should put on there if you do support it, you should bring back the draft because all of these guys are going to go all in on more defense spending, are going to have more toys to play with, and these guys doing that will not have any skin in the game.

host: we asked about spending specifically. what do you think of the idea of increasing it or not? caller: no. because lloyd austin, millie, when they get done there, like all the other defense secretaries and generals, they go to the defense contractors and get high-paying jobs to finish out their career. revolving doors. host: ok. philip in ohio. a look at the various people involved making these decisions for the budget, seeing how changes could result. a starting point when it comes to the budget. it says armed services republicans led by a present of mike rogers of alabama and senator jim emhoff of oklahoma are again counting on democrats to take their side. with the rate of inflation your 8%, such a boost could bring 773 billion dollars pentagon budget to well over $800 billion but republicans have not named a specific figure.

plus, they will have that story. you can find it online. there is the headline. we have also set aside a line for those of you not sure about increasing defense spending. this is franklin in connecticut. thanks for calling. you are next up. hi. caller: hi. i am franklin from connecticut. 86 old korean veteran from the marine corps. my first -- i am a first time color and a little nervous and i wanted to make a statement. i don't know if anyone remembers donald trump $69 billion out of the defense budget to go to paper his wall that was a complete flop. i am not going to babble on, but that is something i don't know if everybody remembers. host: what do you think as far as increasing defense spending currently in light of the request from president biden? you said you were not sure. caller: i was not sure, but i think it should be increased. you know, we do need that, everything we can get.

i don't have much else to say about it. host: do you think the current state of the military is such where the funding for the military is sufficient as far as protecting the united states and meeting its needs or do you think more spending would fix that? caller: i don't know. i think we could use more. i think i am going along with bidens request. he seems to know what he is doing. i am just going to go along with it. host: ok. tear from mike, saratoga springs, new york. hi. caller: good morning. i am going to say no to this because i am a little bit cynical about the spend of the military budget, particularly the defense contractors. there is so much going on and corruption and things we don't need. it was one thing to train the

military, but i believe 74% of the money goes to the defense contractors. and those contractors obviously are overcharging, making millions. it is basic public welfare for these corporations. i believe when you are talking about wellfare, that is where one of the biggest trouble spots is for our budget. host: so if contractors were out of the equation, how do you think the defense department could support itself as far as making sure that things are updated and weapons are updated and the like? caller: there just has to be more oversight. the government agencies involved, then i have a free ride on our money. i believe there is money saying $1800 of my money is going to these defense contractors, 74% of that.

and i believe there has to be more oversight. there is too much graft. host: ok. there is mike in new york giving his thoughts. senator markey on twitter adding his to the mix, saying we do not need to increase the defense budget by another $31 billion when the u.s. is spending more than the next 11 countries combined. we need to embrace the reality that national security is human security. a viewer says, adding their thoughts to the mix, we need to increase spending due to the russian threat and the threats in the pacific. we need to be fully self-sufficient and we can fully deploy on our enemy. we need to show we are not prey, adding that the former president, make us weak, and president biden united nato. she asked to expand senator markey's point. nato countries, axios takes a

look at that. the 2% guideline when it comes to defense spending, the u.s. defense spending share of their gdp comes at 3.57%. that is topping that list followed by greece at 2.3% and the u.k. at 2.12%. estonia following after that. it goes on, the list there if you want to check it out for yourself as far as how nato countries do when it comes to their defense spending. this is mike on our yes line. mike, west springfield, massachusetts, hi. caller: good morning. good to be on again. to make a long story short, i think the bottom line, i agree with mr. austin on this defense. and i know at my age that there are whole congressional districts that are dependent on defense spending. and the bottom line when all is said and done, a lot of this is all about good paying jobs.

when you cut defense in the long run, you are putting perhaps hundreds of thousands of people out of work. and i think in times of war and times of peace or in between, we are always going to have high defense spending. it was proven since the day after pearl harbor when roosevelt asked for $50 billion from congress how our economy went through the roof by the end of world war ii. and that is the way i feel. i think if we don't keep defense high, we are also inviting a rehash of 9/11 in this country because it gives our adversaries the psychological effect that we want to cut back at a time when we live in a very dangerous world. that is what i wanted to comment on. host: that is mike in massachusetts. let's hear from john in ohio on our not sure line. hello there. caller: hey, how are you? host: i am well thanks.

how about yourself? caller: i am hanging in there with two hands, and thank you for taking my call. out of the 26 countries in the world that have defense spending, we spend more money than china and more money than russia by far. and you know, i don't think there is any room for anymore defense spending. we need to worry about our country. we need to worry about becoming the united states, not the divided states of america. host: so do you think the current level of spending -- would you say it is enough to protect the country adequately? caller: more than enough. there is money being thrown away. they are wasting money. out of the money they have right now, $400 million is left every year. that is an escrow. they sit on their money. i'm a veteran. i spent 16 years in the military.

i am just telling you that is more than enough. i traveled the world with our country and i have seen it all. the sad thing is we don't need any more spending. we need to help the people of our country. we need to help ukraine. but you know what? no more spending. the money we need to spend on is our country. host: ok. as john in ohio. the hill commenting on statements from

we have the finest young leaders in america. we definitely need to spend more money on events, but we also need to cut domestic spending because we owe $30 million. and we have some -- and for our strong military and we support strong candidates. host: why do you think of increasing? caller: i remember one friend in china and we got -- they're over

there spending more money and we keep up with them. we've got to spend more money. hn increase is needed? caller: with russia acting like they are doing, our number one threat is china. they are spending more money. if we could keep up with them, we have to spend more money. what russia is doing, they are talking about that in -- which i am opposed to. the number one thing for the government is to protect the people. we have to have a strong military. host: that is joe in georgia, a longtime caller with c-span.

because every 30 days or so. -- he calls us every 30 days or so. you're welcome to do that as you call in. you can call in on the topic today you think it needs an increase or not. if you think about an idea for an increase, for the next half hour, we will still take your calls. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you are saying no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. hello. caller: my thoughts, we need to increase military spending. we need to do so in a way that it supports the entrepreneurs, especially those that invest in technology.

we need to stop nuclear weapons before they start. we need them to explode in a test when north korea shows what they have. we can destroy things before they get into the air. that is the strength in our power in military spending. outside, -- in support of the people. it has to be structured in such a way where american businesses grow.

host: ok, another color. -- another caller. caller: i was going to go no on this, but thinking about it, it is time to start taxing the wealthy and rich people. i am switching my party from republican to democrat. this is enough. i have heard enough as a republican. i think i am going to go over to the democratic side. i think it makes more sense when it comes to budget and finance. need to tax the rich and these oil companies a lot more money.

why not just do that? host: michael in new york. this is a story from the "stars and stripes," the military publication. the u.s. military's top general on tuesday endorse building new imminent bases in eastern europe to deter russia, calling its invasion of ukraine the most "historical turning point" in the security since world war ii. height and military presence is always a good deterrent against enemy aggression, telling them he favored rotating more units in and out of europe to a permanent boost of u.s. for strength on the continent. his comments came after air force general, the commander of all u.s. and nato forces in europe, told senators last week that they would need to station

more troops on the continent saying, "my advice would be to create permanent basis but don't permit lee station u.s. troops on them, seek and get the effect of permanence by rotational forces on the basis." more on that article. you can add that to the mix as well when it comes to defense spending, whether you support and increase, oppose it, or not sure. this is jim, on our yes line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do say yes because we need to redesign our weapon systems to accommodate these new drive systems that will be environmentally friendly. we are facing an existential threat in climate change.

the research i am seeing indicates that we are near of point of no return. if do we want to maintain a defense system, it will go beyond that point, we need to have systems that will operate in an environment -- we're not getting enough people to operate the defense systems. i have heard that there may be a pilot shortage. additional spending on that stuff may be something that can help our forces be able to stand up against a place like china.

to this in terms of the number of people, a much larger army than what we can deal with. host: ok, jim in georgia. let's hear from wisconsin on our not sure line. caller: good morning. i'm not sure which way to go. i myself would like to set up having them put on display or something. something from dubai or whoever has too much money, have them decommissioned, make them into pleasure yachts. host: why go that route? caller: we could use that money and use it for defense spending

instead of having it sitting on display. why not make some money off it? host: ok. dan in wisconsin on our yes line. caller: how are you doing? host: well, how about yourself? caller: good, the sun is out, looks like a good summer. i was born an air force brat. my father was just a couple months shy. -- what he's to say, the pillars of community, is, he's to tell those people to come out and see him at the airbase.

usages say, our enemies got the numbers, we got the -- that is how they kept their minds. i think they felt comfortable with that. since a lot of our ceos and 80's gave a lot of our copyrights to china, we really have to keep up the technology. i do -- to believe they have not changed since the cold war. we kind of know what is going to happen. host: dan in wisconsin with our yes line. those are our lines, yes, no, not sure. you can put that on social media, text us. on that section about senator austen, one of the questions was alaska senator on the budget proposal and send her sulla been making the case that it is not

enough. there is a portion. -- and senator making the case that is not enough. here is a portion. >> great power conflict increasing more likely. the greatest threat to peace and security and lifetime right now. clearly national security threats have increased since last time you were here. is that not correct. -- is that not correct? >> we have been focusing on the challenge with china. russia is an acute threat. >> i do not want to be rude, your testimony today, both of yours with blasters, the security threat has been significantly heighten. that is what you have said. correct?

