♪ host: it's july 13 and one things emerging in this week's debate over defense policy is the attempt by some republicans to attach so-called cultural

were amendments dealing with topics like abortion and wokeness. one republican senator received harsh criticism for blocking military promotions over matter of abortion policy. in a recent poll on confidence in the military showed low marks in part because of politicization. for the first ever this morning, for military and military families, we want to ask you about the thought about politics when it comes to defense policy. is there too much politicking going on when those matters are discussed? for active military, (202) 748-8000, former military, (202) 748-8001 and military families out there, if you want to talk about politics when it comes to defense policy, give us your thoughts at (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at journal@c-span.org (202) 748-8002.

the pole that was recently done was done in conjunction with the reagan foundation survey. here is some of those poll results that were put into the military times about confidence in the military showing decreased confidence in the military. one of the reasons for the decrease confidence according to this paul was that military leadership was becoming overly politicized. they include the category of far right were extremist individuals in the military.

if you go to this week's debate on the house, more on the defense policy bill, taking a look at that and some of the things emerging from that. here is the headline from politico -- one of the authors of that is joining us now to talk about that. good morning and thanks for joining us. guest: good morning, thanks for having me. host: can you explain to the folks where the policy falls when it comes to making matters of defense policy? guest: i think this is a congress that's been increasingly dysfunctional over the last decade+. this is one of the few bills that becomes law each year and it has now for i believe it's a two straight years. there is a lot of weight that comes with taking up this bill each year.

it sets military policy and kind of prescribes the broad outlines of the budget this year in the house, eight hundred $86 billion for a defense program. -- 886 billion dollars for the defense program. it's an authorization bill and it doesn't actually allocate money but it kind of gives a good sign up where lawmakers priority is on the budget. it includes 5.2% pay raise for troops, navy shipbuilding and includes an extra amphibious ship the marine corps has sought in conflict with the navy this year. they authorized $300 million more for ukraine from the pentagon budget. there is a lot of big stuff in here.

along the way, when the armed services committee marked it up, they added i think in the realm of 700 amendments. they will consider through the process may be almost 400 on the floor this week. lawmakers have gotten a big say in the change throughout the process. host: you sent out a tweet this morning regarding this. it says republicans are counting on amendments will keep conservatives in check and will ultimately get voted down so the dems won't oppose the bill. can you expand on those amendments and some of the categories they deal with? guest: sure, speaker mccarthy has been under some pressure to grant votes on conservative priorities, on what i think a lot of people would call culture war issues and has been trying to thread that needle all week.

he couldn't get agreement on that earlier. there was an initial tranche of amendments that were not terribly controversial and then the rules committee, which is the gatekeeper for the floor, figured out which amendments get votes in which don't, they met last night and approved another tranche of 80 amendments that were mostly republican and mostly deal with those contentious issues. we are still kind of doing the deep dive but there were some that really jump out as big conservative priorities. ronny jackson's amendment to undo the dod abortion policy which allows leave and reimburses travel costs for troops who have to travel to seek abortion care, matt gaetz as one -- has one for training diversity equity and inclusion which has been a big talking point for conservatives.

they gave marjorie taylor greene several votes on ukraine aid including one that strips the $300 million i mentioned earlier out of the bill to arm ukraine. matt rosendale is getting one to block health coverage for gender transition treatment for transgender troops. they didn't get a lot of that. the flipside to that is that the more conservative you make this bill, the less democrats will be inclined to support it. host: when this process goes along, is it typical to include these non-strict military concepts? guest: going back to the earlier point about being one of the few bills that reliably passes each year, when that's the case, it

becomes a magnet for stuff that is not related or four controversial issues that are playing out elsewhere as we see with the fight over abortion, transgender medical care, ddi. --dei. those are playing out outside the defense from both a factor in very much on the defense bill. we do see that a lot. the question is, that balance of how you maintained the bipartisan support the defense bill typically has had. i think the republicans are kind of gambling right now that many of these proposals will get voted down or won't drive immigrants to oppose the bill because it looks like they will certainly need at least some of them to pass this.

host: before we let you go, on the senate side, one republican senator is making news this week particularly about blocking promotions in the military over matters of abortion. can you explain that? guest: senator tommy tuberville, going back to the pentagon's abortion access policy, when that was implemented, he had been threatening he would hold up all nominees, civilian and military, until they reversed that policy. the civilian side is not unusual. that happens all the time, but basically what has happened as a result of this is no generals or admirals have been confirmed in the senate in months. now that's starting to have a real impact as people leave their posts, senior posts and

are not filled by senate confirmed successors. we saw that this week with the commandant of the marine corps. is number two who is the nominee for commandant stepped up on a temporary basis and there will be more of that. there's been no sign that anybody will cave. senator schumer might make a play to get around it or that tommy tuberville will a and let this go -- will cave and let this go. but now we are seeing the criticism of that argument. it's become a daily drumbeat on news this week. we will have to see where it goes but it doesn't appear it will go anywhere anytime soon. host: conor o'brien reports on matters of pentagon policy and defense for politico. you can see his work at politico.com. thank you so much for giving us your time today. if you think there is too much politics when it comes to defense policy, we wanto have

you call us and let us know particular militaranmilitary families can join us r this first hour. if you are active military, call at (2) 748-8000. if you are former military (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are a military family and have been impted by the politics and some other way, urnal@c-span.org (202) 748-8002. yocan text us your thoughts as well at (202) 748-8003. russ from california texted us this morning. you can make your thoughts there as well. jacksonville, florida, former military is starting off on the phones this morning when it comes to the role of politics in

defense policy. what do you think? caller: thank you for letting me call in. former military and before that stationed in iraq and a vietnam veteran. i will tell you this, politics and the military equals bodies on the battlefield. the de i takes up too much time ever training time that equals people being dead on the battlefield. host: can you describe what dei means? caller: diversity equity and inclusion. host: that's part of military training? caller: it sure is, it's being mandated. one soldier said he spent 80% of his training time undoing these classes. host: have you been in the classes yourself or you are hearing this from other people in the military? caller: no, sir, i got out in

2009 because it was starting to creep in at that time. host: ok, jacksonville, florida but let's hear from marcus in columbus, ohio, also former military. good morning, you are next. caller: good morning. i am a veteran of the marine corps and i actually agree with the last caller. i think -- i take it farther. the marine corps made me a communist. there are a lot of things that happen in the military which you disregard certain people's abilities and make sure they can have the things they need to live. there is a lot of problems in the military but that's one of the things that made me see that maybe our outside structure of the world, our country, we don't do so good at taking care of each other like in the military. it doesn't matter, you can see a doctor whenever you get hurt.

you have plenty of food on base, plenty of places to eat. and that includes family members. they deserve the protection like the trans community and there is no reason why any trends -= trans member of the military, the country they live in, yeah, if these people think the military is too big on diversity, equity and inclusion come i tend to agree. i think they will go farther. host: from ap in stafford, virginia, on the line for former military, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. thank you, c-span and you do a great job. very quickly in terms of my experience in the air force, as a young man, i joined and i was

stationed in tyndale air force out of florida, panama city. coming from the northeast, i felt very much so that the culture around me was like very, very clearly one sided when it came to most of the people who were running the show where i was. i had a pretty terrible experience when it finally came time to talk politics with just the folks at the shop. from my experience, i would not say that any left-leaning policies were at the forefront, quite the opposite. host: what's your reaction when you hear about capitol hill talking about those type of issues and putting them into defense policy bills and the

like? caller: i think it's absurd for anybody to be pushing against more inclusion. it kind of takes me back to president truman finally allowing african-americans to serve openly within the ranks and the pushback he got from people at that time. i think this is just the next cycle of i don't know what else to call it, bigoted behavior. we don't have a draft anymore. we have a completely volunteer armed services which is fantastic. i cannot think of a single good reason why we shouldn't encourage literally everybody who is willing to take on that burden and take on that sacrifice to fight alongside. host: ok, that's our viewer in

stafford, virginia. is there too much politics when it comes to the making of defense policy? there are several ways you can give us your opinion this morning particularly for military and those with military backgrounds. if you are a current member of the military, give us your thoughts at (202) 748-8000. if you are former military, several of you have called in this morning, (202) 748-8001. and perhaps u e a military family and you want to giveou perspective on this idea politics when it comes to defense policy, (202) 748-8002. text us as well at (202) 748-8003. our facebook and twitter feeds are available as well. a few of your texting us this morning --

this is paul in pennsylvania -- that texting again is (202) 748-8003 and that's how you do that. on our line for former military, is there too much politics when it comes to the making of defense policy? it has caller: always been politics in the military. the military was one of the most segregated parts of american society for decades. but it was the military [indiscernible] it made it patently obvious that integrated service is a far much better service, a that understands diversity and

integrity means it will have the best and brightest come to the forefront. the cream rises to the top. reason why you have a military was because of a sit in that was held at the air force base in 1972 because blacks couldn't get promoted. it was primarily white senior officers. that's a fact of life. i'm not saying that i think things have gotten better. i'm saying all my fellow patriots, if you put a knife in my back and you pull it out six inches, things have gotten demonstrably better. host: let's hear from eddie in

massachusetts, former military. caller: good morning i remember spending my early years in new jersey at mcguire air force base with the jets taking off. you even got a hop to europe. it was very informative. i think president eisenhower tried to explain what he meant by that, the industrial military complex. it meant the politics got involved. a strong politician advocated building material in his particular state. that was the complex that he was adverse to. on my own initiative, i would think the pentagon should be eliminated and diverse. as we know, it got hit by a plane. it could be hit by a bomb. it was originally meant to be a hospital when world war ii started.

