awmakers return for general speeches. at 2:00 p.m., they will work on a bill implementing changes to the civil service hiring by requiring a skills a competency based assessment. on c-span 210:00 a.m.,he senate expected to continue work on president biden's executive nominations. you can watch everything live on c-span now, our free mobile app or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at sparklight, it is our home too. right now we are facing our , greatest challenge. that is why we are working round-the-clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service

along with these other television providers, givi you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning, we discussed government document classification and how these materials are handled with former pentagon special counsel oona hathaway. and the ongoing debate about the debt ceiling and spending with m aya macguineas. ♪ host: this is the washington for january 24. california residents wrecked into the shooting in the area. legislators have called for

reinstatement of an assault weapons ban each president biden endorsed yesterday. some republicans want to take a different approach. for the next hour, your reaction not only to the recent mass shootings but tell us what you think washington should do to reduce the amount of mass shootings in the u.s.. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. gun owners, give us your perspective at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook and twitter and follow the show on instagram. california with the shooting that happened saying a man shot and killed seven people and injured another in half moon bay. suspect identified and was in

custody according to the san mateo county sheriff's office. is one of the bay areas deadliest mass shootings. he is believed to have act alone -- acted alone. it was the pasadena star news picking up on the story about the other mass shooting in california in monterey park. this from staff reporting as of yesterday evening saying the mass shooting claiming the lives of 11 people, all in their 50's, 60's, and 70's. the story goes on to say the 11th victim succumbed to their injuries. the youngest of those was in his 50's. on sunday, the identify -- they identify the shooter and he ultimately killed himself.

that is the update from the pasadena star. in reaction to those gun shootings, california senator dianne feinstein with other legislators calling for a reintroduction of the assault weapons ban. the press release said if it were to be put in place, the van ban the sale -- ban would ban military style assault weapons by may. it would ban in the assault weapons with the capacity to utilize magazines that is not a fixed ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics. it would ban magazines and other feeding devices that hold 10 rounds which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without the need to reload.

owners may keep existing magazines. there is more in the press release if you want to read it there. it was president biden issuing a stat yesterday, giving endorsement of it. he said in the 10 years the assault weapon bands was off the books, mass shootings we down. when they were allowed to be sold again, mass sho tripled. theoritof the american peopee with this common sense action. there can be no greater responsibility than we do all we can to ensure the safety of our children, our communities, and our nation. that is some reaction in washington looking at the events in california. you can talk about the mass shootings and give reaction to that. you can give your perspective on what washington should do when it comes to these mass shootings. call at (202) 748-8000 for dem

ocrats, (202) 748-8001 for brewpubs, (202) 748-8002 for independents. gun owners can call us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on social media sites on facebook and twitter. david is starting us off in georgia on the independent line on the mass shootings and washington's reaction to it. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. this is something i have been working at for a very long time. i tell people that guns are irrelevant. they are the disconnect between the brain and the bullet. we never debated the brass ammo we had today. it wasn't even invented for another 30 years after we had

the 1793 ratification of the bill of rights. they didn't have an idea that a gun with the ammunition it has today could do what it does. that wasn't even in there. we always center around the gun. it is irrelevant. the constitution said we should have one. it is the ammunition that is not relevant and needs to be pulled into the conversation and regulated, because the united states, in most polls, 85% of us say we have to do something and it took us this long to get to this point. if we said we are going to turn it around and take the ammunition away, you can go to a gun show and by ak-47 rounds, ar-15 rounds by the pound.

you just put them in a bag and walked out. host: let's hear from winnifred in new york, mccright line. -- democrat line. she hung up. let's go to rob who identifies as a gun owner. caller: if it is not guns, it is abortion every stinking day. the whole thing of fiddling while the nation burns. . host: guns are the topic and you called in to comment. what do you think? caller: i think you should find something else to talk about. host: let's hear from james in alabama on the independent line. caller: i am a former police officer, and guns, they are for

self protection but a lot of guns have been used to stop crime. anytime we arrest somebody, we don't arrest a gun, we arrest the individual pulling the trigger. that is where the problem is, outlaws. it is not guns. when i was a police officer, i had a lot of stabbings, more stabbings than by guns. it is the man or woman pulling the trigger. that is where the problem is. host: how do you go about changing the manner woman behind it if it is not the gun itself? caller: it is what is in that man or woman's heart. it is whatever is in that man or woman's heart. you can't stop it, but down in

alabama, we are allowed to open carry down here. as a police officer, i liked that law. i told my young police officers, you will stop this vehicle and he probably has a gun. so they prepared. host: winnifred, democrats line, you are next up. caller: good morning, america. i think that joe biden is right and i believe if we get the guns out of the hands of people, then you will have less mass shootings. host: if you can, avoid listening to the television when you talk. you said it is the gun and not the actual person behind it? caller: yes, i believe it is the

guns. i believe the mass shootings is because of the big rifles. i think joe biden is right, congress should make a law to ban them. host: winnifred in new york giving us your thoughts. you can do so for the remainder of the hour that -- on the phone line that best represents you. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. there is the gun violence archive that keeps track of what they defined as mass shootings, which is four or more shooting involved in a shooting. they highlight even from yesterday, a shooting that took place yesterday that left two killed and three injured. it includes a california shooting that left seven killed and one injured. -- seven injured and one killed. and mississippi with four

injured. in baton rouge with 12 injured. it goes on from there, also highlighting that the monterey park shooting that took place had 12 killed and nine injured. they defined mass shootings as four or more people killed. you can see the data if you want to look and see what it says about mass shootings in the united states and you can talk about the mass shootings in california and other places. you can talk about what washington should do. let's your from rick in new york , independent line, gun owner. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: whether they are going to use assad of shotgun or buckshot, they are going two people. since all of this discussion has come up i did a backtrack in

history. a lot of the state governors need to bring back the death penalty. they have done away with that. most of the shooters they don't take alive. once they take alive feel like they should be immediately processed through court. they should not be given 12 or 14 years of appeals before they are executed. shortly after they are found guilty, they should execute them and televise it on tv so people will see it in put fear in them. host: do you think that will stop it? caller: it may if there is no fear. in courts, the people who create the crime have more rights than the victim, it appears. host: as a gun owner, what do you think of the methods for expanded background checks and red flag laws? do you think they are a good

idea? caller: they can be, but you never know when the rogue individual will show up. i grew up in an era where we hunted and fished. we would go to school with the guns in the back windows of our trucks. you never heard of anybody going into schools and shooting them up. that was in the 1960's. i feel there is no fear in committing a crime is one of the problems. . host: we will hear from leon the independent line. -- lee on the independent line. caller: the last caller was saying televise executions. the killer in california killed himself. since when is the end goal to kill people? we have cultured this gun era in america and we have created

this. i have played video games since i was 16 and i am near 40. i thought guns were cool and thought about having them but i live in a place that it is hard to get a gun. i think about the places where it is not restricted. you catch people in the wrong situations and you foster these things and you get these mass shootings. it is not going to stop until we change the culture around guns. host: so changing the culture comes about how? is it better education or other means you can change culture? caller: it has to be a whole effort. we had the anti-smoking campaigns and i don't really see them around talking about how guns are dangerous. remember smokey the bear?

i didn't have to live with forest fires but i knew how to put one out. it is about how we are teaching the next generation and we are not teaching them. host: lee in bronx, new york. you can read about the reactions about what washington should do. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republican's. (202) 748-8002 for independents. (202) 748-8003 for gun owners. judy chu was representing the monterey park in california and was asked about legislative efforts. here is some of her reaction. [video clip] we have to take actions to make

sure people are safe in america. i have joined the gun safety caucus in congress, and we have worked on legislation that should have passed along time ago, such as on the universal background checks, which have proven to keep guns out of dangerous peoples'hands. i want to say to those who are resistant to gun safety laws, protect america and protect your fellow neighbors. you don't know if the next person could be your loved one. yet, we know there are concrete, commonsense steps we can take to stop all this terrible and senseless violence. why do we have so many guns in this country and even more on the horizon? it is not right. other countries don't operate this way and we should not either. host: that was judy chu,

representative in california giving her perspective in response not only to the shootings but efforts washington should take as she saw it. host: jason in new york on the independent line. caller: it is new jersey. host: new jersey. go ahead. caller: we need to somehow look at --. you are not going to take guns away from republicans. i don't think the democrats who own the guns want their guns taken away, whether it is automatic or not automatic. if you tax and regulate ammo and make it difficult for people to get ammo and make it very expensive, they can't just go around shooting anybody, it will be cheap.

i think that is the only thing i want to say about that. host: from pennsylvania, this is katie, also says she is a gun owner. caller: i think they are clouding the issue, because it is the type of weapon. if you give people access weapons designed with large ammunition and ability to kill as many people in a short period of time as possible, that is the issue. it is the type of magazine and assault weapon and the type of ammunition. it is not people trying to take every gun away from every person. we do not need access to these weapons that can cause the maximum amount of damage in the shortest period of time. host: do you think it would cause a slippery slope, ultimately, if you start there would that transfer to other guns? caller: i do not believe that

would be the case. host: why is that? caller: that is an argument put out there by the gun manufacturers because their purpose is to sell as many guns as possible to maximize profit. that is a false argument. when we had the assault weapons ban, no one came after your handguns or hunting license. host: you said you are a gun owner. if you don't mind, what types of guns do you own and how many? caller: i just have one handgun. host: if i may ask also, what got you to the place of getting one? caller: there was a rabid raccoon in my backyard. host: ok. katie in pennsylvania giving her perspective on guns as a gun owner. you can do the same if you call in.

a few of you have responded on social media. marianne said when it comes to the idea of what washington should do, ban automatic assault weapons, hold manufacturers responsible, stop all online and gun shows, install a three day waiting period and install insurance on weapons owned. another says we must stop the venomous name-calling. the hollywood complex needs to stop the fortification of gun use there they are for protection primarily. the hatred and political discourse. michelle from twitter saying, i think they need to be less involved. a person intending to do harm will do harm. it is important to bring back consequences for one's actions. gregory in sherman oaks texting saying the single best thing

they can do to reduce mass shootings is reduce the guns in america and reduce the number of republican and our national and state governments. you can go two routes to talk about the events in california. and also what washington should be doing, especially as you saw legislators reacting. jim in massachusetts, democrats line, he. caller: i think every time one of these terrible things happens, there is always this debate about uncontrolled. it is not the guns that commit these crimes it is people. we need to stop people from doing these things so it will

never happen again. they only talk about banning assault weapons. i think we should give assault weapons not to do ordinary people but to the military and police and let them tackle the war on crime. they would get a lot done. they should enforce the law. we have the laws and we should enforce them. they make the law and then walk away and expect everybody to obey it. they should enforce the laws and they should crackdown on these people and get them off of the streets. if you kill people you should go to jail. if you are a rapist, you should go to jail and get the death penalty, etc. child molesters should also get the death penalty. host: let's move on to rate in

into manner -- ray in indiana, independent line. caller: my point is they need to enforce the laws on the books. there is the paper in indianapolis, a guy was sentenced to seven years for heat passed out at a waffle house in the parking lot with guns and drugs. he was on parole from a previous gun conviction and they only gave him seven years. you have to enforce the laws on the books. in california, the shooter in california, the gun was illegal and everything was illegal and it did not stop it. save the second amendment and enforce the laws that are on the books. host: with some of the legislation from senator