>> correct. >> here is the thing, i am stunned that the president put forward another budget that actually calls for real defense cuts. 4% increase with a percent inflation is a 4% real inflation adjusted budget i think it is irresponsible. i think it is stages when you look at shrinking the navy and air force. there is no doubt in my mind that that gives our enemies comfort. and i think that this budget does not align with your statements about the severity of the national security challenges we face are now in what is likely to happen is that once again we will have to push the president to increase the budget in a bipartisan way, how we did it last year. the commander-in-chief cannot reject some of the far left members and say, we need a robust budget.

we put forward a budget that cuts defense spending speared -- spending. host: more of that on c-span.org. this is william in money -- middletown, yes, keeping with the inflation is a starting point. proper auditing, oversight and cost controls are essential. michael texting us from portland oregon sing the budget for more dod money in infill warbird. no matter how powerful the military, if the leaders don't know what is actually transpiring, they will be blindfolded. control the decision-makers. steve in florida, increase? are you kidding me? this would be more pork for defense contractors. we are way down on the list in education and health care. those are some of the responses from social media and text. charlie incentive cleanup,

california on our note line. caller: good morning. i was watching tv and i thought they were going to send $880 million to increase the border security on the ukraine so that the russians could not get across. what if they sent that down to the southern coast here in california. going back to the virus. i did not know we had 61 different countries in this world. and i saw that when the coronavirus hit 61 countries i thought, we did not have that many countries in this world. host: but to the increase, why do you say no? caller: it is not going to where it is needed.

we had 161 different people from different countries, 161 different countries send their people over to america to come across and become voters and money grabbers. host: how does that apply to defense spending? caller: they are not sending it to the right area. they can keep defense spending right where it is. they did not have to spend $800 million on the ukraine border. how about the american border? host: let's hear from rick on our yes line. caller: hello, this is rick. i think we should. i think we spent -- i spent 23 years in-service. i watch a lot of equipment develop and change. host: keep going.

caller: sorry, i thought was going to sneeze. [laughter] look at the equipment in afghanistan, you cannot tell me that china did not get that stuff to start reverse engineering. without russia had one of the greatest armies. lucas what is being done to the equipment. how would you like it if your son or daughter within the military and you might be sending them into combat with second or third best equipment? host: next, from michael on our note line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am well, how are you? caller: i am having a hard time understanding why people that go to college and get educated and get good jobs like yourself do not see that the dollar is a destructive tool.

it is killing america with greed. it cannot let eggs. you are under the illusion that a dollar can make a dollar, no it cannot. what happened to people's common sense here? host: how does that apply? caller: we have the biggest offense already in the world. host: so, specifically you were saying no to the increase specifically why? caller: because, soldiers are up the workers. police are up workers. it is us, the workers. they are keeping from us, we supply our necessities and our needs and as we do, they are taking more and taking more and they have nothing to do with that. host: ok. air force magazine has a story

taking a look at the air force portion of the budget saying that the air forces list, thinks a whopper could not squeeze into the budget list, leave it to congress to boost them as part of what they would if they had more money to spend. they asked for 15 fewer planes. therefore said they prefer to spend that money on other projects and wait until the block for version is ready. the unfunded priorities list looks to close that gap, asking for 900 21,000,004 more fighters. bringing that in. eight fewer than what they bought in 2022. if you're interested in the air force portion, air force magazine from ohio, we will hear from steve.

caller: hello. here is the deal. when you spend 11 times more than the number combined, why are we behind here? russia has a supersonic missile in china is working on it. when set missile is in the air, we have note defenses -- once that missile is in the air, we have no defenses. we are behind the eight ball. host: this is from randy in michigan. on our yes line. caller: i would like to start by thanking you in all the other men and the woman it takes to bring us this program.

you are doing us a great service. i think it should be but i have two caveats. one, you cannot spend it on 17th-century defenses like motes, walls, lances or rowboats. two, match domestic spending with it. you have to take care of the people of this country just as much is you have to defend them or does not make any sense. we need to have national healthcare. that is how i feel about that. i have no problem raising the defense ending but we have to spend it wisely and we have to spend just as much on the domestic and our people. we have to keep this nation healthy so we can have a healthy military and that is how i look at it. host: ok. representative liz cheney saying that the defense budget fails to

fund our military at a level to counter the growing threats we face and keep our country safe. roger wicker on the senate side saying that senate republicans are saying they will not except the inadequate defense budget. there will be sure -- even if the president has other priorities. again, twitter is how we are posting dots. you can use the same on our twitter feed. for those who do not want to see an increase, this is patrick in pittsburgh. caller: what we're doing is financial suicide on behalf of a military investor, so out of control. it is turning our country into an economic basket case. new/for citizens of this country. that d dollar eyes asian of the dollar is well under the way.

the ruble is back where it was before banks sanctioned them. china sends in armies of students who go into our universities were all of the research and up and they steal our intellectual property. you are looking at financial suicide. 900 military bases all over the planet. we are creating these wars. these wars with russia and ukraine, nato looks at that united states is nothing more than an atm machine. the american people have no idea what is coming. you have india, russia, the majority of the muslim world basically walking away from the dollar. keep on adding to these figures.

that is a nice space. host: let's go to richard in oregon on our yes line. caller: hello. i'm a first-time caller. thank you for sharing. i think we need to spend as much as possible on our defense. if we do not, we are in trouble. we have so much money. if we say yes on these, we save money. every time we say no, building a bridge, road, next year the price goes up. it does that on bonds, jets, and everything.

we have people in ukraine, great people. what we did not count on was hiller coming back. host: in unrelated news, the "new york times" is reporting that the number of attendees who tested positive after the gridiron dinner is 67, of coronavirus. tom vilsack became the third member of president biden's cabinet who was infected. more than 10% of guests in attendance have tested positive. most of the employees work masked but most of the attendees were not. rick in california on the gas line. caller: good morning. i'm a definite yes. the official rate is 8% and they

are giving defense 4%. there giving the rs 20%. 20% from the irs. 4% for defense. that is just going to the rich and famous. host: why do you support the increase. -- increase? caller: china has a lot more ships than we do. general jack king will tell you, the equipment is old, outdated, older generation. china's defense spending is outpaced. china, russia, north korea. we have to deal with them in the future. let's get rid of those bozos

that left that equipment in afghanistan. host: last story i made a mistake, that was from the "washington post," not the "new york times." another color. -- caller. caller: china is not our enemy. the american people are dean of -- demonizing china and they are not our enemy. the are military competitors. they want to be friends with the rest of the world. we have allies all over the world and china just wants to be friends into game people who like them. no one wants to partner with them. they had billions of people or more and russia is declining. we don't have to worry about

russia. they are declining. host: in light of everything going on. you still think that? caller: yes. they are declining. their economy is only one third of california. their military is the highest paid in society. they are like rock stars. they have to conscript people and throw those people out there to die for their country. common people are not militarized. host: ok. let's hear from our no line. caller: i think money would be better if they put it to national security. i am sorry -- host: keep on with their

thought. caller: our national security and climate change. china is one of the partners that we need to correct climate change. they are not our enemy, they are a competitor like that man just said. china is sitting back and watching russia and they are watching the rest of the world and the countries that are turning their backs on russia and they are saying how bad they are behaving. we need china and we need the european union. host: if i may ask, when you come to national security and climate change, how did you arrive at that? caller: china is running low on water and so are we. that all has to do with climate change.

they need water more than they need to attack america. we also need water more than oil, believe it or not. host: one more call. ronald in north carolina on our yes line. caller: -- host: ronald, you are on. caller: yes. we need to spend more. like donald trump, make our country greater and better. host: why do you think that will happen if we spend more on defense? caller: protect our country, build the wall, keep south america out in the rest of the world out. host: thanks. north carolina, finishing up this hour of calls. thanks for those who participated.

if you did not get a chance this time, another round about 45 minutes from now. up until then, a guest is joining us talking about advancing russia and ukraine, especially as some see it as entering a new phase. we will ask a matilda -- retired military colonel. also, later on we hear from insider deputy dave leventhal who will discuss his ongoing investigation of members of congress and if a ban on stock trading is really in that. those conversations are coming up on "washington journal." go to c-span.org/ukraine. weekends bring you book tv, featuring leading authors discussing their latest

nonfiction books. from new orleans book festival at tulane university, author and historian discussions including walter isaacson, eddie rod and john meacham on the legacies of james baldwin and john lewis and authors on race and history. at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, former australian prime minister and asia society president and ceo talk to his book "the avoidable war" and his thoughts on how the u.s. and china can coexist and avoid a war in the your. he's interviewed by u.s. institute of senior expert on china. watch book tv and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. c-span shop.org -- browse our

latest apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spansh op.org. washington journal continues. host: our first guest of the morning is carl david johnson. he is retired with the rand corporation, a personal reserve -- researcher for them. also adjunct scholar at west point. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thanks for having me on. host: it has been many weeks since the conflict with russia and ukraine. as it stands today, where do you see things going? guest: the consensus right now is that the russians are backing away from kyiv at this point and they are going to concentrate on the eastern section of -- with

some continuing in the south. they've suffered pretty heavy losses now up around kyiv and i think they are repositioning to go to the next step. we think we know what they are going to do, but this is all in the mind of putin. host: i will show viewers the headlines in the washington post, it says ukraine prepares for a bloodier fight. guest: this could be because putin wants to show a victory at home. it is going to get much worse in the east. i think the pressure on putin and on the russian military now to perform well, to consolidate the area is enormous at this

point. i think he's going to do whatever it takes to be successful and that means people of cold the russian army an artillery army with tanks. go ahead, i'm sorry. it is brutal. i've seen a number of interviews where people talk about various weapons being used and unfortunately, those are not illegal. they are used against military targets as legitimate weapons. what putin is doing it, in my view, is what he did in chechnya and syria.