roosevelt converted it to a military complex. there is a good chance to remedy the situation with the v.a.. they get a hospital again and incorporate the v.a. with medicare and medicaid. thank you. host: too much politics in defense policy is what we are asking those of you with military background. we have set aside a line for those who are in current military this is oscar in virginia from that line. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i wholeheartedly believe the military's purpose is to fight and win america's wars decisively. in social experiments whether it's medical or cultural, they should be left outside and that includes vaccines, that includes face masks. when we include cultural warfare

in appropriations bills, it divides the ranks. we are taught that we are one color, green or blue or whatever service you are in. i believe when you start fusing what's going on in society into the ranks, you're actually imploding the squad at the lowest level. personally, i believe that items like abortion are tragic. there is also the infant to think of. there are people being taught to murder on the public dime. transgender or abortions are on the cultural forefront and should not be entangled with

national defense. we should not be treated as a social experiment. one caller talked about african-americans serving. there is sexual identity or sexual orientation, two different things. that would be personal. they are hurting in the ranks for recruitment but it's more a source of a paradigm versus what's actually being thought of. host: we had a previous caller talk about the diversity, equity and inclusion training he says was part of military training. is that something currently going on? caller: yes, it's currently being staffed at the higher levels. i'm not sure about how effective measures have been. i know it's a distraction. i just know that i haven't

entrained in the last three years on how to fire a rifle. i have taken three years of diversity, equity inclusion training. it distracts the forces of what we are there to do, protect the homeland, try to win america's wars decisively, help our allies and partners across the globe. when we go into foreign cultures like south korea or the middle east, nobody cares about that stuff. they only care about protection. host: that's a current member of the military. if you are the [indiscernible] is the number to call. (202) 748-8000. caller: how are you, good morning. you are having a great day. i look at it as a former air

force officer, as one of two things -- as we see politicians who are the lack of military service within our political sphere and also our military service members who are trying to play politicians. i see it both ways. i will say that i feel we need to have both. i think we need to have, especially politicians who are willing to have served and have a backbone to say to her current service members that may policies are going too far. it seems like we often times give a rubberstamp to whatever policies are being -- are trying to be enacted from our military service members.

i would just like to commend senator tuberville for his strong stance about not confirming our officers until we get a handle on what's going on. i think he's doing a great job. host: do you think certain advancements are not being made in the senate? caller: if we are going to continue to rubberstamp those appointments, we are really not going to be able to see any kind of change. i think senator turberville is really putting a strong stance to say no, we really do need something to change. and holding of promotions is one way to get peoples attention at the highest level. host: what branch of service were you? caller: i was air force. host: thank you for calling and giving your input. you can do it the same on the lines and tell us the branch of

service you served and or if you are on military, (202) 748-8001. current military, (202) 748-8000 and for military families, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from the democratic caucus chair talking to reporters yesterday about those amendments that were being added to the so-called laws and what it does over all for the defense authorization bill. [video clip] >> each and every time, kevin mccarthy decides to listen to the most extreme members of his party who want to have poison pen writers to disrupt the process. rather than have a bipartisan process which is what we should be doing with ndaa, we have the most extreme members of their caucus trying to eliminate funding for ukraine and threatened pay raises and housing increases that are

service members should receive. >> [indiscernible] democrats say they will not support this. are you talking to any of the moderate republicans? they have concerns as well on the abortion amendment. have you been talking to them? >> i think democrats and republicans have worked well together. you have seen and reported on quotes from moderate republicans, if there are any, in the armed services committee who have talked about some of these measures. one deeply problematic for the house democratic caucus would be the tommy tuberville type of language restricting women from receiving leave in order to

receive health care. that one is deeply problematic and if it was included, i think it would be as close to a redline as i think we will discuss. there is a bunch of others on diversity, equity and inclusion and other pieces, lgbtq rights, that are important to the house democratic caucus. that's why i think you will hear a bunch of members that we just don't know. i want to support a product. i supported every ndaa that has come up and i cannot tell you i will support this because i don't know what's in it. host: to show you the reagan national defense survey on confidence in the military with decreased confidence. one of the reasons those participants expressed a decreased confidence was because of the top category, military leadership was becoming overly politicized.

then so-called woke practices undermining military effectiveness, 30% saying that's a concern to them and 20% say it's somewhat of a concern. you can find that online on the military times. it's about the politicization of military matters with too much politics when it comes to defense policy. that's what we are asking you this morning. we have three lines open. let's hear from tyler in ohio, former military on this idea of too much politics when it comes to defense poly. go ahead. call: good morning to you. i wanted to talk about the ddi little bit more - dei. when i was in the army, there is quite a bit of training in that area. but we really needed it. a lot of people in my unit just

needed that repetitive same thing every 3-6 months because it just didn't really get through to them. i think we need more instruction on other things. only once in the army did i ever see the constitution which we swore an oath to. it's crazy. maybe we need to teach the constitution to our service members. maybe they can see why dei is such a good thing. host: you said they dei classes were repetitive so how often were they done and how often did you have to go through that? caller: i don't remember for each one because they were mixed in with other classes like sexual assault awareness training and other things for the unit. they were maybe every three or six months and they would take

an afternoon out of a week. host: that's a former military member giving us his thoughts this morning. a viewer from twitter says -- those are some of the venues especially whether your current or former military, you can use the text service if you want. (202) 748-8002 (202) 748-8003 make sure you identify what category you fall in. sean in virginia, former military, hi. caller: good morning. good morning, america. there are soldiers over in europe now.

we have over three divisions already involved in this. we have nato back together. i don't know what the former president was thinking to sit down with vladimir putin in helsinki which is ironic which happened yesterday. we have to look out for the guys on the ground over there. the politicians need to get their heads right. this is not about politicians. this is about the world. i thank you. host: do you think there is currently too much politics when it comes to defense policy? caller: absolutely. you are putting our people over there and then you want to sit back here and act like a bunch of whatever you are. come on, i spent 10 years in nato alone. i did 24 years but that's irrelevant. i'm worried about the people today. we need to support was going on today with their military. thank you. host: let's hear from hank in

woodbridge, virginia, former military. caller: as far as senator tuberville, he's entitled to his opinion. he knows more about football than he knows about the military. maybe he just needs to take a chill pill and shut up. host: what branch did you serve? caller: i was in the army. host: aside from senator tuberville when it comes to matter of politics, is there too much when it comes to defense policy making? caller: i think that we have turned the ndaa over the years, both democrats and republicans have turned it into, excuse me, i've got a young puppy, a way to capture their current concerns that may or may not have any

impact to the military. i didn't say that very well. host: we cut your point. thank you, hank and your puppy. the american enterprise institute posted a piece about a little of what the reagan survey showed.

you can find that on the website at aei if you want to read more. former military is up next in north carolina. caller: hi, i served for about five years and i started as military police and i work my way into investigations and eventually worked up to criminal investigations. i am a transgender woman. i struggled with my identity when i was in the army. i wanted to come out and i wanted to live my truth. when i was in, trump was there. his anti-transgender policies push me away from the military. that's one of the reasons why i decided to leave because i

didn't want to be part of the military when the commander-in-chief said transgender people don't belong here. it wasn't right then, is not right now. the more diverse our military is , the better our military is. diversity, equity and inclusion is a great thing to have. that's really all i have to say. host: when it comes to transgender policy, have things improved under this administration? caller: i don't know. i left before the prior administration was over. i don't know what it's like in the military now perchance render people -- for transgender people. i'm sure it was better when -- then when i was in but i don't know. host: let's hear from keith import arthur texas, former military. caller: yes, sir, good morning. host: you're on, go ahead.

caller: my name is keith. and i served in the military. it was back in the 70's. it was during the vietnam era, it was one of the most racist places that you could serve in and i was in the army and served overseas and i served stateside and they assaulted me. they jumped on me and assaulted me in the military. and then told me i didn't have the right, captain cooper, he told me i didn't have the right to call the police, the military police in this guy had assaulted

me and i was in ford benning, georgia and i got there and there was a bunch of klansmen who threatened my life. i was so scared, couldn't even go to sleep. i was so scared i had to get out of there and i went to europe and it was worse over there. they had black guys walking around in the buildings with kkk signs, tattoos. host: from what you describe, do you think things have gotten better? caller: i don't know. i cannot say it's gotten better because i haven't been in the military. it scared me so bad that when you walk down the hallway, these guys, they were white guys and they were segregated with these white guys were trying to kill us. a lot of people need to hear my

story and if they want to call me, i will talk to them. somebody needs to call me because what they did to me was absolutely wrong. host: that's keith telling his story from texas. going back to the previous caller, the department of defense website, january 25, 2021 when joe biden signed an executive or that overturned the previous administrations ban on transgender people in the military. the military is no exception.

you can find that at defense.. -- defense.gov. caller: good morning. i have so many relatives in the military in the military and a couple stuck out to me. my grandfather served in world war ii and then he served in the korean war. a timber had fallen on him and he got a bad heart and eventually died from a heart attack. my mother never got to meet her father because of that. she got to raise four children from her husband's time in the military. she got to own a home because she hadn't unlucky guy who died in the military. she got to have those little vulnerabilities because the economy was good. nowadays, the military has always been trying to propagate

and try to convince the poor and minority folks to join in hopes of a better life. my cousin who tried to join the army, was running away from a mother who had als who said there's no cure for that, he tried to run to the military. but he felt out of basic trinity because it was so hard. he is known alcoholic because all he really needed was therapy and he didn't need the military, he needed therapy and money for his mom so he didn't take care of his mom when she was sick. host: to the topic of military politics interfering, what do you think? caller: i think it has. i think politics is in our everyday life. politicians use the military for their own game but there are people who are minorities who are affected by political things going on.

transgender people are affected every day. i am transgender myself. i am affected right now. the military should be there. i'm not fond of the military but some things they do a really good. in terms of diversity, it needs more diversity. host: let's hear from david in massachusetts, former military. caller: hello, i am former u.s. marine infantry in a veteran of the second battle in the fall -- and the second battle of tunisia. an example of too much politics in military policy is how the first battle of fallujah was called of early in the 2004 election because bush 43 did not want a bloodbath before the election. he got his reelection and that

was the second battle of fallujah. the military is a fundamentally political organization and always is in every country that has existed. my big issue with politics the military and military policy is how much money we spend on useless projects distributed throughout the states. nobody fights them or shut them down. that's all i have to say. host: it was earlier this week that the joint chief of staff chair nominee general charles brown appeared before congress. it was before the armed services committee and it was during that that general round and republican eric schmitt schmidt had been exchange about diversity. [video clip] >> do we have too many white officers in the air force? >> i look at the quality of all the officers we have and we look at the aspect of everyone who is

qualified. if they meet the qualifications, they are promoted. >> i would agree with you but that answer is not consistent with your august 9 memo. in your august 9 memo, you said that there should be a reduction essentially of about 9% of the white officers. that's 5400 -- we have 5400, too many white officers. this is the real impact i think of this desire of the administration and i'm saddened to see it in this memo of this obsession with race-based politics being interjected into the military. how did you come up with the percentage of 67.5% of the officers should be quite? -- should be white and how did you come up with 13% should be black and 10% should be asian and how did you come up with

