>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these companies and more, including mediacom. >> you should have access to fast, reliable internet. >> mediacomupports c-span as a public service, along with these

television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning on washington journal, we cover the morning's headlines and take your calls live. also, john herbst, former u.s. ambassador to y -- two ukraine -- to ukraine discusses volodymyr zelenskyy's presentation to congress. and representative zach wamp. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning. it is friday, december 23. the house is in a race against the clock with current government funding expiring at midnight. the house returns this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time to consider the $1.7 trillion spending bill passed by the

senate yesterday. it avoids a government shutdown and it funds the government through september of next year. we want to get your reaction to what is in this spending package. we will divide the lines different in this morning. by age. under 30, (202) 748-8000. 61 -- 30 one to 60, dial-in at (202) 748-8001. if you're over 60 years old, (202) 748-8002. you can text us. include your age today in your name and city and state at (202) 748-8003. go to facebook.com/c-span. you can also send a tweet. let's look at the provisions, the big ticket items in this $1.7 trillion spending bill. $772 billion for nondefense

discretionary programs. $797 billion for the pentagon. ukraine will get an additional $45 billion in aid. there is $40 billion for disaster relief. breaking down that aid for ukraine, $12 billion for replenishing u.s. weapons stocks. $9 billion to train and support the ukrainian military. $7 billion to u.s.-european command support. $300 million for nuclear reactors and fuel. many more provisions in this bill. 120 $6 million to prepare for potential nuclear incidents. many provisions in the bill. we will try to break them down for you throughout this first hour of today's washington journal. before the senate voted yesterday, the final vote which was 68-29, 18 republicans joining the democrats to approve the spending bill, senators were

allowed to offer amendments. senator rand paul offered an amendment to try to control the spending that happens in washington. listen to his argument, along with bernie sanders the budget chair pushing back on his proposal. [video] >> moments ago i made a point of order against a 4155 page bill spending $1.7 trillion that was given to us in the middle of the night at 1:30 in the morning. the point of order was waived, as it always has been by the senate. it has become far too easy for congress to escape its own rules designed to prevent reckless spending. there's been enough time for ace -- there has not been enough time for a single person to have read this bill. the building process ignores storing inflation, rising interest rates, and a ballooning debt of $31 trillion. enough is enough.

i asked my colleagues to support my admin meant to raise the threshold to waive a budget point of order from 3/5 to two thirds. >> this amendment would require 67 senators to waive a budget point of order instead of 60. if this amendment were passed, a tiny minority of u.s. senators could prevent action on a national health care crisis, an economic crisis, or natural disaster. that would put the people of this country in a very dangerous position. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. host: from the senate yesterday. the admin that failed. 18 republicans joined the democrats to approve the bill 68-29. tweeting out the names of those 18 republicans. they included senators blunt,

collins, cornyn, kotten, lindsey graham, emhoff, mcconnell, portman, romney, brown's, shelby, wicker and young. the 18th senators who voted with the democrats to approve this spending bill and avoid a government shutdown. joseph from virginia, good morning. over 60. what is your reaction to some of the provisions in the bill? caller: thank you for letting me come in. i can't give specifics right now. i read a lot in the last several days. a lot of excess spending. we have a $4000 people have it -- 4000 page bill people have not been able to read. i said $4000, not 4000 page. in the old days -- i'm old enough to remember committees

actually reviewing what is supposed to be in a particular area. reviewing the budget, making recommendations. something called a 13 cardinals of the house, the 13 appropriation bills. today you don't have that anymore. nobody really knows what is in there except for a small minority of folks who put together the bill to be passed. i like to go back to regular order so we all understand what is in there. $1.7 trillion of discretionary funding. there is nondiscretionary funding. the actual amount of spending for the fiscal year 2023 is more than $1.7 trillion. it will include social security, medicare, medicaid, other entitlement programs that might be increased. this is just too much debt we will have. we are $31 trillion already. there's a lot of wasteful spending in the bill, both on

the defense side and nondefense side in terms of what occurs. i think this is just -- in terms of people being able to actually do what they are supposed to do. host: what stood out to you as wasteful spending? caller: off the top of my head i can't recall. there was a number of things that came through. the new york post and the wall street journal had a listing of items that were in the bill. $15 billion i read about in terms of earmarks. to me it was a lot of money. in the old days earmarks were small items for particular senators. today they are larger. $15 billion. that would make the fortune 500 list. host: how do you respond to

lawmakers who say we know our districts best? we should have earmarks. we know what our districts need. caller: having an earmark does not bother me so much as the dollar value of some of the earmarks. you have $600 million or $200 million. there is the hike trail in georgia, $3.6 million. there are a couple of others. nancy pelosi's district, $200 million being put there. i would like to see a dollar limit on the earmarks. if i congressperson wants to have an earmark, no more than $1 million. host: rory in california. also over 60. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: basically i would say

they are kidding themselves. they are trying to spend more money at the border without closing it. from what i've heard -- i'm a republican. from what i'm hearing they may devote money -- maybe they will do a separate category for ins that takes care of people and lets the border patrol actually catch people. but what makes everybody think they will spend money for the aliens, even if they are appropriated? from what i'm hearing from my republican people they will argue. they will not spend anything for any alien or anything else until the border is secure. everything is built. host: you are hearing from your republicans -- house republicans are going to try to fight this? caller: yeah.

the republicans in the house. they have a few democrats that he pelosi. -- hate hello see who may vote against it. today is her last day effectively until then. a lot of people say they will not spend it on aliens. like in new york, they were spending money on aliens over vets. host: this does go to the house this morning. they will gavel in at 9:00 a.m. eastern to consider this $1.7 trillion spending package. they also have to pass a short-term cr. current funding expires at midnight. they need to give the president enough time to sign the bill as well. house republicans are opposed to this, led by kevin mccarthy, republican of california who wants to be the next speaker in the 118th congress when the gop takes over.

from the washington post, as mccarthy vibes for the speakership, hoping to run the house in january, he has held out for weeks against any negotiations with democrats. he's even signaled support for blocking bills written by his republican counterparts in the senate who supported the spending package. a position first endorsed by the most conservative members, some of whom opposed mccarthy's bids for speaker -- bid for speaker. until january 3, they retain the majority. the vote is likely to be sparsely attended as more than 220 members from both parties had indicated by thursday night they would be absent in part due to inclement weather, choosing instead to vote from afar by proxy. 220 members will vote by proxy on this $1.7 trillion spending bill. ron in texas, good morning to

you. caller: good morning, greta. i am a 59-year-old. i'm disabled. i depend on social security. i don't understand -- i don't believe the senators understand the bill. i don't know what it means when someone says they will shut down the government. is that the military? social security? to me there are all forms of terrorism. that is terrifying to hear the government will shut down. i don't know if it is more of a ploy to get their bills passed. i don't think the government can literally shut down.

that is where i am at in the situation. i appreciate you letting me call in. host: as we talk about -- talked about with the first color, $15 billion in earmarks. 7200 earmarks for lawmakers in this bill. from the new york times reporting, lawmakers from both parties stuck earmarks into the bill, including republicans who secured funding for hometown projects. they will now not vote for the package. the bill contains more than 7200 earmarks, up from 4962 in the last spending package, which passed in april. an increase that could be the result of congressional numbers learning how to navigate a practice that was resurrected earlier this year with the passage of the last spending bill after a decade in which funding for the projects often derided as pork was banned. it is no longer banned.