he is using these weapons designed to take on conventional armies against civilians and that is definitely illegal. host: i want to play you a little bit from the joint chiefs of staff who appeared at a hearing last week one of the things is about the status of what is going on and particularly if the u.s. and nato are pursuing the right strategy. here is the exchange and then i will take your comments on it. >> i will say that winning is a ukraine remains a free and independent nation like it has been since 1991 with their territorial integrity intact. that is going to be very difficult, a long slog. this is not an easy fight that they are involved in. the first part of it is in the last six weeks, they have managed to defeat russian onslaught, but there is a significant battle yeah head down to the southeast, down in the donbass region.

i think it is an open question right now on how this ends. ideally, putin decides to cease fire, stop his invasion, but that does not look like it is on the immediate horizon. >> do you believe that the current course is the best course, and are there any concerns about escalation that we need to mitigate? >> yes, i do think that the current strategy is the right strategy. number one, do not engage in armed conflict with russia, united its forces. second is to continue to support ukrainian people and their government with sufficient weapons so that they can help defend themselves and maintain the cohesion of nato because nato is a very powerful organization and is both a military and political alliance

in many ways. it definitely acts as a deterrent. those are the three main objectives the president has laid out for us and we will continue to execute those.i think that is the right track. host: that was general milley's take on what is going on and the way forward. guest: i think he is spot on. the biggest danger for the united states and all of this is climbing up the ladder. that is just one example that i think is really important to understand. it seems to make sense that it will stop russian aircraft, but the implementing means he would be engaging russia directly, and that is a risk over ukraine. but the other thing people need to understand is to effectively

enable a no-fly zone, you have to take out the adversary's air defense systems. most of what is in russia, the high-end systems are not much a problem. if you want to implement this no-fly zone over ukraine it sounds like a great, humanitarian to do, but it will get you into a shooting war with russia. i think this is a very carefully-orchestrated push. host: the kernel joins us until 8:45. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the other headline talks about the types of weaponry coming in from other countries. just to read a little bit, britain announced it was sending

missiles to target aircraft tanks and even ships. slovakia handed the ukrainian military a long-range defense system with the blessing of the united states and in another show of support for boris johnson, britton made a surprise visit to kyiv on saturday. what do you think about the influx of this, a patriot missile bank? what do you think about the influx of weapons? guest: i think they are more the same in some ways. this is the weapons system that is an old russian system that it was in the arsenal of many countries and the ukrainians know how to use it. you're giving them something that replaces the capability.

the patriots are assurance measures mainly for nato to use. they are not going into ukraine, but they are going into our nato allies on the eastern front to assure them of things going at the country purposely or not on purpose, was missiles or whatever. the increased weaponry, i'm not sure exactly what is useful against aircraft, ships and tanks. it sounds like it is a step above the javelin, obviously. it shows that folks are doubling down on supporting ukraine, which is a continuation of the policy we've had, but it is gradually increasing on the weapons systems. it will make a difference on the battlefield, obviously. host: is there a game changer

strategy that the ukrainians could get, or other countries could provide as far as changing what goes on on the ground? guest: i don't think so. my sense is what they are trying to do is stop the russians with the weapons they are using. the systems will be going in either on offensive operations or defensive operations. the important thing to understand, also, is that we are seeing the war mainly through the eyes of ukrainians who have done a brilliant job of managing the narrative about the war. i have been invaded, i am standing up, i need your help. it has been very well-put together. they locked a plastic that also practiced incredible operational

security, which means we really don't know in detail what the ukrainian forces are actually doing, and i would expect that. that is good military procedure. a lot of what we're seeing is through the eyes of the journalists in ukraine, and what the ukrainian messaging provides. we've seen very little about what is going on in russia, or things reported about losses, videos that are being sent around. this is a different war than any other war that has ever happened where every soldier is potentially a reporter if he wants to be. the increase in weaponry will make the ukrainians more able to defend. i haven't seen any talk about offensive systems yet. host: our guest with us until 8:45.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you could tell us a little bit about your work at rand corporation. what is it and how is it funded? guest: it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and we do research about public policy things that will hopefully improve policy. there's defense, national security, a big health component. there is education and there is civil justice. we are pretty much across the waterfront as far as things that we deal with. we have a home office in santa monica, a large office in washington, one in its bird and a european office in cambridge.

i think that my work is mostly in defense. i've worked on joint operations, i've written a book on the israeli war. my dissertation became a book about innovation in the army. i've written books about iraq and some of the key battles. i mainly focus myself on operations and learning from what is happening to improve. i'm obviously very interested in what is going on in ukraine, partly to understand our potential adversary capabilities but also to understand more about ourselves as how we will be able to help ourselves in the future. host: you do get money from various sources in the federal government including the department of defense. guest: right.

rand, we have funded research and development centers. our main one does the air force, and we are part of their budgeting to help them work. they don't have the internal resources. we have close to 1000 researchers, most of them phd's. it is a workforce that is hard to maintain in the government. host: let's hear from dave in new york. independent line, you are first off. dave, good morning. caller: when you talk about propaganda, it is so difficult to get an accurate idea of what is going on it. is in

back. they called a counterattack by ukraine but really the russians just all doubt they've left vulnerable a huge portion of the military to the east. but also, it is the muddy season in ukraine, but anyway, my viewer question is about article five. when i see this stuff in europe, that is all they do is fight with each other, kill each other, go to work. i really don't understand. i think about the neutrality act and the lessons we learn from world war i on.

i think, what is this institution? all it really is is there to send weapons to countries in nato. guest: i will have to respectfully disagree with your view of what world war i brought us. with our refusing to join the league of nations, if the united states is not seen as a leader, as it chose not to be after world war i, bad things have happened, to put it very simply. nato, as an organization, was designed to defend the west against what was a rising and very expensive world war ii. it has ebbed and flowed over

time. that threat is fact, so i think nato is becoming stronger, more unified there clearly is a threat from russia and the west. collective security is something that is vital to our interest area. with nato's, i think our relationship is linked europe and asia. these cooperative agreements ensure that competition as an economic call. pennsylvania, michael, democrat. guest: yes, i remember a few

months ago, a friend of mine who is very conservative sent me kind of a trope about a commercial that the army was using that showed ldv -- lgbtq families and then all of a sudden there was a big deal about how our military was this woke bunch of ineffective softies and of course they showed films of russian, almost superman, huge guys who were doing all of this crazy special forces stuff now, after the invasion of ukraine, i wonder, our people now seeing the difference between the russian military and the military personnel? that there is, in fact, a vast difference in america is not week, but we are much stronger than the russian military?

guest: i am with the army for 25 years and one of the things i admired about the institution in which i served is it was representative of america. what gives us strength in the military is we have an army and defense force that support a democratic government, and that government is the armed forces. what gives us strength on the battlefield is not how many pounds you can lift, it is how we work as a team that is focused on a mission that makes sense to everyone. i think one of the things you are seeing in russia, particularly in ukraine, whether they are 10 feet tall or not, they don't have a sense of purpose. what is different between the

ukrainians and the russians, the russian soldiers don't know why they are there. they are suffering losses, they are questioning what is going on. the ukrainians, like american forces in war, have never questioned why they are there. they are there for their country, but they are also there for -- this has been the strength of the american army since valley forge. it has citizen soldiers fighting for something more important than themselves. i think it is what makes us, the united states, the great armed forces we have. host: massachusetts, republican line. caller: hello, mr. johnson. i am a navy veteran and i was wondering, do you think that our army in the military would be able to do much better than the

hands, -- ukrainians, considering they have reduced boot camp for all of the armed services over the years? now they are getting more and more woke agenda training and things that aren't really necessary to help us prepare for things like that. it is just getting ridiculous. i'm wondering think that president biden is at all compromised by his son, making so much money in ukraine. guest: so there is a lot to unpack there, but i will begin with the first, which is that i think this talk about woke and other things, if you have been around the army in the other services, within a day, not just over the years, you realize that that is not what is going on. they are woke from the perspective that they are awake about what they have got to do and their jobs to defend this country against enemies, and

they are all prepared to do that. i am really becoming tired of the soundbites of woke and everything else taking over the military, because it is not. each of your sons and daughters is serving this country against the challenges we face in the future. we ought to honor them rather than talking about how they just don't understand things the thing about president biden, i don't know anything about that and quite frankly i don't think it is going to be any different than how he has approached this job and managing this conflict. host: how do you think nato changes when it comes to defense-related issues because of what we have seen over the last several weeks with russia and ukraine? guest: i think it is important to go back to the origins of nato. this is a military alliance that was designed to fight a threat.