feinstein and includes richard blumenthal from connecticut and chris murphy as well, democrats introducing legislation and also introducing the h 21 act which says under current law and individual is required to be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun but 18 to purchase an assault rifle, such as an ar-15. it would create parity in arms to ban assault rough -- rifle sales to people under 21. you saw the president reacting to that. diane feinstein said, we are tragically reminded this week and of the deadly nature of assault weapons. the constant stream of mass shootings have one common thread, they almost alw

involve assault rifle's because they were designed to kill as many people as possible. they have no right to be in our schools we need to remove these weapons from our street or at the very least keep them out of the hands of the young people. that is the legislative effort we may see play out on capitol hill. you can give your perspective as well. from ohio, this is jeff, republican line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call, pedro. it is interesting, i am 68 years old and i hail from southwestern pennsylvania. as a young man and kid, largely a democrats area, of course the democrats, we went hunting and fishing and the republicans, they would play golf. it turns out things have

changed. i don't think anybody is more upset and more disturbed and saddened than legitimate law-abiding gun owners. it is one of those things, pedro, where the second amendment is very clear and i disagree with what i just heard. there have been many mass shootings done with semiautomatic handguns. one last thing, this country does not pay enough attention to mental health issues. we have gotten away from taking care of people that are known to their friends and family of having problems. i don't have the wherewithal, money that is needed to get these people treated, and it has been a problem for many years. my heart goes out to those poor people. host: north carolina, democrats

line, james, good morning. caller: i am in favor of repealing the second amendment and banning all private ownership of firearms. i think it is common sense to understand we have so many people now compared to when the constitution was enacted. it is an entirely different ballgame and if we don't ban firearm ownership, these things will tragically continue to happen. thank you very much. host: that is james in aberdeen, north carolina, democrats line. if you go to the office of justice programs at the federal government, they say for the purposes of tracking crime data fbi defines it as any incident in which four people are murdered with a gun.

it makes a sample of shootings in which four people are murdered with a gun and findings say mass shootings combined with homicides constitutes less than 1% of gun murders reported by the fbi. this was back in 2010. the survey found assault reppo -- weapons are high magazines have a total of 135 people shot in mass killings of than gun incidents. there is more. it takes a statistical look going back earlier in history, 2013 or so and you can look at how things work then as far as how the fbi defined these things and use it to inform yourself, particularly when it comes to mass shootings. in florida, a gun owner, this is chet. hello.

caller: let's break down the first amendment right, for the people to protect themselves. host: you mean the second amendment? caller: my bad, my bad, yes, the second amendment is for people to protect themselves. so what happens when the guns get taken away and the people can no longer protect themselves? it is simple, control, control, control. furthermore, if guns kill people , how is that logical? the gun doesn't shoot itself. people have a problem with civilians having guns, what about law enforcement who kill people every day? some you could say is called for and some is not. what happens when you take away

the right to bear arms from the people and the next thing you know, we are done for, but can't protect ourselves from anything, anything. how could people sit here and say we need to de-arm because the wrong people are getting guns? the wrong people will get a hold of them and use them how they want. so back in the day when they had open carry, society went whole different way. host: this is clifford in alabama, democrats line. caller: i have had it with these people talking about these guns and people. it is the people. you are not going to change the hearts of people. the only thing they have is access to the weapons. how are the mass shootings with

people with a shotgun? how many mass shootings are people using those type of weapons? it is the assault weapons. you are not going to change the hearts of people if you take the assault weapons, they can't do as much damage. they always want to ask people why did they do it? i will give you a simple reason, they did it because they could. if you don't take the assault weapons weight, you can stop with the thoughts and prayers. host: one lawmaker was asked about his approach for gun legislation. here is part of the conversation from sunday. [video clip] >> you voted no on bipartisan gun legislation last summer. it was incremental.

would you support any gun-control measures in this congress? >> i was a counterterrorism federal prosecutor and chairman of homeland security. chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet the highest murder rate. the way i look at it is we need the intelligence, information sharing, we need to connect the dots. every one of these cases and you will see it in this one as well, the shooter had warning signs along the way, but we did not respond or pick it up. we could create a system and i introduced a bill that we could take public information on the internet and have an algorithm to stop the threat before it happens. that is the smart approach, rather than violating second amendment rights. i hope we can get that passed. . we are seeing this too many times and it is tragic. >> what about a federal red flag

law? >> in a way what i am talking about is a red flag. yet chicago, illinois. >> you keep bringing up chicago, which i understand but the guns come in from other places because there are a patchwork of laws across the country and no federal law. >> again, i saw it when i cheered homeland, -- chaired homeland, we stopped so many because we had the information beforehand. we can use it domestically. although it is a little different at the constitution did not apply overseas, but we could do it here and stop the threats before they happen. host: senator mike mccall from sunday. this is jen saying the answer to mass shootings is simple, sue the gun and ammo makers. it is all about the money.

mark is saying outlaw high-capacity magazines. three shots for ducks and five for big game. that would save lives, the 20 and 30 round magazines are too much. chris in illinois saying i support cross jurisdictional background checks, mandatory training. a ban on extended magazines. steve in south carolina saying if the gun owner identifies as a republican, you can remove the action and you have the same gun. the problem is attachable high-capacity magazines. they will tell you what they want the same power a home intruder might have. you can text us at (202)

748-8003. let's hear from mike in maryland, independent line. caller: i would like to offer a more extreme solution to this extreme problem, because i think it is time for that. at the -- i feel like the mass murderers have no fear of dying. after all of the court and it doesn't seem to deter it. i think if you were to catch them alive and tortured them until you wish they were dead, and while you do that you can remove organs and give them to someone to help. host: next caller. caller: i would like to make a

point. one point is, we have to stop -- we have to recognize these are fox news talking points. there is the most ignorant statement out there, we know what kills people and a mass of people and it is a are rifles. another thing is this, i agree with the previous caller. until we elect politicians that supports getting rid of a are rifles, it will never change. it is sad, because these politicians appear in their campaign ads holding a are

rifles to excite their constituents, and it is sad. we have to get rid of these politicians and elect politicians that will create gun safety laws. that will begin to change the culture in our country. we are the only country with these loose gun laws like this and it is just pathetic and sad. host: we will hear from paul ohio, independent line and gun owner. caller: i am an ex-police officer. i have heard people talk this to death. we have forgotten a lot of things in this country. the place where they blew up the federal buildings in texas with

fertilizer, where people are being attacked with machetes. it is not the gun, it is the people. when we focus on those individuals who want to use these weapons to destroy and kill other people because they are mad or whatever, then we will start to get a handle on this. there are too many people walking around thinking of ways to hurt and destroy and kill other people. we need to focus with a real problem is at, and that is people, someone who has the mental capacity who wants to kill somebody. the killer and sandy hook was diagnosed with a mental disorder and a sincere problem might do something like this and we did nothing about it. there are some psychiatrists that are not allowed to diagnose certain illnesses in a child because it might destroy their credibility in the community and they don't want to hurt that child.

again, we are failing to understand the minds of these criminals and monsters. when we start taking control of that, then we control and stop and cut down. we will never stop it completely, we can't even stop the drugs coming over the border, they will get a gun anyway they can. host: call in connecticut, independent line. caller: i would like to take all the specific recommendations, all fine and well, but i take a ledger view. i focus in on militarism and then technology. technology not only in the way these weapons of war are made and made cheaply, and we are a world competitor. then there is the technology of

gaming and killing through unmanned aerial devices. military equipment that is constructed, these individuals are trained in the art of killing. it is a spiritual issue. we had a chaplain course and the military. there is an article in this month's american legion, a game changer, young veterans making connections. this propaganda war, and one of the callers mentioned that we need to peel back how this propaganda is being spread in society. i open up my legion and i see game on and i see statements being quoted, going from having

the marine corps be a part of everything and now it is like i have a home and family. then they have people quoted saying they would like to have gaming stations across the country to target the younger demographic of veterans. they don't extend it to the young, and you hear this so much with the culture wars, we need to get hold of the young. host: you can continue on for the next 20 minutes or so, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. two can text us at (202) 748-8003 and also use that number if you are a gun owner. democratic members of the house on twitter feeds, the senate majority leader, chuck schumer,

saying my heart goes out to the victims of the shooting in half moon bay and the families and those who love them. the guns in our country have made tragedies to frequent. we have to work to stop gun violence. this is from another viewer, james in texas, the problem with putting laws on the books it only affects law-abiding citizens and does not prevent the criminal from getting the guns. congress does not under stand this. we need to start holding criminal accountable and do it ever it takes to hold them accountable and stop treating them like first-class citizens. bradley is next in michigan. caller: hello, we have a sad society that feels more secure when they have a weapon in their hand. as you age, you learn you have little control about how your end is going to come about. we need to approach it by taking

it to the supreme court and going into the supreme -- second amendment. we always talk about how the original framers intended things. they would never have allowed this to go unchecked and they had no idea about how sick and widespread these weapons would become. i think we need to go right back there that it was not the original intent and it has to be changed quickly. host: if you go to the national rifle association website, it mentioned it was president bidens martin luther king jr. holiday speech speech -- promising his ban on so-called assault weapons as they described it and went on to say that president biden's arguments in favor of gun control appeared to be the product of a well-worn group. his speech at the national breakfast were no exception" the president saying, i will say it

over and over again, i will get an assault weapons ban and i did it once and will do it again. what do you need an assault, i am serious. what was on the website yesterday said that mr. biden demonstrated that it wasn't limited to firearms and he raise the inference that law enforcement officers needlessly resort to deadly force and they should should their arms and legs instead. we have to retrain cops that you always have to shoot with deadly force. if you need to use your weapon, you don't need to do that. it goes on to say that many mr. dash of turbine supporters will say -- keep trace himself as a homespun man and is the anti-second amendment president ever.

it goes on to talk about that from the national association -- national rifle association. let's hear from stan in kingsport tennessee, a gun owner. caller: i think this problem we need to be addressing common sense legislation and addressing the manufacturers. the technology is out there. holding people accountable during a voluntary trade in. that will stop the bleeding. holding people counted -- accountable for ballistics they own. that technology is out there and why are we not making legislation that the manufacturers have to put this in their process?

a biometric trigger, we have technologies. hold the gun owners responsible. i would gladly trade in my nine millimeter ammunition for free for other ballistics. the technology is out there, we are not making the manufacturers implement that. like i was saying with the biometric triggers, you can also retrofit a trigger and make the gun owners responsible that have a firearm that you can't shoot unless your finger is on the trigger. you can keep it out of other people's hands. host: let's hear from shawn in baltimore, independent line. caller: i think that we really are not dealing with the actual

situation at hand. we live in a society where we glorify killing. we say it is ok to kill babies. we won't deal with people who have mental illness. a lot of these people who are doing these inks are killing themselves at the end of shooting these people. they don't value life. we have video games and music that promote killing. guy in connecticut was right when he was saying that it doesn't matter if it was guns, we need to deal with people. we need to deal with what we are saying is ok in our society. they shoot up people and games and they think this is just life and go out and do it and think it is no big deal. host: sean in maryland giving his thoughts on what should be

done about guns themselves. california's governor gavin newsom in an interview talked about what he said was assault style weapons. here is a portion of that. [video clip] >> weapons of mass destruction. we can talk about this, but there is a pattern in the united states of america with these mass shootings. maybe that should be the fundamental focus. arch capacity -- large capacity is insane. these people are perpetuating this and should be ashamed of themselves. >> when you said the second man is a suicide pact. there are many people in the country who respect the second amendment and are lawful gun owners.