1.5% should be american indian and native alaskan and native hawaiians and how did you come up with 15% of our officers should be hispanic or latino? >> this is based on, that memo was on application goals, not the actual makeup of the force. those numbers are based on the demographics of the nation. >> ok, well, alright, there is 10% of our country is asian american? is that where you came up with it, just the percentage of the population? >> essentially. >> because right now, the actual percentage -- this is where this is a ridiculous conversation to be perfectly honest. why didn't you come up with or are you going to come up with the percentage of the overall force>? did you contemplate that of how many black americans should be

in the air force? or how many asian american should be in the air force? did you contemplate the total force for percentages? >> what we looked at was the aspect of providing opportunities for anybody who wants to serve. >> if that were the case -- listen, if that was what was in this memo, i wouldn't be asking you these questions. but we have in a memo signed by you that you think right now there are too many white officers -- this is a blanket statement. i could go down the line of questioning of which of the 5400 white officers should be fired. that is the actual impact of all this. i agree that you wanted to be the best pilot in the air force regardless of race, that is what the military is supposed to be. this is great meritocracy with uniforms and haircuts. i have heard so many of my colleagues talk about infusing

abortion politics in this. that is exactly with wrong. this administration has infused abortion politics into her military, covid politics into the military, dei politics into the military and it is a cancer on the best military in the history of the world. the men and women deserve better than this. host: are there too much politics when it comes to defense policy? military background calling in this morning, this is jay on our line for former military, good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot believe what i just heard. i have not heard those comments from anybody. host: you can still watch it if you go to the website or the app. caller: yeah, that shows you how politicized it is. we don't have black boot camps

or white boot camps and we don't have transgender boot camps. we have boot camps. it doesn't matter if you're navy coming -- navy, army, or whatever. you walk into boot camp and everything about you becomes one thing. you are now in the military. there is no color, there is no you are too tall or too short or too fat. everybody has the same opportunity when they come in and everybody is treated equally. that's how boot camp starts. it's not until you get out into the regular military that you start seeing people act out their own personal attitudes. politicizing it, this is something brand-new to me when they started this transgender. i was in the navy and i remember when they started putting women on ships. there was a lot of controversy about it and there was a lot of almonds that were made that were pretty disgusting. they got through it and now women are part of the active-duty military in all of

our services, not just the navy and has been working out fine as far as i understand and there were still problems. but when you come down to this transgender or black or brown or asian or whatever and we have to have this or that, that's not what happens when you come in. that's what everybody's head is shaved and everybody wears the same uniform because you are treated just like a man standing next to you and that man standing next to you has to depend on you to do your job so that he can do his job. you had to depend on him that he does his job so you can do your job. and your job is is to follow the orders. once you get into the pentagon, that's completely politicized. host: that's a former member of the military. this is monte in phoenix, arizona. caller: hi, the only comment i have -- i go along with the guy

before me that the military is becoming too much involved with politics in the surrounding country. to my view, the military is supposed to be for national defense of this country. it seems like that some of that focus is being lost. i believe it one point, the united states military was viewed as a superpower. i think we are kind of losing that. that's not what this country is all about. that's not what the military is all about. it should be for our national defense. i think they are getting sidetracked too much with

politicization of the politics in the military. host: the washington picks up a story on the hearing this week featuring an interview looking at recruitment levels in the military.

again, that's from the washington times. let's hear from tony, former military in illinois. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a veteran of company c first decision back in the 1970's. we had race relations and we had some problems but when i was in the foxhole and in trouble, there was a man with a black hand that pulled me out of that foxhole. the only color we ever saw was green. just like the prior to callers, we stuck beside each other and we stood for each other. that poor guy said he was scared of fort bragg, that's a sad

thing be does in louisiana, one of our sergeants went to a gas station and he got killed by a kkk out there. our whole company surrounded that gas station and shut him down. that's how it was. we stick together, we are part of a brotherhood in the baddest gang in the world. its goal the u.s. military and don't let anybody full you and say anything else about it. we need to bring back the draft which will bring in all kinds of people but the other thing is that we were trained to fight and when i saw people calling in on your show and saying that communists and socialists, you are doing pruden work whoever says that. whoever says the democrats or whoever is doing this, putin, you doing his work. gru is a unit that interfered in our elections in 2016.

our politics have to stop abusing her people and dividing our country in doing putin's work. host: let's hear from a viewer in california, former military, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i was just watching your show and to answer your question directly, politics do play a big part in the military. the military has always been a small part of the american people and that's where they pull their people. we get a variety of people from different states. one of the beauty of the military is that we get a variety. the political side, i was in the air force and the air force is deeply political, it always has been.

host: do you think politics puts too much into defense policy these days? caller: yeah, i was retired in 2005 but then i worked for the defense department and another 15 years. i was in the big policymaking part. i saw a lot of political aspects of the military. i was probably part of it, to be honest with you. yeah, it's hard to exclude politics and policy, it all goes together because america, we are a mirror of america, the military is a mirror of america and what's going on on the outside is going to go on on the inside. host: that's a viewer in california. this is the family line. good morning. caller: yes, i have to disagree

with the conversation earlier regarding shots and covid what they are forced to do and they should be able to make their own decisions. i disagree with that. when we travel abroad, we have to get many shots to enter countries. i think the military never made a squawk until this baloney started with covid. i think they are being led astray a little. you have to follow suit. it's the same when they go in. they are green and they get the hair cuts and that. so i disagree with the gentleman that called earlier about shots and they should be able to make their own decisions. this stuff with politics we dealt with in the 60's. i disagree with the last gentleman. it was earlier on whether it's the marine corps and that wasn't the politics involved so i disagree with those statements. host: calling underline for military families, this is linda

from florida -- this is dan in college park, georgia, former military. caller: let's get to the bottom line. this is what's happening -- it's all because they believe donald trump should be able to get away with crimes. yes, that has directly to do with this conversation. all of those hearings yesterday tied together has to do with one thing, donald trump, the fbi and the rest of the nation -- host: this is about military policy, how do you draw those conclusions on military policy? caller: you can try to dismiss

this when it has to do with military policy. if you believe that, you're no different than anybody else. all of this ties together. tommy tuberville, the man who never served, to denounce white supremacy. this is the man that's holding up policy. he is holding a policy because he believes like everybody else that you can -- that donald trump should be allowed to get away the crimes. if not for that, you never heard any of this -- host: how the to directly associate, give me an example? caller: ok, it's just this simple -- if the fbi allows donald trump host: this is not about the fbi, it's about military policy. caller: you can say that all you want, it doesn't make it true. you can hang up the phone on me but that's not going to change. host: i'm just asking you to

draw a conclusion. caller: this is my conclusion, you can see it has to do with military policy or not. the whole premise of this whole thing is not the military or the fbi or anything else. they think donald trump should be allowed to get away with crimes. host: let's hear from james in north caller: of course it has always been about politics. that's why when you retire, it goes straight to manufacturing letter within spirit they make sure to get the contracts. this is always been part of the military. the military is getting ramped up because china is all of a sudden the enemy.

we are than a bunch of money -- we owe them a bunch of money. until we pull back on this military --a lot of people are getting onto trump. one thing about trump, the guy cold -- the guy told the truth. i don't care what anybody says. host: that is james finishing off the conversation. this past hour for military and military associated families. thank you for giving your input. several guests joining us through the morning. we will hear from members of congress, representative john curtis on spending deadlines and issues regarding climate change. later we will hear from representative gwen moore on the temporary assistance for family benefits. those conversations are coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> american history tv,

saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m., conversation about the declaration of independence with the host of the washington times history as it happens podcast. and denver bridesman. at 9:40 eastern, an author tells the differences between herbert hoover and frank and roosevelt over confronting german aggression and humanitarian crises of poland and finland in world war ii. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 has authors discussing

their books. 7:00 p.m. eastern, been jealous speaks about healing america through conversations he has had with notable americans in his book "never forget our peo are always free." on "afterwards," elizabeth happy's shar her book "the overlooked americans," where they argue that -- watch "book tv" every sunday on c-span2. find a full program -- a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time on c-span.org. >> listing to programs through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker "play c-span radio" and listen to "washington journal" every

weekday and other affairs throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m., catch "washington today" for a fast-paced story -- fast-paced report of the day. c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal continues --"washington journal" continues. host: joining us is representative john curtis, the chair of the conservative climate caucus. thank you for your time. guest: good to be with you. host: there are many debates now that commerce is back about the status of spending bills. what are your concerns about getting that done in a timely manner? guest: anytime you're talking about a timely manner with congress, you should be concerned. over and over again, this congress has met tied deadlines. it has been difficult each time

but we have always gotten across the finish line. host: one of the issues being reported our concerns about republicans looking for lower levels of spending men initially agreed on. argue part of that group and what are your concerns as far as appropriations? guest: i am part of the group that is most like my district, very concerned about government spending and wants to make sure we are being physically -- fis cally responsible. i think this is a good debate for the country. host: as far as lower levels, what are you looking for? guest: the group you are looking for is referring to getting back to 2022 levels. i think we have made a good swing at that. host: how far is too far? guest: we know the government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. i think it is fair that everything is evaluated and we need to be asking those hard

questions. it also is a matter of timing and how quickly we make those cuts and how painful they are. i am in tune with that but we need to be responsible. these taxpayer dollars, we need to be more careful with them. we need to were accountable with the way we are spending money. the people of the u.s. have a right to ask that of us. host: is it possible to come up with a series of goals that could pass through the senate? guest: that is the give and take in congress and you don't know until you try and find out where those limits are. sometimes i think the american people get impatient with us but we are working through the process that the founders put in place to test this and make us our best. host: representative john curtis with this. if you want to asking questions,

