said "c-span is america's hottest the genre jack -- hottest tv genre". you may never know what might happen in the walls of congress but on one thing you can be sure, c-span will be there, thanks to the support of these cable and satellite companies. c-span, draw unfiltered view of government, powered by cable. preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it is rock says to the federal government with biography and -- your access to the federal government with biography and contact information. scan the code at the right to preorder your copy tod for early spring delivery. it is $29.95 plus shipping and

handling. go to c-spanshop.org. looking at elements of the commitment to america to introduce last year and how it might play out in policy matters not that they have control of the house. joining us is kevin baron with defense one. good morning. when it comes to the commitment of america, house republicans laid out for broad principles with matters to defense. support our troops, and thus in an effective militarto establish and to exercise peace and strength with allies. these are broad. what is a reflect about republican thinking with defense matters? guest: these are pretty broad. they are so broad anybody would agree with them but what is behind that, a couple of things.

one, pure politics and a document, a vision that is designed to play democrats on their heels. look strong and do. second, something new in the world of national security policy and what most of us are much worse that -- most interested in. the select committee on china you mentioned. there painting it as security and national security committee for already there's a bottle of what to make this committee and whether it should be a committee and a wish to beat china with the head as much as possible or is it a real part a grab for going to attack biden and use the committee to claim everything biden does is weak on china or is it going to be something more serious. they're going to be members in

the committee wants to keep it from going down the partisan side rails and make it about competition for the future and what that means. some people are calling it a new cold war. no, it is not. it is an issue a lot of us have been tracking, especially this battle of what to think about china. is it a politic battle and that is what you get in the house. host: mike gallagher going to chair the subcommittee. what is a suggested by the committee's approach? guest: gallagher is an interesting guy. a lot of us have met him and spoken with him. he's a new work, rising republican and i have been here long enough to see a lot of new politicians on the defense national security beat coming go. they come up as serious contenders and serious minded leaders and potentially defense

secretary and they very quickly they go down the rabbit hole politics that sticks themselves out of the game. the national security world takes us a bit more seriously and tries to be more bipartisan. that is what am watching for. he is a serious minded guy. he speaks the issues, he knows them well. he is leaning out. if you can keep this committee serious about things like technology, global competition, american businesses can or cannot or should or should not deal with china, this could be one of the most important committees for the next 10 years or beyond. if he cannot and far right drinkers that use this beating

drum biden, vent that is what it's going to be treated as. it would not be treated as serious. host: you talk about matters of financing discussing about the debt ceiling. physically caused by house republicans for changes in spending because of that area will ultimately could that did? guest: not much. there was a worry that negotiations from kevin mccarthy to be speaker and we hurt defense building was being put on this table and since that, with heart republican leaders say, do not worry. that is not going to happen. the last thing that will move off the floor is a bill cutting defense building.

the debt ceiling is a question of we think of defense and national security, the pentagon and the number of ships it has a number of trips it has solved with the center of gravity like it was during the big more years of iraq afghanistan. we are in an era where united states security is measured by many other things including economic security. it is why the ships act is one of the more important elements this year just as much army ukraine would be. host: kevin baron is our guest with defense one and he's going to answer your questions about house republicans and how they were posed defense policy matters. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can use 202-748-8003 to text us. tell people about defense one.

guest: defense one is a national security new site. we are sister brand of government executive formally a part of the atlantic media family. we cover the pentagon. the cover lopes around the world. cutting edge signs and technology. and we hose up as if addict -- we host op ed sections. we have an award-winning podcast. and we host a lot of events talking about these live in virtually. our reporters are around the world. you will catch them on stage as some of the largest conferences covering the biggest defense industry expos. we try to cover the gambit from radio to geopolitics. host: one of the people to watch

when it comes the policy in the house is representative mike rogers. what is that pretend as far as policy matters? guest: mike rogers, the issues i was talking about with gallagher but the more. he is known as partisan. i do not expect a return to the glory days of bipartisanship. they're going to press hard in the administration and a lot harder than the democrats and maybe berkeley so hope administration -- maybe berkeley so hope administration on the buyer. one of the first think commerce is going to do -- thing the congress is going to do is look at the national security strategy. they have a committee that response and the criticism the

demonstration put it out late even with the ukraine war. two years we finally get enough strategy. the criticism is from the republicans, you will hear that administration going to find and equip what they say they want to do? they want u.s. to be a leader and be a check on china, to be a provider of security to europe and there is an argument the military needs to grow in size and have a lot more in different equipment. if you are aircraft carriers -- if you are aircraft carriers and more technology like artificial intelligence. secure that can withstand an attack. some predict on day two with any