governor newsom: getting back armed checks -- background checks and getting trained. i just want to take weapons away that are illegal on the streets. just use common sense. host: on the line for democrats, detroit, michigan, jean, hello. caller: i feel very strongly that there is such a lack of spiritual values in our country. i grew up in a time when every thing was closed on sunday, and i feel we need to restore the sabbath day and we need to restore our mental health system, which was decimated by our republican governor john engler. one other thing is, it is not a

suggestion to honor the sabbath day, it is a commandment. this goes to the hearts of people. i feel we have turned our back on god but we don't honor the commandment of god's word and we don't love him like we should, nor do we love one another. i feel very strongly. host: this is nervon. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am trying to figure things out on my own and have been paying attention or sometime. 1% of the gun deaths are mass shootings but they capture a lot of public attention. 16,000 suicides of guns, 14,000 and most are white men in the

midwestern area and a lot of the homicides are young, black boys. this conversation does not address either of those things. i heard a couple people say it is a spiritual problem. i would say it is a community problem. what is happening and why are so many people falling through the cracks? host: you think this will help mass shootings -- do you think these things relate to mass shootings and if so, how? caller: i think there is a community problem. where are these people falling through the cracks? the department of justice reviewed a project called cease fire where they got police and community leaders like church folks or the owner down the street who people trust and figure out who the high risk

people are and get them out of the dangerous situations, it rewired -- requires community. it is just the fabric of society feels like it is tearing apart. all of this is symptoms of that. host: let's hear from doug in north carolina, republican line, good morning. caller: all i have to say is god will return one day and went he does, all of this will be laid to rest. have a blessed day. host: in connecticut, democrats line, hello, fred in connecticut, hello? caller: i didn't hear you. host: is this fred from connecticut? caller: yes. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i was originally from massachusetts.

i just recently moved to connecticut. however, the judges, it is the law enforcement, judges, that are causing this problem. if you have an armed man at your house with a firearm, they go to court and they call it assault, -- they call it breaking and entering. it is not breaking and entering, he is breaking into a house and you have a firearm. they plea-bargain and they get rid of the firearm and the fact that people were in the house and it is a lesser penalty. host: how does that relate to the topic of mass shootings in washington's role in it? caller: the mass shootings are

because of the law. the man had a criminal record before. how did he get all of these firearms? host: we will leave it there. and for those of you calling in, if you would turn down your television and refrain from watching, only because there is a delay if you decided to watch and that stalls the conversation. ben in woodbridge, virginia, hi. caller: this is a multi-issue. if you look at it from one or two lenses, you will miss the solution to the problem. those who say it is the gun, they are absolutely right and those who say it is the people,

individuals, they are partially right. let's look at it from a broad perspective. if the person is sick and that person is taken care of, then the person might not be able to graduate to the point where he or she will take a gun. when the person is not treated, and there is a gun, that person might be able to use the gun to kill. let's look at it like, it is the gun and it is the people. if the gun or a weapon is taken away and it is only the sick person, then you can avoid that sick person from killing other people and himself.

host: we showed you the violence resource website earlier from information. this is how cnn cast what was going on in 2023 so far seeing three weeks and 39 mass shootings. this is america. you can read that on the cnn website. they define a mass shooting as four people killed in an event. this is texas, independent line. caller: i am a former u.s. marine. my wife is a former u.s. green and we have family in the military. i fully support the banning of these weapons at this point. we have proven we can't handle the weapons.

on the military base, we don't walk around with weapons. they are in the armory. i have been a weapon owner for more than 30 years and been very responsible, but at this point i believe we just really need to support banning of these automatic style weapons. if we can ban books because we are threatened by the history, we certainly can ban guns that is threatening our present and future. host: 20 think about the automatic style weapons the argument -- what do you think that some stay the automatic style weapons are similar but is just how they are presented? caller: i think it is a false argument. if they are semiautomatic weapons, we need to take them off the streets. there is no need for a military style weapon to be in the hands of civilians. i am also a sporting shooter. i used to hunt and i didn't need

an automatic or semi automatic weapon for that. host: you said there is no need, isn't that highly subjective on your part as a gun owner? caller: no, it is not, because i have a semi automatic been. i have an ar 15 and if the government decided they wanted to ban it, i would give it to them tomorrow. there is not an issue for me. either we are going to war on our streets or we are going to war when it is necessary to war. that is the only reason these weapons are needed. host: he is giving us a perspective, especially as a gun owner, as many of you have done. in michigan, democrats line, we will hear from george. caller: i just wanted to say this whole issue is not rocket science. the other countries have dealt with this issue.

if you look at australia, they had a mass shooting back in the 1990's and they had a gun buyback program and have not had a single mass shooting since and we have had nothing but increases in mass shootings. the other, we have is money and politics. as long as we have citizens united, that money keeps flowing into politicians' hands and the manufacturers will continue to have a big role in this. it is not rocket science. other countries have done this and it has been successful and it is time for us to do it. host: george in michigan finishing off this hour taking a look at this issue of not only the mass shootings in california and the issue washington to consider. coming up, two guests join us to talk about different perspectives, the nature of

classified documents is the specialty of our first yale law guest school professor and former pentagon special counsel oona hathaway. and then later on we will hear from maya macguineas. she will talk about the federal budget and the debate about federal spending. those coming up on -- those conversations coming up on "washington journal." >> since ticketmaster's merger with live nation a decade ago, company has dominated the ticketing industry. the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing on issues with the company, including ticketmaster's website crashed in november which left consumers unable to buy concert tickets from taylor swift's tour and they will talk about the lack of competition and whether the company may have abused its market positions. consent degree and abused market positions.

watch the hearing live today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, our free mobile video app or on c-span.org. >> state of the union is strong because you come out the american people are strong. >> president biden delivers his annual state of the union address outlining his priorities to congress, his first speech since republicans took back control of the house. we will hear your texts, phone calls and tweets. watch now on c-span, the video app or on c-span.org. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on congressional committees, the president's

cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. eord today for early spring delivery. it is between $9.95 -- it is $29.99 and every proceeded goes toward our shop at c-span top court -- c-span shop.org. >> book tv has the current nonfiction book releases and trends through insider interviews. sign up on our freight mobile apps or wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is oona hathaway, a professor at yale law. she is also here to talk about the classification of government documents.

thank you for giving us your time. guest: glad to be here. host: can you talk about your background at the pentagon when it comes to classified documents? guest: yeah. i worked for years at the pentagon -- and i had the highest level of clearance the u.s. government provides. in that role i had a chance to work with loss of -- lots of classified documents at all the locals, confidential, classified and secret double. and when i came back to work at yale, i was looking at all the classified documents i had seen and one of the most striking aspects was that realizing so much of what i worked with, so much of the classified material was kind of ordinary information and probably should not have

been classified in the first place. host: you talked about the three levels of distinction when it comes to classification. can you describe what it means when you call some thing secret, top secret or confidential? guest: yes, -- unclassified information is it will not do any damage to national security if it is released. confidential, it will do some damage and then it escalates from there. then it goes to the significant damage of national security and top-secret is the highest damaged you u.s. national security. the classification as supposed to reflect how important it is and how damaging it would be for that information to get out. in my experience reality did not always reflect that. host: why is that? guest: when you're working with

these materials, if you have the authority, which is what i had, which means i can't originally classify information but when i'm writing a document i have to assess what level it should be classified at his own information i'm including. if i'm using information from another document and that is classified as top-secret, my document also has to be classified top-secret, even if most of it is unclassified. 99% is unclassified by one fact in there that is top-secret, then the document has to be top-secret. if i'm not really rigorous about paragraph marking the documents so in theory everyone who does it is supposed to mark every single paragraph, but truthfully in any busy job people don't do that. so what happens is everybody -- every time someone is relying on a previous document that is classified at a certain level, they have to classify it at the highest possible level. it has this magnifying effect and more and more documents get

classified at the highest level. it is also the fact that what you are sitting at your desk, you have two decision -- make a decision. how am i going to classify this? there are literally no consequences for classifying something more highly than his absolute necessary, if you classify something as unclassified or secret and that should have been top-secret, that can be damaging. potentially giving access to people who should not have access that information and that could have severe aunts once as to your job, you could get fired, in theory you could be criminally prosecuted. so the dangers of getting it wrong on the downside are very extreme, the dangers of getting it wrong by classifying something more highly are very limited for you as a person working in government. so that creates these incentives to classify things at a higher level. host: because of those incentives, what is your guess as far as how much classified

material gets produced on a yearly basis? guest: i have a rough guess based on some facts. facts are the last time the government tried to count. it was about 50 million documents a year. 50 million classified documents a year. in 2017 they gave up even trying to count. because they really don't have good records and agencies count these things differently so it has probably gone up since then. i doubt it has gone much below that. we're talking millions of new documents being created every year. in theory, we should be declassified documents at roughly the same pace but the classification process is not anywhere close to keeping up with the classification process. so we are creating 50 million new classified documents every year on top of everything we already have so it is becoming this huge edifice of documents the government has to protect. host: our guest will join us

until 8:45 to answer your questions about the documents on washington, you can call and ask her questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independence and text us at (202) 748-8003. guest: -- host: what happens when some things classified? guest: if it is a top-secret document has to be stored in a facility. if you're going to work with or read those documents you have to be in their peer -- there. secret documents also have to be classified.

in this emperor classified information. when i worked at the pentagon, you have three different computer systems on the same desk. you're sitting at your desk and switching between these different computer systems so the physical documents are kept physically in different storage facilities. these days, almost everything is electronic and completely separate computer systems and complete we separate computer storage systems for each of these classified systems. if you're working on a top-secret system, you can only communicate with other top-secret systems and you of course can't get on the web. if you are on a secret computer you can only compute kate -- communicate with other secret systems and same with classified and unclassified systems. it is all managed and very carefully by the government to protect the secrets as best as we can. host: if you had a document and i wanted to see it, what would have to go through? guest: you could not unless it

was dust unless you have clearance. to get clearance you had to work with the u.s. government. either with a government employee or working for a contractor that has the capacity to provide clearer dust clearance. there are some former employees able to get clearance, contractors, people who continue to do legal work, but a reporter is not going to get access to this. unless it leaks and that would be illegal. a person leaking information could be criminally prosecuted and if you retain the information and use it knowing it is classified, you could eventually be criminally prosecuted. there is a threat of criminal prosecution hanging over all of this. host: the reason i asked, if i did not even have a clearance,

now we are at a stage and we will talk about this where classified documents are showing up in homes of various presidents and other legislators, what is the chain of custody of a document? i suppose that in asking and seeking out that information there is a process. guest: yeah. well it depends. somebody like the vice president has access to everything. he has got a computer access on his computer, i'm sure he has got paper documents being provided to him on a regular basis at all levels. that material is going to be provided to him in paper form. i don't know if that is what his preferences are, he probably looks at things electronically, if it officials have different preferences. if you take a top-secret document out, there is a

specific process that is supposed to be followed. it can be done but it has to be sealed in a certain way and there has to be a careful chain of custody. you are supposed to transported. what i was at the pentagon i did not have permission to take anything out of the building. i could take materials from one to another but it had to be sealed within a bag within a bag and i had to go directly from one office to the other. so there are a lot of stringent rules for someone at my level, which is a low level. for someone at the vice president's level, he is dealing with classified documents on a regular basis and the problem we have in evaluating what happened with president biden is whether -- what are these documents question mark we don't know much about what they contain and at what level they are classified. top-secret documents are the kind moved by president trump and being held at mar-a-lago have these big imposing cover sheets that say top-secret. if you have seen the fbi photo that materials were scattered on