202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for independents -- for republicans, and 202-748-8002 for independents. we were talking about the defense policy bill, what you think about the process of adding amendments when it comes to so-called culture war issues to this policy bill? guest: i will go back to the founders' process which is that every member of congress gets to have a say in this. one of the most fitting things to me are these trillion dollar bills that would come at me with no chance for amendments that i could not impact or change. i think nevers of congress deserve that opportunity to influence legislation. an up or down vote i have had no input to usually ends up a no vote. if you give me a chance to influence the legislation, i am more likely to be supportive. host: have you added amendments to the bill? guest: we have several

amendments mostly dealing with security issues with russia and china and taiwan that i think are relevant and would fit in the category you described. they are very important amendments and i am pleased that the process allows me those opportunities. guest: -- host: as far as an example, what is one of those? guest: cybersecurity issues is one of them, russian intelligence is one of them, dealing with those types of issues that are important. host: there is a story about chinese cyber spies exploiting a gap in the microsoft cloud and accessing emails of the congress and state department. how much of a concern is that to you? guest: huge concern. i think they make and people should be very concerned about that. that is an area no matter how good you are today you are not

good enough tomorrow. we have to be constantly improving and being vigilant. host: you are the chair of the conservative climate caucus. what is that and what positioning do you take when it comes to climate issues? guest: tournament is -- to name it itself is enough to confuse people. we are republicans who are not afraid to talk about climate. i think it is an mistake for us to be passive in this. there are a host of ideas that are very conservative in nature that fit in with the conservative agenda that also reduce emissions and think we can all agree program is how you feel that less pollution is better than more pollution. the caucus which is not one of the largest in washington, d.c., which surprises a lot of people, pushes an agenda than the sure energy is affordable, reliable, and clean. we believe we can do all of

those things and still be energy independent. i think we can be energy dominant and achieve those goals. host: there are a lot of people this week about july 4 being the hottest day on earth on record. there is damage in vermont because of flooding. when you see those headlines, how does it impact the scope of what you do in the caucus? guest: from utah, we have dealt with the state's longest drought , wildfires, our ski seasons are getting shorter. more people asking questions about what is causing this and what we can be doing. when they hear the conservative approach to that, they are far more willing to go along with ideas and suggestions that keep energy affordable, reliable, and clean. host: our guest is with us until 8:30. if you want to ask him questions, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, and independents,

202-748-8002. our first call comes from a viewer and illinois. this is steve. you are on with the guest. caller: good morning. biden keeps on saying bidenomics and that he saved the country $1 trillion. aren't we spending over $4 trillion and only taking in $2 trillion? what happened to a president like president clinton who completely reduce the deficit -- reduced the deficit? guest: that is a matthew are explaining for some reason washington doesn't seem to get that. it is a great concern. when we throw trillions of dollars out there, not only are we killing the deficit but we are adding to inflation. you have to ask people how they

have been impacted by a percent inflation. it was a relief to see it go down, but the toll this has taken on american people on energy prices and grocery prices comes at a tremendous cost. host: several headlines talking about the new inflation number going down to 3%. do you think this could be the result of bidenomics or are there other factors? guest: somehow you want to take credit when it goes to 3% and ignore the fact that the last 1.5 years or longer we have been at 8%, people can't afford energy bills, i would not take credit for that if i were the president. host: this is from edward on our line for democrats from michigan. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask a question about is the conservative climate caucus going to offer any legislation

-- another thing, do you have a statement on what is causing climate change? do you say the warming of the planet is caused by an excessive amount of carbon by dockside -- carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? i am in country people -- i am encountering people, they don't think that oil is a finite resource. they don't think oil is a fossil fuel. they don't feel carbon in the atmosphere is a problem. they reject the idea of using electric vehicles. it would be interesting and nice if you had a statement that says we agree with the scientists that climate change is happening, the globe is getting warmer and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause. i don't know if you say that.

guest: let me hit that head on. the first tenant is that the climate is changing and the decades of the industrial revolution have had an impact of that. you mentioned do we have legislation, we do, and we think we have ideas that reduce more carbon than the ideas on the table and don't destroy the u.s. economy and keep us energy independent, affordable, and clean. to be honest, republicans have not been at the table democratic -- table debating with our democratic colleagues the best ideas. we spend a lot of money on things that reduce a little carbon and not on things that reduce a lot of carbon. republicans would like to have the debate. members of my caucus are all over the spectrum on our

approaches, we are not all 100% lockstep. but you will find a desire to put out less emissions to reduce worldwide emissions. that is one of the mistakes in this debate, just focus on u.s. emissions. if we reduce our emissions to zero, we will not change overall emissions. we are just a small percentage. if you look close, you would be pleased with our efforts. host: what is one thing they could reduce carbon to a greater degree? guest: steve mentioned fossil fuels, and we have produced more emissions with natural gas than anything. if we exported natural gas to replace russian natural gas, we would produce more emissions than many democratic planets.

we produce fossil fuels cleaner here in the u.s. fossil fuels are on track to get to know zero -- to net zero. if you focus on not attacking certain types of energy, it could be far more productive. host: let's hear from rory in virginia, independent line. caller: i would like to ask the representative if anybody has figured where we would be deficit-wise if we had not had the last two republican tax cuts . guest: i know that is a big line for a lot of democrats and i am convinced with covid interrupted that the revenues would have increased with the 2017 tax reform act because it spurred

economy in a dramatic way. president biden has been the recipient of really nice tax revenues, even including with tax cuts. for covid, i think we would have seen a scenario that would have been healthy for our economy and for our deficit. host: the president has been traveling the u.s. and at times taking republicans to task for voting against things like the inflation reduction act. i want to play you a little bit of what he had to say and get your response. [video clip] pres. biden: all those members of congress voted against it suddenly realize how great it is and they are bragging about it. as my mother would say, god love them. i want to thank senator graham for voting for the -- and the chips and science act but i wish he would for the rest. every republican member of

covers voted against the inflation reduction act. every republican member of the house from the state voted against the clean provisions in the act that attracts all of these jobs. after that effort failed, the republican -- committee just released a plan to try to repeal it all again. that did not stop them from claiming credit now that billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are coming to the u.s. a senator from alabama strongly opposed the pipe -- the bipartisan instructor law. he said it is great to see alabama receive critical funds to boost broadband efforts. that is all right.

host: this was made in south carolina last week. your response? guest: totally disingenuous. i think it is the worst types of all politicking. there were provisions in the ira that were republican provisions that we would vote for in standalone bills. they did not seek a single republican vote. david -- they did not ask a republican opinion. they threw together a bill in the middle of the night to spend $1.5 trillion. of course we voted against that. now it has become law. you think i am not going to try to take advantage of that and bring money into my state? what kind of politician but i be? that is politicking on the president's part. host: you saw this reported that do yourself got tax credits and

a bump to your home for energy credits. does this come from the ira? guest: they were in place before the ira. it was a bad article. it is trying to politic when there is nothing there. host: can you expand on that. guest: short. sure. i building a home, i want to do do all i could to make it as light of a carbon footprint so i put thermal in -- i put solar in and geothermal. the ira did have tax benefits so i took advantage of those. i am not sure what the message is other than trying to take political points. host: this is judy in maryland, democrats line. caller: better late than never, i am glad republicans are starting to come to the table.

you can apply this problem to guns, climate, all the things threatening our safety and our lives. how do we break through or what causes these things to become so politicized? is it the industry money in politics? it is hard for me to believe that people are so disingenuous that people's lives and survival is at risk for their own political gain. i don't know what drove you to being so late. maybe it wasn't you specifically but your party being so late to come to the cable and really talk about this -- come to the table and really talk about this. this has been an issue for how many years? 50 years they started talking

about global warming. when the ozone layer was the problem, reagan pushed back but in the end he saw the science and went for a solution. what has changed? why are people so slow? what is the problem? even if it isn't to global warming, pollution is bad. why couldn't our oil industry have gotten on the front of this and be deleted in coming up with solutions? host: i apologize, but you put a lot out for our guest. guest: we could write a lot of books about your question. there are a lot of people who would speculate on the answer. on climate, one of the reasons republicans have not been part of the debate is they are turned off by the extremism. if we go to the 1970's, clean air and clean water, those were done under republican

administrations. republicans should pride themselves on conservationism and taking care of this planet. for a number of years, we have not been at the table and it is the extremism that cancels off. i challenge my colleagues to be realistic in their proposals and put forth ideas based on science. they challenge us to follow science and i think frequently republicans feel that they are not following the science. there are many good men and women on both sides of the aisle and i am enjoying fruitful conversations with them. like so many issues, there is far more we agree on then disagree. ultimately the way i would answer question about how we not make these political is we have to stop sending people to washington american political. we have to support people who are willing to come here and solve these problems together.

host: you said you have a seat at the table because republicans running the house. will these conversations add up to some effort? guest: i would point to hr one which is very important. some of it made into the debt ceiling bill. both sides of the aisle are excited about that. i think we have proposals out there that can encourage people to look at hr one. you will continue to see proposals from us coming forward. there is no pertinent issue for both republicans and democrats and i can tell you there are a lot of fruitful bipartisan conversations moving forward. host: republican line from ohio, this is deborah. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have one thing i want to explain about solar phenomenon and an appeal to my fellow citizens. we are in solar cycle number 25

and every 11 years or so the polarity on the sun slips -- flips. during that time period, there are geomagnetic storms. both ness and noaa -- nasa and noaa predicted there would be 27 sunspots. we have over 40. it was a significant change. let's suppose you're putting a cake in the oven at 325, you are baking it at 520. we are going into the solar maximum. it is so much more intense than nasa predicted. host: what exactly would you like our guest to address with that? caller: i would like to know, when are we going to talk about

conservation? fossil fuels, 40% goes into plastics. we the american people have to address the fact that single-use plastics, those are things we can change. we can also change many factoring -- manufacturing. i have noticed things in goofy stores that were in plastic are now in a box versus a plastic content. -- versus a plastic container. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: she brings up a great point which is why it is important for republicans to be at the table. there are practical solutions here, solutions that don't hurt our economy. they might fuel our economy. if we are not at the table talking about it, we don't have the most robust answers. host: another republican in illinois, this is connie. caller: good morning.

the power plants here in illinois were cleaned up in the late 70's -- the late 1970's. we used to have specs of coal in our snow. we no longer have that. they are shutting down our power plants. there giving out $8,000 to $10,000 that will let them -- to anyone that will let them put solar panels on their houses. all of these trees that produce here, oxygen -- that produce air , oxygen, are being cut down around these houses. on the east coast, the windmills put up to blow the air around, there has been 97 wales wash up on the beaches along with a few dolphins.

god told us 4000 years ago that he controls the climate and we are living in the last days. these solar panels put out a ton of heat and they produce no oxygen. guest: i would once again point out that he's are legitimate questions and this is why i want republicans after table asking these questions, where it makes sense to move forward we should move forward. there is a role for renewables in our energy mix. i have a captive called carbon county, imagine the hypocrisy they see when we shut down the coal-fired power plant and ship it over to your so they can burn it over there. if we are not asking these questions, we are not going to get the best answers. host: i remember of the house

freedom caucus? guest: no. host: i ask only because there are stories about the caucus and reportedly the rejection of marjorie taylor greene. guest: i would not be qualified to answer those. host: let's go to missouri, danny. caller: thank you for taking my call. the -- i install those things for 30 years. that was in place after the clean air act. whoever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking about. i want to talk about biden's green push to put a short agenda percentage on electric cars being built.