that threat at the end of world war ii was the expansion that took over eastern europe. he created a sense of purpose that we have to have a common defense against this problem. and as that problem ebbs and flows overtime, you have seen nato become what it was during the cold war. we are seeing the countries in nato increased defense spending, become much more serious about what they think they need to do. and that is quite logical. i mean, it was logical that they decreased spending when there wasn't a threat and it should be expected they will increase spending when there is a threat. i think we are on the path to becoming much more capable. i think it is also really important to understand even

before this happened, native is still altogether. nobody was leaving. but then it solidified, and one thing the president has done through his policy and with the approach of the government was really unify nato behind what we are all going to be doing. host: again, we have about 20 minutes with our guest. the lines are (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8002, independents. it is that line where david is calling in from florida. caller: yes, i just wanted to tell you that i respect your service and i just totally respect the military. my question to you would be, " why didn't the biden administration and congress and the senate and the pentagon do something about russia when they

were putting all the troops there. i mean, they were doing at 9, 10 months before we ever invaded. it seems to me like something should have been done. nato and everything, they just sat on their hands. guest: this is a lot about a defensive organization. these exercises, they put large numbers of forces in the field to exercise. it was pretty clear and pretty early on that this is not an exercise, and the question is, what do you do about it? well, the buildup was around ukraine and nato effort. nato was under no obligation to become directly engaged in the confrontation with russia over ukraine. so the course that nato chose was an alliance to provide means

for the ukrainians to provide for their own defense. and they've done a lot of that. and there is more on the way. the important thing that you have to understand about nato is that it has interests beyond nato. but the alliance exists protect member states from external aggression. host: here is linda, republican line from delmar, new york. caller: my question is this. food is becoming very important to both china and russia. how the war proceeds depends on the end goals. and is the end goal to be -- for russia, considering russia is looking at areas of fishing, china is looking at u.s.

farmland and lending money to people who join the suez canal. they are lending the money to growing soybeans we've had our share of not only war, but disease, and now i'm wondering if starvation is going to affect the procedures the russians employee in the war as to strategy and armament, and i will let you -- these you to your thoughts. guest: i don't think part of the russian strategy is to -- starvation. ukraine is a food basket for the world, quite frankly i think there is an indirect second effect of is going to affect inflation, and within the squad

for years can be made up elsewhere were not, to try to rush that by end of everything, this is a global competition which is economic as well as military, diplomatic and informational. to just be clear eyed about what is going on and what we need to do about it. host: let me ask you this: when it comes to the use of weapons by russia, one of the likelihood of nuclear weapons coming into play? guest: that is the real red herring out there i don't think the russians will do that, as

long as they are not threatened inside of russia. my sense is that they have sufficient arsenal to do whatever they want to do in your brain. it is not a function of them not having the firepower, it is a function of then being able to overcome their resistance. this is, again, my opinion and speculation, i just don't see a reason the russians would use nuclear weapons in a conflict in ukraine. host: when it comes to defense budgets in the united states, we were talking to folks like at the beginning of the program about the defense budget rest 2023. a good deal of that money going to things like research and relevant. how important is that when it comes the future of the military versus weapons systems and the like. guest: it is really important, quite frankly.

and he think about what is the composure side of that weapon, how do you capitalize on emerging technologies and incorporate them with new capabilities that will makes asphalt more able to do what is measured we're seeing things now that i would have never imagined when i was in the army. every soldier has got one now. what are the impacts of artificial intelligence, and all the things we get pointed out

that artificial intelligence, robotics, we've seen the impact of unmanned aircraft ukraine. staying ahead of that curve where it is thing they can challenge them and give than edge in combat are really in research and development to maintain the legacy systems as we make those transitions sooner systems. host: is there a specific area, in your opinion, that men should be doing, a specific program or a specific field? guest: i think anything to do

with artificial intelligence, because that is not just at the highest level. that gets down to helping a soldier make a decision in the moment based on sensors he is wearing and -- my car, i don't even know what all the others.

anything that is out there, i want, but what is in my car changes every three months because of updates to firmware it tells me where the potholes are, now. the potential for these systems, for military applications is just enormous. and how do we come to grips with this not just physically, but the debate about killer robots. do you want robots to make the decision about should we engaged, what should we look for? are there conditions where that is ok? maybe. are there conditions where it is not? surely. working through all that is a really high-level policy discussion, but then the potential to have this and say

if you see this, shoot at it, we are seeing this happening in combat already. >> let's hear from phil, minnesota. caller: hello, colonel johnson. i lived in russia for five years. i've been in every major city in ukraine with the exception of odessa. you guys can say whatever you want to say, but the russians are never going to allow crane into nato because then --

ukraine into nato. i believe there is an extremely dangerous situation within the u.s. government they are never going to give up ukraine the only question is going to be how much of ukraine is left. caller: i agree with the caller.

russia with ukraine is an empire, russia without ukraine is not an empire. ukraine doesn't agree with the, obviously, and i have no ability to look in the future as far as native going as far as they go. my exception is -- >> it says in

the bible how everything is going to change and how the world from the global warming and all this and the earth lakes and the tornadoes are getting worse and worse and worse. no matter how much money they spend on trying to fix that, it is not going to happen because god wants that. now to the second is why when they walk ahead over in ukraine all the people, how do they get on the news and tell them exactly what they are sending over there, how they are going to use it and everything, when it is none of their business? why would they want to get on and advertise everything they are doing? that is so wrong. guest: i'm not going to comment

on what god thinks about global warming. the second part, i'm not really sure but the question was, i'm sorry. host: for what we saw as the atrocities of recent and bucha, how does that factor in? guest: it brings home to people that if this was an active policy by the russians, is not dissimilar to what they did with uighurs in towns in chechnya and when they went into the warsaw pact after world war ii. they went out and rounded up the usual suspects and either imprisoned them or executed them. their intention when they take over a places to install a leadership that is loyal to

russia. it looks like with these execution-style murders, these are not just random acts of violence. i don't know that for a fact and we will find out at the investigation can then use, but what it did is get national attention in a way that normal combat dozen. when innocent civilians are being bound and executed, that is way, way beyond the pale of what is remotely considered acceptable even at war. host: let's hear from margaret in texas, independent line. you are on with colonel david johnson. caller: i wanted to follow-up on the woman who much earlier mentioned starvation. with the changing environment,

our land is becoming deserts. we are having a shortage of water and people in different parts of the world are fighting over food. and it is going to affect, of course, the military, it is going to affect all of us and is going war after or after or as people are hungry and looking for resources. i am worried about ukraine, but this is the main worry for me, is that we end up in a world where there will be life on this earth, but there won't be human life any because there is not the sustainability for us. thank you, that is simply my comment. host: thank you. guest: even the national intelligence center has been talking about the impact of food

and water shortage for decades. and it is an issue. the question is is it going to prague -- cause widespread conflict, is it going to cause some unified response from those states who have things? i think we're seeing both. host: one more call from eric in new york, democrat line. caller: good morning, colonel johnson. a pleasure and a privilege. we have some of our best and brightest in the rand corporation trying to figure out the future of warfare and how to keep the peace, or how to stop the war against -- the goal of

war is peace. my questions is relating to your new car and the fact that you mentioned a confined potholes for you and tell you how to avoid them. i just imagine that there are very specific things like on battlefields, are going to render in no man's land, a man where -- land where no man can tread because they will be identified as a pothole which will become a real crater when something lands on them. where does that bring us in the not-too-distant future? guest: that is the eternal question of this never-ending competition between offense and

defense on the battlefield. for every new weapon, states design counters. i think the classic example right now is israeli old something called -- that shoots down missiles.

the cycle goes on and on because the reality is if you can't maneuver on the battlefield, there is no way to get to objectives. the idea of effective mobility or disrupting the ability for the adversary to attack you on the battlefield goes toward the resource development effort. how you maintain your ability to operate, that is the eternal compensation with technology and with the rand organization, joining us to talk about the events of russia and ukraine. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you very much. my wife is so happy i was on, thank you for having me. host: we will continue with the question we started at the hour of this morning as far as the u.s. defense spending, the

initial request from the presidents budget asking if the u.s. should boost defense spending. if you agree and say yes, call and tell us why at (202) 748-8000. if you say no, tell us at (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. announcer: this week, congress in recess the next two weeks. on monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, officials from the department of interior and service testify on federal wildfire management without natural resources committee. on tuesday, testimony about evolving trends regarding overdraft programs and fees, their impact on consumers, and help to avoid overdraft fees before the house financial services committee. wednesday at 9:00 p.m. user, a

look at substance abuse, suicide risk, and the american health system by the house ways and means committee. thursday, an interview with amy coney barrett the reagan presidential library. a conversation with supreme court justice sonia sotomayor. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span 2022 congressional directorate. go there today to order a copy of the congressional directorate. this book is your guide to the federal government with contact

information for every member of congress. also, contact information for state governors and the biden administration. preorder your copy today. or, scanning the code with your smartphone. host: as far as a breakdown of the defense west for 2022 from the biden administration, here are some of the high points. 770 $3 billion for the defense department, a four point 1% increase from 2022. 100 billion dollars of that going to research and development. $56 billion plus going to air and platforms. $12.6 million to modernize the army there are some other things, elements of the budget as well, a four point 6% pay increase for military and

civilian personnel. 470 $9 million to implement recommendations made by the independent review commission on sexual assault in the military and also, money to address behaviors and extremism within the ranks, $34 million. overall, what do you think about the idea of increasing the defense department budget? if you say yes, or no, maybe you are not sure. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8002 if you are not sure. the website just posting this morning about how one of the discussions when it comes to the matters of inflation, saying republicans argue that the proposed budget doesn't do enough to counter inflation as measured by the consumer price

index. lawmakers argue that inflation is being used to inflate the price of the goods in the agency. the agency acknowledges that it was wrong in its estimates on inflation but still feel that it could -- top priorities. we will do this topic until about 9:15 this morning. as you are calling in, we will get some reaction on the senate floor. this was mitch mcconnell last week talking about a budget as from the defense department. >> the administration has proposed a defense increase of 4% before inflation which does not come anywhere near meeting the military requirements to compete with china and preserve peace well into the future. the same budget has a gigantic,

