bit helpful. >> thank you so much for sharing so much of your >> this morning, the ftx ceo will testify before the house financial services committee. live on c-span3, on c-span.g,

or c-span now, our free mobile video p. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies a more, including comcast. comcast sports c-span as a publicervice, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to mocracy. coming up this moin on "washingtonoual," ben olinsky with the center for american progress joins to talk about allegations of separate -- supreme court leaks and will talk about a code of ethics. an representative august pfluger of texas talks about government funding and border security. later, alex ruoff discusses the house select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis and its final report and recommendations.

you can join the conversation with your calls, texts, and tweets. ♪ host: good morning. tuesday, december 13, 2022. house and senate in acting :00 a.m. eastern this morning, and government funding is the topic of the week -- house and senate in at 10:00 a.m. eastern this morning. congress is moving toward passing an $858 billion bill known as the national defense authorization act. we want to know what you think about that. if you think we, as a country, spent too much on the military, call (202) 748-8000. if you think we spend too little, (202) 748-8001. if you think we spent about the right amount on the military, it is (202) 748-8002. and we especially want to hear from this active and former

members of the military this morning. a special line for you, (202) 748-8003. that is alsthe number you can send a text on. ease include your name and where you are from. you can catch us on twitter using @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/ c-span. a very good tuesday morning. you can start calling now on u.s. defense spending. doe spend too much, too little, about right? here is what we are on track for in 2023, a breakdown of the national defense authorization act, which is moving towards a vote in the senate this week. 858 billion dollars is the top line number. that is $45 billion over what president biden originally requested in his budget request this year. $163 billion for weapons and procurement projects. $2.7 billion for addional munitions production in the u.s. four point 6% across-the-board

pay raise for troops. also of note, negotiated is a provision that would prohibit the discharge of troops w refuse the covid-19 vaccine. that is all in the national defense authorization act. other provisions, $45 billion for a sea launched cruise missile system, $32.6 billion for navy shipbuilding, $6 billion for the pacific deterrence initiative, taiwan being a big part of that, and $800 million at least for ukrainian security assistance in 2023. that bill passed in the house last week, 350-80. here is some of that debate on the floor, mike rogers of the armed services committee talked about his support. [video clip] >> this book focused on ensuring our war fighters are the best equipped and trained in the world. increased training for

readiness, reversing cuts in projects, expanding training availability for service members, and improving the safety of the ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities were our war fighters served. over $6 billion in legacy systems that do little or nothing to deter china or other adversaries. we reinvest those savings in emerging technologies such as ai, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems. these are the technologies we need to ensure our war fighters prevail in future battlefields and threats against us are rapidly evolving. the bill is laser focused on preparing our military to counter threats from china and other adversaries and makes critical investments to new systems couple of surviving. it includes provisions that will further harden our supply chain and industrial base against

infiltration from china. it reaffirms our support to allies in the region, especially taiwan. finally, it strengthens our european alliances these democracies face grave threats from that crackpot in the kremlin. host: mike rogers on the floor of the house last week ahead of the house vote on it. we are talking about and $858 billion national defense authorization act. another way to put it in perspective, this headline, it would increase the defense budget by 8% compared to fiscal 2022, and that bill passed overwhelmingly in the house last week and is headed to a vote in the senate this week. over the weekend, senator bernie sanders was on "state of the union," and he was asked about whether he would support that bill. this is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the record-breaking defense funding bill that the house passed this week, the senate is

going to vote on it, you voted against the defense bill last time around. will you do so again? >> yes, i think i will. look, we have 85 million americans with no health insurance, 600,000 people who are homeless. we have a dysfunctional health care system, dysfunctional childcare system where working parents are paying $15,000 a year on average for child care. we have got to start protecting the needs of working families. the pentagon is the one major agency of government which has never been in dependently audited. there is massive waste and fraud and cost overruns within that agency, so i think we can have the strong defense whinnied without spending a huge amount of money we are currently -- that we need without spending the huge amounts of money we are voting on. host: that folks expected

sometime this week, a big week for government funding. if a provision is not past to fund the government by midnight friday night, there will be a partial shutdown. efforts are underway to stave that off, perhaps for a continuing resolution for a week or so to give members of congress more time to negotiate what is being called an omnibus spending bill, 12 different spending bills packaged in thatch. we expect a separate vote on that ndaa, national defense authorization act, in the senate sometime this week, $858 billion on the line with that vote. we are asking you what you think about u.s. defense spending levels. too much, too little, about right? and we want to hear from former and active members of the military. we start with that, tony out of gaithersburg, maryland. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning.

yes, i think we are at the right amount of money when you look at defense spending. i think we have to meet the amount of funds allocated, but when you look at what is coming from all over the world, you have to have a capability to defend the country. i think we are at the right amount to do things needed to be done. host: did you think last year's level was not enough? this bill 8% more than last year. caller: i mean, i think it is right in line when you look at things like inflation and just the fact that costs are increasing as new technologies are developed. funding has to keep pace with what it costs to maintain different capabilities. host: tony, what branch do you

serve in? caller: the army. host: in terms of how we support the army in this country with its needs, when did you serve and what did you see? caller: yeah, so i have done the normal iraq and afghanistan type things. pretty much, if there was an equipment need, all the way down to those bottom-line soldiers, those needs were met. so i did not see any point where soldiers were let go without funding. host: thanks for the call and for what you do. michael in florida, also on that line for those active and former members of the military. what branch did you serve in and when? caller: the army. host: what do you think about our defense spending levels? caller: -- is ridiculous because

soldiers are the least paid people in the world. that guy before you, he never spent a day in his life in the army. because anybody with common sense knows that soldiers are the lowest paid people in the world. he talking about sending -- when you bring back the draft, that will put everybody on the line and the people who sit back and tell these lights will speak up because they do not want their children going into war. host: in terms of military pay, we mentioned this in the wrapup of the bill, but here is the story for military.com, one of the largest military pay raises in decades is coming for active-duty troops as part of this defense authorization bill. under the plan, active duty troops will receive a 4.6% pay

raise come the largest bump in 20 years here the 2022 military pay raise was 2.7%. the expected 2023 payraise represents about $1300 more over the course of the year for many junior trips, $2500 more for senior enlisted in junior officers. it would take effect in january. and that is if this bill is passed this week in the senate and signed by the president. john in bridgewater, new jersey, republican, good morning. new jersey, good morning. it was a bipartisan vote in the house. we will see what happens in the senate. caller: thank god. i go back and remember -- by the way, we won the vietnam war and all the other wars.

i go back to the 1970's when they tried to neuter our country and the democrats, so i am happy to see democrats -- i will never vote democrat for a lot of reasons. supporting the military, this is truly crossing the rubicon for this country. host: so this bill, the ndaa, national defense authorization act, actually has a long history of being supported by both sides in both changer -- chambers. if it passes and is signed by the president, it would be the 62nd consecutive year that congress have reached a bipartisan agreement on this ndaa. caller: that is good. i do not disagree. but we know democrats, and you just had bernie sanders, come

on, because way back. but for some reason, ok, i will take the win without arguing about it. host: that is john in new jersey. this is aaron in alexandria, virginia, in line for those who say it is too much. caller: bernie sanders is an independent, by the way. so we all know that a bipartisan vote on it, the military industry is overinflated and bloated because they pay themselves back. that is why the bipartisan vote. i, of course, support our military, but if they just cut it back by $1 billion and put that into programs or people inside the country, instead of just inflating the process, we would have a better result. there is no need in order to justify your budget by that much

money. that is a ridiculous amount of money. where it does go into legacy systems, they are outdated. it is too much money. it is always going to keep going up. i was a contractor, and i know that. host: this bill is $45 billion over what the biden administration originally submitted in their budget request, meaning congress added $45 billion more in there in this process of going through capitol hill. caller: yes, and that $45 billion goes back into the investments that they all make. if we just make it $44 billion, which does not hurt many people, we can invest that locally. it is not that much money when you look at it across-the-board, one billion dollars, what, powerball was $2 billion. this puts the money back into

the people's hands. that is taxpayer money they are playing with, and they are always inflated. they are going to do it again. people talking about it, it is just going to be our money being put back into large corporations that really don't do anything. i have been there. host: what did you do there? what kind of work did you do as a contractor? caller: i did i.t. support and allocations development. i am a contractor. i know because i get paid way too much. host: do you still do that work? caller: heck yeah. i am in there now, go get my money. [laughs] that is what i do. host: this is everett in bel air, maryland, on the line for retired military. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i am a retired u.s. army,

and i also served in afghanistan. i am all in favor of taking care of the military, but i'm not in support of the republican agenda , and the agenda is getting out of control the democrats have a better idea -- host: good morning, sir, huntsville, alabama. caller: i am also retired military and also saying this is too little, not enough. our military is struggling right now, trying to recruit people to

join. so our young full -- folk who are now graduating out of college with a two-year degree or four-year degree, it is a big industry, the military. so why aren't these young men and women using sign-on bonuses, just like ibm, northrop grumman? the military needs to do the same thing. knowing that, this is not enough. our constitution mandates that we have a strong military to protect our country. air force, i gave our country 24 wonderful years, and i will always support the military in any endeavor. so i say it is not enough. host: what is enough? right now, the end strength, if implemented in hiring goals fulfilled, at 1.3 million member

military, including some 450,000 members of the u.s. army, 350,000 members of the navy, 325 member air force, 177,000 member marine corps. and then space force up to close to 9000. what is enough? caller: i'm not a military planner. and, oh, yes, space force is coming to my town here in huntsville. but i can only say, who knows, only the people at the pentagon and those who design our military operations. i have no idea. host: do you trust those people, robert? caller: absolutely. i am 75 years old now. it is just like i trust my doctors and my attorneys if i have a legal problem or whatever . i am not trained in those different industries, so yes, i

trust the pentagon, absolutely. host: thanks for the call. jim in missouri, former military. caller: the way i see it is senator sanders is once again trying to protect us from the waist, also mentioned fraud -- i certainly hope he is wrong in that particular regard, but keeping us from spending what, in my judgment is way, way too much money, money better spent to taking care of our citizenry here at home, however, always wound in these various military appropriations are pay raises for the military. of course, they need to be able to recruit if our numbers are too low. so we're kind of caught in a tough spot here. once again, i side with senator

sanders. i will say it is way too much money. host: a call from a member not supporting this level of spending the head of the progressive caucus in the house, talking on her no vote last week when this came up for a vote in the house. this is her on msnbc. [video clip] >> you mention the idea of funding for the military. the house this afternoon has passed the national defense authorization act, with last-minute drama there, which would undo the covid vaccine mandate for members of the military, something we have covered a lot on the show. it is now looking likely to fall out of the military mandate. you and 45 democrats voted against it.