it looks like it could bankrupt the car builders -- the manufacturers and could put the builders out of work. i wish you could touch on that because it is out of control what he is thinking. i don't see any reason why our oil should not be pulled right now. guest: let me touch on ev's. i would love to own an ev but i am concerned they are not being properly evaluated. every truck they sell their dues $75,000. california is mandating ev's by 2035 but they are sending out a message not to charge their vehicle. we don't have the grid to get electricity to tracking stations . we are not looking at last cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

we are not looking at where these minerals are coming from or how to get enough of them. i started this comes vision with i would love to own an add but i have questions. -- own an ev, but i have questions. republicans not having as much thoughtful debate as we should and getting facts on the table. host: representative john kirby's, the chair of the conservative climate caucus, thank you for your time this morning. another member of congress, gwen moore, talks about assistance for needy family benefits. later on, sadie gurman will talk about yesterday's house judiciary committee hearing with fbi director christopher wray. those conversations are coming up. ♪

>> "american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, explained the people and events that tell the american story. a conversation about the dickerson of independence with martin, host of the "history as it happens" podcast and investor denver brandman. at 9:40 eastern, the offer of " -- author of "hoover versus roosevelt" talks about the difference between presidents hoover and roosevelt in facing german aggression. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online at any time. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this, where americans consider marcus at work --

americans can see democracy at work. get informed astray from the source on c-span -- get informed straight from the source on c-span. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided coverage of the halls of congress from house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a friend proceed to have issues are debated with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> order your copy of the congressional directory as c-span.org. is your access to the federal government with information for every house and senate member. the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governments -- state governors. go to-snshop.org. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. >> book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 7:00 p.m., former ncaa president speaks of healing america through conversations he has had with notable americans in his book "never forget our people are always free."

and on "afterwards," elibeth shares her book "the overlooked americans," where she argues urban and rural america have more in common than what is perceived. she's interviewed by a former senator. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule under program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on july 13, members of congress joining us. we are joined by revisited gwen moore. she serves the state of wisconsin and is a member of the ways and means committee. guest: so glad to be here. host: a hearing looking at temporary assistance for needy families, can you explain what that program does? guest: it a program that

replaced aid for families with -- children and changed it from individual appropriations and turned it into a block grant, a total of $16.5 billion nationwide. it was provided to states with a great deal of flexibility as to what they did with the money. this came about after the newt gingrich, bill clinton end to a fair bill in congress -- end to welfare bill and the congress. the first bill came out of wisconsin under governor thompson. it is a bill that really focused on work as opposed to providing a city net for women with children. host: what was the purpose of

the hearing? guest: the hearing was entitled "looking at waste fraud and abuse." one of our key witnesses was an auditor from the state of mississippi who focused on the tennis court that brett favre was able to build with 10 if money. he went into a deal about kickbacks and other things that were 10 funds were used -- kenneth -- tanif funds were used. the law was designed to track this kind of abuse. some of the documents demonstrated that when we started welfare reform in wisconsin, we put $24 million in

the budget for vendors for profit and nonprofit organizations to give bonuses for their caseload reductions. caseload reductions did not mean connecting women with work, it meant simply throwing them off. there was a great deal of incentive to throw things off and all of the overage, the money left over, these agencies were able to use it for whatever they want up to and including bonuses for ceos of private companies like maximus out of virginia which has a contract in wisconsin. there was an audit which

demonstrate it hundreds of thousands of dollars -- treated hundreds of thousands of dollars that auditors thought were inappropriate, related to services for poor people that were paid. then of course the welfare recipients were not in attendance at. the real fraud came from how we designed the program because the program said, the law said, that these funds were unrestricted. if i were one of these defendants, i would push back and say the law allowed me to throw chris's party -- a christmas party. that is what i did. host: let me invite people into the conversation. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. in mississippi's case, that auditor found $37 million in unused funds. what has to go into law to keep that money from being stated? guest: we had an outstanding witness who was the administrative -- the administrator for a program called magnolia trust. it imitated what we had done with the child tax credit where we reduce poverty by 50% over those few months under the biden administration where we had the child tax credit provided on a monthly basis. the magnolia trust provides women with children $1000 in month, $12,000 annually, no strings attached, do with it what you want and incentivizes

work because it is not too much to prevent you from getting benefits, medicaid for example. it might reduce the amount ofs -- the amount of snap you get, but it puts you on the path to get a job and trust women to do what they will with it. some people needed for transportation, other people need it because they have a large family. they need it for food. it allows them to make their own decisions about how to spend household funds. may be housing with more rooms and to trust people with--assistance -- with cash assistance as opposed to building huge bureaucracies

around poverty. in wisconsin, we had all of these agencies, african-american agencies, stennis -- spanish agencies, tribal and for-profit agencies all getting pieces of money to checkboxes. this person showed up for their interview for work. this person showed up for the seminar on soft skills, how to listen to your alarm clock to get up for work, child welfare where if you don't comply with rules, you are subject to having your children taken from you. instead of this huge bureaucracy , provide people with what they need, money to buy peppers, money -- money to buy diapers, money to buy food, money so that they have a basic child subsidy

so that the $7.50 job is a step up instead of a burden. allow them to continue to have medicaid while they are making $7.50 per hour. the minute you make $10 an hour, you are theranos the program. host: there were regulations coming from the arkansas department of human services secretary. she gave recommendations on how these laws could be formed. i want to pay wish he had to say and give your thoughts on it. [video clip] >> the legislature was instrumental in how we use our dollars by passing legislation to transfer the program from the division of workforce services to the department of human services. to promote stability and maximize the effectiveness of workforce developed funding and initiatives, dhs could offer courtney to services, including prevention and family

preservation services that meet the purposes and remove barriers to work. with the transfer, we plan to integrate controls for recognition of cap straws -- arkansas is looking to be transfer me to while approving countability for outcomes, particularly around non-cash assistance initiatives. i have three recommendations for this committee. first, continue to support state's abilities to contract with private and community-based organizations gift oversight is demonstrated. consider allowing states to reinstate high-performance bonuses with payments not to the state for high-performance but to employers and families that successfully move their employers -- their employees and others off of welfare. review definitions that conflict other benefit programs and

consolidate such policy to be consistent across all programs. our children and family do not come to us in pieces. we do not need to keep planning for them as if they do. host: particularly those last three, what do you think? guest: that was a mouthful. i would have to dissect some of the things she said. a lot of it sounds like the regional program where you think about returning it to the department of health and human services and reintegrating services like medicaid, snap, the recipient see -- the receiving of--credits. they discourage people from using the services. restoring cash bonuses for performance, i would have to make sure it was not like it is

now. cash bonuses were for getting people of the roles. anyway you could do that come up to and including kicking them off. as i pointed out, in wisconsin, we have staff positions called divergent specialists and it was their job to tell a woman who might have been pregnant and having a child on her side that you don't need welfare, we are going to give you a food voucher, bus tickets, and you are now off. we could check a box and say we got a personal for welfare. it sounds like she meant performance bonuses where you actually connect people to job opportunities, maybe even educational opportunities. we are post-technology -- we are

a post-technology economy where people need skills to get into the workforce and remain attached to the workforce. with regard to recommendations, reintegrating the services, bonuses, if you help lift people out of poverty. that was enough for because arkansas was one of the states that certainly provided very little of the multimillions of dollars they received through tanf programs and through their own efforts, actually putting it into helping people. host: this is bill in new york, democrat line for gwen moore. caller: good morning. i am very interested in your approach to programs designed to

help the poor, whether it was welfare to work program in wisconsin or president clinton's program or president johnson's program to give children pre-k instruction so they catch up with the majority. the biggest problem is the expended cost, the unnecessary cost put into these programs. in order to get the money to fund pre-k for minor children, have to pay off everybody -- you have to pay off everybody between the poor people and the people who live in the suburbs.

they ended up with more of that pre-k money so a lot of women were able to go into the workforce and indeed become members of the upper-middle-class. guest: makes a point -- he makes a point that it costs money to put people into pre-k programs. the point that ought to be made is that kindergartners are our future workforce. all of us were kindergartners at one point. the more resources you put into children, the better those outcomes are. he science demonstrates that -- of the science demonstrates that -- the science demonstrates that. like we did the child tax credit , it demonstrates that there are better outcomes, not only educationally, career development, health, housing,

predetermined health, providing educational opportunity pays off in the long run. we have a lot of competitors around the globe who put a lot of resources into educating the public. it really pays off. host: eddie is in new jersey, your next up -- you are next up. caller: good morning, congresswoman. there is legislature in california which would give black fathers who are not with the mother of their baby anymore , they won't have to pay child support. such a law, even with equitable considerations you might have, it will cause more people, those

children and those mothers to be on welfare. we are causing more people to be reliant on the government. guest: i am not familiar with the california law, when -- but when paul ryan, the former chair of the ways and means committee was here, one of the things we wanted to work out together? sure child support collected actually went to the family instead of going back to the state for the county to repay old medicaid bills for back child support. there is no incentive for a father to pay child support when his child is not going to see a dime of it. it is going to go back to some medicaid or hospital bill five years old. i don't know what they're doing in california but i am all for incentivizing fathers to not

only pay child support, but to be involved in their children's lives. host: representative gwen moore is joining us. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. i believe you brought up the work requirements, i want to ask about your reaction to the new work requirements added to snap because of the debate over debt issues. what are the short and long-term impact? guest: i was very upset about that. i thought it was a deliberate stab at president biden's base. it disproportionately had an impact on women of color, particularly black women, elderly black women with regard to work requirements. to say you are between 49 years old and 54 years old, a point in time when a lot of people are

diagnosed with diabetes or heart trouble or arthritis, to say you have to get out there, stand on your feet, be it waitress or a cna at 49 or else you want to be eligible for snap, even if you are eligible and he work those 20 hours a week from 49 to 54, you are only going to be eligible for three months out of every three years. i think it is cruel to take food away from anybody. but to demand that -- we accented veterans and thank god we exempted foster youth. that leaves many women, especially women of color in a snag. i want to .1 thing out -- i want

to point one thing out. the workforce participation of black men is higher than any other women in the u.s. if people are 49 to 54 and not working, it is probably because they are facing health problems, facing responsibilities for other family members who are sick or disabled. it is cruel. host: let's hear from roy in north carolina. caller: good morning. i went to ask representative moore your opinion on means testing. do you think means testing leads to -- in our first system? i think it does more harm than good. i am wondering your personal stance on this issue. guest: thank you for bringing

that up. means testing is important. it depends on what you are testing it against. the poverty level does not increase for decades. it is not a full measurement of what people need in order to thrive and make it in society. think of another measurement, the minimum wage, which i think ultimately is a good thing. it has not changed from $7.25 an hour for ever. where can you find an apartment, buy food, stand up a family? who can live anywhere off of $7.50 an hour? in my state, if you make -- if you work two $7.50 per hour jobs, if you were that

enthusiastic and you take two fast food jobs, all that would accomplish is to make you ineligible for medicaid in my state. if you are one penny over 100% of the poverty level, you would be ineligible. the math does not add up. i am grateful you have raised that this morning. host: this is shannon in iowa. democrats like. caller: as someone who lived off of food stamps, i understand is something vital for the needs of poor working families. i also understand that it is important -- host: go ahead. guest: shannon was beginning to make a good point.