14% increase on discretionary spending. as our collie chairman senators wrote a budget gave congress zero input or involved, they would look not much different than the actual product. china, russia, iran, north korea that they -- our commander-in-chief needs to get with row graham. host:host: a perspective from the los angeles times others are rest. -- on this request. only to use a when president biden was running for president, progressive's look for engagement from iraq and

afghanistan, you might think it was the russian invasion of ukraine that saying that prospect. we'll hear from you now. joe in panama city, florida. i am so sorry for what is going on in ukraine. i did spend time in the military, so i would do it in a heartbeat. not like we should spend any more money for ukraine.

go ahead and mute your television so you don't get any feedback. let's go to patrick from virginia on the "not sure line". caller: i appreciate what the general says, and definitely some of the callers. a very huge existential threat to everyone right now. i'm not sure, i saw the number for addressing sexual misconduct or issues in the military, and

it is just a huge number. it seems very ineffectual. it just jumped out at me, a 4% raise for the s&l, but a huge number for the civilians. charlie in new york, you are next up. caller: let me explain how things went back in the cold war. in the old soviet union, the military will tell the bureau what is needed in the bureau would provide the funds. we have defense committees in the house and the senate.

there is a budget that the pentagon must accept, even if the amount does not cover what is needed. any discussion must begin with conference of goals that the u.s. wishes to accomplish.

this is precisely the discussion so often lacking during budget season. call and let us know what you think about increasing defense spending. (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8001 if you say yes. (202) 748-8002(202) 748-8002 if you say no. if you are not sure. caller: i recently read an article in reader about the amount of waste and i'm nonpartisan and i really would like to see our congress members before they vote on raising the budget, which is automatic, automatically approved, i would like them to go out and actually do their job and it out there and see where my spend on. i agree with that notice that you have recently, i think we

are spending too much, we just aren't spending the money in the right way. that's it, thank you. host: what is the right way, in your opinion? caller: i'm a u.s. navy veteran and i saw firsthand. i think congress is supposed to be responsible for the money, but most of them have no idea what it means. if they could get out on bases and talk to the rank and file, they would find out with the rank and file actually means. technology is going to be the battlefields of the future, and that is where we should be focusing. host: michael, florida, not sure line.

the january 6 insurrection at military expense. host: michael in florida. guest: they think the overall big picture is dividing team is adding a weapon yet exist for war. this and the 298 shipped u.s. navy will provide -- while retiring 20 or. more deployment of the nato.

the army is seeking $177.5 billion. opening line for those who do not support the increase. caller: hello. well, i'm an army veteran who suffered through the issue of sexual harassment and assault, and i lost my career because of it. we've seen problems in the ranks, and the money going to investigate and research them, that all goes to private corporations. private corporations, people that are not in the military cannot come in and understand what the servicemember is actually going they don't need

to -- going through. there's enough military psychologists and researchers who wear the uniform but live their life they can do that. take all those millions of dollars and use it for military need. not the private corporations. since the 1980's, too much military spending has been used on private corporations. people who don't wear the uniforms and can't relate to what's going on. can't understand it. quit using the private corporations. use the military. host: that is laura in ohio. a sentiment expressed by elizabeth warren, when it comes to military contractors. and their role in the defense budget. here is a portion of the exchange. >> one of the things contractors love to do when they are flushed with extra cash is to use it to

boost their -- boost their stock prices. the contractors spent $15.5 billion on net by\dear, sending -- i've asked -- net buybacks last year, that is the most of any year on record, ever. it is not just membership commerce who is using inflation to ask for more money from the pentagon, i was troubled to hear pentagon officials doing the same earlier this week. secretary austin, let me ask you directly, are you comfortable with the figure in the president's proposed budget? >> i am comfortable and here is why. you may have heard me say earlier that we went through great pains to develop the national defense strategy. we knew our budget would have to match that strategy. and so, we went through great

pains to make sure that was the case. this is a robust budget. and i think it allows us to get the capabilities that we need to support our operational concepts. >> and you are good on this number without adding another $90 billion or $100 billion to it? >> we want to have the buying power to get the things we need. but, yeah. this budget gives us what we need to get the operational capabilities. >> i think $773 billion for the pentagon is too high. the notion we need to increase the total i-8 another $100 billion -- by another 100 billion dollars to $400 billion convinces them to pick taxpayers pockets. host: if you want to give us your thoughts on increasing

defense spending, as proposed by the biden administration in the initial budget request, (202) 748-8000. if you agree a defense department spending increase is needed, (202) 748-8000. (202) 748-8001 if you say no. (202) 748-8002 if you are not sure. you can text and tweet us as well. several of you have done that. you have toward her saying what would additional spending go to? the only place we accept growing more money at -- throwing more money at a nonexistent problem. aubrey says there is no need to boost defense spending. there is a need to make it more efficient and effective. the issues include finally getting a dod audit. start with each section until it is done. they take a look at china

spending on defense and posted an article on their website at csis.org, saying that the china defense budget has grown for decades and the increase in the 2021 budget is hardly surprising. the growth rate for 2021 stands as only the third yearly increase during the last decade. china's defense budget is closely linked to the economic development and security demands, according to a spokesperson from china. it was emphasized that china's defense budget was in line with china's national development, aimed at safeguarding national sovereignties, filling international -- fulfilling international response abilities. there is more to that and china's military budget if you want to look it up yourself, at csis.org. we will hear next from randy, in

kentucky. caller: good morning. thank you. mitch mcconnell, the senator here from kentucky, i think he is a terrible senator. the same as lindsey graham and these other warmongers, who are for these big budgets. they stick their nose in everybody's business and try to control everybody in the world. it has brought us to a potential thermonuclear war. just like in cuba in 1963, kennedy would have nuked russia. they are trying to say putin is worse than that. there is no way that he is worse than that. i think that rand paul is our other senator from here in kentucky. he needs to stand up and speak out more against this. if the republicans take back the senate, i don't want mitch mcconnell to be the leader in

the senate. host: as far as the case you make for not increasing defense spending, what would it be? caller: you give people money in their pockets, they will spend it and do something people with it. we have gone to these countries and keep disruption going. we can't let people live in peace over there. we wouldn't be in these situations if we hadn't tried to force the issue on putin with ukraine. host: let's go to gabriel in durham, north carolina. caller: hey, pedro. good morning. i am for increasing the defense budget, only because i believe we are in a race against china. we have to invest in artificial intelligence and machine learning. that is the new wave of where defense will be. ai and ml, whoever runs that will effectively run the world. host: what convinces you of

that? caller: i'm sorry? host: what convinces you of that? caller: for one, i work in ai and ml at duke university. i can tell you right now that china has been investing in this more than we have by a longshot. they have prioritized it on their channel one -- as their number one goal. this is what we want to dominate in in terms of the tech center. let me clarify one thing. i was in the navy for eight years and i can tell you now, i saw so much waste that happens like so many people have alluded to. there needs to be transparency in what these actual contracts are and what we are paying for, so that we are not getting screwed behind the veil of national security. host: that is gabriel.

victor off of our twitter feed says explain to me why just shy of $800 billion a year is not enough for the industrial complex? there is not a second -- close second in defense spending on this earth? -- on this earth. our twitter is at c-span wj. joe from connecticut, not sure about this idea. hello. caller: hi. i'm not sure they need more spending. i am pretty sure that a large percentage of the money that we do spend is wasted. china, you would be executed. as i recall in afghanistan, that is what happened. nobody got executed. they did not lose money. we are producing stuff the military does not need and will not need. our moneys are being wasted. if they would stop the waste, there wouldn't be any more money

needed. host: when you say waste, given example of what you think is wasteful in military spending. caller: claims that do not fly where they are supposed to fly. those companies are not held accountable. even that -- in afghanistan, people have no idea how to use them. of total waste. i -- a total waste. i only go by what i can read. there is a lot of waste and the fatcats get the money. it is as simple as that. as long as that continues, they should get less. they should get what they need. host: let's go to jay in charleston, south carolina. on the no line. hello. caller: how are you doing? host: i am well. how about yourself? caller: i'm good.