the ground, they have the red stripes on them and big top-secret language on them. those are kind of hard to miss. rings at lower levels, secret, usually have a line at the top that is often in red if printed on a color printer that says secret. it would not be impossible to miss that although that would be very irresponsible and nothing ever left my office that was classified. and the confidential level, that material tends to be less closely held and less protected although it is also governed by these classification rules. without knowing whether it was a top-secret documents, confidential, secret, it is hard to evaluate. secret and confidential documents, it is easier to see those getting mixed in with unclassified documents. you can see a derivative put together with a number of documents in it. one of the documents might be a confidential or secret document

and somebody took a picture and brings it home and does not realize what was in it, it was a secret document. you could say that should not be done, they should care more closely, what should be the case is that binders should have a top-secret sticker in the front indicating they had secret or top-secret, whatever the level. when people are busy they don't always follow those rules closely. on top of the -- it's, it is important to remember that a lot of this information is unremarkable. it is not crazy but somebody said that is not big -- a big deal. i read the same thing this morning. putting in the pile, this is a secret that needs to be protected because it is such an unusual information i only have access to it we are number of people have access to. without knowing that, how problematic it is, what level it

is classified at, it is not impossible to imagine somebody is working all day long with these classified documents and today we get mixed in with the classified documents and therefore transported after he leaves. we don't know enough to evaluate that. host: let's hear from tom in florida, democrats line for owner hathaway. -- oona hathaway. caller: good morning. when senator moynahan left the senate come out one of his last speeches before he left was about this idea that we classify way too much -- way too many documents. he thought we should ease away from that, get away from that. and i think there was momentum to do that and along came the 9/11, i think, probably, and

they took that document out after 9/11 and that raised that issue. we have moved on and now, you seem to think that -- your talk today is that we do over classify things and that the law is hard to comply with. i think that was hillary clinton's problem with the server. separating her personal from her government things. she had conversations with former secretary of state colin powell about the issue about how he was having problems complying with the law. that is my question, will it take the exact law that classify these documents, i understand it is a rather new law put together by press people and big

government types and everybody that wanted everything that is generated in the government to stay in the government, so that in the future they could come along and you know -- host: i got your point. ms. hathaway question mark -- hathaway? guest: it is a great question. senator moynahan saw this before anyone else and was a big advocate for dealing with the problem. he was saying we are classifying way too much of this is bad for government. the government can tell people what it's doing. it handcuffs people in government from talking to ordinary americans about work they are doing and for people who are in the government from getting information from outside of government. and even congress, congress is working with these classified documents, they might get briefings but they can't tell their constituents what they

know because of the briefings are classified they can share that information. it's not democracy, that was part of his point. he was way ahead of his time. as for the law, here's the crazy thing. it is actually an executive order. it is not even a law that was passed by congress that classified all of this information. an executive order is in order issued by the president that said you got to keep the information classified and manage and keep the information from the public. there is a long executive order, the most recent one, president's have been issuing these beginning with fdr and more or less, most presidents issued new ones. biden had not issued one yet, trump did not come of the last was in -- was barack obama. that one said here are the levels and the rules that govern

them. it is quite elaborate. there are rules that manage it. but it is backed by laws from congress to if you release information, and a bunch of laws that are a crazy quilt of laws that say if you release information damaging to national security either intentionally or knowingly, you can be held criminally liable for that. the weird thing is that that law was originally passed before the executive orders even existed. but courts say well, if the information is governed by the executive order, we will assume that is what congress had in mind when it criminalized this information. the combination of the executive order that is only president made rules, it is only executives that have say-so in with those rules are, backed up by laws passed by congress starting in 1918, before it even existed. that is another part of the system that does not make a lot of sense.

and part of it is it is long overdue for a serious overhaul. host: david in long island, new york, republican mine. caller: yeah, good morning. i wanted to just say if they president has the power to declassify documents and the vice president does not or the secretary of state does not or senators don't, how come they have these in their possession and they are not being charged? guest: that is a good question. of course there is an investigation underway right now into exactly that. as to what the information is that was released and was it removed knowingly. part of the rules are if you want to remove this information in a way that is unknowing, you may not necessarily be criminally liable so it was not an intentional choice to remove these documents.

and i mentioned there is a crazy quilt to these laws into different rules have different standards attached to them. if you moved that, there is the intent to share with someone, someone might do damage to national security, that is one thing. if you unintentionally remove the documents that is another thing. part of it is looking into what are the documents, how damaging could they be, was it knowing or intentional, why did it happen? if it was discovered that the removal of documents was knowing or intentional, i think it potentially could be criminally prosecuted. then it is up to the prosecutor to determine whether to exercise their discretion or not. there been cases where it has been removed and there has not been criminal prosecution. the general famously gave his confidant significant classified

information she don't have had -- she should not have had access to. he was let off with a slap on the wrist. but other people have removed a single document and been severely criminally punished. that is in cases of whether they did it with intent. we have a lot to learn about the particular president biden would he was vice president or former vice president. in these memories of congress, potentially they could be subject to criminal, kernel prosecution or at least they will be investigated and they will be a determination as to whether it is serious enough to warrant prosecution. host: to clarify, the executor border president obama signed, does it extend to the president as far as giving him to classifying powers? guest: the president is the one who has the power to make these decisions and delegate down the authority to make these decisions.

in theory could delegate to the vice president, but generally there's a process even the president would go through. it is not like in government they president waves a magic wand and things are declassified. there is a former process -- formal process that if something is going to be classified, there is review by agencies that might have interest and they make sure the release of that information is not going to do damage to national security. you may think looking at a document like that could not possibly do any damage, but another agency with different kinds of equities might have concerns that given other information available, it could do damage. normally, it would not be something where one person is saying i'm going to declassify this. they would say i want to start a process for considering declassification of this information. i want to submit this or have this set of information be declassified. it would go through review and even the president ordinarily would go through -- there is a question with the trump

materials, the president has claimed he could himself declassify information. that would be highly irregular and is not how things are done. i think there's a question as to whether the president can declare something. host: jim, independence, and connecticut. c-span.org how you asked -- caller: how you doing? i was in the navy 20 years ago and handled classified information. we had a call about a week or so ago and wanted to know about the chain of custody. i was just a sailor but i had clearance and here's the story on custody. for one thing, classified materials are supposed to be's -- be kept in a safe that is

really heavy. no two people could carry it out of the building or ownership or something. the other thing is the way it is transmitted by a registered mail, signature required. and starting to say something that should not be said. with these safeguards, including them are the markings on the document itself, which also had distribution lists. anyone on that distribution lists has the same classified interview as you do. if there is a senior command on that list, the next time that senior command comes and inspects your command he's going to have you open to make sure -- that it is lost and there is not anything wrong.

he finds classified material that should have been destroyed. host: thanks, jim. guest: i think that is absolutely right. in particular, the military is extremely careful about classified documents and particularly outside of a secure building like the pentagon. if you're working in the pentagon it takes a lot to actually get into the building. anyone who is in the building has had some kind of clearance. they have had a security review, you have to wear your badge when you're walking around so everyone knows you belong there. but when you are dealing with classified information in places like military facilities, outside of washington, very -- various people are managing those and people who have access to them are only people who are supposed to. that is appropriate.

they are out there and more vulnerable so care needs to be taken. and also material that is classified that is on something like a ship's relevant to current operations and that is especially sensitive. if that is released to a adversary and potentially they know information that could be damaging to the board and to national security as a result, there is real care taken with those kinds of materials from the weight your colleague described. host: with oona hathaway of the old law school, an international law professor also serving as -- at the pentagon talking about classification of documents. the democrat line. caller: good morning to you all. my question has to do with the wikileaks situation and julian assange facing extradition to the united states for publishing

unredacted cables, the exact same cables that were published and are still published by john young on his.org website. that is what daniel -- the pentagon is the same as far as john young and daniel ellsberg are asking to be indicted along with julian assange but are not being indicted. why are they treated differently than julian's orange? guest: that is a great question. you may were member, julian assange is the one who published these documents on wikileaks. initially the government charged him only with cybersecurity violation. violation of rules that were hit hacking. -- prohibit hacking. in the trumpet medication they added a charge, which was with

the espionage act for gathering or transmitting classified information, information that can do harm to u.s. national security. that triggered a lot of people to be worried about how that lot might be applied to journalists, public commentators and others. because what julian assange was being prosecuted for, putting up the evidence that he and those cases have not secured, he had received them from others, he was putting them on websites where other people could read them. do is something the new york times does all the time. the new york times wrote stories more or less saying this is what we do as well and he should not be charged. it creates worry among journalists that what julian is on does is more or less the same thing, albeit on a different scale.

they can release thousands of documents, what they do on the regular basis. in the fact that the espionage act is being used against him has criminal liability with this classified information that that would be used against him, they be more fearful what it is used against journalists, and the truth is the way the law was written -- the only way it has been used against journalists is that the prosecutors in the u.s. government have made the judgment that that is not good for the country and that journalists should not be prosecuted for releasing this information. if they find out who release the information that person should be prosecuted but the journalists are not the ones that should be prosecuted. so they have been indicted similarly since. some of those fears have been damaged.

but it has opened the doors to the possibility that a journalist could be prosecuted in the future. host: there is a viewer on twitter makes the statement saying there is no question if a president can unilaterally declassify documents to require submission to any other executive authority would violate the constitution. guest: so the reason the president has the authority to issue the executive order is that the president of course is the chief and the one with the chief authority to make determinations about how the information will be handled and managed. the only authority that relies on is the president's constitutional and -- constitutional authority. so he could in theory effectively violate his own executive order because the only person who -- whose authority

that rests on is the president's own constitutional authority. but the way the president has done this is a way in which presidents have declassified information, and it has not been to determine if the information is declassified but to go for the process and sort through the information that is not going to be doing harm to national security. this is limiting one of the issues in the trump case. so we will see where that leads. host: in your opinion, as far as distinctions between president biden and where they found documents in his reaction, president trump and where they found the documents in his reaction, is the difference the reaction or the documents? guest: since we don't know much about the documents president biden retained, it is hard to say. we do know that the documents that were held by president trump at mar-a-lago were top-secret, special departmental

documents which is the most highly classified information the u.s. government has and that it was a very classified compartmented programs that are generally kept under extreme lock and key and not taken out of secure facilities and they were being stored in highly secure -- highly insecure facilities. we don't know exactly what the documents were for the biden administration. it is hard to compare whether they are as classified as the information being held by the trump administration. but what is really striking is that the reason we know about the documents that were being held by -- that were stored improperly in the biden home in office -- an office was because the biden staff discovered them and disclose them to the justice department and invited the justice department and fbi to investigate further and fully

cooperated within the investigation and allow them to turn that home and office inside out. we saw different reaction from president trump whose documents were requested by the national archive. they resisted investigation or have the court ordered investigation. he has not been cooperative with this process. the reaction has been extremely different and i do think that is important because it reveals the different intent to remove and retain the material. it suggests the biden removal was probably unintentional, though that is something that remains to be investigated. host: tom woodward, virginia republican line, this is oona hathaway from your law school. caller: thank you for this today, what she is giving america right now is a high