war on china, it is that cyber war, the future war they'll be the next one to be balance. host: mike in michigan. caller: i would like to know the national security of the southern border, why they do not call it the national guard? they have the right to clout the national guard for rice and things like that and we are being invaded from the southern border. why is national guard not called out? guest: good question. you kinda answered it yourself. if we are being invaded uec -- you would see more troops to the border. when the national guard is because of the southern border,

the u.s. military cannot perform military functions on domestic territory. that is law. the guard is brought in as the back of the house role. the enablers. the gear in the rear. they will help fill the jobs that are empty when law enforcement are set forward. that is one way. you have seen that in previous administrations with a will set up shelters, it will perform protection security for other types. they can do drone control, things like that. but you are right, it is up to the governors to make those requests if they want them. that is the short answer. host: jeff on our republican line in california. you are on, go ahead. caller: i was wondering, mr.

baron, if he has any questions that idea. it seems as though the president is compromised by the chinese, wouldn't he allow the open borders to be open in case you wanted us to be invaded? everything mr. biden does, it seems as though it is what it compromised president would do. every single thing. bring our country to a bankruptcy estate, allow crime to run rampant, allow people to come here and cause border states and of every other state to bring -- to be put in a burden, where they have become almost bankrupt by themselves. host: thank you. guest: the answer to your question, no, i do not have

those kinds of massive conspiracy is to think the president of the united states is not just week on china but it's colluding with china to weaken united states security. no. i discount that completely. it negates what the admin attrition done against china. the campaign with donald trump about the politics of china, if you remember during that campaign the republicans rolled out a hashtag, called #beijingbiden. china is a serious issue, not for the next election or what we see in cable news or political papers, it is a serious issue for the next 100 years. they are playing the real long game. as they always do. they wanted to increase their military capabilities which were long overdue and they want to do it for their own security and to the american military come up we said that is normal. that is what you would expect

from any country. they said they wanted to be the regional dominant, not just economically in the hegemon but militarily. then xi jinping's rise, -- they want to become the hegemon of the world. that is where the united states becomes more alarmed. that is why the administration has put china first and foremost in their strategy and their spending plans. if you look at a lot of the speeches, look at what the military and civilian points of the administration and uniformed leaders say their speeches. they will say over and over, they don't think we are in a new cold war, they don't think china is equal or near peer when you look at the military. but we see this as a strategic competition and they want to be

doing everything possible to prevent a conflict are happening. that is where the military and security apparatus are focus. host: with house republicans in control, what is the general consensus when it comes to future ukraine funding? guest: the general consensus is that it is going to continue robustly. there are headlines, they have been saying in the last couple weeks and months that there are a lot of headlines given to the far right voices like lauren boebert and marjorie taylor greene, tucker carlsen, the number one show on television in america, new show, who have been questioning ukraine funding, calling for less of it, challenging it. as soon as that happens and we go to people even like kevin mccarthy, anyone in the republican middle, anyone who is a leader in those committees will say the opposite. it will say we understand with

the war is about. the united states will continue to fund ukraine and build european assets that are being given to ukraine and they will make sure that russia is held in check and pushed back as much as possible. this commitment to america that he mentions, if you pull up the documents and read it, near the end of it you see a couple of winks and nods to the far right, including way which that puts -- accuses biden of putting america last. and that is the opposite of america first, which was donald trump's modern-day isolationism. there is debate to be had about that. but how many republicans think that biden is putting america at, versus the budget and the spending bills that come out that will continue to robustly fund ukraine, maybe with more attention in the hearings or the

debate, but that is what is going to happen and on the other site of congress, which mcconnell has made it clear that is what he wants to happen. host: let's hear from hank, he is in georgia, democrat line. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] i just want to know why is it that when you come from a humanitarian angle, dealing with defense and the border, it is always a problem. but when we come trying to criminalize everybody, there is no problem. when we put people in cages there is no problem. but when we try to humanize the situation, there is always a problem, a backlash. i'm not understanding that. i am a u.s. that, i -- vet, i

thought for the country. i did not fight to be on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to humanitarian rights. so why is it when we talk about human enhancement of living that we always run into this barrier? host: thanks. guest: it is a great question and a good point when it comes to border politics. i'm a guest on your show right now, i may pentagon reporter, though defense and leader, but most of the questions are not about foreign policy or defense but the border. it is a divisive issue and politicians know it and their surrogates know it. they will hammer that home until the day they die.