why? >> i have been voting against the ndaa since i came into congress, because i simply do not believe that we need such an increase in defense spending every year without accountability for that spending. the pentagon is the only agency in the federal government that has not been able to even go through a clean audit. so i do not understand why we keep appropriating more and more money when we know that there is money that is there that is being misused. do an audit first, then i would be happy to look at increases. but let's look at what we did today, and i did not vote for this bill because i do not think it is right. the final number for the authorization was $87 billion more than 2021, and $45 billion more than the president and lloyd austin, the defense secretary, even asked for. so it has become patriotic to keep increasing the military budget, but we need tax credits to fund millions of families

across the country. we have the earned income tax credit for millions of people, the low income housing tax credit, all of these things that need money desperately, and i want to see accountability for our defense funding. that's make sure we can pass a clean audit, and i would be happy to find increases that are necessary. host: an interview on msnbc last week, democrat problem jayapal --pramla jayapal. we're talking about the authorizing bill for defense spending in 2023. asking you if you think the number is too much, too little, about right. we want to hear from current and former members of the military. bob in florida, you are next. caller: good morning, sir. i am retired military, and i think it is too little. i think it need be 10%. and the pay raises are wrong. they ought to give more to the

junior people than the senior people. some of the junior people do not make enough money, and that is a shame. the recruiting is low because it is woke. i went in in 1964 and got out in 1991, and it is hard for me to go out until young people to get into the military because the way they are treating them. you hear that congressperson sing military this, military that, we should give more. i think we should go back to the draft and make all the people go in. it is unfair for only 1% or 2% of the people in the u.s. to go serve and get treated like we do. i thank god that people who come back from iraq and iran are treated decent, but when we came back, it was pitiful. so give the pay raise to the lower, the junior people, and

less to the senior people. that is all i got to say. thanks, man. host: this is rosalyn in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to take some time to talk about eisenhower and the speech that he wrote on april 16, 1953. and he said, if we, meaning other countries of the world, do not come together and forge peace, that this is what we can hope for it he said the worst we can hope for is atomic warfare, and we can see that right now where we are at with ukraine. and he says that the world is not spending money alone. they are spending the sweat of the laborers, the hopes of his children. the cost is this, a modern -- it is two electric power plants

each serving a town of 60 population, 60,000 population. two hospitals, 50 miles of concrete highway. we pay for a single fighter plane with half a million bushels of wheat. we pay for a destroyer with new homes that could house more than 80,000 people, and what he is saying is that -- remember, this was 69 years ago, so what is the cost of perpetual warfare, instead of trying to come to the table and look for peace. thank you. host: quoting the chance for peace speech by eisenhower. edward out of new york city, line for current and former members of military. good morning. caller: yes, good, and thanks for taking my call and thanks for being there, c-span you guys

are wonderful. i am a combat marine veteran from vietnam war. your questions are really hard to answer because in the ndaa, i'm not even sure what is in there, to be honest with you. my view of the military, supposedly the greatest military in the world, it is actually the largest bureaucracy in the world, largest social services organization in the world. i would imagine 40% to 50% of the ndaa is not even in war fighting, it is in social services. the military today is far, far different than the military that i was in back in the vietnam era. in those days, we got orders to go to vietnam. today everyone is deployed. what does that mean? where do you get employed to? but the congressional black

caucus tried to put social spending into the bill, and i understand that that was denied. so no idea what is in there. also, people like austin, they flowed back and forth between raytheon and the government -- they float back and forth between raytheon and the government. i watch the hearings faithfully on c-span, and they show up with their uniforms and racks and ribbons, and they do not make a lot of sense, to be honest with you. meanwhile, we send the national guard -- god bless the guard, the guard trained the ukrainian army, florida guard, for many years, and they just report back to the u.s. and were replaced by the new york guard. so there you go. that is about all i have to say. oh, the last thing is, i'm always interested in seeing the democrats trying to draft women, draft our daughters, our girls. they are not successful every year. i do not know if they came close

this year, but they were denied the effort. host: your comment about not understanding what is in there, in part because this is an over 4400-page bill, legislative text available online, released last week by the senate arms services. at the beginning, the description of that bill, known as the james inhofe national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2023. a caller earlier said he trusted the planners at the pentagon, that they will know what they need. do you feel that same way? caller: no, i don't, and it goes to what the woman said before, you know, we just sort of trust and vote and turn a blind eye to

it because it is the military. and folks don't want to criticize the military. the last thing i will say on this, by the way, and i think this is important, that is i watched the various services come before the congress committee last week or week before to talk about sexual harassment, and 10 years down the road, i mean, this is still embedded in the military. poor kirsten gillibrand has given up on this already, and now it is the junior rotc. so there is a lot wrong with this culture. host: certainly a big topic we have talked a bit about. to come back to spending for a second, natural follow-up is come on this idea of whether you trust the military planners, what they ask for via the president's budget was an $813

billion national defense authorization act. it was $45 billion added in as it with her congress. so it is not just the military planners putting in the money and provisions, it is members of congress, as well. caller: agreed, agreed. as i said before, it is a willingness on the part of the congress to go along. and ms. jayapal is correct -- i do not share her ideology, but i think she is correct, it needs more oversight. host: that is edward out of new york city. it is 7:30 on the east coast, and we're talking about defense spending because that national defense authorization act is moving through congress and moving at the same time that congress is working to stave off a government shutdown. it would happen friday at midnight if a government funding bill does not come together to

either extend the time frame or fund the government for fiscal year 2023. this is the nondefense spending side that congress is stuck on. the "wall street journal" noted that senator chuck schumer, senate majority leader, has proposed extending the shutdown deadline by one week as these spending talks proceed to try and give congress a little more time to come up with a full year funding bill and stave off that midnight on friday deadline when it comes to nondefense spending. this is chuck schumer at the florida house yesterday. [video clip] >> over the weekend, there was positive and productive conversations, and if that both sides are moving forward in a good faith to reach a deal, even if it is not everything both sides want. later this week, members should be prepared to take quick action on a one-week cr so we can give

appropriators more time to finish the full funding of bill before the holidays. i'm optimistic we can take action on a cr rather quickly and avoid the shutdown neither side wants. the benefits of an omnibus are as many as the number of seasons in america. all of us are better off when the government is fully equipped to provide vital services millions rely on. one group who very much needs an omnibus are our veterans. thus we, the v.a. row congress a letter warning that a cr would mean a $10 billion shortfall for the v.a., meaning fewer health-care workers on the job, meaning a surge the backlog of claims, and god forbid it with throw a wrench in the v.a.'s plan to implement something we also are proud we passed on a bipartisan basis this summer. there is no reason we need to go down this road. the brave americans who have served our country in uniform should never have to suffer the consequences of failing to fund

the government. but unfortunately, that is the risk they face as of right now if we do not finish the job. host: senate majority leader chuck schumer on the floor of the senate yesterday. also yesterday in the senate, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell was warning democrats not to hold up this ndaa, this defense bill, to try to get more spending on the nondefense side as these negotiations over government funding continue. [video clip] >> senators and house counterparts have set a strong bipartisan national defense authorization act, the senate should turn to it as soon as possible. of course, congress authorizes the tools, training, and equipment that our armed forces need to accomplish very little, it would fail to then provide the actual funding. both sides know what it would take for the senate to pass a

full year government funding bill into law. no mystery here, the funding agreement would need to fully fund our national defense at the level written into the ndaa without lavishing extra funding beyond what president biden even requested on the democrats up a partisan domestic priorities. in other words, do not go beyond what the president asked for earlier this year. our democratic colleagues have already spent two years massively increasing domestic spending using partyline reconciliation bills outside of the normal appropriations process. clearly, our colleagues cannot now demand even more domestic spending than president biden even requested in exchange for funding the u.s. military. funding our national defense is

a basic governing duty. the commander in chief's do not get to demand a pile of unrelated goodies in exchange for doing their job and funding our armed forces. if house and senate democrats colleagues can accept these realities in the very near future, we may still have a shot at assembling a full year funding bill that will give our military commanders the certainty they need to invest, plan, and stay competitive with rivals like china. host: on the floor of the senate yesterday, taking your phone calls this morning as we talk about your views on u.s. defense spending. if you think it is too much, too little, about right. just after 7:30 on the east coast. in about an hour from now, 8:30 eastern, we will see the latest report on that key inflation measure, the consumer price index, coming from the u.s. bureau of labor statistics.

the schedule of releases for the consumer price index, today is the date for the november inflation numbers. so we will talk about that when that happens only about an hour from now. one note on the president and the white house today, a key summit taking place in washington, d.c., with more than 40 african leaders visiting washington this week, the washington post notes it is a rare opportunity to support a group of nations that have been ambivalent and frustrated by global efforts to support ukraine and not a unified front against russia. biden hosting the u.s.-african leaders summit, an event last held eight years ago under president barack obama. that meeting happening here in washington, d.c. traffic a little tight here in washington with that happening at the convention center here in d.c. plenty of road closures.

some issues in washington, we want to know what you think when it comes specifically to defense spending. john in dearborn, michigan, go ahead. caller: good morning, john. hey, yeah. it is just waste, fraud, and abuse at this point. our tax dollars are there/funding. most of it goes -- our tax dollars are their slush funding. most of it goes to contractors, military contractors. it is a revolving door with lloyd austin, he came straight from raytheon. what a joke that is. and they wrapped up afghanistan last year, so now they got to get ukraine going to get their money flowing. it is absurd. this is an unwarranted influence that eisenhower was talking about with the military-industrial complex. or, as another major general said, it is a racket.

