regarding section four. -- regarding section4, it is notpp to systems, it only ovides to software providers. with the question about possible implications of the decision, it is normal practices in whether there is a mioto dismiss the plaintiff to amend with relative standard. that is where we should be for an opportunity. >> thank you, counsel. case is submitted. >> the honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow at 10:00.

>> today the u.s. supreme cour heard oral arguments with google. to protect usersonnt on internet platforms ratif you missed any of the alrguments we will re-air it tonight starting at 00astern on c-span. yo can also wch it anytime at c-span now, our free mobile video app or c-span org -- or c-span.org, our mobile -- our website. >> joining us is todd harris of strategic insight reserve as their manager drink -- their managing director. a little bit about your organization. what is it? guest: strategic insights is a

strategy in public policy focused business unit within a larger company. we do pathfinding research trade particularly for government sponsors. you want to look farther and see what is coming down the road. host: is that a part of the defensive industry itself? guest: not defense industry but the government, different organizations within the department of defense and partner with us to do research. host: when it comes to issues of defense spending and how it fits into the larger budget, how do you view these things? not only what is being asked by the government but how it is spent. guest: becoming more of a hot button issue now with the new congress. taking a closer look on the overall level of federal spending, you have got to look at it within different context. one, looking at the total amount of defense spending over time, adjusting for inflation. in that respect, we are near the highest we have ever been.

even higher than we were at the peak of spending in world war ii, when you adjust for inflation. another way of looking at it is defense spending as a percentage of the economy, a percentage of gdp. in that respect, we are fairly low. we are down to about 3% of gdp spending. how can those to be true? how can it be high in adjusted dollars and lower with gdp? the economy over many decades has grown faster than the defense budget. defense is a percentage of the overall budget. that depends on which part of the budget you are talking about. looking at the total federal budget which is almost $6 trillion this year. defense is a little over 14 of that. the part that congress has to approve every year, the rest is

on autopilot. the discretionary budget is $1.7 trillion. host: those 2022 figures, what do we see as far as spending? guest: in 2022, 1 of the things that was not expected, the beginning of the fiscal year was the russian invasion in ukraine. to help the ukrainian military to provide them with arms to defend themselves. a lot of other issues going on within the defense budget. d.o.t. is ramping up his spending, research and development to invest in new technologies and capabilities that will one day lead to new types of weapons systems that can be incorporated into our force to modernize our force. right now the department is engaged in a host of

modernization issues. to replace equipment and its inventory. much of which is 30, 40, 50 years old and even older in some cases. equipment that has to be replaced. we like to think of that as a modernization bow wave. pushing a ship. eventually that bow wave comes crashing down. that is happening now. throughout the 20 20's, dod has a lot of expensive bills to pay to replace a lot of critical equipment and inventory. host: when it comes to 2023, legislatively we saw something called the national defense authorization act. remind our viewers what that is. guest: every year, two bills we get for defense, one is an authorization bill, the other is an appropriations bill. ideally you want both.

in the past years we have gotten both every year. the nda is a policy bill. it sets rules, policy, limits, it has reporting requirements. and it implies a certain level of funding. the ndaa this not provide funding. only an appropriations bill can provide funding. once you pass the ndaa, a lot of people say, they passed in the defense budget. not quite. you still need the appropriations bill. the appropriations bill usually come second. it doesn't have to. the appropriations bill specifies how much money the department gets and how it is going to be used. how much money goes for each and every line item in the budget. you always need an appropriations bill each year. an authorization bill is great, very important to have it. you couldn't get by without it.

other parts of government will go for several years at a time without getting authorization bill. host: that implication dollar wise shows 850 7 billion request a toplineige, up from 770 billion from 2022. what is that implication number mean? guest: they ended up finally appropriating 858 billion in total funding for national defense. that is much higher than the biden administration. it was about an 8% increase. if you have been watching inflation, that is the level of inflation we have experienced in past years. the budget was increasing but keeping pace with inflation. what congress did with the additional money they put into the budget beyond what the biden

administration requested, a lot of it went to research investment programs, buying what have been taken out. buying airplanes. they spread the money buying a lot of different things. many of those things were on the what they call an unfunded priorities list that seniors in the military submit to congress. some of the things are not on the priority list. host: is that the same as a wish list? guest: it is the same as a wish list. host: what kinds of things end up on the wish list? guest: things that didn't make the cut putting the budget together. you rack and stack all your priorities and eventually you have to draw the line. these were the things just below that line. sometimes it will be military construction projects, overhaul barracks on a particular base. build a new runway or something

like that. sometimes it is buying more equipment than they were able to fit into their budget request. it is a lot of small items, usually on those unfunded priorities. host: we are spending the week looking at budget issues. defense budget spending is our topic today with todd erickson. if you want to ask him questions about it, (202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8000, for democrats. (202) 748-8002, for independents. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. there is the debt ceiling coming up. discussions of where spending cuts should take place. what is the comfort level of congress for those spending cuts to be set under the defense department? guest: that is where you get a lot of people getting uneasy. there are a handful of people in

congress to think the cut should be spread pretty broadly across the discretionary budget. you are hearing a lot more republicans and democrats coming out and saying this is not going to make sense. not just the level of cuts are being talked about, but applying those cuts to defense. i talked about earlier in the discretionary budget, $1.7 trillion, the talk is they want to reduce the discretionary policy of budget. half in the defense. the other nonpar, a good portion is veteran benefits. presumably that will be off-limits as well. it starts to become politically painful. veterans benefits and concentrate the cuts on a small portion of the discretionary budget left over. it is not clear at all how they

are going to thread that needle and appeased to folks that want to see these spending cuts, but also come up with cuts that can get past. host: last month after becoming house speaker, kevin mccarthy was on fox news talking about spending in places he thought. listen to a little bit of what he had to say and get your comments on it. [video clip] >> the folks getting more than 800 thousand dollars, are there areas that can be more of mission? illuminate all the spending on wokeism and fuel for the environment. i want our men and women to secure to have the best weapon systems possible. i am sure they can find some places they could be more efficient. we have had some of the best navy seals, some of the best rangers. they come to me every single day they serve in congress and tell me where that waste is in the pentagon and others and want to be more efficient. every level of government should be doing that. this is not our money, it is the

hard-working taxpayers money. every day -- we should start every day, how can we boot -- how can we be more efficient? host: actual hardware and weaponry, what do you think that characterization? guest: he is right there is waste and inefficiency. we need to do better at that. the problem is, trying to get at that waste and inefficiency is difficult. a former member of congress i heard say one time, waste and inefficiency in the defense budget is not like that around the edge of a piece of meat you can slice off easily. the fat is marbled into the meat. it is in lots of little places. it can be difficult and painful. he mentioned a few things. wokeism programs, it is no line in the budget for that. it is a good political talking

point. that is not a line item in that. do they have programs, diversity and inclusion programs he might want to eliminate in the department? sure they do. how much are you going to say from that? it is staff time that is being spent on that. if the staff wasn't spending their time on that, they would presumably spend their time on something else. it is not really going to save you money. as a policy matter, if you want to limit those types of programs, that is one thing. but don't count on it saving you any money. there are lots of other things in the budget that we can probably do more efficiently. some of it is going to require changes by congress. the way they use these contracts for things, they spend a lot of money on what they called cost reimbursable contract. they say, i want you to develop something for me. i will pay whatever it costs you plus some profit on top of that that we negotiate.