level, broad rush of how classified documents and things are handled. i think the more important thing here is not about whether trump had declassified documents or biden had the classified documents. it is more about what was the intent, what was the purpose behind the retention of those documents and was it negligence or was it malicious? i'm not suggesting that either of them were malicious, because i believe they were probably both just inadvertent. they handle a lot of classified documents in their position as the president and the vice president. more than likely it is inadvertent. but as someone who has been worked in the community for well over 20 years and handles top-secret compartmental information for more than 20 years and i have never once, not

once, and virtually everybody i've worked with has never once in their life ever taken home top-secret classified documents inadvertently, that is understandable that something got mixed in there. because a staffer did it. but if either of those individuals had declassified documents stored in a way was not supposed to be classified or handled deliberately on purpose themselves, that is where an investigation would normally need to take place. host: we will leave it there. thanks, tom. guest: i agree. intent matters a lot here. who did this and why. i think these investigations are centering significantly on that. what information is being retained, what kind of danger does it potentially posed to

national security that that information was not kept in a secure location, but why was it removed question mark --? was it just a three ring binder and nobody realized there were classified documents that were in there, or was the intent to take these materials and disregard the fact that they were highly classified it they could do damage to national security if someone who does not have authorized access were to get access to them giving that they were not being stored in an adequate way. that is what an investigation is going to have to tell us. what can they learn from interviewing people, looking at the information, looking at records about what was going on here and why these records were removed? again come out right now, we know more about the trump administration then about the

biden administration, it seems like a handful of documents and we don't know about the situation. we know a little more about this because there has been more stories about it. but we will learn more as the investigations unfold. host: professor, we saw summing out of the nixon administration, the act of 1968. what did that do for confidential and secret documents question mark -- documents? guest: what that does is say -- you have to keep records carefully, all correspondence and documents that are created, those are supposed to be retained and managed by the u.s. government. that includes classified documents as well. but it applies to all documents. it applies not just to classified information. it applies to all government documents. what i started working at the

pentagon, this became a issue. it took a while for my emailed to be activated and i could not do any work until that was activated because i could not work for my personal email the cadet would not retain record of those emails properly to comply with the presidential records act. every email, every formal document is supposed to be maintained by the u.s. government. the block to the government is a problem and part of how that whole back and forth with president trump started is that the national archive was concerned that documents that were supposed to be retained in part of the records that are important -- they knew that

certain documents had been removed. it was already the necessarily concerned about classified documents being removed, just concerns about sets and materials be removed that were not available to the archives and that is how this all got started and they realize along the way that among the documents that had been retained and removed were classified documents. that is an important obligation and it was partially that when government officials set up their private email servers, which hillary clinton was not the first to do, many people had done it before including colin powell who was mentioned, and many people in the trump administration apparently did the thing's as well, one of the concerns was using those for private business is unless you are corresponding with somebody on the other hand who has a government email address those

records are not being kept properly in compliance with the presidential records act. that is another important role. host: annie, washington state, independent line. caller: good morning, i was reading about the executive order from 2009, with president barack obama and vice president joe biden had the authority to declassified documents. the question i had is all of these classified documents that apparently president biden had, the national archives were never looking for them. what is going on with that? guest: that is a great point. this is a very different scenario with president biden. as i understand it, what has been reported that happened is that they had biden administration staff looking

through some of his personal record and tripped across by quentin and's and noticed that one of the documents that were looking at was a classified document and aware that that was being inappropriately stored, notifying the justice department. that led to this investigating, was everything else improperly stored? so it was not that anybody had reason to think there'd been classified information. it was really just. those staffers are heroic because it would have been easy to just please them on the -- under the rug. it is a lot easier -- and they did not -- they did the right

thing. they did that right thing for u.s. governments. they disclosed it and went to the right channels even though they knew it was going to create this firestorm. they knew it was going to be a huge political headache. they knew it was going to be a challenge for the president. but they also knew this was the right thing to do. it was ensuring there is nothing else there being improperly stored and president biden has been fully cooperative with that investigation and the house being investigated top to bottom is being -- to make sure nothing is being held there. i think they handled this right once they discover this problem and to my mind it is different from the situation at mar-a-lago where it seems to have been intentional. the national archives repeatedly

requested the information and president trump refused about is what led to the standoff and the court ordered investigation into what was being held. and opening these files at mar-a-lago and discovering there was a lot of top-secret stuff out there that should not have been. these are not equivalent but it is hard for people to see -- they hear classified information being missed stored in both places and think that is kind of the same thing. but it is not really the same thing. it has been quite different in terms of how it has unfolded. i would be careful to say we don't know exactly what the documents where that would being held by president biden, but from what we've heard so far, it does not seem to be at the same level of importance. host: because the attorney

general is looking into both of these cases, what is the penalty for possession of documents? not the reaction or claims of trying to get effect, what is the penalty question mark guest: if it was mere possession, and it was unintentional, i think there was unintentional possession here. they were probably removed by staff. prosecutorial discretion would suggest there would not likely be a prosecution. but i think part of the reason merrick garland -- it is challenging for somebody who works for the president both interview the former rival and future rival it agreed -- residential raise and more. it can be difficult politically

and terry got for numerous occasions because she does that -- to proceed with whether there should be a prosecution given what they have discovered. host: our guest is oona hathaway, she is an international law professor for the yale law school and served at the pentagon special counsel hears talk about the classifications of government documents, thank you for your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: coming up, my mcginnis from the -- my mcginnis -- maya macguineas. when ♪ ♪ washington journal continues. ♪ >> since ticketmaster's merger with live nation over a decade

ago, the company has dominated the ticketing industry. today, the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing looking into recent issues with the country -- company, including the crash in november that left people unable to buy concert tickets to musician taylor swift's tour. they will see whether they have abused market positions. watch the hearing live today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, on c-span mobile, our ticketing app, or on c-span live. org. listening to programs on c-span proves the radio just got easier. now they are listening to the washington journal. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern, text washington for the fast-paced report on the day.

listen to c-span anytime. c-span, powered by cable. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but only at c-span2 you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from overusing on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased come out word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest demands with livestream's. campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your

fingertips. help us stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find information from the c-span tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. it is available on the google store. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> washington journal continues. host: we welcome back maya macg uineas, here to talk about issues of debt ceilings and federal spending. welcome back. guest: thank you for having me. host: what is the position you take? guest: i run a committee, it is bipartisan and focuses on physical response ability. there are times to borrow and many times it makes sense but you should borrow for economic and not political reasons.

we borrow a lot for the politics of it so we focus on sound fiscal policy, it is not mean you have to borrow the budget, but you should do so responsibly. our board is run by people on the spectrum of politics, our staff is all over the place. i am a political independent so it is not about politics, it is about fiscal policy. host: when it comes to the debt ceiling, is it about fiscal policy or politics, particularly on capitol hill? guest: it is being framed in a way on capitol hill but i think there is a lot to be discussed. there is no question that a default is damaging to our world. but the issues being raised are we need to think about how to control our government borrowing and government spending, the fact that we have a huge fiscal gap and this is one of the only times that happen -- this

happened, that is a huge discussion to have. it is surfacing some truly important issues. host: the extraordinary measures we hear about, what does that mean for the federal government? guest: before you hit the debt ceiling, you stop because you can't hit default. there are some government trust funds you can take money out of and put other treasury bonds into and they don't count toward the debt ceiling. we are playing a game of three card monte with a bunch of government trust funds. it will be replenished, it will not harm the trust funds and it is not the right way to do business. we should get back into the normal convention of raising the debt ceiling before we have to use these so-called extraordinary measures. they are becoming ordinary and we always wait until the last minute for everything. we really should not for the debt ceiling and i would like to see as real things back so we start looking at the actual debt ceiling as the limit, not these extraordinary measures which we

do not have the precise knowledge of when they will run out of money to play this game. host: kevin mccarthy was on capitol hill talking about issues of the debt ceiling, particularly the conversation about spending issues, i will play a little bit of it and get your response. >> i don't see why you would continue the past behavior. i would think from one standpoint, there is a clean debt ceiling, with that mean we do not do any approach bills, we would not even to a budget? no. i mean, i don't know if you have any children, if you had a child and give them a credit card and they kept raising it and they hit the limit, you just raise it again, a clean increase, again and again, would you just keep doing that or would you change the behavior? we are six months away, why don't we sit down now and change this behavior? that we would put ourselves under a more physically strong

position, it would make the future generation make our nation stronger and make the economic and stronger in this country. that is why we should sit down. this was the first conversation i had with the president of a winning speaker, things i wanted to talk with him about. -- nobody wants to do that at the last minute. let's change the behavior now, let's sit down. he is the president, we are the majority in the house, the democrats are the majority in the senate and that is exactly the way the founders designed congress to work, find a compromise and the common sense compromise that puts us back onto a balanced budget that i believe every household, every state, every city, every county -- why with the democrats say just raise it with no discussion? i don't think the american people want that. host: maya macguineas.

guest: let me say what the speaker says there makes a lot of sense. the point is when we approach the debt ceiling, we pause, assess our situation, anyone at our budget office knows we are not where we need to be fiscally. i think the speaker is saying we need to make changes and this is a time to talk about it. i'm going to make this point, everything i say, no one should be talking about default. this should not be about holding the debt ceiling hostage, that would be damaging. using it as an opportunity for conversation, absolutely. you wanted to bring a politics and there is politics involved here. when it was increased under president trump, the same people were not making the same requests. what is really outrageous is that under the trump debt increases, we attached legislation that increased the

debt. well over a trillion come out almost $2 trillion in new borrowing as part of the debt ceiling increases. that is a typical, backwards way to list the debt ceiling. met with bipartisan support and detrimental to the fiscal health of the country. it is frustrating to see people only care of the issue depending on who is in office or not. like they said, everything is politics. with the speakers asking for is let's sit down and figure out how to attach reasonable measures that will deal with borrowing and spending. i will point out one other thing. two, if it is ok. one is balancing the budget. we will not be able to in the next decade. it used to be reasonable and i wish we were back there. we have waited so long to address this and we are borrowing more than a trillion dollars per year, toward $2 trillion a year is out of reach.