it seems like the roman empire. our safety and defense around the world, defenses around our home, but when we overextend ourselves, it is criminal liability. we are creating more enemies than anything. i am glad you said jayapal is so against this defense spending, will, they are such hypocrites, all ukraine war pigs. they are war pigs with ukraine. absurd. host: john in michigan, the keystone state. this is dave in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, my friend? host: doing well, sir. caller: i recently got suspended from facebook for this comment, and with no bad intention. it is paychecks and pensions, is what hitler used to run his country. unfortunately, that is what is happening here with paychecks and pensions running all of our

government officials. nobody will be honest because everybody wants to pay their mortgage and feed their family. host: thought you were done there. this is david in dallas, texas, good morning on the line for current and former members of the military. caller: good morning, john. and i really tried to just listen this money, but the first couple of callers willie chapter my height, and had to call in. -- really chapped my hide, and i had to call in. the money is going to the wrong places, i think. people calling in and saying they are former military, ask what unit they served in and what was their unit, first infantry division, fort riley, kansas. host: is that where you work? caller: that is where i was, yes

there was a caller before me that talked about the military-industrial complex. he is right, you look at iraq, afghanistan, before that kuwait, and it just never ends. he is right. raytheon, northrop grumman, etc., that is where the money is going. the politicians really do not give a care about the soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, because i can remember going in in 1983, and i was making $13,000 a year. i had a wife indicated. i lived in government housing. the fact is there was not no luxuries, no nice televisions or nice cars, nice clothing, anything like that. we had the bare minimum, and that is all we had.

then when i got out of the military, i made more money working for northrop grumman than i did after eight years in the military. so it is not a point of if it is enough money, the point is, where is the money being allocated? it needs to go to the soldiers. that is my opinion, now you got it, too. host: in the pine tree street, shreveport, good morning. caller: yes, hello. i wanted to comment a little bit. i think we spent too much because they need to keep up with inflation. that has a couple of callers ago took one of my points by saying contractors stretch the military too much, like the $500 hammers -- do you remember that way back? but more recently, i'm talking about the equipment that was left in afghanistan, billions and billions. you cannot replace that.

and it goes against us. weapons that may be used against us and the technology and all that. i was drafted in 1967 during vietnam, and i went to korea for a year, then okinawa for two years, went to germany twice. and i saw a lot of waste within the military. i think you can trim the fat, but i do not know if it is still going on today. that was 1988 when i retired, a long time ago. things have changed. but i think keep up with the inflation and turn the -- and trim the fat, i think is the best. host: we are talking about the national defense authorization act, $858 billion in the authorization. it is saying what the military can spend the money on and it is the appropriations process that follows to actually appropriate the funds.

this is that authorization bill. if it passes the senate this week, it would be the 62nd time in a row in which the ndaa has been passed by both chambers on a bipartisan basis. past the house fairly overwhelmingly last week, and it moves to the senate this week. asking you about that level of spending authorized. jim in texas, good morning, former military. caller: just want to say thank you for c-span. it allows us to get our message out a little bit. i am retired military, and i was with a group that went worldwide all the time, first in, minimal amount of people, and the last item on the bill was the covid shot. that needs to be left out of that. that is not about money. i am not calling about money

today. the commanders need to have authority to do what is right. if i had people going into a site and they had covid and i am counting on those numbers, we need to keep the elected officials out and do what is right, what the commanders are saying, and be ready to do something. host: so i understand, so the provision in this bill, it would prohibit discharging troops who refused the covid-19 shot, a key negotiation that republicans pushed for in this. are you saying that that should not be in this legislation, that members of the military should be mandated to have the covid vaccine? caller: that is correct. you know, we have had anthrax. people that deploy a whole bunch, you get shots for everywhere in the world so you

are ready at all timess, and it is called preventive. i went into places where you actually had to have your wisdom teeth pulled out before you were there for a year. that is how much preventive medicine that they do. because there is no medical help in some places. and they are counting on the numbers. yes, they are having problem getting numbers for going into the military, but they also need to look at the quality of the response of the force when needed. had a conversation with chip roy, and i happened to end up in a place in texas where he happened to be, and he made the comment, well, what about recruiting? and i tried to help -- to tell him, look, what about the response and everything, and apparently he did not listen. and republicans are going one way.

these days, i am not about republican, democrat. we need to look at what is right for the troops and what is right for america. getting back to the commanders and let them do a knowledgeable item. thank you. you have a good day. host: that is jim in texas. one member of congress tweeting about this bill, republican drew ferguson. this was last week after the vote, saying, i proudly supported the ndaa which provides vital funding to ensure service members at the resources that advance our national security and combat involving global threats, also taking away the covid vaccine mandate. this is gary in ohio, good morning. caller: hello. if you think about the military, if it is just to defend our country, there are 12 nuclear

summaries out there that could destroy the world -- submarines out there that could destroy the world. we need to think about defending our country. nobody is going to mess with a spear that is just the way it is. we are spending way too much. host: william hartung of the quincy institute had a recent column on this, new spending bill squanders millions on dysfunctional weapons programs, the headline. here's a bit of what wrote -- this ndaa calls for near record levepentagon spendin should it vote much funding to costly, dysfunctional weapons systems that are ill-suite address challenges, largely because they were chosen based on where they were built, not systems for defending the u.s. and allies. pork and barrel politics rule the day to an extent not seen in recent memory, and we may all pay for it in years to come with reduced security.

william hartung of the quincy institute on that $858 billion bill, $45 billion over what president biden originally asked congress for. mary in smyrna, tennessee. good morning. caller: yes, i do believe the military should be ready and should be vaccinated. i also want to bring awareness to a bill, 2598 and companion hr9110 to restore bankruptcy rates for student loan borrowers. our military has served, and they will -- and when they get out, their loans are not paid for. it is wrong. these are predatory payday loans that are ruining lives of our youth and people who have served in our military faithfully. it is just wrong. this bill needs to pass.

the bill and its companion bill to restore bankruptcy rights to student loan borrowers. these are predatory loans. please watch loan wolves, a great documentary that rings awareness to the situation. thank you. host: another bankruptcy story here, delete story and many of the papers today -- the lead story in many of the papers today. an ftx founder arrested in the bahamas, headline in the "wall street journal," arrested in the bahamas after the u.s. filed criminal charges against him. authorities acknowledged monday evening my writing it is the latest bombshell indicates that has transfixed wall street and washington. ftx is one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world and filed for bankruptcy last month after it ran out of cash and walked

away after a shocking merger. it was being lauded as the public face of a blossoming industry, the bank. mr. friede was supposed to testify at a capitol hill hearing today before the house financial services committee, and it looks like after this arrest, he will not testify. we're waiting for more word about whether this hearing will go forward. here is how they wrapped it up today in the "washington post," slated to testify at the house financial services committee, and the chairwoman, maxine waters, said that the public has been waiting eagerly to get these answers under oath before congress, and the timing of this arrest has denied the public this opportunity. although he must be held accountable, the american public deserves to hear directly from him about the actions that wiped out the hard earned life savings

of so many people. a new york congressman tweeted monday night that his committee was ready to grill bankman-fried six days to sunday, and he still wants the opportunity. why not allow him to testify today and answer many questions. he asked that in his tweet. we will keep you up on what is happening with that hearing. this happening late last night. about 10 minutes left, talking about your view of u.s. defense spending. too much, too little, about right? robert is -- roger is in abilene, kansas. good morning. go ahead. roger, we will try -- tim, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i was in the army security

agency, stationed in ethiopia. later, i was stationed at homestead air force base. i think it is too much. part of the problem is we've tried to privatize everything. when i was cleared, the fbi came to my hometown and questioned everybody about my behavior, and the group that cleared snowden was a private group. they also cleared two other people that i know of. one guy shot up the navy yard, and i can't remember what the other one did. but they did a lousy job.

we also had blackwater. also did a lousy job. host: do you think our military in general does a lousy job? caller: no, not saying the military. blackwater was a contract organization. the organization that cleared snowden was a contract organization. there are certain functions that private organizations should not do, in my humble opinion. like running prisons and things like that, should be done by the government. i mean, it is the profit motive that drives these organizations,

they are ruining everything they touch. host: got your point, tim in north carolina. this is kent out of wisconsin, you are next. caller: good morning. i think the defense department needs to be audited. has not been audited in forever. i think we should deploy our trips to help people, rather than bombs them -- we should deploy our troops to help people, rather than bomb them. our defense industry has gotten so big, it is driving our foreign policy. i think the defense department is misnamed, it should be the defense department that is all i have. host: from last month from the hill newspaper, defense department failed its fifth ever audit, unable to account for more than half of its assets or the effort is being viewed as a teachable mama, according to the chief financial officer. auditors combed through the $3.5

trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities, and the department cannot account for about 61% of its assets, according to the comptroller said the department made progress towards a clean audit in the past. i would not say that we flunked, his statement. gary in fletcher, north carolina, you are next. caller: we are doing ok right now. the administration is doing its job. saying they need extra money or being able to help himself -- themselves, they should take a page out of this administration's book, let the chinese take farmland out of ukraine, take farms like they do here in north carolina, and you get extra money like that.