i really appreciate the previous callers. i'm just going to piggyback on a couple of their talking points that i will fortify with my own. budgets determine priorities. i will make this extremely clear. budgets determine priorities. we need to improve infrastructure. when you look at these black budget experimental weapons and development programs, along with data gathering, processing and projected tendency measures, counterintelligence, technical strategies, from everything from darpa, i mean we really have to look at what i just stated. it is not even clear what the

spending is on any of these programs. host: is that spending overall or how money is spent within the defense budget that is your problem? caller: these are excellent questions. it is why the gym and from kentucky and the one who worked at duke, i am on the outside looking in. host: you brought up specifics. overall, as far as spending overall, is it a particular program that you are not interested in seeing spending on? is it overall spending? how would you characterize that? caller: we literally have -- we are literally giving the elites core fighting groups, they literally have a blank check. you can go to specific websites and they will have a main

flight, blue blue -- blue or blacklock. that is basically all you're getting. we don't know how much is spent. we don't know what the contracts went to. host: that is jay in south carolina. a few more minutes on this topic. this is of you are from arkansas on our yes line. go ahead. caller: yes. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i am for boosting our defense budget. i don't think your listeners are seeing what they are talking about. this is defense, not offense. we need a defensive system against anybody who starts shooting missiles at the united states so we can take them down before they get here.

i don't care how many it takes. we need to appropriate the money to do that. we just don't have enough of them. my dad fought the japanese in world war ii. they caught us with our britches down. it took us nearly two years to build our service people up -- their service people up to where we could take the japanese on one on one. we don't want to get caught in that situation again. host: what makes you think we are in that situation in the first place? caller: because we are the leader of the world or are supposed to be. and we are the number one target that people would like to knock off. even our so-called allies don't like us. those people we bailed out in world war ii, they don't like us. so, we have to stay ready at all

times, defensively, for people who want to take us on. host: one more call. this is from jim in tucson, arizona. jim, go ahead. caller: yes. my opinion is that if you don't already have a system that will knock down a nuclear attack or these hypersonic missiles already, we need to spend more money. that is my opinion. host: that is jim, finishing off this round of calls on defense spending. i appreciate all of you who participated. we will be joined by insider deputy washington chief, dave levinthal. we will talk about congress' financial conflict of interest.

coming up on washington journal. ♪ ♪ >> first ladies, in their own words, our eight part series, looking at the role of first ladies, their time in the white house and the issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage to know what it was like to work in schools. education is such an important issue. both for a governor but also for president. that was very helpful to me. >> using materials from c-span's award-winning biographies series, first ladies. >> i am very, very much the kind of person who believes you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and c-span's online video library will feature first ladies lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, laura bush, michelle obama and melania

trump. watch first ladies in their own words, saturday's at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2, or listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. all this month, watch the top 21 winning videos from our c-span studentcam video documentary come titian. every morning, before c-span's washington journal, we will air one of our winners. you can watch all of the videos at studentcam.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues,

c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is dave levinthal, insider deputy of the washington bureau chief. thank you for giving us your time. this past week, taking a look at banning -- talk to us about the hearing and what prompted the event in the first place. caller: the hearing -- guest: the hearing was a culmination of several months of activity, following inside his projects in december at which

conflicted congress. it explored the myriad of ways members of congress over the past couple of years have violated this 10-year-old law of 2012. it passed its 10 year anniversary last week. what we have found is that we have 59 examples that insider and other media organizations have found where lawmakers violated the disclosure provisions of this law, which basically states if they make a financial trade, for example a stock trade, buying shares in exxon mobil, facebook or tesla, they have to disclose them within a short period of time. the fact of the matter is many simply did not. we found there were dozens and dozens of lawmakers who were making stock trades that could potentially conflict with their public responsibilities, by virtue of them being a member of congress. for example, we found 75

examples of members of congress who were buying or selling in the weeks immediately before or the weeks immediately after the pandemic occurred in early 2020, where members of congress were buying and selling stocks like pfizer and moderna and johnson & johnson and companies that make ppe. companies that were manufacturing covid tests. that and other things called into question whether the conflicts of interest provision was being adhered to. these issues and more were part and parcel of what this hearing before the committee on house administration, which oversees these matters, got into in great detail on thursday. host: some of the highlights, passed in 2012. it out lies -- outlaws insider trading by members of congress.

it forbids officials from participating in initial public offerings. walk us through the process. if a member of congress is going to buy or sell stock, what is the process? you say many people went by the deadline. what was the penalty if they did? guest: if i am a member of congress and i want to buy a stock and i want to buy, just for the sake of the argument, 10 thousand dollars worth of stock in moderna, we do that. you can buy the stock. it is legal for a member of congress to do so under current laws. depending on the kind of trade and whether you know about the trade immediately or you have a stockbroker make a trade on your behalf, you have between 30 days and 45 days to publicly disclose several things about it. number one, what was the trade in and of itself? what was the general value, you have to provide a dollar range for the value of that trade. you have to tell the public the

day on which you made the trade. and you have to publicly notify everyone as to when you became aware of that trade. so, it is a good amount of information. more than 10 years ago, there were situations that, for example, 60 minutes and other media organizations identified, where members of congress were effectively using insider information or information they had gleaned because of their positions as members of congress, to make well time to stock trades. the concern is that if members of congress are leveraging their position as public officials to use it for their private benefit, a lot of people thought we can do that. -- do better than that. public officials should not be going to washington, d.c. to give themselves a better opportunity to get rich. host: our guest with -- is with us until 10:00. if you want to ask questions,

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. i want to play you a little bit of the exchange between two members of the committee that held that hearing. the topic of conflict of interest came up and if it is defined clearly. this is between rodney davis, the top republican on the committee and donald sherman. he is a member of the government watchdog crew, over that definition. we will let you listen to it and then get that response. >> my only individual stock holding -- i got my only in the visual stock link when i was a child because my father worked for mcdonald's. i have not traded that stock since i got here. my kids, my children have that same asset. you know one reason i don't traded, i don't want to go through the paperwork.

-- trade it, i don't want to go through the paperwork. because i have owned the stock since i was a child, maybe i should sell it, right? since i own that one stock, mr. sherman, i have a question for you. i am interested in the comment that you said, owning and trading securities undermines the work of the entire federal government. does my owning an individual stock since my childhood undermine the credibility of the federal government? >> i think it is reasonable for any constituent to question whether their members stock ownership -- >> i want to reclaim my time because i want to go further. now that i am a member of congress and i own that one stock, my children own similar stock that they were gifted. my wife does not. if i go to a mcdonald's restaurant, because that is the

only stock that i have owned since a child, and i buy lunch, is that something that is unethical? >> certainly not. i think we need to craft ethics and policy around the concept of public service as a public trust. and we need to design a policy that would give the public the greatest confidence that their elected representatives and the body as a whole does not have financial conflict of interest and that members are not acting on them. >> it took me two minutes to find my disclosure. i would urge you all to find out if any of us here have any so-called conflict of interest. we need a baseline. we need a baseline of what all of you experts think would be a conflict of interest. we think we are complying with all of the rules and requirements that we need.

host: that is a bit of the exchange from last week, mr. leventhal. tell us about the clarity of conflict of interest. guest: rep zenit of davis is a republican from illinois. he is -- representative davis is a republican from illinois. he is an interesting case in that he does not trade stocks. he does not necessarily believe that the whole of congress should ban itself or its members from buying and selling stocks and artistic hating in the same type of free-market economy that other americans have the ability to do so. by the same token, there are hundreds of numbers of congress who actively trade stocks. some of them, in extreme cases, trade 10, 20, 30, 50 stocks every week. and are constantly making some stock decisions or employing people to make stock decisions

for their personal benefit. the question becomes, for the members of congress who do trade stocks, are they complying with current law? if they are not, what should we do with them? you mentioned a penalty before, if someone does the wrong thing in congress, the penalties are very low. we mentioned one member of congress, a representative from texas, he made roughly $10 million to $20 million worth of stock trades that were linked. and he simply did not disclose them in the timeframe that the federal law or congress itself prescribed is the rule. he broke the rule, he broke the law. what happened to him? the fine for a first-time stock act violator is $200. it is $200, whether you have made late trades -- lake disclosed trades that were worth $1000 or $1 million or $10 million. some members of congress,

including reppo senate of davis, have said we should not go so far -- representative davis have said we should not go so far. maybe we should do something that enhances the penalties if you violate them. or strengthen it so that instead of his closing -- disclosing stock trades within 30 days, it has to be within 24 hours. something that would be doable with the technology that is available. this is something we heard during the hearing. do we want to go big? do we want to do something that will be widespread and transformational, when it comes to the expectations of numbers of congress when they are trading stocks. or, should we do something that will be a bit more around the margins, on the periphery, and take current law and kind of just create an enhanced stock act? it seems like we are

collectively on a course of doing something. the question right now is what is that something going to be. that is a question they did not answer in the hearing on thursday. host: your website has a specific section, taking a look at this issue of straining -- of trading stock. you look at specific members of congress. her team members of congress, rated in the category -- 13 members of congress, rated in the category of danger. talk about the effort of tracking this. guest: it was important for us not to just look at one or 10 or 20 members of congress, but to look at every member of congress. this is not a new issue. the stock act was passed 10 years ago because it was an issue then. we found evidence, especially two years ago, of a few members of congress, right around when we hit the piece -- peak of the pandemic making curiously timed