it would cost well over $14 trillion in savings and this is a congress that has not saved more than a couple hundred billion dollars in a decade. balancing the budget in 10 years is not a reasonable goal. let's find a reasonable -- reasonable goal that incentive being a talking point let's get this away in the head of the country. there was a lot of confusion that lifting the debt ceiling means you are authorizing new borrowing. we are borrowing because legislation was passed the requirements. -- we have tracked spending increases, they were supported by republicans and democrats, many bipartisan. it goes all around but i my asked hurts -- not -- you

should -- if you are going to say they are borrowing, you should lift the debt ceiling. going forward it makes sense to say we're going to take policies there. the people who want to be so fiscally responsible and i would applaud the conversation, i would encourage all makers to promise not to engage in new borrowing in the coming year. we have huge deficits and debt. we have inflation, which borrowing makes worse. the economy is strong enough that this is a time there is no justification to borrow more. they should agree they are not going to pass legislation that adds to the debt. that would be fiscally responsible. host: (202) 748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for

republicans, (202) 748-8002 for independents and you can text us at (202) 748-8003. -- caller: it is telling for kevin mccarthy to make this absurd household credit card analogy when in that circumstance, the credit card company establishes the limit. you can't just increase the limit on a credit card because it is a monday, unlike congress who can decide when and how they want to spend because it is a ridiculous argument. that is not the time to decide whether or not you're going to pay it. you've already paid the bill. time to have an argument or

discussion about how much you want to spend is before you consume the product or service. this entire debate is asinine. if the democrats and biden have any amount of backbone, they would tell the republicans to kick rocks. if they want to shut down the government, let them do it. you do this before their tax cuts or whatever. host: we will stop it there, thanks for the call. guest: great point about the timing. congress does not get to dine and ditch. they already engaged in the borrowing so now is the time to pay the bill. the debt ceiling is basically the only fiscal restraint that we have in the budget. the first we have in the budget

last year, the house and senate budget committee failed to put the budget out of the committee. we operated last year, they had not done any the work the budget committees need to do. i hope that changes this year. we need to have budget committees that put budgets, it is the backbone of a fiscal blueprint and think about what you're doing. it is really terrible the country runs without a budget but the point i wanted to make, at the same time, there are no restraints in the budgets so you can pass a budget that has unlimited borrowing. what we need to do is not focus on the debt ceiling so much because instead we put in place reasonable metrics. when you pass a budget you should have to hit a certain target debt of shared gdp. ours is about twice what it has been historically, 97% of gdp. we need to pick targets that realistically bring that down so it is not heading up the way it is with debt growing faster than the economy. we should have other measures in

place so there are fiscal constraints, we cannot borrow in an unlimited way and it is driven by politics and not economics. it makes sense to borrow sometimes, made sense to borrow during covid, it does not make sense to borrow today. if we could shift some of the budget process so it controls that borrowing and takes the power of the debt ceiling away and puts it somewhere more appropriate like to the point about timing, that would be a big improvement in the budget process. host: democrats line from new jersey, rhonda, hello. caller: good morning and happy new year to all fellow americans. this really infuriates me and a lot of people that i know, that the republican party would go in and deliberately bankrupt this country on purpose, thinking they can blame joe biden and win another election. first of all, if people like

marjorie taylor greene would pay us back the $2 million she got forgiven as a loan from the economic package, $2 million this woman got, $2 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest americans in the country. just repeal that. what about the fact that donald trump did not pay $.10 in taxes and lied for the last five years saying he was being audited? the republican party is a fascist party taking over our country. we will lose our country. host: thank you, rhonda. guest: what i'm going to respond to is the frustration, the anger, and the vitriol out there in this discussion. i get it, there is that kind of anger on both sides. it is not going to allow us to fix these problems so i do not

think either party is trying to really harm the country. i think what they are trying to do is push an objective and in many ways the ways it gets done is not to the liking of the other party. i'm going to agree threatening to default is not an acceptable way to go along with this. i also think pretending we are not going to have to make changes to our fiscal situation is not responsible. i think the answer on all of this is our members of congress need to work together more closely and build trust. there is little trust. they need to spend a lot more time working together, not meeting as two teams. i don't know how many people think this is the smartest way to run the country is divided us into two teams and have people fight it out. this is not going to be in the best interest of the country, the best interest of republicans versus democrats, and we see that is not helping us put in place good legislation or govern

in a sound way. i think building some trust extending some understanding, trying to understand more, makes sense. i'm not saying all behavior is acceptable. there's a lot in congress that is not. the loss of truth, the loss of trust, fundamental problems that affect our economic and political system, and we cannot function if we do not get them back. while i understand you hold a lot of anger and there are people on the others either feel the same way about democrats, and some frustrations are credibly legitimate, i think the only way we solve the problem is trying to understand the perspective on each side and when i hear from republicans who generalize as we want to talk about the fiscal issue. if they talk about defaults, that is not credible but if they talk about sitting down and having conversations, that is important. what i hear from democrats or we will not be held hostage on this. that is right but they are also saying they don't not -- do not want to sit down and have a conversation. we need to. we need to have this

conversation as quickly as possible and put good ideas out there about what could be part of the debt ceiling increase. in the past decade, we almost always included improvements to the fiscal situation along with debt ceiling increases. many great ideas came out of these from pay-as-you-go rules to actual government savings, fiscal commissions, things that try to improve the situation. i think we need to go back to an arrow or that was the norm, not like the past couple increases where we made the situation worse. not like 10 years ago and people threatened to default but instead a healthy conversation about the fact this country is borrowing so much that our debt is faster than our economy, the single fastest growing part of the budget is interest payments. they are going to trip over the next decade. we spend almost $500 million -- $500 billion on interest payments. these are our leaders and we need them to sit down and have a discussion and make a non-chaotic opportunity to make

changes. host: this viewer from wisconsin asked what is -- what specific proposals should you make should the discussion take place? guest: i think the easiest thing to be part of the debt ceiling increase -- what we really need is overall savings. we need a package, let's say what you want to do is stabilize debt at the share of gdp where it is, that would require $7 trillion of savings, that is a lot. we put out a plan to show how you can do that not because i think it is the right or perfectly but because from the sidelines it is easier to save here are things that could work and may be it is helpful to look at. is that doable for congress? that is probably too large so i would scale back and say let's find a package of maybe four chilean dollars in savings. it will not fix the problem but will be a serious and impressive effort to save that much money. if that is too hard and it may be, we can attach an overall fiscal commission likely done in the past two the increase of the debt ceiling or pass it before. it would be better to pass it right away and lift the debt

ceiling because of it. the fiscal situation is so bad all parts of the budget have to be on the table. those who talk about will not touch taxes, it is not realistic. those who make promises not to touch social security and medicare, not only is that not realistic, that is incredible he damaging to those programs because they have trust funds headed toward insolvency. changes have to be made. defense has to be on the table, all parts of the budget has to be looked at, scoured, figured out, where you can have savings and what would be a balance package but if that were to happen within the fiscal commission, it might make it easier to get done. i don't think we can get the real work of $4 trillion in savings between now and the summer. i would encourage them to look at bipartisan legislation out there that is passed -- that was offered in previous congress is there there are some that look at the entire budget, there is a trust act which looks at whatever different trust funds

in the government are headed toward insolvency, creating special working groups that would look at how to fix those nothing about how the outcome has to be, everything is on the table but says you have to evaluate what we can do to fix the programs. first choice is let's have an actual package of savings. given how hard i think that would be, i think a commission would make a lot of sense. host: from john in ohio, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. let's call it like it is, the prior administration spent as much as they want when they wanted to, they got three approvals on budgets, they raked in three times, no one complains, everybody just went along with the plan. they took to trillion dollars from social security, they gave $2 trillion in tax breaks to the rich, and they did not care about anything. there was no discussion, there was no disapproval, and it

continued to go on as long as they were in charge but now there is someone else in charge and they are tracking this administration and trying to destroy the united states of america and make it the divided states of america and kind of going to see a bad show in vegas, you've got smoke and mirrors on one side and what is really going on on the others. host: thanks, caller. guest: let me agree on part of that which was the past administration, trump administration, was one of the worst administrations fiscally we have seen. there were huge tax cuts that were unpaid for. what is lesser-known was there were huge spending increases also unpaid for. and a number of additional tax cuts that were bipartisan in nature. overall, the trump administration oversaw increasing the debt over 10 years, which is how we look at the numbers, by over $7 trillion.

most of that, much of it was when the economy was very strong and there was no reason to be borrowing. the fiscal record was damaging, and on top of that, president trump promised not to touch social security and medicare and i know that sounds good, i know that sounds good to pray much everybody because they are important programs and they do so much for people who depend on them but social security and medicare have trust funds that are not going to be able to pay everything promised. we have to make changes to the programs. there are many options for how we do so but doing nothing will mean there are across-the-board spending cuts when the trust funds do not have the money to pay benefits. that is what the law requires. whenever anybody promises you whether president trump or aarp or columnists talking about how we should not touch these programs, whenever someone says don't touch social security and medicare, they are driving us toward damaging across-the-board benefit cuts for people who depend on the program.

anybody who is serious -- and people need to level with all of us. anyone who is serious that read what the trustees said will tell you we have to figure out how we are going to make the programs solvent again sooner rather than later. waiting until the last minute makes the changes very painful. i think it was alarming when president trump set i will not touch social security and medicare and a lot of people went along with that. i'm very concerned to see the current administration picking up that same language. it is easy to demagogue this issue, it is hard to tell the truth. i will probably get angry callers in the next few minutes but the fact is those programs need to have changes so we can align what we are promising benefits with what is coming in in revenue. it is not fair to the american people to continue down this path when we know we cannot pay what we promised. host: what is the least egregious change you can make to social security? guest: social security, the real key is to put in changes that we

face gradually. let's agree nobody who is on the program or close to retirement is going to be affected by any of the benefit changes. but you could raise the retirement age, start it gradually, start it down the road for people under x age but we are living much longer. when social security started, 65 was the expectation and 62 was the life expectancy it i think young people don't expect to get much out of social security and if we made the program solvent but they knew they would have to work a few more years, that would be a reasonable trade-off. others is a chain cpi, that we calculate inflation in a way that overstates it in many places. we change that on the revenue side, on the spending side, that could help with social security. final two policies, slow the growth of benefits for people who do not depend on the program as much and we should look at lifting payroll tax cap so

we are taxing higher up the income spectrum. this could make the programs solvent and make it strong for the people who depend on it the most. host: you have a viewer, ed in new jersey, sang one of the real world consequences -- what are the real world consequences if the united states defaults? guest: we don't know because it's never happened before but let's not find out. the fact we borrow by issuing treasuries, they are the backbone of the global financial system. people depend on the u.s. both when they look at us as economically and politically stable. this would call that into question. the last time there was discussion of default we were downgraded. all of the changes mean they can boil stock markets, boil markets throughout the growth -- globe, but in portly it will push up our interest rates. interest rates are incredibly influential in our overall economy because we have so much debt. if interest rates are to go up by one percentage more than they

are already expecting, that increases your interest payments on the debt by about $230 billion per year or 2.3 chilean dollars. that is more than the trump tax cuts and the programs we have passed in recent years. that is one percentage point. any talk of default or actual default would likely push interest rates up, likely pushing us into recession, the rest of the world into recession, and it is one of the huge tipping points we should not find out and even getting close to it, flirting with that, credibly talking about it, will make things more costly because people will lose their confidence in the u.s. treasury markets. host: from texas, republican line, john, hello. caller: good morning. you said the viewers my call and get mad but let me share my little frustration but i will give you examples of ways we can probably solve the problem.

number one, raise the amount of money when you pay on social security tax. whatever you make you will pay that 6%, period. whether it's one dollar, 10 million dollars, or other. i have two, this is critical, those of medicaid need to start paying without really pay for the medicare. it is not right to have people get a free ride on somebody else's dime. number three, do away with the child tax credit. i know that sounds harsh but nobody should be rewarded for having children. the bottom half of america when they file their tax returns, they are getting most of their federal withholding if not all of it back because they did not make enough and then the government turns around and gives him free money. we don't have it and it is time we tell america the truth and start doing something about it. thank you. guest: so what i really appreciate is the caller called in with actual ideas to make the fiscal situation better.