if you lose a war, you say, hey, i did not spend enough. spending enough or not, the question is, did you win or not? the money has to be put exactly into the right places to win. and we think about contractors too much instead of thinking about the lives of us. similar to the chinese, we can do that. host: michael in staten island, good morning, you are next. caller: good morning, c-span, and happy holidays to the world. in reference to the defense bill, whenever time money is involved, there is always a fraud. it is --oh, this is me now. host: i am hearing you. this is what? caller: any time money is being

transferred to hear her there, there is always a fraud. in referencing defense spending, i am an ex-military individual from during the vietnam era, it is all these -- it is always how much, that depends on what the fraud is. whether it is for the country or the company's. how about the afghanistan exit? all the military hardware that was left in the money that is there, it is just unfortunate with all this nonsense going on in washington and everybody is out for themselves. they're not working for us, they are working for their own political agenda or their own

pocketbooks. host: a couple minutes left in this first segment of the "washington journal." let me return to that ftx story, sam bankman-fried being arrested in the bahamas yesterday. my producer notes that the hearing before the financial services committee where he is supposed to testify is still happening, and they will proceed with the ftx ceo testifying. he was scheduled, as well. starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern today, and we will take you there on c-span3 at that time, and you can also watch on c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. a lot of attention there on the house financial services committee this morning. back to your calls, a couple left in this first segment. north carolina, jamal, good morning. caller: thanks for c-span and for getting me on. you know, america, united states

of america, we have a fiat currency, that is basically it currency that is not backed i anything, not backed by gold or precious metals. the currency is just printed out , or in this day and age, it is digital. the only thing that really creates the value to the u.s. "dollar," is our military and our ability to protect our friends, protect ourselves, and sendoff -- fend off the enemy. so with this fiat currency that we have, we are able to create tanks, jets, bullets, and any other drone or whatever we need as far as defense. so the military essentially is the value of the u.s. dollar,

and that is all i see. host: this is bill in mesa, arizona. -- phil in asa, arizona. caller: it seems like bending is always politicized around presidential campaigns. every president says i'm going to rebuild the military and they are spending more money than all combined. when is enough enough? i am all for a strong military, protecting the country and everything, but when the lesson we were attacked in 9/11 and we went to iraq and wasted a whole bunch of money. dick cheney was a contractor before he was made vice president. of course, they started the iraq

war and spent a bunch of money there. i think they need to audit the pentagon and come up with some more realistic ways of doing things. a lot of people in america need help and a lot of money to be better spent here in america. host: we will end with the statements of two members of congress. one is the chairman of the senate armed services committee and he is the one this bill has been named for this year. this was his statement after the bill came together and was released saying, one thing remains clear, we are in the most frightened position in my lifetime. conservatives in oklahoma and across the u.s. should be proud of what we secured to protect our country and give our troops with a need to complete their

mission. one other view, steve cohen says we can't keep writing blank checks for the wasteful spending on obsolete and unnecessary programs. i voted against the defense bill because it is just too much when we have so many unmet domestic needs. we need to reset our priorities. that will do it for this first segment of the "washington journal. " up next, we will be joined by bana linsky -- ben all linsky from the center for american progress and representative august pfluger will talk about the supreme court justice ethics. >> a couple weeks ago, the

conservative heritage foundation published its index of u.s. military strength, the study concluded the current u.s. military has -- is that significant risk of not reading the demands a single major regional conflict. we discussed the findings with the editor, who wanted another way of you on the current u.s. military posturing. we asked a longtime observer and critic of the procurement process to talk with us. he spent 40 plus years working on national security defense budgets and military reform are both political parties. government accountability office in the center for defense permission. >> winslow wheeler on this episode of book notes plus, ich is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern,

c-span brings you afterwards, from book tv, a program where others are interviewed by journalists, legislators and others on their latest books. this week's thoughts on how the u.s. can avoid the worst economic catastrophe of the lifetime, th his book "mega threats." watch afterwards him every friday at any cut p.m. eastern on c-span. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress, access to the federal government with contact information for every house and senate member, important information for committees, the president's cabinet, agencies and governors. order your copy today.

every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: focus with ben belinsky from the center for american progress and he penned this headline for supreme court headline reform. what do we know about supreme court leaks? guest: thanks for having me on. we know just before thanksgiving, there was a really bombshell report in the new york times that suggested, based on some allegations, that justice alito on the supreme court had leaked a decision to some wealthy donors several weeks before the case or opinion was handed down in 2014. that was the first part of it

and that is a big no-no for the supreme court. they are secretive and not giving information way about decisions. there been an influence operation that some on the religious right had been engaging in to try to cozy up to several of the conservative numbers of the supreme court and really try to shore up their opinions on abortion and a few other issues. 2 who -- host: who is the reverend robert shank? guest: he brought to light these allegations but the person who was leading the influence operations. he had been a leading antiabortion voice and had an organization that tried to recruit wealthy donors to cozy up to the supreme court justices through donations to the supreme court historical society by

praying with some of the justices in the court. he had a turnaround and felt like he needed to come forward and did so with a letter to the chief justice of the supreme court, sharing that allegation in july. host: he testified at a house judiciary committee hearing recently about these issues. here is some of what he had to say and the testimony. [video clip] >> and involve recruitment of healthy donors, stealth missionaries who befriended justices that shared our conservative social and religious sensibilities. in this way, i aim to show these justices that americans supported them and thanked god for their presence on the court and the opinions they rendered. our overarching goals were to gain insights into the conservative justices' thinking and to shore up their resolve to render solid, unapologetic

opinions, particularly against abortion. i call this "our ministry of emboldened meant." it was not an attempt to change minds. our missionaries did not engage liberal members of the court. might recruit for operation higher court were older, highly accomplished, and independently minded. they did not take kindly being told where to go, what to do, and how to do it, successfully deploying them require their autonomy. i did suggest tactics to cultivate affinity but otherwise our folks were on their own. most implemented their prayer on behalf of the justices families or personal grievances and assurances of goodwill at social functions and sending greeting cards on special occasions. they might also host justices and spouses for meals at restaurants, private clubs, or

homes and sometimes the justices reciprocated. hobby lobby lake resulted from one of these arrangements. host: reverend robert shank at the house committee hearing. has the court in general responded to those allegations? guest: yes, justice alito did flatly deny the allegation that he leaked the decision for hobby lobby back in 2014 and the court reiterated that refusal. unlike in the case of the leak in dobbs, the signature abortion cake -- case that came out, the chief justice is not responded or called for a specific investigation into the allegations. host: remind us where we are on the dobbs leak. guest: the chief justice did

direct the marshal of the court to conduct a significant investigation into the origins of the leak. we have almost nothing since then. host: coming back to that hearing, california republican darrell issa defending the integrity of the court amid those allegations we heard from the reverend robert shank. here is more on that hearing. [video clip] sitting in this body with all of the rules that we now want to add to the court, some of which i support, but all those rules don't change the fact that on balance the court has been, and i suspect will continue to be, a group of individuals, nine at the top, over 600 article three judges and countless more article one judges, who for the most part deserve the public confidence of the american

people, that the vast majority of them all the time endeavor to do the right, honorable, and ethical thing. it does us no good today to look at legislation by denigrating another body. the facts are, there have been mistakes, perhaps even lapses of judgment in this body has on occasion had to remove the federal judge. that doesn't change the fact that although they are human beings, and we should do everything we can to promote greater confidence, we gain very little by implying this is a bought and paid for organization or that their ethics, which were very, very high in everyone's mind on the others of the aisle, when they decided with them on an issue or two, suddenly is

fraught with unfair influence when i don't like one or two of the last decisions. host: republican california congressman darrell issa at the judiciary committee hearing. ben a linsky is talking about this with us -- ben olinsky is with us. do you think it is a bought and paid for organization? guest: i think the american people have some concerns that we are at the lowest point on record with gallup on the percentage of american adults who have a strongly supportive view of the court or a fair amount of support for the court. one show that it dropped to 48%. that is troubling.

the rule of is foundational to our democracy in america and central to that is that our judges can be fair and neutral arbiters and fairly interpret the law. so whether or not a leak in the hobby lobby case occurred, the mere perception of propriety -- impropriety needs to have a binding and enforceable code of ethics that americans can rely on to know that the justices are above the fray. host: what would you advocate for? guest: there is a code of conduct that applies to all of the other federal judges in the united states. it doesn't apply to the supreme court. that would be a first step. there has to be some way of enforcing a code and making it binding on the justices, so that would be a first step. the second would have a binding

recusal requirement, such that when there are cases for which there either is some conflict of interest or perception of conflict of interest that the judges would have to recuse. and third that there be binding rules around gifts and travel. we know some of the justices do accept outside travel, on both sides were justices appointed by democrats and republicans. you never know who will be at those events sponsoring some of those events, and we just want to make sure there is no perception of impropriety comfort of interest. host: ben olinsky with us until the bottom of the hour. phone lines for republicans (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independent (202) 748-8002. paul is in england this morning

calling from over the pond. caller: can the supreme court --? guest: i remain somewhat optimistic. we have seen members on both sides of the aisle talked about the need for ethics reforms. looking back in the last couple of years, we have seen senator lindsey graham, an republican, looking for some disclosure for finances. another similarly had interest in reform and some on the democratic side also suggested that. reform is hard to get done but some of the allegations that have come out really bring this to a head and suggest the time

is right for congress to act, especially where some of the rules that currently apply, estes is our weaker than those -- the justices are weaker than those in the congress. host: this is mark, an independent. caller: good morning. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i think the whole government needs reform. it is become -- it is corrupt to the core. host: to that point, four years when this idea of trust in government when americans are pulled on that -- polled, that it usually the branch of overman that does the best. your thoughts on where that stands today.

guest: you are right, it had traditionally been the last branch of government to have the broadest -- broad support of the american people. part of that was the operations were good and you didn't have the allegations coming up. but also you have seen perhaps troubling activity by members that have changed those dynamics. also what you have seen is the current majority on the court, which i wouldn't call conservative, i would characterize as a bit more radical, has been out of step with many americans and that has caused support for the institution to plummet. it called back rules, precedents and protections that had been in place for decades or a century, but i do think there is a way to do this with the supreme court. in fact, congress could act at the end of the year by putting

in a rider on the appropriations bill to say a certain amount of money that goes to the supreme court is contingent on the chief justice putting in a code of ethics. i can see a path towards passage. host: with what we were talking about from gallup from september, supreme court trust and job approval at historic lows is the headline. 47% of americans trust the judicial branch. 40% of americans approve of the job the supreme court is doing, tied for a record low. those numbers coming out from the gallup organization from this past fall. this is chris in virginia, independent. caller: my question is -- would you propose the identical ethical rules for members of congress, because in my opinion, the members of congress need a

lot more ethical monitoring than the supreme court. guest: that is an excellent question. one of the things that is a little hard about the supreme court is, who does the enforcement? the constitution is clear that the supreme court should be supreme. one of the intricacies is who does the enforcement, who holds them accountable? that makes some of the rules that might apply to congress enforced by either an ethics committee or for lower court judges enforced by the judicial conference a little harder to translate. i think one easy way to do this is to simply state with the key values are, a clear recusal policy, clear gift and travel policy and financial disclosure, and then put it on the supreme court to figure how that will work for them as long as it is