stock trades. one of them was senator dianne feinstein. a couple of others were investigated for whether they were engaging in insider trading. the bar for insider trading is incredibly high. there has never actually been a member of congress in either the house or the senate who has been convicted, first of all, of insider trading since the stock act has been passed. there is nobody who has been charged, either. the closest we got was represented of chris collins from western new york, a republican who ended up going to prison. president trump pardoned him 10 weeks later for insider trading. that was related to his actions on a corporate board he sat on while he was a member of congress. a different law that was prosecuted under. ultimately, there is evidently a situation where members of congress, both democrats and

republicans i should note, say maybe we also have to look at exactly what insider trading entails. what conflict of interest entails, and should we be doing something different if a member of congress sits on the house armed services committee or the senate armed services committee and is trading stock any defense contractor like general dynamics. this is actually an issue we have reported on in the past several weeks to a significant degree. we have found evidence that members of congress on the left and right, who have made stock have made stock trades around or on the day of when russia invaded ukraine and they were buying defense contractor stocks. that raises the question as to whether they had information privately that they got confidentially as a member of congress that would inform their trades on the stock. or where they tried to make money off the market using

information available to everyone knowing the defense contractor stocks could very well increase in a wartime situation? host: let's hear from viewers. anthony in detroit, michigan, independent line. anthony, go ahead. caller: good morning. it does not help our representatives are multimillionaires. they are so far removed from the everyday struggles of the people they represent. but i would like to say don't forget about cabinet secretarys too. granholm owns stock in a battery company president biden toured last year and then sold the stock a month later. she also had about $400 worth of fines in undisclosed stock sales in 2021. don't forget cabinet secretarys. host: how does it far to reach

out besides members of congress? guest: the caller is right. i am glad he read our article. jennifer granholm violated the stock act with disclosures that were very late. this is not an issue that is exclusive to congress by any stretch of the imagination. this definitely extends to the executive branch. the difference for the executive and legislative is that the rules for congress are, by and large, weaker than for the executive branch. the stock trading happening in congress is notable because congress itself will craft the laws which will cover not only the executive branch but congress itself. congress, for all intents and purposes, is its own referee when it comes to the enforcement of the stock act, when it comes to the enforcement of the rules, regulations and laws that govern the personal finances of

congress. congress is policing congress. the department of justice can get involved in extreme situations and criminally investigate members of congress, although that is rare. the sec which we think of when we talk about insider trading activities, securities and exchange commission, they can get involved and we mentioned richard barr earlier. the sec still has an investigation open on him who is retiring at the end of the year at exiting the senate. i don't want to call them bit players but they are not the primary players when it comes to managing this type of activity. the executive branch can be huge if they do not do the right thing. host: pat in new jersey, republican line. caller: sir, isn't just looking

at stocks kind of basic? what about children employed by government contractors? doesn't that also influence members of congress? isn't that a clear conflict of interest? host: mr. levinthal. guest: spouses can become a huge issue and they have become a major topic of debate in the conversation as to whether ban members of congress from buying or selling stocks. in the crux of that debate, all right, if we ban members of congress from trading stocks but yet, their husband or wife is able to trade stocks or make other financial trades that could benefit the member of congress -- spouses share information all the time -- the spouses making trades that are

informed by a member of congress, isn't that a problem? that is one of the arguments we have heard a lot from government reform organizations who would like to see a wholesale ban. and some members of congress, too. more than half a dozen different pieces of legislation have been introduced during this congressional session, some of them in the past few weeks or months, that tackle the direct issue of spouses. and dependent children. the senator from tennessee, his independent children bought seven-figure stakes in the major league soccer team in nashville. it was a story we wrote about. that was surprising to people who said, wait, the children are buying into a soccer team that is primarily owned by a big republican donor to the member of congress? that seems weird. sometimes these questions come

up as well. definitely a situation where the family members are being included in this conversation and some of these bills say not just a member of congress would be banned or restricted, it would be the spouses and the dependent children. host: one of your colleagues at "the insider" talks about speaker pelosi and her husband. guest: speaker pelosi, nancy pelosi, is kind of the poster member of congress for this activity. nancy pelosi herself does not trade stocks. she has made that clear on many times. but her husband trades tens of millions of dollars worth of stocks and stock options every year. he is a wealthy financier venture capitalist. he trades in a professional context but also in a personal context with his stock trades, his purchases and sales,

ostensibly affecting nancy pelosi at every turn. in some cases, these are stocks of companies that have a great deal of distance with congress. facebook is a great example. congress is constantly making policy that would affect companies such as facebook or other big tech companies. but yet, her husband is making trades around the same time this is being discussed on the floor of congress and capitol hill. nancy pelosi is critical to this entire debate in the sense that she has gotten squeezed in a major way. in december when our conflicted congress project published, we asked her about this. my colleague went to a press conference and put the question to speaker pelosi and said, should members of congress, given what we know now, be buying and selling stocks? at that point she said, and i paraphrase, it is a free market

economy and yes, they should have the right to do so, they should have the right to participate. but then something strange, by current standards, happened. she got a lot of flak from the likes of alexandra conseil cortez, elizabeth warren, but also from the right. donald trump said, speaker pelosi is wrong. she should be banned from this activity. her husband should not have to trade. kevin mccarthy in the republican party, house minority leader, said, i would be open to a stock ban. speaker pelosi changed her tune very dramatically and very quickly and said, we can explore this and maybe we need better penalties and gave her tacit blessing to republicans going forward in what manifested itself in the committee hearing we had on thursday with the committee on house administration having a full

debate about where we want to go from here. host: from scott in maryland, democrat line. caller: hi. if most members of congress are already millionaires and it is prudent to invest in stocks, why did they invest in individual stocks? if they invested in the index like nasdaq 100 or s&p 500 growth index, it would outperform the bench. nobody has a crystal ball. you can have insider info and still lose money. if you look at the stockpicking performance of the last decade and not just the last three years, they are not that good at picking out performers. shouldn't we let congress learn the hard way you should stick to indexes? guest: the caller makes a great point. this is something that has been debated to a great degree. there are members of congress who say, this is crazy that members of congress, in their opinion, should be able to trade individual stocks.

they argue there is always the threat that if a member of congress trades in individual stocks, they could use information that would affect a particular company to benefit themselves. you have members of congress who absolutely would like to do what the caller said which is required members of congress to, if they have stock holdings, put them in mutual funds, put them in exchange traded funds, government bond funds. that would be fine because it would be diversified and a member of congress could not effectively gamble on the individual stock of an individual company that may have business before congress. that is only one of the options being considered. it is unclear as to whether that is going to be in the mix at the end but definitely debated. host: the conflict of congress website is available at the businessinsider.com. david leventhal is the deputy

washington bureau chief. bob in pittsburgh, republican line. caller: hello. it is not just the money they are making. i have been exposed to pelosi who invested $3 million in tesla. how is that going to affect her voting for green energy? there is another woman spokesperson, blonde woman on tv, guy asked her, how she could get more oil production. they found out she got money in green energy. but people lost their tax money but the people that ran the company got theirs back. this whole thing, it is not just the money, it is how does it influence the vote? in pelosi's case and this other woman, it is out front and probably more democrats. that is why they are for this green energy. that is why a company on its own

makes real money. i remember watching about rockefeller. he invested his own money for gas stations. pelosi and the rest of them could make more money. how many more democrats are making money off of this? that is why they are stopping oil. host: ok. you put a lot out there for our guest. we will let him respond. guest: that is a big question that factors into this debate. for example, we found as part of our conflicted congress project about two dozen democrats who have very, very strong environmental records. the league of conservation voters, big environmental interest group, they have an annual scorecard that comes out in these democrats that we looked at scored highly on the annual report card. top of the list. we also found as part of our reporting that these particular democrats had personal stock interest in oil companies,

fossil fuel companies, power companies that have oil and natural gas as part of their energy portfolio to generate energy and other companies. is that a conflict of interest or not? you be the judge. is that something that should be prohibited as part of one's service in congress? that is up for debate. but it is fact and it is a situation congress actively is grappling with right now. for those who would like to see members of congress restricted to a greater degree when it comes to their stock trades the argument they have been making all along is that, hey, we want to avoid any situation regardless if you are a democrat or republican that when you go to make a vote in congress or sit at a committee hearing or entertain a lobbyist in your office or you go to a fundraising event, you don't

have your own personal stock portfolio in mind factoring into your decision-making when you are in one of the situations. they would have it that that factor would be removed from the equation when a member of congress is doing his or her public duty as a member of congress. host: dave levinthal, you talked about transparency. if someone outside of congress, the average viewer, wanted to find out about the stock trade activities of a member of congress, how easy is that? guest: depends on how deep you want to go. if you want to find out about your local member of congress or your state senators, you can go to a website, there are two different websites that they publish free and available to anyone, and you can look at their reports. there are two types of reports. number one is an annual report every member of congress by law has to file. it lists all of their stock trades the last year, stock

holdings, it lists other financial assets. if they wrote a book and got royalties from it, it would appear. if they have other types of corporate entanglements or they received gifts or made speeches that had money, they would have to list that. that comes out once a year. the other types of information that is a lot quicker are what are called periodic transaction reports. these periodic transaction reports are reports a member of congress has to file within that time period which is 30 to 45 days after making a financial trade. we have talked about stocks but some members of congress are investing in cryptocurrency. you have to list that too. it goes beyond stocks into different types of assets and trades. that information is available. the question is, if you want to find out -- we mentioned tesla