they are really hard. this is like -- why politicians run away from the issue because talking about raising taxes or cutting spending and your talking about both really, that is incredibly difficult to do and what is required so i do not necessarily agree with each and every one of those. i agree with some of them, but that is the point. we can disagree on how we want to make the situation better but if people are willing to put on the table this is what i would look like -- look at that would reduce borrowing, we could have an honest discussion. but what you hear out of capitol hill is platitudes, waste, fraud, and abuse or this will pay for itself or we will have a spending cap and never talk about what that would leave to -- lead to. what i and you just put on the table that people don't love, that's the real issue. what would we do to bring borrowing down? that was a very productive contribution. host: there's a viewer who asked in that vein that republicans

have touted about a national sales tax. what do you think about the idea and what does it do as far as putting money into coffers? guest: a national sales tax is a consumption tax. our system is focused on income tax. there are two different big issues. one is what we tax? should we tax income, consumption, carbon, sodas, alcohols, all sorts of different things. there are tech is -- taxes you can look at. there's a consumption tax, i think there is some appeal in that. it would incentivize work and savings so there's a lot you can do from that. there is another question, the distribution of who pays taxes. a sales tax can be very regressive, a sales tax that exempts certain goods causes problem because it causes inflation in those goods. i think if you look at how to do tax and consumption, i have always been a fan of the progressive consumption tax,

your first $50,000 would be free, your next 200,000 would be at one rate and higher, higher rate. i think it's a reasonable discussion to have. should we move to consumption tax? does it replace existing tax or on top of them? host: buddy carter had a proposal that would replace income, medicare, and social security taxes. guest: if you want to tax consumption enough, the rate has to be high because you don't tax on government consumption for instance. that would not make sense. so the rate becomes possibly prohibited. the bottom line, really rate -- will it raise enough revenue to meet the spending we have? from the macro goal, i look at other than a recession an emergency, you want to make sure the trajectory between spending and revenue is getting closer and we will need to reduce spending and raise revenue.

host: she is president for committee for responsible federal budget. we go to milton next in philadelphia, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. republicans, i don't understand them. they have the harshest statements, it's our way or the highway. when trump was in there is no problem raising the debt ceiling but when biden is in there's a problem. if you say you want to cut spending, mccarthy and them, tell us what you are going to cut. you know they are not telling us anything. they want biden and the democrats to walk the plank but they do not want to tell you what areas of spending they want to cut. i think they are hypocritical. you want to say it then tell the american people what you want. why not repeal the $2 trillion tax cuts trump past. they are not talking about taxes but they want to cut programs and the programs will hit poor people more than others.

host: can i ask about the task cuts? has president biden talked about resending the cuts? as far as proposals? guest: yes. there budget does not assume they would be is extended. we will have a big discussion on whether they will be extending or not when they expire. president bush past tax cuts and present obama extended the majority of them. from where i say, that would not be a responsible thing to do at all in the coming years because unless they are offset but we do not have the money for more tax cuts without question. i agree about this point. i am very sympathetic to the discussion that we need to have which is we have to talk about the fiscal state of the country. it is bad and the debt ceiling is one of the only times that discussion is likely to happen. however, there is a real hypocrisy here, which is the same people who, without any concern lifted the debt ceiling when a president of their party was in office and made it worse,

now remember the fiscal situation is a problem, that is not true to the issue. this is a principled issue -- how i see it as a principled issue, if someone changes based on the politics of the moment, that is not a principle play to look at it. i'm concerned about people who say when our president is in office we are going to lift the debt ceiling no problem but now that president biden is in office we are not willing. that does not give any credibility. -- credibility to what i think is a reasonable position, which is we need to make changes what we do it. for the specific request, i agree that it is time for people to put specifics on the table and get this done in the next few months, not weight until the last minute when there is a deadline. is there hypocrisy in the way the debt ceiling has been handled there? absolutely. is there legitimacy in saying you want the discussion to

happen? yes but the credibility is undermined because of the hypocrisy. that is why this is so murky, the area about how to go forward and build good space on the issue. i do think that -- i was reading a column today and he was talking about how you should not care about this issue and all sorts of numbers on the interest payments which i think miss a point and get it wrong and i was thinking about how people change their mind depending on who is in office and you are seeing this with republicans with president biden in office. you will remember when -- thought hillary clinton would be president, he said it is time to borrow. he wrote a whole column about it. as soon as donald trump ran and won, to his surprise, he said deficits matter again. this isn't an issue that depends on the politics of the moment or who is in power, this is an issue about economics. if you borrow too much, it undermines the strength of your

economy. it pushes the interest payments up in your budget which is happening now. they will be probably at the record share of gdp in the decade. it leaves you ill prepared for the next emergency weather covid, recession, or some other problem. we have to borrow, it will make it more difficult. it leaves us dependent on borrowing from other countries with whom we are not aligned and leaves us unable to make important investments and changes to social contract that reflect the moment we are living in. we have a social contract that was created for last century, not this century. we need to make changes but our budget, our promised some any programs, the fastest growing his interest on the debt, that it does not leave us able to do that. the fiscal health of the country is really going to weaken our nation and people who played politics with it -- and this happens on all sides -- people who demagogue and pretends social security and medicare due to -- do not need to be strength and are doing a dust to the

country. this worries me about where we are headed because of it. host: the latest column, please don't feed the debt skull. guest: he's been calling people names, putting things out of context and even if you read the column you see numbers that are misleading on the interest payments which are a big problem in the fiscal situation right now and you cannot pretend this is not a problem but you in particular cannot pretend it is not a problem only when you, the people you like our governing and is a problem when other people are. i say that with what is going on with capitol hill but also columnists. host: independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. just to mark time when i was a senior in high school in the late 1970's, i think we were $450 billion in debt. one politician said a little bit of debt is a good thing. then you fast-forward to now, i

am a capitalist. i believe in capitalism. that is not a four letter word but we really don't talk about it much anymore. our involvement in the european union since world war ii -- i will be quick -- the u.n., nato, we set it all up. i worked with those people over there for many years. they are not living up to their part. the european union, you look at their gdp ended about matches us. the european union is supposed to take care of their affairs on that side of the globe, specifically we are to take our affairs, take care of them that we will in south america and our side of the globe so we are not living up to that bargain whatsoever. i do not see how we will move forward in this situation when we are not talking to each other seriously. i do not believe in trading simply put communist nations. we have changed too much on this

regard. i think we ought to reference john f. kennedy. he did not believe in trading with communist nations and that is what we have done and everyone enjoyed about 20 years of it. you are not enjoying it now, are you? host: thanks. guest: a lot of interesting points. i was start with agreeing with that point, a little debt as a good thing. our debt plays a very important role in our economy in the financial system but too much debt as we have now is a damaging thing. i think it is a legitimate point to put out there that u.s. is paying more than its fair share of national security issues around the world. this will be a really tricky one. there are always savings we could have on the fence, constantly the presidents put forth a request for the defense budget and congress gives the defense budget much more than the president wanted. that is because there are local /regional interests affected. so there is a great deal of savings to be had and you can't even audit the defense department. there is so much money that is

not able to be tracked. savings can be found. same times there are new threats popping up around the world. i would focus on cybersecurity and that will take big investments in new areas of national security so i wish i thought there was a lot of money to save on defense, i'm not an expert and i would trust the experts more than me. i think what we will need to see is shifting money to different areas of the budget and i do not think we will be able to have a huge peace dividend we have seen in the past. thing -- fingers crossed they should. the situation which in his very complicated and getting more attention. congress is running an important commission looking into this in terms of interacting with china. everyone is now focusing on that as an issue and we will see how those things affect us and it will probably be tough on the economy in some ways and have some fiscal cost echoes along with changes. host: republican line from tennessee, this is joe. caller: good morning.

i don't understand how they knew this was coming out but still they come in on a friday and put an ominous bill down which will produce fear mongering for the washington trail, michelle obama, and they send this package to ukraine, this is money coming out of us. then nobody talks about obama using $800 billion passing the affordable care act that came out of social security fund. my solution to this and maybe hunter biden ought to sell some of his art and donate it to our problem we got going on. that's all i gotta say. guest: a lot of issues there. i will pick up on the bus issue. the way we budget is not working. as i mentioned already, we do not pass budgets -- last year the budget committees did not even bother to try. i do not know what they are doing if they are doing if

they're not passing budgets. then we don't get our appropriations bills done on time, then we end up passing these continuing resolutions, omnibus as with so many things in them, no one knows what's in them, no one has read them, it is a terrible way to budget and govern. i really hope we can make some of the needed changes to our budget process or it is required a budget gets submitted by the white house on time and the white house said february's budget will be late again, should not be. congress is required to come up with budgets out of the budget committees and the house and senate and are required to reconcile them and come up with a budget as they are supposed to. you build an automatic default and triggers if that doesn't happen. the appropriations bill has to get past. i don't know but i hope i don't regret this but i think we optimistically might make progress this year. i think the budget committee in the house and senate will make a real effort to come up with budgets. i think the folks running the

appropriations committees will make a real effort to get some, maybe not all, but some bills passed before the end of the year. we have to stop budgeting by crisis. we have to stop threatening to shut down and we have to stop threatening to default on our debt because they don't know how to improve the situation. we need to get our work done with these crises that are contributing to the country. host: let's take one mark all from ken in miami, florida. democrats align. -- democrats line. caller: the last couple of years, interest rates have gone up and my understanding is that the government did not refinance the debt while the interest rates were low which would have saved hundreds of aliens of dollars on each point.

my question is, is that correct? whether it is or is not correct, who would refinance the federal debt to lower rates? would it be the federal reserve board or the treasury department? guest: yes, rates were so low and there is a number of reasons why. much of it was because of the operations of the fed. there was a lot of talk of should we issue longer-term debt to take advantage of low rates? the treasury department where the decisions are made did great research into figuring out the balance between the need for liquidity and to control costs. they have models and studied and come up with what they think is the right maturities on the debt. so much of our debt is short-term, about one third will mature in under a year. between 50% and two thirds in

five years. this debt will turned over and be subject to higher interest rates which will lead to higher interest payments. even when interest rates were so low and people were saying, don't worry, that's a big mistake. that's a seductive but dangerous model because it means that when borrowing turns over, suddenly you will have a lot more debt subject to the interest rates. so much debt with growing interest rates is why they are the fastest-growing part of our budget. it was a smart thing to think about, extending the length of our debt but there are reasons we didn't because of liquidity and i trust the treasury to have made responsible decisions. interest rate payments are going up fast and that will be $500 billion we cannot spend. if you want more spending or tax

cuts, 500 billion just going to interest payments, a lot of it going outside of our economy. host: the committee for a responsible federal budget, mai a macginnes. if you want to comment on what you have seen, (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. >> the state of the union is strong because you, the american people are strong. >> president biden delivers his annual state of the union address, outlining his priorities to congress on february 7.

his first speech since republicans one back control of the house. -- won back control of the house. watch live coverage on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code to receive the schedule, author discussions, book festivals, and more. every sunday on c-span two or online at book tv.org. television for serious readers. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word, it happens here or here or

here or anywhere that matters. america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress, your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, information on committees, the cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code tpreorder your copy for early spring -- spring delivery. every purchase helps support our nonprofit. c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you want to text on open forum you can do that on (202) 748-8003. the senate judiciary committee will take a look at the practices of ticketmaster in light of recent news. you may remember in november,

the taylor swift concert caused the website to crash. the committee will hear testimony on competition, fees, and consumer protection, right here at 10:00 on c-span, on our app at c-span now, or online at c-span.org. again, this is open forum up until 10:00. this is from james in buffalo, kentucky, on the republican line. you are on. caller: thank you, sir. i've always enjoyed your show and watch it all the time. one thing the lady did not come up with, people coming in illegally is costing our country a lot of money. at the same token, we can't even take care of our own people but

we are taking care of other people. this thing about the democrats talking about the one per centers getting tax cuts. most of those 1%ers democrats so if they are so concerned about tax cuts, why don't they democrats send that money back? i will be waiting for a check. i'm sure they will not send back anything. host: from missouri on our independent line, this is otto. i have a question about the amounts of money borrowed from the social security trust fund i the federal government. and how much interest on the money they borrowed? host: as far as interest, why is that? caller: they got 30 some trillion dollars as a debt owed to this country. how much did we borrow from ourselves? host: wayne is in new york.