enforceable or binding in some way. i agree there is a lot of room for improvement in congress but let's not use that as our single benchmark. 2 that -- host: this from bloomberg law, kavanaugh holiday party raises ethics questions, noting a private holiday party on friday night at the chairman of the legal action coalition. attendees included stephen miller and had interest in a case pending in the court. they right it raises questions when personal relationships cross align and become problematic. what are your thoughts on that story? guest: this isn't the first time something like that has come out. we saw with then vice president cheney, who has social interactions and a hunting trip

with then justice scalia, even though there was a case about the vice president pending before the supreme court. that raised significant concerns. you have had some justices actually appear and attend political, private political conversations with the coke brothers. -- koch others. -- koch brothers. we should avoid any partisan or political activity. that would seem to be wise to apply to the supreme court justices as well. it is troubling when they get involved in the politics. one last thought there -- you saw with justice thomas through the 2020 election, he was rendering decisions on cases

around the 2020 election, despite the fact that his wife was engaged in sategy around that. he even did not recuse himse around a case where folks were trying to stop the disclosure of white house records 2000 committee investigating the january 6 attack, even though his wife's records were part of what was at issue. definitely some concerning questions where you have conflict of interest in more political activity and we do need to get a hold of that. host: ben olinsky we are talking with -- we are talking with ben olinsky. what is the structural reform? guest: we take a look at how government makes sure to yield results for the american people, ranging from democracy policy

and election to the court and legal policy to tech policy in the news. we take a look at all of that. host: it is americanprogress.org online. this is don, independent, good morning. caller: thank you for being on. what is your definition for ethics? guest: that is a great question. surprisingly complex in its simplicity. i might suggest that government officials should be acting solely in the benefit of the people they serve, and that is the american people, not their own pocketbook or that of their families, and that is also not

especially in the case of judges, any particular ideology. judges rule on the law and we have a rule of law in which judges are impartial and impartially interpret the law. we don't want to have potential conflict of interest, whether they be monetary, financial, or otherwise relationship driven enter into those calculations. host: a question via twitter, jim, what branch of government has jurisdiction over the supreme court? who has the 13 to mandate an ethics directive? guest: that is a great and somewhat complex question. there are some differing views as to whether or not congress could mandate a certain kind of ethics code on the supreme court. the easiest thing would be for the chief justice to put one in

place, which he could do on his own. but congress has in the past passed laws to require certain kinds of disclosures by all judges, including the supreme court justices and the supreme court has not said they had the authority to do that. there is a strong argument that congress can do this. justices can do some other very targeted regulations on the court, but certainly there are those that would question that and any effort to put an ethics code on the supreme court should consider how to implement it so as not to breach that fundamental notion of separation of powers between branches. host: when it should congress impeach a judge? guest: the constitution is pretty clear there is a high bar

for impeachment. in general, that gets to high crimes and misdemeanors, treason, these are not run of the mill kinds of misdeeds. i don't think necessarily the potential leak of a decision several weeks early would raise that spectrum in my mind, but i do think there needs to be some kind of accountability and a full investigation into what happened, which is in the purview of the congress. host: frank, independent, go ahead. caller: i am calling about the ethics. we are talking about the supreme court ethics and then talking about congress rules for ethics. the congress don't have no ethics.

both sides of the party are completely broken. for them to even try to make ethics for the supreme court, i think the ethics law should be put against congress itself. it has been very bad with the country. the rules and laws they have been putting in are completely off-the-wall. we have a southern border that is completely wide open, with thousands of people coming in. congress can't even fix that problem and you are talking about ethics on the supreme court justices. then you only talk about the republican justices. you are not talking about anyone on the democratic side of ethics. basically all it is is one-sided, like it has been known for a while. the ethics you are looking to bring should be wrought against the government itself, for the

broken border and for everything else that is going on. looking now to fund digging coal overseas instead of here in the united states. i don't think you are talking about the right stuff. guest: i want to be clear, i think there have been some activities by justices on both sides of the aisle we want to get on top of with ethics reform. there was a report in the new york times that showed over the course of a decade, justices on both sides of the aisle were accepting paid trips which would never have been allowed in many cases for members of congress under current law. so you saw justice scalia did take over 250 paid trips in that 10 year window, many to really

interesting places a lot of us would like to vacation at. but it was also former justice briar who took 180. there been questions about whether or not justice kagan should have recused herself in some of the of care law, the affordable care act cases. i think this is beyond party and fundamentally i think when you see such a precipitous drop in americans'approval in such a short window, i think it should get action. that is not to say we shouldn't improve things for ethics in congress. i think there are things congress could change how they own or don't own or trade or don't trade stocks that could influence how they vote or take official action. there is room for improvement on

the congress side, but they are the branch of government then can pass laws and they would be most likely to pass an ethics code on the supreme court. host: this is george, fayetteville, georgia, independent. caller: i agree with the last caller. i think we look like keystone cops across the world these days. our political system, judges, congress thumb their nose at the american people. you have 34 congressman educated in the january 6. you have judges sitting and making decisions on things they should recuse themselves from. the best thing we can do is term limitations. what is your view on term limitations? guest: i think it is a great idea. we have come up with a

suggestion of term limits for 18 years. chief justice roberts and his confirmation hearings said he would support a 15 year term limit. i think that is exactly right on in terms of the kind of reform we need to the court. whether we will see it in the near term is the question. host: ben olinsky is at the center for american progress. you can find them at americanprogress.org i appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: a member of congress, rep -- representative august pfluger will talk about border security. and later bloomberg government reporter will join us to discuss the house select committee on the coronavirus in its final report that came out. stick around.

we will be right back. >> c-span now, the mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand, keep up with live streams of floor hearings from congress, white house events, the court, campaigns and more, all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling for television and compelling podcasts. it is available at the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is time to get out your phone and start recording for your chance to win $100,000

in cash prizes with a grand prize at $5,000 by enterinth studentcam video documentary contest. we are asking students to feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what is your top priority and why. create a five to six minute video that shows the important of your issues from opposing and supporting views. be bold. don't be afraid to take risks. videos must be submitted by ary , 2023. four competities a tips, visit our website. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but 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 for here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next, republican august pfluger joins us now and serves on the foreign affairs committee and homeland security. walk us through what you think is going to happen in the now less than four days as congress once again is up against a funding deadline and the idea of a potential shutdown. guest: thank you for having me this morning. it appears we will have a short-term cr in a week. the question for republicans is, the democrats under one-party rule have spent trillions of dollars in the last two years, and a lot of those bills have

come to the floor with no committee work and input from republicans, with no transparency to the american public. we are scratching our heads looking at this funding deadline saying, you have been able to bring trillions of dollars with of the spending that from our perspective is wasteful and has not helped, so why now? what republicans would like to see is a short-term cr that brings us into the new year. it appears at least we will have a week and probably come back next week and hopefully next week we will be able to get a one or two month cr that will take us into the new year at roby have publican leadership and we can talk about the debt, deficits and priorities. the most important thing the american people need to know, this is not partisan, cr's hurt the men and women in military deployed around the world and

hurt our ability to acquire new weapons systems to make sure we are going up against china, rising threats with technology, not just in belt and road but national security endeavors. we have to remain at the current levels of funding and that is where it hurts and we can't go out and do the things we said we wanted to do in the national defense authorization act. host: how confident are you and your colleagues in the senate, republicans specifically, to hold that line for the one or two month cr and not agree to an omnibus bill or 12 month cr? guest: let's start with the omnibus bill, we will have to see so me taken out of the bill and we haven't seen any language yet but the ideas are unacceptable. in my district, anything

referring to a green new deal pushing to this so-called transition and continuing to push it by taking winners and losers in the energy game without a realistic plan. that is a nonstarter for people like me and many would also agree. that is just one of dozens of issues i think probably do not get us to the point where we will be in favor of an omnibus. then you look at the terms and lengths of the cr and it goes back to national security. let's get in in january and have priorities on the table and actually pass a budget. biden has not done that and we are very disappointed in that. i represent many men and women in uniform and i served myself, and we need to do right by them and for our country. this is a national security issue are going to have to deal with. host: at 9:00 a.m. eastern,

republicans, call in at (202) 748-8001, dem dots -- democrat / (202) 748-8000, independent (202) 748-8002. the consumer price index and yahoo! reporting in november the price of all items rose .1% month on month and 7.1 sent year on year. -- 7.1% year on year. your reaction? guest: is what we expected. americans are struggling, no matter where you are. every family is having to make decisions, do you put gas in the car, buy groceries? we are coming up on the holiday season, christmas presents, and

all of these things that are normal, everyday part of our everyday life are tough decisions right now. i am just going to tell you in rural america, i don't think those numbers are accurate. it is much more expensive in places that are rural and it is avoidable. the spending habits we have had over the last two years, the $7 trillion that have been spent have led directly to this inflation, the assault on american energy. we are asking other countries for this energy when we can do it right here. i would like to see the numbers in addition to the cpi of what home heating bills and utility bills are. those are real issues americans are facing. we have a plan to get after that number and bring it back down.

it starts with energy and making sure spending is reined in and we get it back under control. host: what is the commitment to secure the border? guest: great question, and if anyone was watching the tweets yesterday from the head of the border patrol, mr. ortiz, 16,000 people came across illegally yesterday, record numbers in el paso. i was just there and served thanksgiving lunch to dozens of border patrol agents. the one thing they told me, which is exactly what we know and i have been there multiple times, is that the border is not secure. i am of the opinion there is very little legislative action we need. there are some loopholes we need closed that this is political will. we have invited the president and vice president to the border and they refused to come. when they come to dell real, --

del rio and other places, they are going to see tragedy. yesterday, two killers and rapists were caught and weapons. fentanyl has came in and caused untold tragedy on american youth, 100,000 deaths last year. we need political will from the white house. i sent in committee for homeland security and we are having a hearing today about intelligence questions. what i want to know is -- do we have the political will to act on the intelligence we already know is coming across our border in the form of human trafficking and drugs? host: out of philly, this is conrad, an republican. caller: i hear the official

talking about texas and the border. i am curious, we always tell all the other countries what to do and how to run their countries when it comes down to the american citizens, we have to wait to the last minute, last day to get the funding. how come they cannot do what they have to do for the american citizens first, they take our tax money and give it to the corporate world. the little guy needs tax breaks. they need to put energy into taking care of the citizens of the united states. you are talking about killings at the border, every state in the country has killings every day. we just had 15 in philadelphia, but nobody talks about that. we can dictate to saudi arabia, iran. host: we got your point.