you can't attack joe biden if there are pictures of americans doing humanitarian things, giving out humanitarian aid, helping people fleeing for their lives come into this country. you can attack them if you claim the biden administration is doing nothing. and you show horrible situations that are not being attended to. there is truth in both of those. there is a lot of reporting on the border, reporters down there do a great job showing desperate families freezing in the cold come across into the river, we have seen all of what it takes for humans to make their way to the united states and get across that border and how the government treats them and how we americans treat them. the fact remains it is easy politics to go after migrants, immigrants as criminals. it is a lot easier than

humanitarian aid. the same thing is true with foreign policy to get back to my world. it is true in afghanistan and in ukraine. tucker carlsen and right-wing extremists can hammer home all they want about the politics or the policies, the ukraine war, whether the united states can afford it and whether they want. you won't hear them talk much about the human reality or saving lives, protecting democracy. it is much easier -- it is just politics. host: when it comes to future funding of the military, what is the expectation when it comes to the number of planes will fund, number of ships and the hardware we depend on? guest: good question. there is not a huge change going on with planes. there needs to be. let's talk about that. everyone may note the 35. it was supposed to be the plane to replace all planes.

the navy won't need its own planes, the army only their own, everyone can have this on. -- one. it took too long to come online and become operational. the world has changed multiple times and it turns out as individual service branches need the planes they have. they need a suite of tools in their tool box. what that has left services with his aged planes, beyond their life and service expectations to fight wars envisioned decades ago. there is a battle over what kinds of fighters you need and what you don't. there is only so much money. one example is the f-22. the most advanced fighter ever created. there were supposed to be a lot more than there are today.

i don't have the numbers off the top of my head. but during the iraq and afghanistan wars, the former secretary bob gates was one of the leaders who said the united states does not need advance air to air dogfighting jets like you would see in top gun against a mythical energy like china -- enemy or china or russia. what they needed with the limited dollars was productive vehicles for ground troops in iraq and afghanistan. those trade-offs are what we are expecting. there have always been a long debate in military circles about how many ships the navy needs. the number of ships becomes another political wedge with which to bash politicians on the head if it is not good enough. we are seeing it again. it is in that commitment to america document that you stated in the beginning, the use of a 300 ship navy -- navy is what they said we needed. the number always changes.

the reality is some naval experts think that if the united states really wanted to provide the security it claims it wants to, it really wants to deter a war against china and when if one happens or multiple wars at once, the united states will need maybe 900 ships. if there is a ship at sea, there's another one being retrofitted under maintenance and another ready to go. it would be a vastly larger navy. the united states is not have the ship building capacity or enough trained shipbuilders to produce the kind of navy. you will not hear them, especially in house republicans and the committees, the china committee, you will hear calls to rapidly expand the united states military. there's is a work force do it in the united states -- and the united states for a lot of reasons is not have the workforce for that kind of rapid expansion. there choosing to compete in other ways, like the chip act.

how do you provide security in the modern age? and that same document i should say, the number of ships that china has. when people count ships yearly, they don't talk about what kind of ships they are or how good they are. they used to be a republican talking point on the obama initiation that said that united states had fewer ships at any time since world war ii. the counter to that was they would not last very long today. so the capabilities really matter. host: you brought up the expansion access -- aspect. if you are said before we grow the military, should be complete an audit of the pentagon? guest: famously, the pentagon has never passed an audit. one is underway and some of the preliminary results are that

they failed the audit. realistically, no. it depends on the united states, our congress will not sit and wait for an audit to put more money, that's how the world works. they say the enemy gets a boat and no other countries are sitting around waiting for an audit either. but it is kind of a unicorn in defense reporting circles, there's a story about the audit, they did not make it? it continues. people are working on it, and maybe one day they will get there. host: in florida, the republican line. go ahead. caller: mr. barron, you are talking a lot about different issues regarding defense. and you are kind of pooh-poohing the border scenario. i would like to point out certain that numerous known

terrorists have been caught trying to get into the border. that seems to me that is a defense issue for this country. the laws of the united states are being ignored by the current administration and i think it is just a matter of time before we have another terrorist attack because obviously some terrorists would have gotten through. when that happens, persons like yourself and the democratic party will blame republicans and donald trump. i would like your thoughts on that. guest: sure. in no way do i mean to pooh-pooh border security. i will call out blatant political bs about border security. which is where we are. the fact that you mentioned

terrorists that have passed through the border, i don't have the numbers in front of me, i will be happy to look at them afterward, but that is a common talking point again by the far right and thrown not just on democrats but on any administration, that they are armed to the teeth, will the wall, get the immigrants out. it is based on xenophobia, not reality, racism, not on threat assessments that have informed policy to keep the united states from major terrorist attacks frankly since 9/11. and there is good reason for that. through multiple in ministrations, democrats and republicans. if a terrorist attack is on the united states soil and was carried out by a