ticonderoga, republican line. caller: hello. i was wondering about if there has ever been much thought or dialogue of having an amendment that would require a balanced budget. i also heard interesting ideas on the country returning to the gold standard, and if any of that would help in terms of the making balanced budget decisions by our lawmakers? that would help a lot. host: why do you think the gold standard aspect is important? caller: because our dollar would be based on something real, tangible, as opposed to something that can be inflated or manipulated. host: that's wayne in new york. a couple stories to share, "the new york times" reporting on four members of the oath keepers

convicted of sedition in that second trial. the defendants were originally charged along with other members but their trial was broken off as a separate proceeding by the judge. because of space considerations in the courtroom. if you go down, "the decision came hours after a journey -- a jury found richard barnett guilty on eight charges including obstruction of an official proceeding and theft of government property. the earlier trial members resulted in mixed outcomes with two of the five defendants found guilty of sedition, conspiracy, and the most serious charge acquitted mr. rhodes of conspiracy. the government depicted the defendants in the second trial as lower in the organization than those in the first case, and more readily display --

deployed as foot soldiers are come "the washington times" highlights a story in most of the pictures. a former top fbi counterintelligence official was involved in the trump-russia collusion investigation was arrested on charges to violate u.s. sanctions against russia. he has been a special agent in charge of the fbi counterintelligence division in new york is accused of taking secret payments from a russian billionaire in exchange for investigating a rival oligarch. if you want to see more, that is "the washington times." from new hampshire, democrats line, this is gary. caller: how are you this morning? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: i want to discuss the gun laws that need to be changed so badly.

it is high time the united states congress stepped up, especially the republicans. it is the nra, who cares about the nra? because of the shootings, the nra making these campaign contributions, it's time the republican party stopped taking contributions and step up and enact common sense gun laws that will save lives. host: i apologize, you are starting to break up. ronald, jericho, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that just with open forum, that you dedicate more of the time just

to have people call and give their opinions. like today, for example, after you mentioned open forum, the first thing you got was a commercial for c-span and what it has to offer. and now, you and other hosts interject news stories into this period of time. there is little enough time for people to call in. you give them just 100% of the opportunity during this limited period of the time with no interruptions and no interjections of news stories and so forth. host: thank you for the call. it's always been our practice to not only give you the chance to talk about what you want to talk about in this open forum, but we interject the political import as it happens in congress and the white house. that's part of the forum and has been part of that over the many years c-span has operated. thank you for the call.

thank you for noticing. telling you about this poll from abc news and it sows, one feature found a large geordie of americans believe that -- majority of americans believe that donald trump and president biden handled classified documents. when asked who was more serious, president trump's actions were more serious. there was also a question, the white house press secretary at the briefing yesterday. >> we had a poll with ipsos. 54% of the americans believe the president acted incorrectly in the way he handled classified files. how worried is the white house but this is hurting the president's trustworthiness? >> our focus will continue.

basically what i've said, delivering for the american people, that's our focus. that is what the president will do every day, what can we do to make the lives of americans better? that's what he has done. i've laid out the pieces of legislation the president was able to do, some in a bipartisan way. many of the pieces of legislation that have passed from the economic policy plan have changed the lives and will change the lives of americans. that will be our focus. not going to go into a rabbit hole or details about thoughts on polls. but we are going to do is talk every day about our message to the american people and continue to have that healthy back-and-forth and talk about our policies, talk about what the president is doing every day with the vice president and his

team, to make sure we deal with issues that matter to the american people. host: that full press briefing available on our website at c-span.org and the c-span now app. from massachusetts, john, republican line. john in massachusetts, republican line. one more time. folks at home, example as far as making sure you are ready to go when your time comes up. turn your television down, pay attention, and when your name is called, jump right in. particularly during this open forum. calvin in georgia, democrats line. caller: how are you today? host: fine, thank you, go ahead. caller: another way to trim some of the budget is congressman would take a pay cut and pay for their own health insurance.

that would hope this country in a lot of ways. thank you. host: let's go to jim in iowa, independent line. caller: yes, good morning. i am independent. i vote for people, not for the parties. maybe there should be more of us. my comment is, if you go to any type of federal sales tax, i realize that consumption, however if you are a retired middle-class worker, you paid your share all during your work career and now we will be paralyzed especially if it replaces payroll taxes which we paid and now that number for sales tax would have to be astronomically high.

and we would definitely be penalized. i do not think that a federal sales tax would be an or fair way to have tax. -- equitable or fair way to have tax. host: anthony, republican line. caller: good morning. last month's congressman al green was on talking about border security, and i called and asked him a question. to his credit, he didn't know the answer and he told me that he would have his staff look it up. sure enough, he did. he kept his word. his staff called me and i spoke personally to congressman greene about what the questions i asked. i asked about asylum laws and how the laws are being abused.

the first question i asked, what percent of the people who claim asylum actually show up for their asylum claims? 249 thousand 379 people showed up for their asylum in 2022. out of that, 22,264 cases were granted asylum. that is less than 10% of the people that show up. in 2022, 2374 -- 2,374,000 people showed up at our border. people are claiming asylum. everybody knows it's a sham that when they claim asylum, they are not showing up and when they do, only 10% are granted. the second question i asked is how many people get removed? to his credit, he said there is no database being kept of people

who are removed. therefore, we all know that these people who are not granted asylum are not being removed unless they commit a crime. we have an open door policy with joe biden and basically the statistics show that. anybody that says the border is closed is crazy. asylum needs to be upheld and we need to continue to follow the law. host: one more thing, were you surprised that you got the call back? caller: i'm not a big al green fan to be honest. in the past, i've seen him as a detriment to our congress. but when he said he did not know the answer and said he would get back to me, i was impressed and i am still impressed. host: that's anthony in pennsylvania. let's hear from raleigh, north

carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a lieutenant governor candidate north carolina so thank you for the time. the last speaker in pennsylvania had great information regarding the open border and immigration. in north carolina, we are a sanctuary state so we have seen an influx of immigrants coming from venezuela, coming from other parts of south america to north carolina, and jobs have been easily accessible to them. different health care, public transit. the homeless population in north carolina continues to grow. congressman nichol made an interesting point. he said that yes, we do need to allow immigrants to come into our nation and state, but we need to have immigration laws

and for individuals to become u.s. citizens or obtain green cards legally. i believe that the hundred 18th -- 118th congress has a long way to go but if they continue to work with republicans and independents, the agenda will be pushed. regarding what the press secretary said about the economy, i do believe at this present time, the biden-harris administration should look at reparations for individuals of slavery, descendants of slavery and shadow slavery. once we discussed the social standpoint, we can ride out inflation but it starts with the black american population first. host: "the washington post" reporting hakeem jeffries has

formally recommended that adam schiff and eric swalwell be reappointed, escalating a clash with the house speaker who has vowed to deny the spots to those california democrats. "it is my understanding you plan to break with the tradition of deference and denies seats to ranking members? he wrote in a letter, "the denial of seats of duly elected members of the congress -- the sober mission of the intelligence committee." robert is next in greenville, north carolina. caller: good morning. on the social security, they keep mentioning when they started it everybody's life expectancy was 62. basically, they were setting us

up right from the beginning. let's make it 65 to retire because everybody is dead at the age of 62. that was the plan. every time it comes to social security, that's important to the majority of the elderly and we are living longer now. all you senators and house of representatives, they have the greatest benefits. when they travel out of the country, they bring their spouse with them. they have great insurance, great retirement. and guess what? when they break the law you can't anything. we have people in our congress and senate that have basically been breaking the law since the big steal/ host: andy, republican line.

caller: is this for me? host: if you are sandy. caller: i wasn't sure. i'm calling about the woman who said we need to get rid of the guns, which is what biden says. don't they take an oath to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights? biden said no amendment is absolute so people are getting fired for telling the truth about things. we have no free speech anymore and they ban words. by the way, the gun thing, this has never happened when i grew up ever. the problem is that nobody goes to church anymore and is taught right from wrong. broken families, no father in the house.

the democrats will give you a bigger welfare check if you don't have a father to help your child grow up with being taught right and wrong. little kids with guns, it is ridiculous. red flag laws, 20 times that one kid, 20 times, all of the red flag laws, and they don't arrest the kid and put him in a mental facility? they want this to happen. obama sent guns to mexico so that people would get killed so there would be an uproar. host: you or someone in your family, or related to someone may have attempted to buy taylor swift tickets in november which caused the ticketmaster website to crash. a lot of vitriol coming out of that which has resulted in a

hearing taking place in the senate judiciary committee. they will hear testimony on the ticket promotion of fees of ticketmaster, competition and consumer protection. live coverage as that room starts to fill up for this hearing that starts at about five minute. you can see it live from this network. if you are out and about, c-span now is available as well as the c-span website, c-span.org. you may have heard the concept of sports betting. "washington post" picks up the concept of political betting with a website called predictive where you can place bets and win money on political outcomes such as who might win and what bill will pass, how many times donald trump will say the words "crooked hillary" at his debate. 80,000 people will use predict it.

most of the people do so casually, throwing a few bucks bang on the election -- a few bucks on the election but it can be more than a hobby, a life job. they predict a category of super forecasters who spend hours watching c-span and going to extraordinary lengths in search of an edge. it goes on from there, but if you are interested in such a concept, go to "the washington post brenda in pennsylvania, the democrats line. caller: i would like to recommend everybody to learn facts about life in the united states, any aspect, i recommend that you buy a copy of the world almanac book of facts. and to the previous caller, in that book you will find statistics from the department of homeland security on the number of people that are

deported every year. i encourage people to buy a copy of the world almanac book of facts. to our budget, people want to make our budget simple but it's not. congress sets the budget year in advance. -- budget a year in advance. the money they are counting on is a guesstimate. they don't know how much they have to spend and they are trying to set a budget in advance. federal income tax, federal revenue fluctuates daily. for example, when i retired, i didn't call the treasury and say, you know what, i retired, you are not going to get my $15,000 in federal income tax so you better pair off $15,000 of spending. like i said, income fluctuates daily. congress is just projecting how

much they will have to spend and trying to send a budget a year in advance. plus, no one really knows how much national devastation is going to be you know what they are. host: let's hear from mark and minnesota on the independent line. were about to start this hearing shortly. caller: i have a quick message for my fellow americans out there. stop voting for this two-party system that no longer works for any of us except the chosen few like millionaires and billionaires. if you do not like what is going on, please vote for a third party president candidate in 2024. host: finishing up this round of the open forum in the program for today. another addition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow morning. don't forget the hearing taking

a look at the practices of ticketmaster, especially what their practices mean for the consumer. that said to start in just a few minutes. [indiscernible] >> we are live on capitol hill this morning. the park seven office building is the scene where they are said

to hear from the ticketing industry. this is in the wake of ticketmaster's sale for a taylor swift concert tour that left many people wondering why the tickets were not available when expected. during the pre-sale for taylor swift's arrows tour, ticketmaster stopped purchases giving high demand versus their current inventory. live nation's entertainment ceo is set to testify. we expected to start in just a moment.

[indiscernible]