guest: your point is well made, and what we see across america, and i couldn't agree more, we do need to take care of business. i am disappointed we haven't taking care of business when it comes to our government and talking about the issues and looking at the spending priorities and coming to some sort of agreement on where we can cut and what needs to happen. we should have been doing this for months now and yet speaker pelosi has refused to come to the table, chuck schumer has refused to come to the table. it is something that is extreme concerning to most americans when you look at places like portland and in look at what has happened in places like new york and chicago, where crime is out of control. part of our commitment is to have scorecards for da's across the country to see where they are not enforcing federal laws, and when you have a murder, that

falls under the jurisdiction of federal law and needs to be prosecuted. we cannot be letting out violent criminals on our streets without getting justice. i hear your point and you are right, we need to get to work and that is exactly what my district sent me to do and what i plan to continue to do. host: fred in maryland, independent, go ahead. caller: first of all, congressman, thank you for your service in the military as well as in congress. i think the american people really don't appreciate how much time and effort, whether your democrat, -- whether you are democrat, independent, and republican, how much time it takes to serve and we appreciate it. in terms of the budget, i am concerned we turn this from a republican to democratic issue

without actually addressing the overall wasteful spending of the budgetary process. i was listening to c-span over the weekend, and if i am correct, when there was an audit of the department of defense, much of the money allocated was not accounted for, and so i am supportive of the military, also looking to the future of my children and hopefully grandchildren. i am concerned about all of the wasteful spending, and i believe congress has the authority and mandate to not only pass budgets, also make sure all of the departments are held accountable for the spending. i will take your response off the air. guest: what a great point and i couldn't agree with you more. thank you for your kind words about the service and i always give thanks to my family for allowing me to serve in the military and out in this position. you are right, we have to have an accounting of the

departments. i don't care if it is the department of defense, i worked there, and we need an audit in every executive agency. we need to see where the wasteful spending is. when you look at the effectiveness of organizations, my mindset is organizations become more efficient when they have less money to deal with. that is not a specific attack on any agency right this second, i do want to know where the wasteful spending is, because there is a lot of it out there. i knew the fraud and abuse hotline was even some of us younger, lower ranking officers had the ability to use. congress has a role for oversight and in my role as an elected official, we will be doing that. i am disappointed the last two years we haven't had that and it is part of our commitment to the american people and we plan to do it starting on january 3. host: leanne is in washington,

d.c., democrat. caller: i would like to also echo the -- leon is in washington, d.c., democrat. caller: i would like to also echo the thank you for your service. i am concerned with what seems like the economy of when the republicans ran office, they passed some of the most massive tax cuts this country has ever seen. i am no economic wins, -- whiz, but i know that had some impact on the inflationary status we are in. i note this country was undergoing severe financial constraints.

each elected official has a duty and obligation to see to it that this country is served for the betterment of its people. a lot of elective -- elected officials, rather than be elected, we are going to see if we can make hunter biden focus of our attention and see if he benefited from influence. i never heard one republican yet mention all the deals that the former president's family cut in china. no one ever raised that was influenced. guest: i will start by saying thank you for your service to this country, and no american is above the law.

americans, regardless of political ideology, are concerned about another class of americans, a political elite that can get away with things and i don't agree with that, regardless of your party. when you talked about the tax cuts and the impact, for my view, i give a lot of credit to brady who lead that and championed that for all americans. the result of that was the lowest tax rates we have had, maybe in the history of this country, yet the highest revenue our government has taken in. there was a direct correlation with inflation, extremely low inflation, less than 3% unemployment, the economy was operating on all eight cylinders and something every republican was talking about. as we enter 2021, we wanted to continue to champion those

policies and the fact is we can't have those conversations because the $7.5 trillion that we have seen spent over the last two years has been done to hide closed doors without republican can input. that is no way to govern. i couldn't agree more, yes, there needs to be accountability and i personally leave their needs to be accountability for hunter biden and what is the role of big tech and how did the government influence big tech on preventing those stories from being heard. but we need to govern and move forward. i am worried about the security of this country in the financial situation for my kids and grandkids. host: on spending, i want this focus on the $858 billion national defense authorization act -- why is that so much more than what president biden submitted, $45 billion more than what the white house asked congress for? guest: there are probably a few

answers and i have not had this conversation with the president. let me throw a couple ideas, it is a starting point for leverage , every dollar we spend on military, they want to include on social spending. the priorities might be misaligned. i spent friday at fort hood, the largest army base, maybe in the world, 35,000 40,000 soldiers on base that need training. some of the facilities are in disrepair. in my hometown, the air force base, i was there with the chief of the staff of the air force, and priorities revolve around making sure soldiers are taking care of, where they have a place to sleep at night and they go to work in the facilities they go to work in our reasonable facilities that allow them to get the tools done and the training they have allowed them to be ready.

i think that is the republican priority. we were misaligned when it comes to identifying threats in the world, china and russia and violent extremism, iran, we know they exist and we are pushing the administration not only to acknowledged him but do something about -- acknowledge them and do something about it. . host: this is kenneth in texas. caller: i wonder why you will sit down and write a new immigration law. there are international laws and united states laws. donald trump broke the law at the border and lost every time he went to the court. right now, biden is following the law and all you can do is complain about it. george buse -- george bish junior wanted a new immigration law, obama -- george bush junior

wanted a new immigration law and obama wanted a new law and you refuse to write a new law. i will hang up and listen for your excuse. guest: is always nice to have a full on attack as a question but thank you for calling in. what we see out of the biden administration is not following the law, look at the migrant protection protocols, this was something the supreme court upheld and said the biden administration couldn't get rid of and yet they refuse daily to hold up to this agreement we have with mexico. i hope you will go to laredo and el paso and see the tragedy. talk about tragedy, 53 people in a tractor-trailer that basically perished in the july heat south of san antonio this past year,

that is tragedy because the administration is not following the law and not holding up the agreements and not prosecuting those who are here illegally. and i will say this, there is so much that needs to be done. the republicans have a plan. the texas delegation has come with a border plan and the only person in this country that seems to be aware of what needs to happen is governor abbott and he is the one saying the federal government is not going to do it but the state of texas has to do it. we have a plan from texas and we are offering the plan and it solves a lot of these problems. i will go to the statement on the border, which is a political will issue. we have enough laws. they need to be followed and reform has to happen. . you have 2.2 million people who have come across just this year,

98 were on the terror watch list. we couldn't be further apart on this particular topic. host: we are with representative august pfluger with the foreign affairs committee and homeland security. this is jason from north carolina. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you for your service to the country. guest: thank you. caller: i want to tell you a quick story and sqa think about it. -- and ask what you think about it. i called and asked john and ask him about hunter biden's laptop. as soon as i said it, i was hung up on immediately and called a conspiracy theorist and then called a white supremacist for

even saying it. are you going to do anything to change these terrorists with microphones who rigged the election? the fbi, cia, the media, big tech, google, facebook, twitter, and when we get the files out, i'm sure we will find abc and cbs all said it was fake. donald trump is sitting out of office because of treasonous acts. i want to know are you going to do anything about it? guest: thank you for calling in and i hear your passion. i am already doing something about it. i sent a letter to elon musk and my question was, i want to know as the new ceo of twitter, what

the federal government did in the past two years, if you want to call it collusion, requests and to kick conservatives off of that platform. i think we are just scratching the surface. that was sent before the twitter files broke and all of this news broke and i am doing something about it and i know my republican colleagues are doing something about it. i believe in the first amendment and some of it we will not like and agree with, that it can't be picking and choosing the stories we want to hear. the point of my letter is to say the first amendment is the most important because this is what separates us from other countries and allows us and anybody to come onto this show and say they don't agree with me.

that is healthy, what is not healthy is what happens, the suppression of the story that could have changed the outcome of the election. that is not healthy, especially when we are seeing the actual campaign was the one asking twitter and other platforms to suppress that story. now we want to know what happened on platforms like facebook and we will investigate other social media platforms. this is very dangerous for our country. we need to have open, honest, transparent dialogue and that has not happened. we know there has been collusion. host: we will cover those in their entirety on c-span in congress. william in new york, independent, good morning. caller: warm. --. form. -- good morning. caller: i am a first time

caller. we got a tax cut under reagan, the second bush, strict trump -- mr. trump, the immigration polity in reagan's time, they gave amnesty to 12 many people and said it was never going to -- 12 million people and said it was never going to happen again and here we are and we have an estimate of 20 million. when donald trump got into office, the first thing he did was a tax cut. he went on to mar-a-lago and cheered with his millionaire and billionaire buddies, and immigration was forgotten, if a structure was forgotten. what is the story? each side does this. they get into power and they forget about the important issues for the american people.

guest: thank you for the call. you are right and infrastructure , and in my district in particular, we need infrastructure all over. it is not just roads and highways and bridges, but energy infrastructure, taking our natural resources and use them for domestic use and to help our allies. that is why i have introduced an act that requires infrastructure and reform and actually doing something for not just our citizens domestically but to keep the world safer. when it comes to immigration, i will continue to be a champion for security. in my district we see this firsthand, we are 50% hispanic in west texas. we have been living and working together for that really is whate

championed in congress. i will continue to do that. we need to be able to come to the table and have an open and honest discussion. i have the same passion. why are we not doing anything? we've been closed out of the rooms. we haven't been able to talk about the spending. we have not been in the discussions. americans deserve better. my constituents sent me to be at that table. we are going to get past it. host: congressman august pfluger, we appreciate your time. we hope you join us again. up next, a discussion on the select committee on the coronavirus crisis.