i think it is a wonderful opportunity for members to get back to their states, said senator patty murray of washington, who secured over $280 million for her state. she will chair the appropriations committee in the senate and the 118th congress. molly reynolds at the booking institution set the process allows members to have a stake in a legislative process typically governed by senior leadership. the increase in the last spending bill could reflect the fact that many members have never experienced the earmark process given they were elected after lawmakers concerned about the abuse of the practice put a moratorium on earmarks in 2011. jb from pop springs, arkansas. -- hot springs, arkansas. caller: how are you doing? i was going to comment on the money we are spending in ukraine. i noticed the speech when

zelenskyy spoke. a lot of republicans just sat there. i thought that was kinda shameful. the way i see it, we are not sending money to ukraine. we are sending armaments, tanks, planes, whatever. these armaments are laid -- made right here in america. we are spending money on ourselves. we are not sending boatloads of money over there. we are sending things they can use and are built by american workers here in america. so, i just kind of cringe every time i hear these republicans calling in here and talking about all the money we are giving ukraine. we are spending money here in this country and giving them arguments which they need. i heard this morning that north korea has kicked in with russia.

they are starting to send things to russia. also helping with people, sending mercenaries in there. iran is giving them drones. it is getting into a bad situation. i've said it before. the best way ukraine can end this thing is if we would give them back their nuclear weapons that they gave up. if russia knew they had those weapons, they would not be doing what they are doing over there. host: john and clarksville, arkansas. what is your reaction to some of these -- how congress is spending money in 2023? caller: good morning. i'm delighted to be the second caller in a row from arkansas. appreciate the comments from jb. proud to see the vote. it was somewhat close to being bipartisan. 18 republicans voted for the

bill. i think that is a good indication the bill is moving in the right direction. very proud of senator cotton, senator bozeman. glad to see they both voted for it. they are our senators and arkansas. -- in arkansas. it's important we support ukraine. the united states needs to be a leader when it comes to leadership of this nature. we need ukraine to succeed. if ukraine fails, we will pay more in the long run and we will lose in the long run. we need ukraine to be successful. happy to see the spending bill move in that direction. host: rick from sioux city, iowa. over 60. caller: good morning. hi. i don't have a lot on this. i'm looking at this reaction to what is in the bill. i have heard several politicians say they are not certain what is in the bill.

i don't know how you can go through $1.7 trillion worth of stuff in the meta-time they had -- and the amount of time they had and cast a vote on it. that concerns me. i can't get my head around that. i don't know how we run a country that way where it has such a short fuse to spend that kind of money. that is pretty much my reaction. i -- like i said, to go through everything they are spending would take a lot more than a few days to do that. host: it is 4155 pages for late-night reading if you're interested. you can find it on a website, c-span.org. david in north carolina. caller: hi. they are so much garbage in this bill. i heard yesterday where they got a million and a half dollars

over a $2.5 million michelle obama trail. what do you need something like that for? you'll need to focus on -- we can't even get into hospitals because that got people like that. freaking democrats. i have a right to be mad, ma'am. host: from the debate on the senate floor yesterday, senator ron johnson attempted to pass an amendment that would take all the earmarks out of the omnibus bill. here is a portion of that debate, including a response from the appropriations committee chair patrick lakey of vermont who is retiring -- patrick lahey of vermont. [video] >> report issued says we are sitting on a surplus of $250 billion. in addition, they have rainy day

funds approaching over $130 billion. that totals about $380 billion. this omnibus is going to spend somewhere around $1.7 trillion. it is still not enough. here is the 625 pages of earmarks. almost 10 alien dollars worth of additional money going to the states when they're sitting on close to $400 billion of surpluses. this is grotesque. earmarks are the gateway drug to the morgue in our children's future. my minute eliminates all the -- my amendment eliminates all the earmarks from this grotesque bill. >> senator johnson one sister cede the power of the purse to the public servants and exec new branch. they are unaccountable to the voters.

we are asking we should be able to reflect the borders of our state. the senator from vermont, i speak with community members, business owners across my state everyday. i have done this for 48 years. i understand what they need. i try to reflect it. under rule xliv, rule 44, additional rules by established last year, we have unprecedented transparency and accountability in the congressionally directed spending bill. far more transparency than they've had at any time in my 48 years in the senate. i asked the rest of the remarks be included in the record. i oppose the johnson eminent. host: from yesterday. the senate approving the bill

with bipartisan support, 68-29. it now goes to the house. they gavel and at 9:00 a.m. here on c-span to the package. we want to know what your thoughts are on these spending provisions. also included in this legislation is proposals like the electoral cap act that sent -- count act that senators have been working on. congress poised to overhaul the electoral count act. the new legislation would make it clear the vice president's role is merely to count the votes publicly and he or she has no power to alter the results. it would dramatically raise the threshold to sustain an objection to a state's electors to 1/5 of both chambers, up from one house member and one senator now. the proposal would provide for an expedited federal court challenge if the state attempt to delay or tamper with election results.

this comes on the heels of the january 6 committee in the house making their final report public yesterday. in it it included one recommendation to pass the electoral count act. it also recommended that the former president should be barred from holding office again, pointing to the 14th amendment. there's a headline in the washington post on that. we will talk about that in the second hour of today's washington journal. back to this discussion about the spendi bill. we divided the lines by age this morning. rich in danvers, massachetts. over 60. caller: how are you doing today? i like your red for christmas. i called my congress meant and they could not tell me have any zeros are and $1.7 trillion. -- in 1.7 trillion.

host: you are opposed? caller: we will be borrowing money from other countries in 10 years. yes. they call it a depression. host: what stands out as the most egregious spending in your opinion? caller: all these earmarks and things like that. joe biden can't count to 10. he's absolutely gone. he does not care about anything. we are spending so much money on the border and so forth. the guy is a complete failure. host: brenda from pendergrass, georgia. good morning to you. do you want to share hold you are this morning? caller: i have an opinion. i think the white house is a -- mitch mcconnell needs to be thrown out. host: because he voted for this? caller: they don't want to help our border. like that man said, they killed us. they are killing our people.

they want to kill our babies. they want us all dead this year. i don't understand that. host: what you mean -- caller: i don't believe in that, ma'am. we need god back in our lives. host: what do you mean about the border, that they do with the help on the border? caller: they need to have the border closed. they keep coming over. they are waiting on it to be open. joe biden don't care. mitch mcconnell don't care. all the republicans and democrats, they don't care. host: i think she's referring to the debate over title 42. washington times front page. migrants gathered to wait for foreign policy's to end. title 42 allowed the government to send migrants back into mexico, back to their home countries. it is set to expire next week. this became part of the debate

over the $1.7 trillion spending bill in the spent yesterday. listen to republican mike lee attending to add an immigration related amendment to the bill. here's a portion from what he said and the opposing view from judiciary committee chair dick durbin. [video] >> during the recent border crisis title 42 began the only sustain control we have over illegal immigration. an 2022, this year alone we've had over 2.7 million undocumented immigrants at our southern border. that doesn't include those who came across, sneaking through undetected. the biden administration is expelling people from the border exclusively under title 42. that's it. that is always got. it's been used help expel 2.5 million illegal immigrants. in the last seven days alone the

border patrol in arizona showed it is not just the people coming across illegally. it's also dangerous drugs. in the last seven days alone, porter patrol agents have confiscated one point 5 million fentanyl tablets. more than 14,000 pounds in total was intercepted at the border in 2022. that's enough to kill america's entire population nine times over. we have no business passing this bill unless it is in here. >> the logic of title 42 is a public health response to a crisis. it was determined for coming into the u.s. could be turned away under title 42. more than a million were last year. what has happened to the public health crisis? in june of this year our government announced it would no longer require covid tests for foreigners entering the united states. we have 22 million international visitors each year. now there is no longer a requirement for testing. let's be honest.