what snap is, food stamps, it is a supplement. it is literally two dollars per meal per person. that is six dollars per day. the notion that somehow people are squandering this benefit or misusing it is absolutely cruel. to say you don't deserve six dollars per day to eat and it is a supplement. people to have to have some other income. i also want to point out that food stamps, snap, is one of the programs where we require people to work. most of the people, 80% to 90% of the people who received snap work either one year before or one year after that period of time they find themselves in need of snap. it is a program where people are working. host: you wrote a piece earlier this year talking about the

maternal mortality crisis. could you elaborate what he wrote about and your concerns -- what you wrote about and your concerns? guest: the maternal mortality rate in the u.s. is higher than in some so-called third world countries. studies have come out from the journal of american medical associates academies that demonstrates in the last 20 years it has doubled. especially for black women and native women. it has gone up 162% for native women. it is not just restricted to poor black women, to black women. . a lot of that harkens back to his schism, classism, even when you are not poor.

the medical profession is not paying attention and listening to men of color. these -- to women of color. these are their conclusions. i have been delighted to be involved in a package of bills put together by the heads of our maternal caucus, dr. alma adams progrowth caroline and lauren underwood who represents illinois, a package of 13 bills that try to address maternal mortality as we experience it. one of my bills, i am one of the 13 bills, and it is to increase the natal workforce. increase opportunities for dualist, advocates to go to doctors appointments, to coach you through a pregnancy. this works.

we have found it works to have duelists. dachshund beaulah -- doulas. the other bill would reimburse the natal workforce recipients. it is a career ladder for women. it is something women have done for thousands of years, take care of other women who are pregnant and postpartum. this is something we need to institutionalize and pay for. it saves lives. host: one more call. dylan in south dakota. republican line. caller: i am a disabled veteran and my daughter is on snap and i was wondering, you know there are white people who are poor. it just isn't black people.

guest: my brother lived in south dakota and he was the only black person in that community. the original aid to families with dependent children came into focus because of appalachia and the poor children that are there. it is puzzling to me. west virginia. i absolutely know there are poor white people. when i talk about black women and black people, it is because they are disproportionately poor. numerically speaking there are more white people who are poor. when i talk about our safety net being structured in a way that is unfair, it is a classist and racist problem.

it does have an impact on poor white people and poor children as well. i appreciate you raising that. host: this is representative gwen moore, democrat from wisconsin. she serves on the ways and means committee. we thank you for your times. host: up next we'll hear from the wall street journal sadie gurman talking about the hearing featuring if the eye director chris wray. here is a bit from that hearing. it was in his opening statements the director talked about the agency, and defended the agency's work against weaponization. here is a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i want to talk about the sheer breadth and impact the work of the fbi's 38,000 employees are doing because the work the men and women of the fbi do to protect the american

people goes way beyond the one or two investigations that seem to capture all the headlines. take violent crime. last year alone, working shoulder to shoulder with our partners, the fbi arrested more than 20,000 violent minerals and child predators. that is an average of 60 bad guys taken off the streets per day every day. or our work going after the cartels, exploiting our southwest border to traffic fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into communities. the fbi is running well over 300 investigations targeting the leadership of those cartels and working with our partners we have already seized hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl this year alone, stopping deadly drugs from reaching their intended destinations in states all over the country and saving countless american lives.

or the thousands of active investigations we have into the chinese government's efforts to steal our most precious secrets, rob our businesses of their ideas and innovation, and repress freedom of speech right here in the united states. that is just scratching the surface. the men and women of the fbi worked tirelessly to protect the american people from what is a staggering array of threats. we do not do that work alone. the fbi now leads more than 750 taskforces nationwide made up of more than 6000 state and local task force officers who are tf'' s for more than 1800 state and local agencies. each of those represents an officer, a deputy, or an investigator that a local police chief, sheriff, or state superintendent was willing to send our way.

certainly not because they did not have enough work to do in their own department but because they saw the tremendous value that are fbi taskforces bring. we are honored and humbled by their trust in us and grateful for their partnership. >> "washington journal"" continues. host: joining us to talk about that hearing, sadie gurman covers the justice department and issues for the wall street journal. here is the headline. wray pushes back against the gop as lawmakers assail the fbi. what was he expecting as he walked into the hearing? caller: it was his first hearing in front of this committee that promised to conduct a far-reaching investigation of law enforcement and what jim jordan calls the weaponization of law enforcement. he was bracing for a very combative hearing and that

promised to be true. we saw a republican lawmakers repeatedly interrupting him and continuing to give him this very aggressive grilling as part of this first oversight hearing since investigations of trump, since trump has been charged and since hunter biden took of the deal. host: how do republicans apply weaponization to the fbi? caller: republicans are saying the fbi is inappropriately targeting their party and conservatives and supporters of trump. host: what do they present as evidence? caller: there were a number of things. they talked about, in addition to the investigations of trump and what they described as a two tiered justice system, a more lenient handling of the president's son, we also saw things like social media, republicans are saying the fbi works with twitter and other

companies to silence their voices and take down conservative leaning thoughts off of the web. we saw criticism about anti-catholic bias. we sell repeated attacks on the director about a memo from two years ago concerning school board members and the fbi's involvement in investigating those. we covered a panoply of different complaints from the gop. host: we will show one of those exchanges in a bit. the fbi director gave a defense of the bureau. what are the main arguments he made to push back against these claims? guest: he did push back. he strongly rejected any insinuation the fbi is partisan or acting on political motives and he said since he has been in charge he has tried repeatedly to instill this idea you need to do things by the book. he has told agents you need to

follow these processes and he believes they are doing that. he has instituted reforms in light of some of the things republicans brought up and he resisted any idea and any suggestion the fbi is partisan. host: that oversight hearing of the fbi is still available on our website and our epp. if you want to ask questions of our guests and the back-and-forth that took place between members of congress, you can call (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. i want to show the exchange the director had with harriet ackerman of wyoming about what you talked about as far as weaponization was concerned. >> from the twitter files,

missouri versus by the disclosure, the explosion and collapse of the russia pollution hoax, the american people understand there is a two tiered justice system being weaponize to persecute people based on their political beliefs and you've personally worked weaponized the fbi against conservatives. i asked mr. durham about this to which he answered i do not think things can go too much further with the view that the law enforcement what institute a tiered system of justice. a nation cannot stand under those circumstances. what are you prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement in a manner that earns back the trust of the american people. >> i would disagree with your characterization of the fbi and your scripture of my own approach. the idea i am biased against conservatives seem somewhat insane to me given my own personal background. as to how we are approaching our work of protecting the american people and upholding the

constitution, it starts with me having emphasized all of our folks over and over in everything we do that we need to do the right in the right way and that means following the facts wherever they lead no matter who likes it. host: that was from yesterday. the representative pointed directly at christopher wray and said you are personally responsible. what did she mean by that? guest: they think he is setting the tone as the leader of the organization and he has not done enough to reign in his agents, particularly other leaders. what is interesting, in addition to the unusual political moment we are in where the law and order party is now some of the harshest critics of the fbi and you see the democrats coming to the bureau's defense, additionally christopher wray is a registered republican and that was mentioned a number of times. he resisted the idea that he is anti-conservative because he is conservative himself.

host: remind people how he became director of the fbi? guest: president trump appointed him after firing former fbi director james comey. this is a trump appointee. host: what happened in the transition between someone who was appointed by republican now to someone being vilified by republicans. guest: since that we have seen the justice department aggressively investigating trump and we have seen the january 6 attack on the capital. these are two of many investigations that republicans are pointing to to suggest the bureau has been politicized or weaponized and is overzealously investigating republicans and a trump supporters. host: when he was asked if fbi members were present that day of the capital, can you give us contact. guest: they still gives to be some idea that the fbi pushed back on that they had agents or

were encouraging the violence, stoking the riots and directing people into the capital that day. many times the fbi, christopher wray and other people have pushed back on this idea. the idea that the fbi somehow started the riot is totally unbelievable and this did not happen. that is still a big republican talking point. host: when it came to the seizure of documents from mar-a-lago, give us some context as to the fbi's role. guest: this is what they point to when they talk about the two justice system. they said the fbi was overly aggressive going to mar-a-lago to collect documents, especially when compared to the way the bureau have been treating the classified documents find at

president biden's house. there are stark differences in those cases. the justice department says trump refused her leg push the documents -- refused to relinquish the documents. in the case of president biden they say he and his team quickly relinquished them and provided them and were cooperative. republicans are saying they are taking a hands-off kids club approach to biden in a very aggressive tack towards trump. host: sadie gurman is our gassed. you can -- is our guest. if you have questions about the hearing you can call the lines (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. we will start with tom. republican line. good morning.

caller: i've been involved in this issue long before it was a topic of popular conversation. i wrote a report called inside the fbi domestic terrorism strategy. it is available on amazon. i was the senior collection strategists at the national counterterrorism center. there is only one of those in the u.s. government. i pushed back at the national counterterrorism center about the fbi's desire to have a federal domestic terrorism statute with the express purpose of getting round the protections the first amendment offers the american people. in addition to that, in october of 2020 in a meeting with the fbi domestic terrorism task force, i warned that we were headed to a potential black swan event. a black swan event is what in the military we call something that spirals out of control very rapidly and unexpectedly and you cannot get your hands around it.