we will have that discussion with a reporter from bloomberg government. we will be right back. >> a couple of weeks ago, the heritage foundation published its 2023 index of military strength. the study concluded the current military is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict. we discuss the findings with the editor who wanted another point of view on the military posture. we asked winslow wheeler to talk

with us. he has spent 40 years working on national security budgets and military reform for both little parties. -- political parties. >> winslow wheeler on book notes plus. it's available on the c-span free mob app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> fridays at 8:00 eastern, afterwards from book tv, a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, others on their latest books. this week, an economist offers his thoughts on how the u.s. can avoid the worst economic catastrophe of our lifetime. he's interviewed by a wall

street reporter. watch at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> listening to programs on c-span just got easier. tell your smart's maker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern. catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. this into c-span any time. c-span it, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: a focus on the work of the subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis. alex ruoff joins us. some history first. why was the committee established? guest: thanks for having me.

at the very beginning of the outbreak, in 2020, to respond and keep an investigative on top of the federal response, there was this understanding that the federal response needed oversight. there needed to be a body to keep tabs on what the government was doing. it started as the check on what the federal government was doing. it was an opportunity to get officials in front of cameras. they would oversee how this was going. host: there will be a hearing happening this week on capitol hill. why a wrap up hearing if it's not over yet? guest: this congress is over. select committees like this are

required to start and begin with endpoints. you have a good point. this is an over. the committee does have this big report, how far should this keep going? democrats say the job isn't done yet. they have work to do. there are financial institutions that took advantage of pandemic programs and need investigation. republicans take over. it's their choice whether to restart this. it was a big question for the next speaker. he's got a choice if he wants to bring this up. a lot of republicans have said absolutely, there is work undone. they want to turn that spotlight onto the biden administration. they have not had a perfect response. i think there is a lot of interest in turning this body

over onto the most recent issues. like any other congressional body, there is a political advantage. they want to turn this on the by demonstration to show and gain political points. host: what were the recommendations that came from that report on friday? guest: it's a very long list. i would recommend readers take a look. it's very broad. these recommendations are quite broad. they are things like having a better look at some of the pandemic response programs. looking at anti-fraud programs, improving our response. there is a lot to look at. the u.s. fell flat on its face. it really failed to meet.

we have one of the best public health institutions. we did not fare as well. there are recommendations about investing in pandemic. this, things that we failed at. it is quite nebulous. host: one is modernize modern health communication. dig into that one a little bit. guest: for the past -- everyone has felt this over the past two years. there has been this challenge from the cdc, all the directors have experienced this. how to describe to americans what we should be doing and how we can protect ourselves. it's been very difficult. there has been this challenge.

the report -- what is our responsibility? that's been a real challenge i think. it's been like that for long time. it's been a challenge for people to understand what we need to do. everybody has family members who asked themselves if they need boosters, what do i do about the next virus? how do i go about my life? the cdc has had a challenge getting those messages out. host: alex ruoff is with us until the bottom of the hour. if you want to join the conversation, it is (202) 748-8001 four republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. he's been tracking the work of the select committee on the coronavirus.

what are you expecting from the hearing this week. guest: some of it is going to be about the future. the expectations about what will come of these recommendations. this is a little bit of a hitter subcommittee. there has been discussion on what the focus should be. there is going to be a big fight. republicans have said this is unfairly focused on just the trump administration. of one of things i am hoping is about the future. where congress is going to turn its focus. we are two years into this. where we should invest tax dollar money. i think to improve, many people know it's a real difficult situation. are we ready if we face another

outbreak of another disease? host: has this committee looked at the origins of covid? guest: that has been a sticking point across both parties. republicans have vowed to make this a focus. almost every committee has vowed to do this. energy and commerce in the house, they of all really said this is something we want to discuss. democrats have not rejected the idea of doing it. it's not been a high priority. host: we will have you chat with a few collars. jeff is in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to propose that one of the problems is we politicize

public health. that was one of the problems you just talked about. we don't have enough money to address this adequately. public health is sorely underfunded. people need to participate in providing public health. there has been no response. thank you. host: on that question it, the politicizing of public health funding. guest: they are not an

appreciation's -- appropriations committee. they have said this is been underfunded a long time. they are focusing on a spending bill. how much money needs to go into domestic programs? there are a lot of mouths to feed. there has been a lot of discussion if we need to boost domestic spending. public health is a subset of that. you talk to appropriators, they will say we do want to fund this. the federal government has a lot of mouths to feed. there is a real discussion about wanting to do this. whether or not we see it this year is undecided. we have called for it year after year. that long-term investment has yet to appear. host: this is pete. you are on with alex ruoff.

caller: how are you this morning? i wanted to see what the shots were going to do. i took the johnson & johnson shot. then i took both of the moderna boosters. then this past september, i got the pfizer booster. i also got the flu shot. the information people are putting out on the internet and whatever these websites are putting out, i didn't find anything different with the shots. i've got a brother on disability. he got moderna, the modernity boosters, the pfizer booster. he got the flu shot and a pneumonia shot. my other brother got his shots.

we are still alive. only 14% of the people have taken the new booster. only 62% are fully vaccinated. why don't our citizens get on the ball out here and do what you are supposed to do? this vaccine is not going to kill you. it's going to keep you out of the hospital. host: on vaccination rates? guest: that's a good point. i talked to a lot of public health people. there are a myriad of reasons. a lot of people, its accessibility, time. this happens with the flu shot every year. we are busy people. that does reduce it. it's a combination of factors.

people don't necessarily feel they need it. i think it's up to the public health officials to describe the real need to drive booster campaigns. when you ask people about it, there is little uncertainty about where we should be on our schedules. that is part and parcel of our system, it is hard to keep on top of it. that is a big public health issue. knowing when you need to get boosters to push them forward. host: let me come to one of your recent stories. americans may play -- pay for covid shots next year. guest: there has been a lack of public funding. starting early in the year, they warned it was running out of money for covid vaccines.

congress has been reluctant to give a boost of funds. at some point, the white house is going to run out of money. sometime around january this year. they won't be able to buy anymore. they won't have the money to send out free vaccines. this has been part of where we are in 2022. everything related to covid is supposed to be free. one of the early pandemic packages said if you need treatment or tests or vaccines, all of that should be paid for by your insurance company. that is less and less. the programs for the uninsured has dried up. the white house is warning its running out of money for vaccines. what it has proposed is shifting it back over to our other vaccines.

you pay a co-pay for the flu vaccine. they are going to shift this back into the public realm. when the government buys it in bulk, it is cheaper. the person who's getting it will receive few. in the future, you should expect to pay money for this. it's going through your insurance. it's been bought by the hospital. they are typically a nonprofit enterprise. host: good morning. caller: thank you. i am in my seventh day of isolation with covid. i have looked at it. i am fully vaccinated. as soon as i can, i'm going to start getting boosters because i

don't want to get this again. i was looking this stuff up while i was stuck at home. i'm grateful to have a place to isolate. i am going to say -- i want to talk about the neurological effects of a mild infection. there have been studies out of the u.k. that there is neurological damage from a mild covid infection. the loss of smell is not your nose. it's a neurological damage. we don't know the effects of this. it clearly hasn't been studied enough. if everybody knew that a mild covid infection was going to damage your brain it, a lot more people would be getting vaccinated. that's my comment. thank you.

guest: i think this is an interesting aspect to this. the real damage and what is the real threat at this point to us all. there has been a lot of interest in putting more studies into long covid. to have this question about where the risk is focused. that is something all of us have had to deal with. this idea of where the risks are and where we can place them. it's a challenge we all face, getting back to living our lives and living with the risk of this virus existing. this goes back to the public health question. the cdc needs to describe where you can reduce the risk of being sick. of facing real harm. it's a challenge i don't envy. it is something i can't possibly

explain it to other people myself. i think it's a challenge we are facing in the world. covid continues to exist. host: let me come back to the select committee. they opened an investigation last year. guest: that is one of the partly open-ended parts of this. the report goes into a series of websites that. there are a series of things that were popular in certain

communities, but were unproven treatments for covid. there was a gold rush or funding rush to get these out. if they were really acting against that. one of the reports were supposed to be handled by medical boards. covid broke down those barriers. typically, you need to be seen by a doctor in your state. there was a change affect area a lot of our medicines were online. a lot of hospitals embrace that. this was one thing they said may have been an opportunity for people to take advantage. it's been an interesting look at

where these things rose and fell. there is a lot of challenges here. some medications a been a real challenge to recognize. host: this is christine in rhode island. caller: good morning. i've been following the covid because i lost five people from covid. it was from a lot of propaganda coming from the news. if the republican party would work together, that's what we need now.

we need these people to work together instead of just shooting off all this propaganda. what about the people that lost a loved one? how do they get money? thank you. have a great holiday. guest: i believe some states have set up survivor funds. there was a discussion about that in california. families who lost people from covid, they have a lobby presence here in washington. they have argued for a lot of things. they lost parents, caregivers, that never took off. there has been a discussion around states, particular for people who lost parents.

millions of people across the world have lost a loved one who died from the virus. the response has been an interesting one. i think that's going to be a real escutcheon. they were talking about having a memorial here in washington, a discussion about it. it never quite got off. one of the issues has been a deeper bipartisan investigation into the response. menendez was a big sponsor of that in the senate. some survivors have sought answers to what happened, how they could have seen such a big loss of life.

it's very tragic. host: sarah is in indiana. good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a comment. the lady said she got all of her shots and was going to get more roosters. yet she still had it. my family and a lot of people i know have not gotten shots and we haven't had no covid. i have some friends that we hang out with. all of them had shots and i had friends, we hang out at the american legion in our area, they found him dead. i was sitting next to him the next day. i think the shot deal is overrated.

if you want to take it, that is fine and dandy. my family don't want to take it. it's not a vaccine. it's not been tested. they don't know that much about it. my very best friend got her shot. she has to go in because she's got led clots in her leg. please -- i've got a grandson in the air force. they forced him to take the shot. they were going to kick him out. he did not want to take it. we've got the commonest in the white house right now. host: that was sarah in indiana. she brings up the air force, the idea of editorial covid vaccinations was a sticking point in this defense

authorization act. guest: the covid mandate, this was a public health tool. a lot of them have -- they won't be enacted here. they found politically there's not a lot of support for that. democrats did not say that. that shows you how much they are willing to say we can't cash our chips on this. the same thing has happened when it comes to the senate. i believe the only mandate that exists is one for health-care workers. they had one for contractors from the federal government. they have not been enacted.

it has shown that is an issue, mandates have been a challenge. it's an issue for them. they see this as one of their big tools for getting people vaccinated. if another pandemic were rolling around, a lot of officials are worried that's going to cause a challenge. they've got to get another set of vaccines. that may be a real challenge. that is not something they have in their toolbox. if you want people to be healthy, they need to be vaccinated. that's an issue. host: the last call is from colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i live in a small mountain town. every two weeks, the mobile

vaccine truck comes up here. there are doctors offices. i would like to ask, has the status of the vaccine? host: it is for emergency use only. i could be wrong. i am one of those americans who believe

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] put it through trials is overlapping. not compromised or slower or cutting corners. the idea was to do them in sequence so the process is faster without cutting corners. when you look through that, it's the same with a lot of vaccines. they've been sitting around. that's been the main difference

here. i would caution people to not look at the word emergency as a half measure. host: bloomberg.com is where you can go to read alex ruoff. thank you so much for the time. up next, before the house comes in, it is our open form. any policy you want to talk about, any campaign or state issue, you can call in. the lines are on your screen. you can go on ahead and start calling in now. we will be right back. >> c-span now is an unfiltered view of what's happening. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings.

all at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and live schedule he information. -- scheduling information. it is available at the apple store and google play. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> it's time to get out your phones and start recording for your chance to win $100,000 in cash prizes for the $5,000 grand prize. for this year's competition, we are asking to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your top priority would be and why. create a video showing the importance of your issue from

opposing and supporting points of view. be bold with your documentary. there is still time to get started. the deadline is january 20, 2023. for rules and tips, visit our website. >> 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, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: in our last 25 minutes,

our open forum. any issue you want to talk about, going ahead and start calling in. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. the house is coming in at 10:00. we will take you there live. news from this morning, the associated press reports the u.s. inflation slowed again last month. this the latest sign that price increases are slowly cooling despite pressures they inflict on american households. prices rose 7.1% in november. that is down from 7.7% in october. that's coming from the bureau of labor statistics. npr is noting that president biden will sign the respect for

marriage bill. there have been years of changed attitudes as the threat looms that they could rollback same-sex marriage rights. the white house chief of staff linked to that story. one more story from here, from virginia. a new chapter for richmond is the headline. a statue of ap hill, the last major confederate morrill owned i the city, comes down. the remains of the general himself are embedded somewhere in the statue. workers are continuing to search to find those remains. the presence of his grave complicated the removal of the roof monument. more than a dozen other

confederate monuments around the historic city have been removed. the headline of that editorial is good riddance. your phone calls. it is your open form. go ahead. >> good morning. thank you so much for your network and what you do. i want to say good morning to you and hope you're doing well. i'm sorry i didn't get in on the last segment. it's about the covid vaccine. i don't understand why people can't take medical advice from medical professionals. i got all the vaccines. i contacted my doctor. you can't really get them on the

phone, you could get a call back from him. i've been going to the same doctor for a long time. i asked his advice. he said i should definitely take the vaccine. i don't understand. if you are in doubt about it, why can't they just consult a doctor? thank you for doing such a wonderful job. host: this is tony in virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling in reference to alex who just had a report on covid-19. president trump lied to us about the vaccine or covid. we work in the dark and going back and forth as to what to do. this young man is stating that we only had problems the past two years.

that is not the truth. thank you. host: i think he was describing some of the debates about when republicans take over the house, how much they will focus on the past two years. alex ruoff joined us in our last segment to talk about the select committee on the coronavirus crisis. that committee is ending at the end of the congress. it's unclear if it will start again. ray is in colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm wonder why they didn't ask my name. anyway, how are you doing this morning? host: i am doing well. caller: for starters, i've been keeping an eye on u.s. beat texas. that's the case about enforcement priorities and its

effect on states. the immigration issue overall, we need to make it easier for people to come here legally. we've got to resolve the issues about illegal immigration quickly. i also want to put in a good word for the libertarian part of colorado. they are going to be throwing their festivus celebration. if you look up the website, you will get more details. i happen to be celebrating my wedding anniversary. host: congratulations to you and your partner. is there going to be an airing of grievances? caller: i'm pretty sure there will be. host: what is your grievance this year? caller: the fact that somehow

the governor is being touted as having libertarian tendencies despite the fact that he shut down the state two years ago. host: this is harold in georgia. good morning. caller: i would like to say something about the vaccine. i got the vaccine right after it came out. they said you wouldn't get covid. they also said you wouldn't spread it. after that, i had seven heart attacks. then i got covid after that. i got covid again. i took those pills that were outlawed by the government and

everybody else. i was well in six hours after i took them. a vaccine is supposed to keep you from getting disease. it supposed to keep you from spreading the disease. that's not a vaccine. it was something that gave me a heart attack. host: this is richard in missouri. caller: these secrets trump's got scattered all over, in the old days, there were two people who had the atomic secrets. they hung them with a rope. if these secrets, nobody is

above the law. back during the korean war, we paid a foreign pilot to land in japan. i wonder if anybody else remembers that. i will get off here. thank you. host: that was richard. we have about 15 minutes until the house comes in for the day. this is chris in arkansas. good morning. caller: good morning. i have but one thing to say. if he would go ahead and put that coal increase here now, just before christmas. it might do him good politically. host: we are just coming off an

election in which the president's party did better than expected. do you think he needs a boost right now? caller: anything would help. i don't know how it's going to turn out. that's all i needed to say. host: carlton in texas, you are next. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. there are so many things to touch on. the way that congress has the ability to police themselves doesn't seem to be working. host: what would you like them to do? caller: i would like to see a checks and balances. each party go after the other. the president can remove people

from the judicial part. they could remove senators. senators could remove the house of representatives. the checks and balances they have now, congress gets to punish their own. it isn't working. congressmen are breaking the laws. nothing gets done about it. maybe they need a new policy. host: the states can do that every two years. caller: i understand they can.

you've got the sheep out there. they follow blindly. to look at congress right now, every single democrat votes the same way every single time. host: that is carlton in texas. we've got about 15 minutes left in open forum. one more from the pages of the newspaper. a photo. this is a photo of a group of migrants from nicaragua across the rio grande into el paso early on sunday evening. the numbers estimated to be 1500 crossing in that group. there is a story about it on the front page of the new york times.

this is ed in massachusetts. go-ahead. caller: thank you and thank you for taking my call. i would like to try and get a christmas list wishon. back in 1990 eight, congress passed the higher education act, without debate or discussion from any elected representatives. two lines were written into the higher education act that denied student loan borrowers the constitutional guarantee through article one section eight of uniform bankruptcy protection. democrats have probably spoken up the most about trying to reform and bring justice to the

system. i urge them before this session of congress expires, we have a bill in the senate. it was brought on by dick durbin. in the house, congressman nadler has brought hr 9110. the destruction to the core of the american family and young people, the dramatic and predatory practices that were unleashed by the irresponsible insertion of this language into that bill, something done. i dread starting this fight over again. host: you're not the first caller to bring up this

legislation. they call in every day about that topic and bring up the bills. is it a coordinated effort to lobby for that legislation? caller: i do know there is a large group i'm affiliated with. you may also see an increase of the investigated journalism that was presented to the american public sunday evening. that can be seen on a peacock. it's an astonishing account of how we came to $2 trillion in student loan debt. people like to push the narrative that these are somehow wealthy educated elite individuals.

they have mistaken it for ppp loans. people are out here who are paying. they are seeing their balances increasing dramatically. predatory lending is something we thrive on in the united states. there been many promises made by

>> the true revelation about what's taking place over the last two or three years in regards to politics and the freedom of speech. i'm asking callers to get involved. at the local level. attend your city council meetings. let's try to keep america sovereign. keep an eye on c-span. try to be decent people. it's nice talking to you. host: before you go, how do you get involved on the local level in athens? caller: watching the county commissioner meetings online. i can't get to the meetings is

much as i would like. just watching them and trying to be politically active. one thing that hurts walker and warnock in the campaign, it is empowered me to get involved. i am going to try to put my hat in the ring. we've all got skeletons in our closet. i want to try to be as prepared as i can be. host: you are going to run for office? where do you start? caller: i start by cleaning my own home. host: what level of office do you think you will run for? are you going to start at the senate? caller: you flatter me.

i'm going to start at the state level. i would like to go local. we are going to start with state representative and go over there. i am very well known in athens. i believe people will follow me. i'm about to upload social media. it's not for the performance. it's for enlightenment. it's a wonderful ideal. i am immensely proud to be an american. thank you so much for c-span. where is brian lam? host: he is down the hallway. he is in every day. i will tell you he said hello. good morning. caller: i just want to say thank

you for taking my call. i also watch you every now and then. i want you to help me out a little bit. my concern is the supreme court. who is going to hold them accountable for what they are doing? they could be impeached, who would do the impeaching? host: there is a congressional process. caller: who would do it? host: the members of congress. caller: my next question it, the young lady who wants to be an independent, is that legal? to change parties when they were voted as one particular party? is that legal? host: they can choose to change

parties. caller: right in the middle? host: yes ma'am. we have seen it happen before in the past. caller: i thought he did it after that. not while he was still in office. thank you for that. that was my concern at this time. host: this is lisa in california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i am calling today because i saw the premiere of a documentary called lone wolves. it seeks to trace the removal of bankruptcy protections from student loan debt. i was shocked to the core. i just wanted to talk about the

moral imperative of returning bankruptcy protections to student loan debt. there are two bills in congress now. one is in the senate. it was sponsored by dick durbin. host: we've talked about those pieces of legislation already. why is it important to you? caller: the right to declare bankruptcy is in the constitution ahead of the right to declare war. to have had student loan debt be stripped of this protection is a violation of constitutional rights. this has given the lenders a license to steal. the student debt crisis we are

facing today has a great deal to do with the lack of bankruptcy protection. host: this is john in florida. good morning. caller: i was calling to voice my opinion to see if we could spread it around. i am an old man. i would like to know -- i'm not trying to be silly. what is the use of a gun? i have grandchildren. quite honestly, two of them are scared to go to school. at one point, we had -- we have to determine what can we do about eliminating guns. i am talking to my representatives.