-- every member of congress who buys and sells tesla, you cannot get that from what is available publicly for the house and senate website. as part of our project we took this data, which is not searchable or sorted, and we created our own database and made it searchable. you can now look and see if a member of congress is trading in tesla and how many are doing that as well. for those transparency advocates who would like to see more from congress when it comes to the accessibility of this information, they make that point a lot saying congress can do better in making this information much more searchable, much more digestible for the general public. and i should note this information is also available by law from congressional staffers, top congressional staffers, general councils, chiefs of staff and such. that information is about as non

-public as public information could be. you quite literally have to go to a couple of computer terminals physically on capitol hill to access that information to get access to it. nothing to determine what it means or what we said that we created a searchable database for that to determine there were 182 members of congress or congressional staffers for members of congress who violated the stock act. we talked about the executive branch, members of congress, we have seen violations from dozens and dozens of high-ranking congressional staffers in addition. host: eddie, los angeles, california, independent line. caller: good morning. good morning to your guest and everyone. you talk about conflict of interest in our congress.

let me ask you about the clinton foundation. they left the white house broke, bankrupt. they got a $3.5 billion foundation. that is in less than 10 years. we can also talk about how was she able to get $140 million under uranium one? that is a conflict of interest. a representative is not supposed to profit neither their family or their aides. clinton's brother, she got him a gold mine in haiti. how is that not a conflict of interest? host: that is eddy in los angeles, california. guest: the laws of the country that apply to officials, congress, executive branch, presidents, they pretty much stop in the fashion they are designed for for

elected officials when they leave government service. there has been a ton of questions about the clinton foundation. there has been a ton of questions about everything donald trump has been doing since he left office. there are examples among democrats and republicans of, well, former members of the government using their positions or prestige in a way that is benefiting themselves personally. objectively the answer is yes. i don't know how that is avoidable. just about everybody knows you, but it is important to note the laws that apply to one when they are in government service become different when somebody goes back into private life. even if they are the most public of figures. host: there is a viewer who texted us this money. ed in arlington saying, why doesn't the law require them to put it in a blind trust? guest: blind trusts are another issue that came up at thursday's

congressional hearing and have been an issue for a long time. there are only, we found, about a dozen members of congress who put their money in a qualified blind trust. this is a blind trust where a member of congress will put his or her assets into a trust managed by an independent trustee that they are not only supposed to have an arm's-length relationship with their own money but no relationship with their money while in congress. that trustee does the buying and selling without any of their knowledge before hand or when the trade is made. they find out about it months later when the public does. a qualified blind trust is congress itself approves of that trust. the paperwork that goes into forming that trust becomes a matter of public record. very transparent for the public and the member of congress does not have insight into it. very technical answer but the key is this is an option as well

discussed and could go forward. the catch is that qualified blind trusts or blind trusts in general are expensive, and time-consuming, and rodney davis, the republican member of congress who is the ranking member committee on housing administration the conducted this hearing, he made the point if you are a middle-class member of congress, there are lots of millionaires in congress but there are some who are mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb

affect some members of congress more in practice then it would other members. host: before we let you go i want to point people and show them the conflict of congress website. walk through our viewers what kind of information they can find. guest: you can look at information for every single member of congress. it was incredibly important to us that we look at the totality of congress because, as we mentioned before, this is an issue that affects everyone in congress. we would be falling down on our job if we did not try to go as broad and wide and deep as we possibly could which was the point of doing this work. we ranked every member of congress against a standard rubric using about 10 different metrics to determine whether they were being transparent or as transparent as they should be under the law. whether they did basic things

like trade stocks or not trade stocks. this may seem almost trivial but it really isn't. are there di mlb mlb mlbmlb handwrite there disclosures and have bad handwriting. it is difficult to know what they are trading because it is not clear on paper on which they are disclosing it. this information and more mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlb mlbmlb mlb mlb mlb

oughshod over us and disregarding the laws they pass. what can we do as individuals to hold them accountable besides scream and yell and whine? i want to thank you for what you do in exposing them. seems like you cannot kill a rat unless you see where they are at and there are plenty of rats in congress. help us understand what we can do as individuals to stop this

nonsense of people who claim to represent us when they are only digging into our pockets to see how far they can go. guest: thank you for the question. the most basic answer is you can contact your member of congress, anyone can, and let them know this is an issue you care about. there have been several poles done in the past couple of months -- polls done in the past couple months that asked the public, do you care about this and what should happen? should members of congress being banned from treating individual stocks while they are a member of congress? what the findings were almost across the board is that whether you are republican, independent, or democrat the vast majority of people said members of congress should be banned. you may agree with that, you may disagree with that, but regardless of how you feel you can communicate that beyond

these polls and go directly to your member of congress to let them know. a lot of people will say that, hey, contact your member of congress but this is different in the sense congress is actively considering this question right now. there are bills being actively debated. i should also note senate democrats who are taking the lead on this into a major way because they have the majority in the senate and the house, they are actively considering a consolidation of the different bills that have been proposed and trying to figure out a path forward and what they are going to offer up as they basically have a consensus bill that can go to the floor of congress to be voted on. this is not hypothetical, this is not theoretical. the action is happening on capitol hill as we speak which makes that communication from the public to the public representatives that much more urgent.

host: from missouri, democrat line, rob is next. caller: good morning. mr. levinthal, i am glad you are exposing something that needs to be exposed. but i think you are saying how do we make the executive branch beholden to the people? there are more streams of illegal money flowing in the veins of politics besides what you're talking about. the other is the dark money the supreme court said was ok under citizens united for businesses -- they said corporations are people which is baloney. and then you have lobbying which is legalized bribery. you cannot just say democrat, republican, independent. the whole system is basically corrupt and set up to help the corporations. i'm sorry to say but we are a fashion government. we are beholden to the corporations. people may call in and say nancy

pelosi, blah, blah, blah, but the whole system is corrupt. we had a president the last four years before biden that violated the clause and had government officials and foreign dignitaries staying at his hotels and profiteering from that. and they said that was ok. host: sorry about that. we have to leave it there. guest: c-span has done entire shows on all the issues you talked about and this is something that absolutely if you are looking at the way money affects policy in its totality, absolutely you are talking about campaign money. you are absolutely talking about lobbying. one of the issues when it comes to the personal finances of lawmakers is the issue of lobbying and there is the notion that members of congress are investing in companies that spend considerable amounts of money, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars every year,

to lobby the federal government, including congress itself. yes, the rules and regulations put in place to govern this type of activity go beyond the personal finances of lawmakers, although that is a key aspect of the conversation we are having now. campaign money in particular is coming up into the foray as we hit the stride of the 2022 midterms which, we say this every midterms but will be true again, it will certainly be the most expensive we have had in u.s. history. partially because of decisions made either in the courts or congress that have allowed a greater degree of money to flow into the system and be used in the context of elections and the electoral process. host: dave levinthal with "the insider" talking about congress and financial issues. as always, thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure. thank you, pedro. host: that is it for the program today. another edition of "washington

journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal ." every day, we take your calls on the air live on the news of the day and discussed issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, we will discuss the future of the republican party with francis rooney. and former new york democratic congressman steve israel talks about the challenges facing the democratic party heading into

the upcoming midterm election. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern day morning on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. >> april 15, 2022, march the 75th anniversary of the day jackie robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball. since 2004, april 15 has been known in the baseball world as jackie robinson day in honor of the brooklyn dodgers player. tonight on "q&a," a former senior writer for sports illustrated talks about his book where he writes about robinson's life, career, and his role in the civil rights movement. >> one way to think about this is to realize that when he made that debut, martin luther king

had still never given a public speech or sermon. he was not a large figure yet. when we think of that era of the civil rights movement, it had not begun. jackie was truly a pioneer in that sense. so when you think about it came with a little bit of characteristic generosity but also being true that he would not have been accepted as he was and gotten where he was if not for what jackie had done. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> this week on c-span, congress is in recess for the next two weeks. on monday at nine a copy of eastern, officials testify on

wildfire management for the house natural resources committee on tuesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, testimony about evolving trends regarding overdraft programs and fees, their impact on consumers, and how to avoid overdraft fees before the house financial services committee. on wednesday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, a look at substance abuse, suicide risks, and the american health system by the house ways and means committee. and on thursday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, an interview with supreme court justice amy coney barrett at the reagan presidential library. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a conversation with supreme court justice sonya sotomayor at washington university in st. louis. watch this week on c-span or on c-span now, our free mobile app. also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband, a force for impairment. our charter invested billions building infrastructure, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, republican senator chuck grassley, and senator ron johnson release document on the business dealings of hunter biden, the president's son. this is about 30 minutes. sen. grassley: