host: washington journal for october 24, two hours from now republicans are expected to gather to choose someone for the next house speaker. the floor vote is later today.

meanwhile, former house republican makes the case to reinstate kevin mccarthy. for the next half hour, republicans only. given the current state of electing a new speaker, was it a mistake to remove kevin mccarthy? these are republicans only if yes (202) 748-8000, if no (202) 748-8001, you can text us at (202) 748-8003 or post on facebook or x. john shattuck who served in congress until 2011 has an op ed in the washington journal.

american musa house speaker. he says about matt gaetz said they wanted to vacate the chair wa to force another government shutdown. while they were ed to disagree the decis shut down the governmenwanot theirs to make. any further delay in choosing a speaker hurts the remodel can -- the republican party and america. they owe it to the institution to set aside individual ambitions, reinstate mccarthy and move forward with the country's business. that was john shattuck in the wall street journal. we believes that as the basis

for this first segment. it is republicans only and if you want to call in about kevin mccarthy if it was a mistake to remove him in the first place. if you say yes, it was, call (202) 748-8000. if you say no, it was not you can call (202) 748-8001. you can also post on facebook or x or text us at (202) 748-8003. this is arthuretrson saying no, there are principles and kevin mccarthy violated those to get a deal withrats. america is tired of corruption in our government. they need to st.

we need to cut 3 trillion and the government needs to get cut by 30%. and rhonda wf answers yes, the government should be a mix o all parties and get to the business of the american people. mccarthy worked with everyone to get things done in those eight people did not like it. republicans, only you can answer. if you say yes you can call at (202) 748-8000 and if you inc. it was not a mistake please call (202) 748-8001 and you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

eight candidates are expected to be in the running to become the next house speaker. that secret vote is set to take later -- take place later today. yesterday, when those candidates had a chance to make a pitch, some of those went before the cameras to say where they were in the process. don bacon giving his thoughts on the state of the race and the progress of electing a speaker. >> are you confident that anyone can get to 217? >> i think people are so discouraged from the past few weeks. they want to get together. they are making great presentations and i think we will have a speaker tomorrow. we have to make sure they have

217. i feel optimistic that by tomorrow we will have a speaker. >> anyone you will throw your way behind? >> yes, but out of respect i will be cautious on it. this member has a foundation, he could jump right into the job. a lot of people made really compelling cases. >> would you vote for any of these candidates? >> i believe in supporting the majority. when you have the minority as a majority take out kevin mcarthur and block skill least there has to be some accountability. if people play by the rules as support the majority of the majority. >> how confident are you that

the congress can coalesce around this? >> i hope people learned their lesson. when you under cut the majority this will happen. we will vote behind doors. you come together and work as a team. people demand 100%. host: don bacon from yesterday. was it a mistake to move kevin mccarthy. don from virginia says it was. caller: even though mccarthy came across as untrustworthy, they were not robots that supported trump.

it's time for the country to move forward with new ideas. we know where that got us. people just don't want to work together and this is the attitude that you get with people who think that way. they are tearing this country apart. it's too bad you can't vote to get rid of them because i'm sure we could get other folks in there. i'm afraid of paying my taxes, we need people to work together. there is a lot going on other than just worrying about politics. our country is in danger and were crying about supporting an idiot he was no longer in office. host: let us hear from thomas and rhode island. he said it was not a mistake to remove mccarthy. caller: from the standpoint of

kevin mccarthy, i believe you have me in the wrong category. i don't believe he should have been removed. i believe he was a good leader. he had some great ideas. i believe he was pretty much in first gear. he was not given the opportunity to shift gears and show exactly what he was made of and i think the group of eight. the revolutionaries that brought him down, it's easy to bring someone down. the first question that comes to mind, you brought them down, who do you have to put in his place? and basically, they are a bunch

of lost souls. they have no recommendations of who to put in his place and that is because kevin mccarthy was a good leader for the republican party. host: what makes you think he would've shifted gears? caller: i think because he had only been the speaker of the house, my timeframe may not be correct but for eight months. i don't think he had the opportunity to flex his muscle and show the rest of his constituents how good his

leadership was in the republican party. host: that was thomas in rhode island. was it a mistake to remove kevin mccarthy? someone posting on facebook, he said no he broke promise to become speaker. they were promises made public to the voters. he is not a man of his word and he cannot be trusted. another person said no, he failed at the simple job of passing it budget. incompetency should not be rewarded. this view or posted earlier, you can continue to post on facebook or twitter. for the candidates, the eight that are left who will undergo

the secret vote include jack bergman, byron donalds, who looks to be in the running. kevin hearn of oklahoma, mike johnson of louisiana, scott of georgia and pete sessions. they will undergo a secret vote later today. when it comes to that vote, the hill has theto of how that takes place. the conference gathers at 9:00 a.m., all contested elections are decided by secret ballot and no proxy voting is allowed. if no member receives the majority.

the lowest vote-getter is dropped from consideration. this is repeated until someone gets the majority of votes cast. if the speaker election goes multiple rounds without a clear leader it could take hours before they reach a winner. that will be at 9:00 a.m. when that secret vote takes place if that goes forward and there is a clear winner, there will be a potential vote on the house floor which you have seen several times on this channel. stay tuned to c-span for all of that. texas republican chip roy attended the speaker forum and here he is yesterday. [video clip] >> iran is a friend and someone

i have worked with closely. -- byron is a friend. >> could choose support any candidates of the nine? >> i did not sign a pledge. we need to focus on someone who will be the party in the right direction. there are a number of those guys i could support on the floor but we will see how it plays out. >> do you still believe that republicans have to unite before taking it to the floor vote. ? >> the american people can see this unfold, what we are fighting about and they appreciate we will fight for them. host: that was from the speaker

candidate for them yesterday. that secret vote in the floor vote potentially later on. stay close to c-span for all of that. axios has a rundown of the candidates. representative pete sessions, he served 13 terms, 9% of those out of committee and out of the chamber. speaker patrick mchenry, 111 sponsored bill is 17% of those went out of committee and chamber. the web out of minnesota, he served five terms with the 97 sponsored bill, 10% of those out of committee. steve scalise, with 63 bills.

it goes on from there. axios has the rundown if you want to look at that. also, byron donald who has only served two terms but sponsored 49 pieces of legislation. that is legislatively where those folks are. next collar, was in a mistake to remove kevin mccarthy? caller: no. host: why is that? caller: he did lie stuff. he didn't line, he deceived people. removing him is one thing. but you have to have a plan if

you remove somebody. younger people need to get in there. we put younger people in there and right away, they blew up the house of representatives. we need to be conscience of the young people we put in government. the only thing that matters is your district. you are working for the whole country, not just your district. host: when you say he deceived, what you mean by that? caller: he said in public he wanted to do one thing and then he went behind people's back and tried to do another thing. but deception is a big part of politics. everyone will say one thing on tv and then go behind the scene and make deals. host: ok, john is next. john is in massachusetts on the

no line. caller: this is john from massachusetts. they are complaining about the money. mccarthy goes in there to negotiate with the president but they eliminate him. we voted the republicans into make good decisions for the people. they are not making decisions about the people. host: what is that mean specifically about kevin mccarthy and why he wasn't up for the job? caller: because, he is about trauma. that is his powell. -- he is about trump, that is trump's pal.

host: we have no coming up on the . caller: what is going on is a bunch of hilarious news. we have a speaker pro tem. i said on a city council and we went without a mayor for four months. the definition of pro tem is the time being. nothing has to stop, republicans can continue to meet behind the closed doors and elect a speaker or not. host: since you have experience in government, the speaker pro tem, and the only powers he has been given is to elect a new speaker. is that a concern? caller: if you use a definition

for pro tem, it means for the time being and everything should move forward as attended. host: we have our next caller, go ahead, you are on. caller: my name is greg knight. host: if you could turn down your television, was not a mistake to remove kevin mccarthy as a speaker? caller: my answer is no, it was not. host: why is that? you are on the air sir. caller: do i think it was a mistake, no. he took the job under terms that he could be removed and he was

removed. that is the way the law works. he accepted a job with the condition. people have to understand it is time to get things straight. and mr. gates has upset a lot of people and they should have had a plan to replace him. however, he did the right thing. it was time that somebody said enough is enough. we have to get spending under control. host: what was kevin mccarthy not doing that made him lose that job? caller: he wasn't doing with the majority of his caucus wanted him to do which is hold the line. now perhaps, no one knows all of

the things that went into his decision. he was not good enough explaining why. i accepted this job under this condition and here is why i think we have to make an exception to that condition. he did not explain why he did not do what the condition required him to do which is hold the line. host: that is spread from pennsylvania. let's hear from sarah on our gas line -- on our yes line. caller: there is no good answer. the problem has been systemic for years. we saw it with newt gingrich getting rid of committees. none of them care about effectively governing.

all of their actions are dictated by the fear of getting primary. regardless of what happens this is indicative of the overwhelming failures of our elected officials and we need to shake it up. both parties are only serving themselves at this point. host: newt gingrich came up in a story from the hill. the performance house speaker dug into the republicans who voted to oust mccarthy. they unleashed fury in the republican conference. he said that they unleashed fury because they gave everyone the right to be equally destructive and angry. the hill highlighting the fact

that republicans led the motion along with andy biggs, eli crane and nancy mays and matt rosendale calling the house situation a mess. the house gop should have stayed in conference after they no longer act jim jordan. let's hear from stephen in california. caller: i don't understand, they went from eight to 100. they have no control over their conference.

he went on face the nation and blame the democrats, what are they supposed to do? they are trying to say it's the democrats fault. the whole system doesn't make sense. what the one lady said about the two-party system. it is doomed to fail if people cannot vote their conscience. host: that was stephen from california. from twithe minority of the caucus gaveve indication did exactly what they would do. kevin mccarthy is a victim of the same partisan politics that he has always been a part of himself. newsweek highlights one of those candidates that could become the next speaker, byron donald said

he would release footage of january 6. he is among the nine lawmakers that has also made a critical promise wanting to release those videotapes of the riot. speaking of donald trump he was part of the candidate to make his pitch to become the next speaker of the house. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> my pitch is very simple. this will be member driven, not speaker driven. we need to get back to work, secure our border, fund our country responsibility.

we need to be focused on purpose and mission. >> i spoke to the president and i think he will walk us through this process and he will be happy with the next speaker of the house. >> i love the president. he has supported me. but this will be a process voted on by the members. >> i spent 20 years in the business community. i was a member of our state legislature. i know the legislative process. i worked on a lot of policies on hr 1, 2 and five. we have a lot of talent on our leadership team. host: on his twitter feed, my

friend and colleague byron donald is who we need a speaker of the house. we have joe who says it was not a mistake to remove kevin mccarthy? host: how many votes does it take to remove the speaker? it takes four. caller: how many democrats voted? host: all of them, but why is that significant? caller: if i am not mistaken, they were trying to figure out where this money was going. they were going to send much of

it to ukraine and that was part of the deal. so he goes behind closed doors in the next thing you know they pass a bill in the money is going to ukraine. that tells you what is going on with this money. how much money as the biden family receiving from ukraine? they don't know if there is some kind of money laundering going on. host: are you concerned about the current state of affairs? caller: no, i am concerned about them getting their mess together. we are screwed, we are bankrupt. host: one more call and we will hear from beth in florida. caller: i am in the first

district of florida. it was not a mistake. it was a matt gaetz plan all along. go back to january 6. he negotiated with mccarthy. host: you think that was the right move by matt gaetz? caller: no i do not. i called his office the morning he put that vacate motion forward. host: what did you say? caller: well, i left my name and number. i have been in this county 30 years, when joe scarborough was in office when you called someone answered the phone and they took care of your issues. the first few years someone did answer the phone but now, when

you call you have to leave your name and number and they will get back to you whenever they damn well please. host: as far as his part in removing kevin mccarthy, why did you oppose that? caller: i don't oppose him removing kevin mccarthy. i oppose the way he did it. because he had no plan. i called that morning to ask what his plan was and i have yet to hear from him. host: we appreciate all of you who participated in this last half hour. we will continue to talk about the house speaker's raise and what to expect. laura weiss will tell you about what will play out later on today. we will look at the political

situation with henry olsen with ith ethics and public policy center's. we will talk about that and more coming up on the washington journal. >> watch c-span's partnership with the library of congress, books who changed america. we will cover willa cather's novel my antonia. the book addresses the immigrant

experience and women's issues of the time. watch books that shaped america featuring my antonia on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. scan the qr code to listen to our podcast. you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. wednesday night at 11:00 president biden and jill biden host a state dinner in honor of the australian prime minister. guest arrivals, dinner toe some more. watch the white house state dinner at 11:00 eastern.