this is not about public health anymore. it's our excuse for not tackling the very real challenge of coming up with a border policy on a bipartisan basis. host: you can watch more of the senate debate on c-span.org, or wait for the house to take up this $1.7 trillion spending bill when they gavel in this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. they are up against the clock. current funding expires at midnight tonight. they will have to take of a short-term continuing resolution to allow time for them to debate and vote on the spending bill. we are taking phone calls on what is in this package. we are taking your text messages, facebook posts, and tweets as well. here is john, 75 years old. $1.7 trillion equals higher inflation. that will be the real crisis. past the cr without the bill and let republicans fix the mess, he says.

gail in rockville center, new york. how old are you? caller: good morning. 60. this bill is an outrage. the reason why it is, you have 21 republicans that promised to get our financial business in order and they just threw it out the window. as far as the border, we are protecting -- in this bill we are giving egypt and tunisia money for their borders in africa. for the united states the only thing we are given is to help the border is to process the people. not to build a wall. not to make people go out. i am stuck in new york. i am stuck with chuck schumer. people that have republican

senators that voted for this should have been calling all week. i wish c-span would have gotten rid of january 6 and put this on at the beginning of the week. today they are voting for it. so people would know and they could call their elected senators and say this is an outrage. really, guys. c-span, you have to do better than that. the day they are voting on it? thank you very much. host: the senate already voted on it. jason in a tweet. the outrage by the gop and their constituents might be more convincing if they were not totally five with massive federal spending while cutting taxes when they were in power. on the domestic front, the washington post breaks down this $1.7 trillion spending bill. it raises the maximum pell grant and awards for lower income college students. it includes the first budget

increase for the national labor relations board, how labor watchdog in more than a decade. it provides $800 million for shelter and other emergency services provide grants, with additional sums for improving refugee processing. it boosts funding for for our programs and tack and security for members of -- tech and security from evers a congress. the fda received $3.5 billion. lawmaker sought to adjust supply chain safety issues that caused the shortage of baby formula this year. the department of veterans affairs received more than $134 billion, which includes a significant about of money for former service members health care. the justice department received nearly $39 billion. $3.5 billion increase with more federal grants for state and local law enforcement and the fbi to investigate violent extremism and domestic terrorism.

you can read more in the washington post, the wall street journal, the usa today. they all have breakdowns of what is in this $1.7 trillion spending bill. doug from forks, washington. caller: good morning, greta. i want to inform some of the callers when they say the government will shut down, if it did not pass in the government shut down social security, medicare, all that stuff is paid. the military stays. the only thing that is usually shut down is like park service and some nonessential offices. they all get their pay when they go back to work. nobody loses anything. that is one thing. the second thing was when the other caller was saying that they build the stuff in america,

the bombs at the machinery we ship over, the guns and all that, that is true. it does, but the money is still spent even though they get the weapons. but there is also $12 billion going to prop up their economy. we don't know where all that $12 billion is going to go. there is a couple -- the money is getting spent no matter what it goes to. it doesn't matter if they are made here or not. it is going out the window. i am ashamed. i'm a republican. i am ashamed of the republican senators. i will never vote for republicans again. the only republican i will ever vote for would be of donald trump wins the nomination. i will not vote for any party.

that is how i feel about them sinking us into the debt we are in. i don't understand how. when you say that earmarks are great and they get to take some thing home for their constituents or their state, but we don't have the money. it is all going on to national debt. i don't know when we will ever decide -- i don't know what will happen. you know what i mean. host: i was not saying that. that is the argument i lawmakers and i was asking a caller how they respond to that argument. caller: ok. thank you very much. host: here is george in highland, michigan. wouldn't it be nice of americans can write allow that says every time congress mutters the word government shut down that politicians don't get paid until the bill is passed?

it will only change when they get money taken out of their own pockets. this is from the committee for a responsible federal budget. essential services, many related to public safety continue to operate. payments covering any obligations incurred only when appropriations are enacted. prior shutdowns, border patrol, law enforcement, power grid maintenance is classified as essential. some staff is also been largely protected. mandatory spending not subject to annual appropriations such as social security, medicare and medicaid also continued. other examples are those funded by permit user fees not subject to appropriations such as immigration services funded by visa fees. many programs exempt. the public is likely to feel the impact of a shut down in several ways. in a full shutdown, social security and medicare checks are sent up it verification and card issuance would cease.

environmental and food inspection is impacted. national parks. air travel. health and human services, irs services, and the supplemental nutrition assistance program are some of them. nick in ann arbor, michigan. good morning to you. congress -- good morning. congress is on its way to avoid a government shutdown. what you think about this $1.7 trillion spending bill? caller: it is horrible news. terrible news. this is the fault of congress and especially the republicans. democrats don't expect anything better from them. that is what they do, bribe their voters. republicans did not need to do that. they have a republican house. for the life of me i don't understand why the republicans colluded with the democrats to sign the shameful bill. this totally shameful, disgusting bill.

$1.7 trillion. i agree with the other callers. how many zeros? people don't understand how much money that is. $15 billion or earmarks. disgusting earmarks that should be taboo, like pedophilia. they are the definition of corruption. i thought we were past those things. i thought earmarks were a thing of the past. now they are back. it is horrible. i usually disagree with rand paul when he rants about the vaccines in covid, but he's right. his speech was excellent. rand paul's speech castigated republicans and democrats for the bill. it was excellent. they spend money like a drunken sailor. these guys are worse. a drunken sailor spends his own money. they are spending your money that they steal from your pockets. host: nick, i will go to rose in

north carolina. how old are you? caller: born in 1961. i'm disgusted with the omnibus. the quid pro quo did matter. we never should have put nih biowarfare labs in putin's backyard. there was a fundraiser for adam schiff in 2013. pasternak is an arms dealer. i'm looking at his picture in syria right now on my laptop. dnc operative alexandria -- related to the fake steel dossier. the world economic forum, hunter biden's laptop, they are all tied together. we refuse to put the puzzle together so here are things i want you to look up online. first of all, look up uge

tube.com, hunter biden connected to ukraine biolab. there's a wonderful video. look up grand-jury.net, planned genocide by democrats, rhino's the nih, the cdc, the who, in the world economic forum. host: cynthia says i'm grateful for senate republicans on this bill. finally remembered they worked for the people and other gop. thankful the government is funded through 2023. now is not the time for the haters to be holding us hostage to politically damage the president. the former president on his truth social platform putting out this video in opposition to the spending package. [video] >> the bill provides $1.9 billion for so-called order management to process illegal

aliens and release them into our country. but it incredibly prohibits those funds are never being used for border security. to prevent illegal aliens from coming in in the first place. most importantly, we are giving $500 million to other countries for border security and for the building of walls. can you believe this? we are not allowed to use any money for border security or the building of walls. this bill will make the border worse. it will make crime worse. it will make the economy worse. it will make inflation worse. they will make every single one of joe biden's total catastrophes even more ruinous and damaging to our country. our country is going to hell because of what they have done in the last two years. passing a spending bill now before republicans take control of congress on january 3 would squander our best chance to hold

biden fully accountable and forced him to secure the border in the new year. mitch mcconnell, who was an absolute disaster, by the way, must not be allowed to waste his golden opportunity. is more of a democrat than a republican. what he is doing to this party is incredible and what he is doing to our nation's incredible. host: reporting on this $1.7 trillion bill, it includes lawmakers agreeing to spend more than 58 point $7 billion to carry out work to implement the $1.2 trillion infrastructure law, i bipartisan measure adopted last year to improve the nation's roads, bridges, pipes, and internet connection. that includes more than $10 billion to improve the nation's water, $347 million increase from the previous year. there's an additional $1.8 billion to carry a key elements of the chips and science active 2022, much of which would flow through the defense department. the bill, suppose the best of

manufacturing of tiny powerful computer chips known as as semiconductors. christopher and grass valley, california. good morning to you. thank you for waking up early. . what do you think of the spending package? caller: i think that -- i'm not sure about the part so far as barring donald trump for being president of the united states. i'm familiar with impeachment going through -- host: that's a recommendation by the january 6 committee and they report the issue last night, not part of the spending bill. caller: ok. i was curious as to how that might work. i do not want to see him become president again. i think it is a fair punishment. i wonder from the criticism he's given so many -- about so many people and everything else in the whole thing against him. why he has not gone ahead --

what he doesn't have a case ready to prosecute. there is no prosecution against him. it seems like he has an opportunity to do that and he's not taking it. i am grateful to hear that ukraine is being given a robust package. i think ukraine's role in the future through that will be secured. i think that is very important for them, especially for what they have meant agriculturally to the world and what impact the wars is having on borders and locations in africa and other countries in terms of the agriculture they received and the small arms going on the battlefield -- i'm not sure if it is nigeria -- going into terrorist activities there. that is good news.

i was listening to the brief bit that trump was putting forward to criticize and condemning and drawing lines are blurring them as to republicans and democrats. i had some thoughts but they are kind of escaping me on that. host: i will go to connie in highland, california. over 60. good morning. caller: so glad to talk to you. you know all the spending and everything? i heard this hospital in yuma, arizona, cochise, they are taking over $20 million in debt. they are taking immigrants going in with chronic disease and illness. they are released and they don't know where they are heading. ok. the reporter said what if i went. i'm an american. if i did not have the funds to pay and the doctor said, well,

we know where you are. you have a house. we will put a lien on it if you don't pay it. is that fair? we americans are paying all this money for illegal immigrants to come in and take over our hospitals. that is not fair to us. also, i hope the hospitals don't start closing or anything happening like that. host: that was part of the debate on the senate floor yesterday. you will probably hear that again in the debate over immigration and title 42 when the house takes it up today. you can tune in on c-span, on a website, c-span.org, and you can listen and watch with our free mobile app. it is called c-span now. more from the washington post on what is in this bill. it will require most businesses to enroll employees automatically in 401(k) retirement savings plans,

increasing contributions annually. workers making less than $71,000 a year will get a federally funded match for their first $2000 of savings. basil in ohio, over 60. what is your reaction to this bill? caller: i am 92 years old. i served as a medic during the korean war. what i'm seeing now is a provoking the american public in the revolution. george bush called her a one world government. -- called for a one world government. that will be controlled by the banking system. you have to destroy the constitution to control it. we will have come january on this the irs out with guns, you will see a revolution in this country. the american public and former military people will not put up with this crap.

i love this country. god bless america. i hope everyone wakes up. you young people better wake up to see what they are doing to destroy your country. host: kathy and warren, massachusetts. double d? -- how will you? caller: 60. host: what do you think about the spending bill? caller: i think the spending bill probably is not enough. the tax breaks republicans passed for the big businesses years ago left the smaller people waiting for the trickle down. instead we got inflation. where were these republicans when they passed the huge tax cut for the big businesses? host: james in new orleans, good morning to you. caller: how are you doing? i'm here. host: we are listening. caller: i think all these drug dealers that are coming across

the border with all this fentanyl that can kill all the americans, i think they should set an example for these drug dealers. they should be executed on the border, just like in thailand in bangkok. they have a the up or this is all drug dealers will be hung. these politicians in washington, democrats and republicans, they can sit and talk and have all the meetings they want and all the hearings. yet they cannot get anything straight. they know what is wrong. there are too many people coming across the border. they don't want to stop it. i think the governors of each state should have the right to stop the people coming across the border illegally. that is about all i have to say. host: another james next in the work, new jersey. caller: very serious now. new york city housing authority.

no heat, no hot water. it's ok. [indiscernible] that's ok. $1.7 trillion for whatever. host: dylan in clarkston, washington. caller: my number one problem with this in some of the people i heard calling earlier, honestly, this is an aside but i think the american population is lost. you go back to our country about 100 years ago, people talk about the education of the young people. comedy people know about the history of the labor movement? americans need to understand our power lies in our labor and our ability to withdraw that labor.

host: tie that to this $1.7 trillion spending bill. caller: the $1.7 trillion spending bill, right now -- why are we spending so much money to support ukraine when nato should not even be trying to push into other countries in the first place? i'm not saying that justifies what russia did, but i think it is an unpopular position to have. i think that so many people are lost and somebody people don't understand what is really happening with our government as far as those things go. host: how old are you? caller: 31. host: are you saying incredibly unpopular with your age group? caller: from what i've seen generally unpopular. we were in iraq -- how long were we in the middle east for? 20 years. host: did you listen to the

ukrainian president's address to congress earlier this week? caller: i missed that. i have been working all week. host: you can watch it if you go to c-span.org. i'm curious. you made the argument saying this is not charity. this is not charity, the money you are giving us. their victory is america's victory, was his argument. caller: i really don't agree with that. the only people that lose in war are the working people. working people have no business fighting average person's war, which is what this is about between nato, russia and ukraine. ukraine being a proxy of about a between nato and u.s. allies in russia. host: from usa today, larger child tax credits were nixed. despite being a top priority for

democrats, a child tax credit expansion that started in the pandemic was not included in the sweeping bill. the equal act legislation to limit federal sentencing disparities for drug offenses, crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, failed to make the final cut. the safe banking act which the cannabis industry has thought failed to make it. it would give businesses access to additional financial services. big tech regulation. despite the bipartisan support to restrict the power of corporations, a string of antitrust reform legislation was also left out of the spending package. the open app markets act to impose regulation on app stores was left on the chopping block. terry in winter springs, florida. caller: good morning. there are a lot of things like it but the bill but a ton of things i don't like either.

you keep going through all the things that are perfect that i refer. some of the things like $200 billion for some transgender thing, is a shopping list for the democrats. i'm a republican. have been all my life. i remember the old at is that if you are not a democratic 20, you have no heart. if you're not a republican by 40, you have no brain. i can't understand some of these things that they put through. ukraine, i want to take care of ukraine. that's important but so many republicans have just got off the rail with this thing and voted for it just to get it done. i am sick and tired of it. there should be regular order. both leak the republicans will bring that in that year. we have been continually doing these resolutions and passing these omnibus bills. it is not the way it is supposed to work. we need to go back to regular

order. it has to happen. we cannot put all this highway stuff in. it's crazy. host: rich in marion, ohio. caller: great conversations. it seems like we have the $1.7 trillion trying to be spent. who is the source of causing this problem? we have the federal reserve. if they spent that money that would lay off 2 million people to bring it under control. they don't want runaway inflation because it will cause real problems in the country. the real source of that is people who are passing bills that they don't know what is in them. we could pass it temporary bill to cover the expenses and get it in. we have people authorized to have this money. we have ftx spending money they didn't have. this is way beyond that. a major league beyond that.