exactly like what happened on january 6. host: what is the question for our gassed? caller: my question is this. how can anyone -- and i watched every interview -- back to when he was saying the first enemy was domestic terrorism -- how can anyone of any political stripe in the united states be tolerant of the fact that it has been revealed that the fbi was coercing social media to silence conservative voices, any voices in america. in addition to that, agree just violations of 702 where they were invading people's privacy. host: thanks, caller. guest: the points he raises were

central to yesterday's hearing. with regard to the recent injunction involving twitter and the federal government, the judge had ordered the federal government not to have any contact with social media companies, saying they are taking down certain posts constituted a violation of the first amendment. he is right about that. the director says he has taken steps to comply with that court order and put out some guidance to the field about how best to do that. he is certainly sensitive to that concern. host: he mentioned 702. what is that and how does that apply to what the fbi does? guest: that is what fbi officials view as a very important surveillance tool in terms of combating threats like terrorism and attacks from rivals like china and russia. it is a tool the national security officials say is vital to investigating and thwarting these attacks.

it is up for renewal at the end of the year and is facing -- democrats and republicans are skeptical about its potential intrusions on american privacy so the fbi and the justice department have had an uphill battle in explaining to lawmakers why they should renew that surveillance tool. host: florida, independent line, you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. i'll is feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle of an issue. looking back at the way the fbi has conducted themselves since donald trump became president, i think the manner in which they conducted business was very aggressive compared to the way they treated the democrats. keep in mind i am an independent looking at both sides. i expected director wray to

conduct himself that way. he will defend the fbi. he is the director of it. we know the fbi did some things wrong. we know may be mr. trump did some things wrong. the way they conducted themselves -- would it not lead the people on the right to think there are things that are not being done correctly and there is a two tear justice system? guest: that is certainly at the heart of republican allegations that the fbi has been politicized. on the surface it could be viewed as two different approaches to leaders of two different political parties. if you look at what the fbi and the justice department have filed in court about the amount of evidence they have amassed at the time of that august search. the director says he believes

there was probable cause. we know the internally general was deliberate in considering that step. if you look at all of the evidence of what the justice department says are crimes like obstruction and willful retention of national security documents they are saying that gives them the right to go in and the director said yesterday that the fbi took steps to ensure the search of mar-a-lago did not generate undue attention. the fbi agent's did not wear those big fbi raid jackets you see at some of these searches. they were conscious of that. host: does the fbi have an outside source, and inspector general? guest: there is an inspector general but note these

investigations of the classified documents at biden's house and the documents at mar-a-lago are being led by a special counsel, jack smith, who is a political independent, and a former trump u.s. attorney is overseeing the investigation of the classified documents found at biden's home. merrick garland had done this to add a layer of insulation to these investigations from the attack we are seeing on the hill yesterday. host: sadie gurman joining us from the wall street journal. mike in texas. republican line. caller: i wanted to say in regard to the claim that trump, not that you set it but there was a comment regarding trump supporters going into the capital. for the record the person who gave the orders and encouraged people to go into the happel, his name israel -- into the capital, his name is ray epps.

the second thing is hunter biden's laptop, it was real, the fbi knew it was real in 2019 or thereabouts and tony bob belinsky. democrats can hate him all they want. he was a witness. he was never fully interviewed. was waiting for the fbi to interview him and they slowly walked him to this day. he is a credible witness. you have six whistleblowers the democrats will not accept. they do not want to have the dialogue. transparency is not what they are after. these officers are the ones who said this was russian misinformation. you know the price they paid for lying to the american people before the 2020 election? nothing. it reminds me of senator reid who claimed mitt romney never paid his taxes for 10 years.

he was asked about it afterwards and he didn't win, did he? host: that is mike in texas. who is ray epps? guest: ray epps is at the heart of a conspiracy theory that he worked with the fbi to incite that day. he has denied that and the fbi has denied that but this theory is persisting. the fbi director tonight the fbi was involved in stoking the attack. host: as of this morning he is suing fox news for defamation. guest: another major defamation case against fox in line with what we have seen before. host: there is the headline from usa today. we will continue with aaron in virginia, democrats line.

caller: i had a quick question. what prompted my call is hearing you say during the mar-a-lago raid they made an effort to not be visually appearing as the fbi. this was something of a grand gesture. normally the fbi handles everything on a straight line. i want to ask a question as far as the appearance with donald trump being arraigned and not having a mugshot. does that suggest he is above the law because special considerations are taken? when you have people rating the capital they were not treated like some other groups may have been treated in the past with attacking a federal building which the law states what the penalty is for that. i want to get your sense -- does the fbi stance with coddling him show that he is somehow above

the law? guest: this pencil counsel that charged trump said nobody is above the law and emphasize the gravity of the charges against the former president. what i think you are seeing is an understanding and acknowledgment he is not necessarily above the law but he is a different type of suspect. he is a former president. this is the first time this has ever happened. the justice department is cognizant of that and is taking steps to minimize the circus-like atmosphere around this case and emphasize it is a court case like any other and it is in federal court and florida and trying to minimize the fair fair -- the fanfare and the potential for any future around it.

host: we will hear from robert. caller: i was wondering if you have formed an opinion or can offer any opinion on the plea deal hunter biden talk. five years and there is a two count misdemeanor felony and a discharge of the fraudulent application of the gun purchase. you even have attorneys on networks like cnn saying something is not right. can you understand or see why many americans, myself included, think this does not smell right. five years? anyway, your opinion. host: thanks for the call. you may have to provide context for what rob is talking about. guest: hunter biden is agreeing to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax offenses to his

failure pay taxes in 2017 and 2018 and an agreement that will allow him to avoid jail time and process you should on a separate gun offense that he possessed a weapon as a drug user in 2018. as you pointed out, many republicans think this was a sweetheart deal because they did not charge him with felony tax crimes. this is a case that was prosecuted by a trump appointed u.s. attorney in delaware. attorney general merrick garland left him in place to insulate the investigation from the kind of criticism he is getting. it is an open debate whether this is a sweetheart deal at this point because we've not seen the statement of fact in the case. we have not seen all of the evidence prosecutors have amassed. that is something they will file in court before his plea deal takes effect, likely on july 26,

that is when he will go before a judge. a judge has to approve all of this. we could learn more details at that time. his case is also dissimilar to others. we looked at other prosecutions of similar gun times and found his is unique in terms of how the justice department usually handles these things. frequently these type of charges are brought in connection with larger drug trafficking offenses. we do not see that alleged. we have to see with the statement of fact says before we can draw any opinion. host: hunter biden came up in another way courtesy of florida republican matt gaetz. we will play a little bit of what happened. [video clip] >> i am sitting here with my father. i will make certain that with my ability to forever hold a judge you will regret not following my direction.

i am sitting here waiting for the call with my father. sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it? >> i'm not going to get into commenting on that. >> you seem deeply on curious about it, don't you? are you protecting the bidens? >> you will answer the question. >> you will not answer the question and everybody knows why you will not answer it. to the millions of people who see it they know it is and your inability to acknowledge that is deeply revealing about you. host: there is the exchange. a little context, please. guest: this is coming up in the context of irs agents have come forward as so-called whistleblowers saying the justice department stymied the investigation and the prosecutor on the case was denied special

counsel status, that is something he has denied. the whistleblowers have come forward with various allegations about hunter biden that republicans are saying were not thoroughly investigated by the fbi. that is what he is talking about . it was a what's app message in which is accusing hunter biden of saying these things. the fbi director is vehemently denying the agency is protecting the president and his family. host: the full hearing is on our website and you can see it on the app. this is bob in georgia. republican line. caller: what bothers me about this hearing, and part of what we just saw on the video. what bothers me about it is the smirkiness of this director. he acts as though congress has

no power over him at all. he is doing everything but sticking his tongue out at them. he is very rebellious. in civics classes i have heard how congress has the power of the purse. do they not have any power over this man such that they can defund the fbi or do something other than have him sit there and smirked at them? guest: two thoughts about that. republicans on a different committee investigating the business dealings of the biden family threatened and then withdrew a threat to hold the fbi director in contempt over information they were seeking from a confidential source that allegedly described date could -- a corruption scheme involving the bidens. the fbi director took steps to let lawmakers view the documents

and come to their own conclusions. that is extraordinary access he provided. i think he is sensitive to congressional oversight. defunding the fbi is something republicans have threatened in this week we saw jim jordan floating in idea of taking the fbi out of washington politics by taking out of washington and moving into huntsville, alabama. that is not a plan likely to get traction but it does show the unusual political moment we are finding ourselves in and how serious the republicans are about holding the fbi accountable. host: what you just mentioned, she wrote in a story a few days ago you can find at the wall street journal website about this proposal to move the fbi headquarters to alabama. we will hear from christine in pennsylvania. independent line. caller: i was wondering your opinion.

i watched some of the hearing yesterday and i thought i heard a question asked of director ray regarding joe biden's questionable money deals. what was the answer director ray gave? guest: i am not sure i specifically recall that line of questioning. i guess what stood out to me the most in the context of the bidens and investigations is the fbi director's forceful denial that the agency is giving them any coverage. he denied there is a two tiered system of justice. under his watch he says things are being handled evenhandedly and he is not giving cover to the biden family. host: in san diego, democrats line. woody. hello. caller: my question is is that a reflection of the two to your law system when certain numbers of supreme court justice or

member of congress ignore a subpoena or if a member of the supreme court refuses to answer questions about ethics, is that a two tiered justice system? second question. how can a member of congress who ignores subpoenas, does he have the authority or the power or the right to suggest subpoenaing somebody else and if that person does not acquiesce to that subpoena -- what you call it when they threatened to cut off the funds to that individual? thank you. guest: on the supreme court i am a little out of my depth so i will leave that to the experts. host: some have pointed to chairman jordan as the subpoenas

he force war as part of the investigation into january 6 and did not answer them. you can add context to that. guest: i would say it is an interesting moment because some of trump's allies, including people in congress have been caught up in these investigations. that does pose some questions for separations of powers issues and to what extent the executive branch has the ability to do that. in regards to that specifically i am not sure. host: one more call from robin in pennsylvania. you are the last call. good morning. caller: i just have to ask the lady. you really think everything we are seeing is not true? they have bank records proving that the bidens have been taking money from china.

over $30 million. they've been doing this investigation for how long with hunter? this is baloney and they have to get somebody on who will be on both sides. she is a democrat. guest: i'm not going to offer my opinion to the extent i have an opinion. i would say this type of questioning shows that even as the director goes on the hill and addresses the criticism like what the caller is describing these complaints are not going away anytime soon and people are pretty hardened in their opinion and views of the fbi and if we very challenging for the bureau to try to sway anybody to their side. host: it will not be his last business on the hill. guest: i highly doubt it. host: saide gurman who covers the justice department for the wall street journal, thank you so much. open forum until the end of the program. call (202) 748-8000 for

democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202) 748-8002. we will take the calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 7:00 former naacp president ben jealous speaks about healing america. his book nevert our people then elizabeth -- that usc puicolicy professors shows her book where she argues that rural and urban america have more in common than what is perceived. she is interviewed by heidi heitkamp.

watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. watch online anytime at book tv.org. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book db podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller list as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts.

c-span's campaign 2024 coverage your front row seat to the presidential election. watch your front row to the candidates. campaign 2024 on the c-span network. c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span. your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the house coming in at 10:00. up until then open forum. text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003.

john in connecticut, democrats line, you are up first. go ahead. caller: i am always amazed when tuning in to hear the republicans and people who support trump going on and on about hunter biden and the biden family. almost everything biden is being used of his being doubled or tripled by donald trump. i do not understand why people keep supporting him. he tries to overthrow our elections. he has done deals with russia. there is not a dictator he does not like. i am amazed and i am sad for our country and i wish all people would pray for our country. we need real guidance to get out of this because it is gotten

ridiculous. host: go in michigan. republican line. caller: wire these democrats always bashing trump. trump had some boxes of top-secret stuff. he did wrong. what about joe biden. he had stuff when he was a senator. he is not supposed to take stuff but you did not hear nothing about that. everybody jumps on trump. i voted for barack obama twice and i voted for trump. whoever will do the job does the job. host: let's go to debbie in west virginia. independent line. thank you so much for taking my call. i want to make two points. regarding ray epps in january 6,

i saw the video they would not release and it showed people around ray epps. he is telling people let's go in. finally people start hollering "fed, fed" yet the fbi says they cannot find him. i can find him. number two, the fd 1023 the fbi had that was not classified, senator grassley got to see that unreacted and now the fbi will not release it to everyone. there is something going on and i think everyone can see it. host: debbie in west virginia. the washington post reporting federal regulators today approve the first over-the-counter birth control pill available in the united states, a milestone in the efforts to make oral contraceptives easier to obtain. the fda's approval of the bill

comes six decades after daily birth control pills were introduced in the united states, drastically changing the lives of countless women and it means the country will join about 100 other nations that allow the sale of nonprescription birth control pills. health experts letting the pills lengthy record for safety and effectiveness have pushed for a pill for years but their campaign took a new urgency after the supreme court struck down the fundamental right to abortion established i roe v. wade. more if you want to read it in the washington post. open forum. this is kevin in cleveland. caller: good rain. i wanted to make a couple points about the hearing. it is my belief the reason why so many people are upset with director wray is because a few months ago he got on television and said the biggest threat to

the united states is not china or russia or iran but is white supremacy. that was a major blow to those that lean towards white supremacy in the public sector and in the government. that is all i wanted to say. host: john, republican line, missouri. good morning. caller: how are you. i would like to make a comment about the hunter biden weapons charge. you take anyone else -- anyone else that takes a 357 python and they throw it in a commercial dumpster 50 yards from a schoolyard, he should be put in jail just like anybody else. if you are i did that we would be in federal prison or in the county jail waiting to go to the federal court system. host: donald up next in north carolina. independent line. caller: how are you doing? i just want to say that the

supreme court, i do not understand how in the world they can allow these justices to even deal with these billionaires than when they have something coming up that they support, how in the world can a person like clarence thomas decide he is not going to recuse himself. it does not make sense. to me they need to come up some type of ethics rules where he would automatically have to be refused because you know for a fact that he is doing something that is not right when he is

getting all of these gifts and then he is not recusing himself. he did not recuse himself when his wife came up with one of her groups. that is all i have to say. host: robert in maryland. democrats line. caller: i have a statement. the question is about donald trump. donald trump chose to run for president. this is what he wants to do. citizens want to -- the law of the united states? host: we are said to cover the national governors association, the summer meeting taking place in atlantic city.

it deals with several things looking at youth mental health. first lady jill biden spurt -- speaks to the conference. l of that you can see today on our networks. tomorrow two governors joining us for talk about the meeting itself and issues of importance to states. you can see that conversation on this program and follow along on this program on our ap, our website, and this network. let's hear from keith in houston, texas. independent line. caller: there is a lot being covered on c-span and other networks and i channel into each of them. i think we have a serious issue

with our news networks and c-span is something i enjoy. i think we need to outstanding if you would have more fact checking. that is the biggest problem with our news media today, especially with fox network. we can love that they have already been charged with the lying and the money they have to pay and the lawsuit. where are the fact checkers when it comes to this yesterday there was a lot of back and forth even with matt gaetz when he brought up what he brought up. where was the fact checking. where is the substantial proof that a lot of these things they

are bringing up. if there was a problem with the laptop, it was a problem during the trump administration. the individuals he appointed were investigating that. where are the fact checkers of let's go to robert in can -- host: let's go to robert in connecticut. independent line. caller: i think you are doing a great job as a commentator. my question to you is how do you deal with all of the acreage that comes through to you every day. you have great composure and you're doing a great job. i want to listen to what you have to say. host: i am not a commentator, i'm just the host of this program. let's hear from west virginia. this is gary. caller: how are you doing.

it is amazing. i love listening to this program. people call in just like the young lady that called in about biden, they found that grassley had this and everybody else had that. if they had it all and everybody else has to see it and nobody else seems to find it, it was amazing then when somebody gets tired of being jumped on about nothing and have his people put down they are not supposed to react. so you hear from jim jordan and gaetz and all of the rest of the gentleman and i will use the term lightly. you have a great day. host: you can watch the whole hearing on our website at c-span.org. you can do that at the app at c-span now.

the governors joining us tomorrow for the discussion on issues of concern to them. phil murphy democrat from new jersey, spencer coxe, republican from utah. you can see that conversation at 8:00 tomorrow morning. this is allen in florida, republican line. caller: good morning. i want to comment similar to what other people are saying. there is too much about what is brought up on fox news and other cable news channels that is miss information instead of ringing up the facts in the other thing you never hear about, especially not from fox news or the other cable channels are the host of republicans that do not agree with jim jordan, that do not agree with matt gaetz, that do not agree with the trumper's. those people, like liz cheney

and people in the lincoln project are never heard from on those cable news channels. i do sometimes see them on the c-span programs which is nice and i appreciate that. host: the new york times picks up a story coming out of georgia. a democrat representing georgia affected to the republican party , saying she was subject to a campaign of intimidation from allies after breaking with them on school vouchers. she announced she was switching parties during a news conference . she is the first black woman to hold office in georgia state.

director of the georgia house republican caucus. more from that in the new york times. we will hear from gilbert in alabama. host: i would like to reiterate the fact that the fbi, the same fbi that thought dr. king was a communist and i watched the hearing thoroughly. it is a said they when the director of the fbi is willing to sacrifice what is left of the credibility of the fbi for the defense of the president son. it is a sad day. with all of these whistleblowers with the fbi, it is a sad day in america. there is no moderation in the government of this country. that will be the downfall of america. host: americans heard from kristin anderson, and a response

that he and his team tried to cover up the lab leak theory. here are some of his testimony. [video clip] >> these allegations are false. the crane that dr. fauci drafted the -- to prove the lab leak is not true. we have been working through much of the primarily genetic data to provide scientifically informed hypotheses around the origin of the virus. there was no prompting to dismiss -- when i outlined my initial position, dr. fauci told me if you think this virus came from a lab you should write a

scientific. there was not a prompt to disprove the theory. it was predicated on our initial hypothesis of a lab associated virus. the allegation that dr. fauci drafted -- is quote mine from an email i wrote to participants. the scientific method is based on two concepts of formulating hypotheses and testing those hypotheses. my initial hypothesis was a lab. . when i stated we were trying to disprove any lab during i was is typically referring to us testing our early hypothesis. this is textbook science in action. some have alleged i've received a federal grant in exchange for the conclusions made. there is no connection between the brand and the paper.

funding decisions on the grant were made before the pandemic. months before the february 1 conference call. in closing, we live in a world in which the risk of devastating pandemics is real and is ever-increasing. we need more research and commitment to science, not less. scientists, including myself, who dedicate their professional lives to impactful research are being targeted and used as pawns in a political game. host: you can see that hearing on our networks and you can also go to our c-span now app to see more of that. jimmy and made. democrats line. caller: i am going to change the subject quite severely and urge the united states and the empire and everybody to attend a peace

conference about the ukraine war and be ready to cede some territory. otherwise the only difference being made is arms sales and dead people. it is very sad. host: republican line is next. colorado. dan in colorado. hello? go ahead. caller: my comment is about donald trump. if he is so bad how come he is still number one and everybody else is all mad at him. i like donald trump and i think he is a good man and i think people overrate him. host: dan in colorado. the washington post and others

has a story about the one you're in number three of the james webb space telescope -- has a story about the one year anniversary of the james webb space telescope. a recent image now being published by the website. it is of the closest starforming region to earth. that is video courtesy of nasa you can check out on it nasa's site at nasa.gov. i will let astronomy people look at it. we will go to raymond in colorado. independent line. caller: good morning, america. my comment is to the scientists of the world. we need to improve on the lie detector test where it is 99% accurate. it needs to be 100%.

once we do that we can save the world. no longer will people able to put out false facts because they would have a lie detector test that would prove they are lying. i would suggest in the 2020 for election that the two candidates to an independent lie detector test with three independent sources and questions asked from the audience. thank you and god bless america. host: representatives just about to come in. from virginia will hear from isaiah. independent line. caller: hello. host: are you there? isaiah from virginia? let's try brian in lincoln, nebraska. democrats line. caller: good morning. the rs whistleblower told

congress there was evidence hunter biden's claims for support in his business dealings were really wishful thinking and that is a quote. also that hunter biden business associate rob walker told investigators "i certainly never was thinking at any time the vice president was part of anything we were doing." i was going to say it is possible all of these claims by hunter biden that he was supporting his family and he was sending all of this money to his father, it might've just been blowing coke smoke and not the truth. the idea that joe biden would be needing money from his son, how ridiculous that is. someone in his position like ron johnson and charles grassley and

james comer, they are all multimillionaires. anyone who is in that position can get all of the money they want from making speeches and being on boards of organizations. all this talk about joe biden being corrupt is nonsense. host: that is brian in lincoln, nebraska finishing off the round of calls on this open forum. appreciate all of you who participated. thanks for doing so. tomorrow two governors joining us to thought about -- to talk about issues in the states. the house of representatives just about to come in for a session of work. we take you to them now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.