the source is i don't know what's causing this inflation. we are passing it on to a generation -- ben franklin says don't push things onto other generations. we are doing it in spades. other people have solutions but we cannot pass this bill. host: the house will gather to consider this $1.7 trillion spending bill. the senate passed it yesterday 60-29. keep your television here on c-span to watch the bait and vote. you can watch on c-span.org or c-span now. larry in houston, texas. what is your perspective on this? caller: i have not read the whole bill. host: you don't need to read over 4000 pages to call in. caller: it is time to stop

spending money like this. i'm sorry, people that support ukraine. i fought in two wars. iraq, afghanistan, illegally, say. -- i must say. we are sending money to fight a war for poor people. they are the ones fighting the war. it is not the rich. host: how old are you? caller: 51. 52. i fought in desert storm and desert shield. host: which armed services were you in? caller: the army. field artillery. it is time for this stuff to stop. all these people hollering about immigration. we are sending have any billions to ukraine? all these people over here is in the streets starving with no

homes. we have to start taking care of our brothers at home before we start trying to take care of anybody else. as for the immigration, people, americans don't want to go to work. host: larry, i will let you know from the washington post the amount for military spending in this bill. early this month, congress adopted $850 billion authorizing keep pentagon programs. the act essentially sets funding levels and did not write the checks. that is for the appropriations process. democrats and republicans agree to fully fund the act. it amounted to a 10% increase in defense funding from the previous year. that satisfied republicans' leading demands.

wide array of new initiatives, including a 4.6 percent pay raise for service members, money to build 11 navy ships, restore 19 joint strike fighters and repair a roster of other aircraft. the defense department would see the republicans described as the largest ever research and development budget. $139.7 billion to fund work on new war fighting technologies such as host: dan from yuma, arizona. caller: you will have to bear with me a little bit. this last sunday, i fell in my shower and i busted a couple of ribs. i'm not that good night now. the er waiting room was just filled, i could not say that all

were illegal aliens but a lot of them were illegal aliens. instead of these little pork sandwich as they are trying to sell us. i don't think they put it toward securing our borders. securing our country. without borders we don't have a country. this is silliness. all nancy and schumer wanted to do is pass this before january 3. the republicans who voted for this bill should be ashamed of themselves. host: let's hear from john, good morning to you. go ahead and fort dodge, iowa. caller: i am totally against this omnibus bill but more importantly, over the last six months or so i listened to

people: and rail about the trump tax code without understanding the trump tax code. the trip tax cut raised the standard deduction for every taxpayer from $7,200 to 12,000 dollars giving every american taxpayer a tax break. aside from that, the trump tax code also limited the amount of state tax that one could detect -- deduct from our federal taxes. a republican actually raised the taxes on the ranch that your democratic colors always rail about. i wish somebody would give them some's pushback. host: we are talking about the spending bill that they passed yesterday with 18 republicans and all the democrats. tweeting out the list of the senate republicans who voted for

this. it included graham, kotten and others. you can find that for the program tweet from fox news. you can find it online. we will take a break, when we come back, we will turn our attention to ukraine. john herbst the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine and then later rep. zach wamp part of issue one in the council of election integrity. talks about the january 6 committee's final report. we will be right back. >> there are a lot of places to

get political information but only on c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues. c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. but tv every sunday on c-span feures leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. coming up on sunday, former republican governor nikki haley shares her book "if you want something done," where she talks about women she's drawn inspiration fr. tufts university profesr traces the history of microchip

technology. he is interviewed by congressman jim hunt. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 or watch online anytime on book tv.org. >> with great confidence in our caucus i will not seek reelection for democratic leadership. house speaker nancy pelosi announced she would step down and on sunday, we will talk with susan page who wrote a biography on pelosi. >> by electing me speaker, you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality. that is america's heritage and america's hope. this is a historic moment and i

think the leader for acknowledging it. thank you mr. boehner. it's a historic moment for congress and the women of america. watch our conversation on speaker of the house nancy pelosi's career sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and online at c-span.org. middle and high school students is time to get out your phones and start recording for your chance to win $1000 for the grand prize of $5,000 for entering the studentcam documentary contest. we are asking students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us your top priority. create a 5-7 minute video showing your issue from opposing

points of view. the deadline for entry is 1/20/2023. for competition rules and tips on how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. "washington journal," continues. host: joining us this morning is the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine during the bush administration, john herbst he is also a senior member of the security council. russian president putin dropped euphemistic operation and because the invasion of ukraine more. your reaction ambassador? guest: his special military operation is a failure on multiple points.

he is now trying to rouse the russian people to accept the notion of additional mobilization. he is using the word war and he is hoping he will be able to rally his people. i suspect that will fail. host: i've heard reports that some experts believe this may have been a slip of the tongue. you think it was intentional. guest: it would fit that -- with the other thinks he is doing but having said that, i can't rule out that it is a slip of the tongue because he has tried to avoid this. those aims and ukraine are not being achieved at the current levels of mobilization and if he is going to build an army of 1.5 one million, which is what he is saying, he will have to be pulling out people beyond the 300,000 he called up in the fall. therefore, it's probably not a

slip of the tongue. host: what does the state of the conflict look like right now in ukraine? guest: putin failed to seize the northeast and kyiv. he said he would take all of the donbass region. ukraine lodged to successful offenses in the east and south. as putin was declaring four provinces as territory, ukraine was seizing those territories. he has lost at each turn and he's trying to figure out how to win. he has chosen a massive bombardment of ukraine's infrastructure in the winter destroying electricity, 50% of the electricity grid. all that does is make the

ukrainian people more determined to defeat his forces. now he is talking about increasing his army so he can launch an offensive but he does not have the troops at the present time. hundreds of thousands of russian men fled. he does not have the weapons because the export controls we have placed on russian exports is made it more difficult. host: how would this announcement of a new weapon system, i think the patriot missile's, how will that help ukraine? guest: that will help ukraine defend itself against the air bombardment that moscow is conducting. it is important to point out the system is wonderful, it's great. at this point, we are sending one. this very large country with thousands of targets, they will be able to protect one large

city. it's a nice step but it is not decisive. however, the symbolism is important. if we send additional patriot batteries that will be helpful. host: why did the ukrainian president visit america, visit washington dc this week? what was the purpose of this visit? guest: the white house wanted him to come in so he came. they wanted to demonstrate globally but also to the american people the strong support the administration is providing to ukraine. the one problem with this, the take away, the ukrainians thought they had all of that before zelenskyy came but it was an important step forward of showing american support for ukraine as it deals with this barbaric russian invasion.

host: i want to show a little bit of a speech at the joint meeting of congress where he makes the argument trying to convince lawmakers that the u.s. has a meaningful stake in this war. [video clip] >> it is critically important and i would like to thank you, thank you very much, thank you for the financial support you provided us and the ones you may be willing to decide on. your money is not charity. it is an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way. russia could stop its aggression.

really, if it wanted to, but you cannot speed up our victory. it will prove to any potential aggressor that no one can succeed in breaking international borders. no one committing atrocities, russia enjoys being a terrorist state. russians are still poisoned by the kremlin. there is a region of national legal order and our joint task. host: did he make a convincing argument? guest: i think he made an important argument. i would've have phrased it differently. so americans understand it better. putin wants to reestablish political control over all the

countries of the former soviet union. that includes three nato allies. if he were to win ukraine he would attack our nato allies in the baltic states. their troops have had to fight and die to stop that. the cost of the invasion will be far greater than the money we are sending to ukraine. it is a smart way to protect american security and protect americans lies. the cost to the united states will be far greater. host: before we get to the calls, the ukrainian president argues that his country can win this war outright. do you agree? guest: yes. if we provide him the weapons systems that the biden administration is too cautious to provide, ukraine will been this war and they will win it faster. host: holly in north carolina,

and democratic collar. caller: this may be a naive question but i understood that what putin was thinking was a land bridge to the black sea. is that all he wanted to accomplish, i admit he's a megalomaniac and he wants more than that. if that's all he wanted as a possible he could have bought the land, 25 miles of coastal land that could have been the land bridge to the black sea? i'm just curious. guest: what putin wants is a land bridge to the crimea, the peninsula that he seized in 2014. russia already has a large black seacoast. he is well established there. the land bridge is to make it easier for him to maintain his theft of crimea. host: jamie in pennsylvania, republican.

caller: yeah, first off, if we would've done the right thing before putin came in to ukraine, this war would never happen. we couldn't spend a third of the money and had defense set up there and stop this whole thing from happening. unfortunately, our people are reactive instead of proactive. this is what happens in our country when we don't do the right things at the beginning. now we don't have a choice except to do what we are doing now. this should never have, should never been done this way. with this government, they always react and are never proactive. that is why this country is falling apart.

we will have to spend five times the money that we should not of had to spend to begin with. guest: i tend to agree with that. i organized a group of officials this time last year. they criticized biden for not sending the weapon system. i will not say that if they took the advice that there would not of been this invasion. but the chance of the invasion would've been way down because moscow would have seen her determination of us to give them what they need to defeat him. they were too cautious and sent them long-range missiles which will enable ukraine to defeat russia more quickly. host: back to president zelenskyy's visit, do you think

he convinced republicans of the sense of sending more money when they take over the house of representatives. may have convinced them to continue their support? guest: about two thirds of republicans in congress do support substantial assistance to ukraine. it is true that the populist wing of the party has reservations about this because they don't understand american interests. they think putin is interested in ukraine when he is coming for our lunch. we have to stop in there. zelenskyy may have persuaded one or two of the populist in pursuit of the right policy. but most of them still don't understand this and that's unfortunate. host: doug in boston, a democratic collar. guest: in 1991, secretary of state james baker promised

gorbachev that in exchange for germany, they would not extend one inch eastward. since then, during periods of weakness of the russian federation, nato pushed its borders all the way up to the russian frontier. if you want to know who created putin, nato created putin by being aggressive. as for changing borders by force, that's exactly what nato did in serbia when it created kosovo. the hypocrisy is suffocating. perhaps you have a comment. have a nice day. guest: i am happy to respond. first of all you are wrong about what nato promised. with secretary baker promised was that if moscow agreed to the reunification of germany, no

military assets would be placed in east germany. he made no commitment relating to other countries. which you also don't understand or have not provided here is insight that nato expanded not because of brussels or nato leadership or washington wanted to expand because all the countries that were under the thumb of moscow wanted to be free of russia. they realize that russia would be a threat to them in the future in the only way they can protect themselves from domination was to join nato. that is how this all happened. watching what russia did to georgia in 2008, and what it is doing now in ukraine demonstrates that all of those countries the baltic states, romania were very smart to seek protection in nato. the failure of western leadership of the 1990's was to understand that moscow was

certainly going to be pursuing these policies. if we had understood that then we would have made arrangements for ukraine which may or may not have included membership in nato. it would have made the invasion of ukraine that began in 2014, it would've made that much less likely. host: from illinois, democratic collar. caller: merry christmas to you and happy hanukkah to the investor. in the agreement, we had the director say that any further nato movement in ukraine would be a threat to russia ended notified that through the ambassador. my question is going beyond that. by your logic, ukraine has the right to be a nato member and russia has a right to defend that narrative.

crimea was an issue brought on by the instigation of nato membership with ukraine. that's beside the point. i don't mind the money on our part, that's the geopolitics of it. my question is, what then sir? we have 200,000 russians and ukrainians died. to what end do you want the suffering to occur because russia will not give up any territory in ukraine says we will take that territory back? host: let me ask you ambassador, do we need u.s. troops on the ground? guest: i am not surprised that you think i am a neocon. you are thinking and categories. i like to think in terms of what

is really happening. our policies in the middle east after 9/11 were a fiasco. i have said that since i have left government. they were a fiasco because we were never going to be able to achieve our objectives there. the cultures were not ready for a somewhat democratic government. ukraine is very different. the people there are determined to fight for their liberty. what russia -- while russia is not our enemy they pursue objectives designed to weaken the united states. maybe you think that is ok but i don't. i think we need to protect american interests. the way to do that is to ensure that the defeat of russia ukraine.

as russian media says, his objective is to destroy ukrainians which is why some people describe the war as a genocide. ukraine is going to fight because they have no choice but to fight. if we give them means to fight and win not only are they saved but we don't have to worry about the russian invasion of nato allies which would be a great problem for us. it would mean far more money for the united states and the death of troops. i don't think there is any need to talk about american troops in ukraine if we give them all the weapon system that the biden administration is too timid to send. that includes long-range missiles, tanks, and fighter jets. all of which are sitting in our warehouses. not being used by our troops.

ukraine could take back all of mainland ukraine that is now occupied by russia and make it extremely incentive for moscow to supply crimea if they take hold of me and they take the bridge out over the kurtz straits. that protects our interest in this would be a serious american foreign-policy victory after all those defeats in the middle east. host: you've criticized the president for not giving ukraine everything that it needs. we have asked that question at a news conference with the president and here's what he had to say. >> they say why don't we give ukraine everything there is to give. for two reasons, one there is an entire alliance that is critical to stay with ukraine. the idea that we would give ukraine material that is fundamentally different that is going there would have the

prospect of breaking up nato and the european union and the rest of the world. we will give ukraine what it needs to be able to defend itself, to be able to succeed in the battlefield. host: what you think of his response? guest: that was the worst moment -- an un-presidential response. ukraine is not asking for weapons that are different from what they perceived. ukraine wants artillery that has a range of 300 kilometers. that would be an important difference on the battlefield but the quality is not all that different. as for we can't do it because nato disagrees, most of our nato allies one of them sent to and. if he is the later -- a leader he claims to be he should rally our allies to do the smart thing. we've done that before and we

can do it again. host: how do you respond to people's view that this is a proxy war between the u.s. and russia? guest: this is a russian line designed to convince people in the west to stop supporting ukraine. as i mentioned in the response of the previous collar, the game of russia is to go beyond ukraine and come after other countries including our allies. i would also mention that they wanted to destroy ukrainians, they want them to be russians. it is only a proxy war if you think the united states has no right to defend its interest in ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign people is ukrainians not russians. host: colleen from pennsylvania, a republican. guest: have you ever served in

the military? secondly, are you pro-or anti-fossil fuel. i don't support funding for four need to ukraine considering the situation in the united states with open borders. thank you. guest: i did not serve in the military. i understand your concern about open borders. that has nothing to do with this born ukraine. if you think we should close our borders reestablish control of our borders which we have before. you would also think that we need to protect their interests in europe. if you think the aide is expensive, consider what we would have to do if russian troops invaded our nato

allies and then we would have to go sir and die. it would cause a huge economic recession and that would affect our economy. host: jeffrey from michigan, democratic collar. guest: at the beginning of this war, there were sanctions put on russia and i have not heard what kind of impact this has put on russia. could you reply to that for me please? guest: the current estimates that the sanctions have cost the russian gdp 3-5 percent. significant but not a huge hit to the russian economy. the export controls that we have placed on sending technology to russia has made it far harder for the russian industrial production to produce weapons. that has been the principal effect now. most experts believe that the

effect of sanctions will have a greater impact on the russian economy over time. host: john herbst, we are almost out of time, what are you watching for in the coming weeks or months of this conflict? guest: moscow is clearly trying to prepare for new offenses. bring in new troops and armed them. i think will be very hard for us to do that and if they launch an offensive in the next 3-4 months. especially from belarus, it is going to fail. i believe that ukraine will continue, cautiously his counteroffensive's in the north and south. i think there's a chance during the winter they may have another breakthrough. i firmly believe that if the

united states and some additional weapon systems like zelenskyy is asking, that may happen. i think it will happen. the ukrainians will be able to conduct a much stronger and successful counteroffensive. last point, i think we see continuing strains on the putin regime in russia because the russian people are not happy with people having to go fight this war in ukraine and they are not happy with the failures that they are government is experiencing from it. host: ambassador john herbst thank you so much for the conversation. we will take a short break and when we come back rep. zach wamp part of the national council on election integrity discusses the legislation and the january 6 committee's final report. >> be up to date and the latest

in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases and bestseller list, industry news and trends. you can find out about books on c-span now, our free mobile apps or wherever you get your podcast. this week, explore the people and events that tell the american story every day on american history tv on c-span three and watch our featured program saturday on c-span2. holiday hopes during the holocaust highlighting stories people of jewish people to celebrate the holidays that made occupation. military historian examines the

crossing of the delaware river and the situation of the american revolution to make this military gamble and beat the hessians. exploring the american story, watch american history tv all this week on c-span3 and saturday on c-span2. you can go to american history tv/history. middle and high school students it is time to get on your phones and start recording for your chance to win 100,000 in total cash prizes with the grand prize o$5,000. for this year's competition, we asked students to picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress and tell us what your top priorities would be and why. make a five-six minute video. be bold with their documentary,

don't be afraid to take risks. there is still time to get started. the deadline for entry is january 20 20 23. visit our website a studentcam.org. "washington journal," continues. host: joining us this morning rep. zach wamp is a former congressman rep. zach wamp from tennessee. he is also the cochair of the issue one reformers caucus and the national council on election integrity. let's begin with those two organizations. what is the aim? guest: they are both bipartisan. we have former members of congress in the reformers congress. nothing like this has been organized.

for about six years we've been an organization that rallies around a couple of dozen things to increase transparency and accountability in government to restore congress to article one strength where it does its job in the national council on election integrity is only about two years old because we were organized during the 2020 election because we were worried before the election that there may be claims that the election fraud issue because the election outcome and we began to be worried about what that might do to the republicans. we gathered 40 predominant americans evenly divided between republicans and democrats that we have been working to make sure that american exceptionalism is defined by peaceful transition of power. restore confidence that the people deserve to have in the

election process because we still carry out elections and anyone else in the world. in a bipartisan way these groups have tried to put the country ahead of the party because there's too much partisanship right now. we try to come together and solve problems instead of blaming somebody else. host: in the 1.7 trillion dollars spending package, the electoral count act is included in the bill. remind viewers of the electoral count act of 1887 and why there is an effort on capitol hill to reform it? guest: it is pretty complicated because from the constitutional days, the founders, article one was the only way to determine what the congress's role might be in the event of some kind of a challenge to the electoral college outcome and 20 years after the civil war we had that

challenge and they passed in 1887 the electoral account act because in the haze tillman race, electors were bribed or forced at gunpoint. we had multiple states sending two slates of electors. a lot of confusion came in and they passed a bill 135 years ago and it has governed us for the past 100 35 years. it is very much outdated. some of the language was 19th-century vernacular. two words have created a lot of confusion called regularly given. if the results in the electoral college are regularly given the congress has no role to count the ballots, the vice president only has a ceremonial role of overseeing the joint session of congress to count the ballots. regularly given meant somebody

was bribed or held at gunpoint and people like senator cruz use that to say that if anyone challenges the election results in wisconsin and it wasn't regularly given, on january 6 the vice president and congress should overturn the will of the people. in 2020, there were no state challenges to the electoral college votes. even though they wanted you to believe the vice president could over turn the election, that was not the case. the statute is so old and outdated we needed to update it. we worked after january 6 to update this law. a bunch of outside groups help promote the need to do this because the least we can do as americans, when you have a conflict like january 6 that makes you sick at your stomach is to do something about it.

we realize that this needs to be clarified. what is the role of we need to have a higher standard for why congress might consider the electoral college results. in this legislation which was a bipartisan product that came out of the senate. the house had a bill to, congressman zoe lofgren and liz cheney, they convened a group led by senator collins and senator manchin and congress looked at ways to change this and raise the threshold to 20% of the house and the senate actually have to say we have a problem and we need to have a debate on the floor of the congress to consider the results of the last election. you can't have one or two members go down because he did not like the way the election went and make a big deal out of it. frankly, we know it was the

trump administration that led us into january 6 and that's a whole another issue as to what the investigation said and what the results will be. this is really not a new thing. stacy aprons question the results of the georgia election all the way back to 2005, barbara boxer went to the floor of the senate and question the results of the election. we have had a trend in the last 20 years that congress wants to not like the way the election went so they raised the possibility of changing the outcome which is a dangerous thing. partisan politics should not trump, no pun intended, the actual results of the election. i would define american exceptionalism is our ability as a nation to freely elect our leaders, except the result in peacefully transfer power from

one group to the other group. that separates us throughout the history of democratic governments in the world. we do it better than anyone else. you can always say that if this did not go right, that did not go right, after 50 court cases in the 2020 election there was no fraud that would have impacted the result yet we are now in a trend where a lot of people in politics think of it does not go my way i will say is fraudulent. what we try to do was say we have to protec certain conditions in this country that define who we are. one of those ways is to accept the election. vice president gore, he should be commended because in 2020, if there was ever a close election, he accepted the results after a

long drawn out process. what did that do? it allowed our country to continue forward together as a nation. democrats were not happy. that swings back and forth. it's not about who wins, it's about our country. i can go through the nuance of how i came about that. a lot of credit to go around. to be honest with you, you can give leader mcconnell as much credit as leader schumer in the senate. it was senate republicans, 20% committed to support this, 12 senate republican sponsored it and that gave senator mcconnell the knowledge that they could get 60 votes if they needed to. senator mcconnell said we will end up in a lame-duck session. power may swing one way or another.

the lame-duck session is where this was inserted into the omnibus bill. i am not an advocate of oddness omnibus bills. i would much prefer those bills to be done individually, conference between the house and senate. thus the regular order. in this mess are some really good thing so one of them is the electoral account act. host: including what you said about raising the level for objection, it can just be one member of the house or senate you have to have 20%. it reaffirms that the vi president has only a ceremoal role in counting of electoral votes. he is doing it publicly and they have no power to alter those results. guest: republicans look back and

said this in the other, the same exact thing could happen in two years. vice president harris decides i am going to overturn the election. all along the vice president's role was supposed to be ceremonial. this bill defiance with the vice president's role is. the whole giuliana lead advisor group were trying to convince everybody on the republican side that somehow, vice president pence could swing the election back the other way and president trump put pressure on him to do that. thankfully, vp penn said -- vice president vince put his role

ahead. he just convenes the meeting and the counting of the balance from the electoral college. that is it. there is no way the vice president will ever have a role. the congress that reaches 20%, this bill is very clear there is only one slate of electors from any other state. but if there were any shenanigans with the results, then they would say we have to have a debate on the floor about this. we have not come close to those thresholds. there were just some rogue actors trying to convince enough people in this country that something had gone wrong and the truth is is never perfect. we are a free country and the people who conduct elections are your friends and neighbors. they are doing the best they can.

we did not have fraud in the 2020 election at any significant level anywhere in the country. you see now that commentators on television said, that were asking the questions, they didn't believe it either. thankfully this bill is updated and we will have brighter lives going forward to prevent the possibility of a january 6 from ever happening again. host: richard in canada, and independent. caller: it's ironic that rep. zach wamp said there was no significant fraud after i watch the trial in arizona. the fraud i saw there, they altered the size of the ballots to 20 inch paper and there was no chain of custody on $219,000.

did he watch the trial in arizona or he doesn't care? he hates president trump. but they cheat and get away with it. it is just fine with him. guest: i appreciate that. it's sad for me as a republican because i think kari lake, had she not embraced the election conspiracy strategy would have made one heck of a candidate. she is articulate and attractive and very forceful. however, you can't just create fraud to create a narrative as to why you did not get the most votes. that happens now more often than not and more often than you would ever believe.

we have a judicial system in place, checks and balances, recounts in every state. attorney general's in-state, election administrators and states. the speaker of the house in the state of arizona, amazing people of integrity that tell the truth and do the right thing. they don't get caught up in these conspiracies. that is what we have to do, rise above the partisan desire of people like the caller to determine the outcome based on what they want as opposed to the actual process. you have a system of remedy in the event that you think there is fraud and every single state. once these run their courses we have to accept the results if we maintain the traditions and norms that have made america great and free for almost 250 years. host: joe is next from shepard,

texas, a republican. caller: hello. i agree with just about everything that you have said. i have a question for you and c-span. how much of the budget is in violation of the amendment to the constitution of the united states? guest: i don't mind answering that question. these are bad trends. we have 32 trillion of debt and it is now just gone haywire. covid made things a lot worse in the last three administrations have made things a lot worse in terms of spending. we are acting outside of the parameters. i am a conservative republican who works on a bipartisan

council. i appreciate you calling in because we all need to wake up and pulled the federal government back into balance. it is way out of balance. even past a 1.7 trillion spending bill, about a trillion of that money is under preparation bills. you would not even have the appearance of a mess that you have now. this is a messy way to do this. everybody wants to go home for the holidays. they pass this bill, nobody is read it and they don't know what's in it. this makes the staff of the united states congress the most powerful people because the members of congress themselves do not know all the details of what is in there but the staff does. host: just to clarify for that viewer. you are of former member of congress, you won't be voting in this.

the house will gavel in early this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. we will bring you to that debate coverage on c-span. let's hear from glenn from new jersey, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i am glad that they strengthened the law for the peaceful transition. however, we have a bigger problem that has been looming out there since the 2000 election that you spoke of earlier. in 2000, 2016, the person who did not get the majority of the popular vote became the president because of the electoral college. it undermines faith in elections for those of us who voted for al gore and we ended up with george bush.

we voted for hillary clinton, she won the popular vote but we got donald trump. this is an aged law that needs to be radically altered in the winner has to be the person who actually one the popular vote. guest: that debate is going to rage. i am 65 and they will be debating that when i leave this earth and beyond. one of the reasons is because the framers wanted the small states to play a role. i am from tennessee. we have a winner take all result here. if you went tennessee you get all of our electoral college foes. this was designed so that the larger states would always dominate elections because new york, california, these large states because they have a much larger popular vote the small

states becoming significant. i have a different view of that. i like my state having some role to play and who becomes a president of the united states. they sought balance between the senate and the house. they said the senate is where the hot coffee overflows and the house would cool it before becoming law in the saucer of the senate. a lot of these checks and balances were put in early. i think republicans have lost the popular vote in the vast majority of the presidential elections but they have one the electoral college in us because rural americans still play a role. i want to say word before we go off the air about these groups i'm a part of. we have cochairs of the national council donna edwards of maryland, barbara comstock of virginia, ambassador tim roemer.

there are about 40 prominent americans, i'm the least prominent of the group. tim roemer and i cochaired the reformers caucus founded by nick penniman. these are good groups. we need more groups engaged for protecting democratic norms and traditions and putting country above party. somebody has to do this otherwise we grind down to a partisan halt. everything is not done on partisan lines and frankly, good government is where we come together and put the country first. we used to meet at the water's on issues of national security, homeland security, information and data collection. we need to do that again to protect our country going forward. this democracy of ours was an experiment. the question still looms large.

don't take it for granted. you have to be active, you have to pay attention. i love c-span because people do pay attention. they call, they ask questions and gives them a venue to stay engaged. happy holidays to everyone. host: before we let you go. i want to ask about the january 6 report. they want to hold trump accountable for the attack, broader focus on the former president's conduct. the 14th amendment allows boring people from office for engaging in an insurrection. do you agree with that committee? guest: i agree that the committee did outstanding work

even though a lot of republicans feel like it was not bipartisan. let's remember, our organization supported a 911 style commission that did not include politicians. we wanted the commission to look at those that did not include elected officials which is what we did after 9/11. are republicans in the house voted that down. what they got was this commission and then the speaker and a savvy way put two republicans on this thing and it became bipartisan. their work was important in the sense that this is the second most important event, watergate was first. a lot of these findings are things that we all know. we can agree with that. there is no question that all of the things between the election

came from the white house. whatever it says it says. i think there is a way that this stuff works itself out. i don't think the former president had near the support he had before anyway. governor desantis is probably going to emerge as the front runner because there's a certain amount of fatigue associated with all of this. so many republicans want to move forward and talk about the issues. a lot of people like me who pay attention realize that in 2020, when president trump lost, republicans won 15 seats in the house. it is physically impossible for fraud to cause trump to lose but republicans pick up 15 seats in the house. some of these things should cause him to not run for office again but i frankly don't think he is going anywhere anyway

because most republicans are ready to turn the page, move forward. honestly, we need new, younger leaders. we don't need people over 75 years old. so many people in washington are old. i am 65, i needed to pour myself into the next generation. young americans have the most to lose or gain. give people under 50 a chance to govern. dan crenshaw, mike gallagher, ron desantis, young americans with a great future. let them lead, not the people from the past. let's quit looking in the rearview mirror and straight ahead. host: i want to try to get and mark, and independent. i need of quick questions from you. caller: free and fair elections

begin with people having the right to the truth and since the fbi reveals the hunter biden/joe biden corruption and spent $3.5 million to withhold this information, we have basically become the kgb of the united states instead of the fbi. we are entering a totalitarian state of bureaucrats running this country and putting us under control and it's becoming just like china and russia. guest: the short answer is the fbi does need an overhaul. retired fbi agents are sad that this happened. irrespective of elections or who wins or loses. the fbi needs more accountability than it did 20 years ago or 40 years ago.

that is not good. the last one i knew was willie frieda and i think it's been a decline since then. you all have a happy holidays. host: let me ask you this, your organization will focus on the next congress. one recommendation for making congress better? guest: the committee on modernization that we started may become a full subcommittee of house administration under the republican house of representatives. it's been a long time since congress really overhauled the way it operates. the congress has not moved fully into the 21st centuries so the committee could become permanent subcommittee. that's an important step. article one, congress inserting itself. we have to come together as a people. host: i will ask you about the

congressional stock trading band. you were part of a letter on congress about this, why? guest: there is no excuse for people that have insider information should be on the stocks. it's been a no-brainer for me. i never did trade a single stock and i don't think members of congress should. they have information the rest of us don't have. that's a conflict that we need to end and there is far more support building in the united states congress. host: you can go on twitter at issue one reform and find information online at issue one/reformers. former congressman rep. zach wamp, thank you. the house is about to gavel in here in a minute. they will be considering the 1.7