a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. americans can see democracy at work. a republic driving. get it straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. this year, book tv marks 25 years of signing this hot light on leading nonfiction authors and their books. 900 cities of festivals visited. 1500 events. we have given viewers thousands

of hours on history, and biographies. book tv, 20 five years of television per serious readers. "washington journal," continues. here to talk about the speakers raise is laura weiss. we saw a lot play out last week does any of that go into next week? guest: we have seen a shift. last night, republicans met to consider these new eight candidates. i think there was a hint of optimism and a hope that it can be different this time.

steve scully's and jim jordan votes were brought down by each other and their supporters. with these eight, they can choose someone and get it across the line. it's easier said than done. it's not clear that the person who comes out of the conference will have the majority of the house. host: what do you think is going to factor in now? guest: we have seen both ends of the republican conference. i think we could see either of those things again. the members who would not

support jim jordan said they would support any of this new crop of candidates. i think we will see -- but there is a concern with that government funding deadline. host: resolve the candidate from pennsylvania drop out. of those eight who are the strongest? guest: the majority whip has advantages, leadership experience and relationships throughout the conference. he has kevin mccarthy's endorsement. he has clear advantages but he has challenges to get over the finish line to get the 217 votes.

he would be the front runner. host: and those challenges are they from a certain faction, how would you describe that? guest: it's a little hard to tell initially because we have seen members that have personal concerns or relationships. he could face some trouble for some -- from some of the house freedom caucus. they were not willing to support steve scully so we can see something similar there. -- steve scalise. host: laura weiss is here with us and if you have any questions for republicans (202) 748-8001,

for democrats (202) 748-8000 four independents (202) 748-8002 . if tom emmer comes forward, how do democrats feel about him? guest: he is a little more palatable. he did vote to certify the 2020 election. but he is still the republican candidate and i don't think democrats are ready to help republicans get out of the situation. without someone coming with them and be willing to work with them. it would feel like ceding control and it would not play well for their conference. host: the democrats said come to

us and we can work something else. do we expect more of the same messaging? guest: how the vote goes today and the candidate who emerges, but if this drags out longer -- we sell republicans about empowering patrick mchenry so they could move legislation. it would be a very tough road for republicans. host: how many republicans would have to vote? guest: 217 is the magic number. that number can shift but that is the magic number.

host: laura weiss is here with us for this conversation. let's speak with willie, you are online with our guests? caller: i was hearing you say that the democrats were responsible for getting rid of, the uh, him. why don't they expose democrats? and go on like that. and they bring their bills up? work it out like that? [indiscernible]

guest: i am sure democrats would love to be able to have that power to pick a speaker and that whose emerges from the process. democrats support hakeem jeffries and they are willing to follow him on how to vote. they are willing to negotiate with republicans. but the democrats are trying to use the tools they have. they do what they can hear to have a say in the process. but republicans at this point do not want to go to democrats. host: in ohio, on online for republicans. caller: i am a registered republican but i am ashamed we listen to donald trump.

we should be ashamed of ourselves. we should be doing our own thing. host: that is jonathan in ohio. i was going to ask you about the influence of the former president. he will be in new hampshire for registry. how much influence do you think he has this time around? guest: i don't think his influence in the speakers raise is the same as it is in other matters. this is about internal politics and internal governing. we saw the former president did endorse jim jordan but he was not able to get there. i think as far as holding sway with the republican party, that is a different situation. [video clip]

>> i think he is my biggest fan now, he told me yesterday i met your biggest fan. we are looking at a lot of people. i am trying to stay out of it as possible. i get along with all of them. a lot of good people, great people. host: mr. emmer and mr. trump had a conversation but how would you describe that relationship? guest: tom emmer voted to certify the 2020 election. it was different than the other republicans in this case. i think there is an attempt, a desire to show a relationship there.

he is not anti-trump but that does not necessarily play nationally. host: daniel is on the republican line. caller: why don't they just vote him in a speaker? everybody can agree on that. guest: i think that is a fair question. one of the reasons is that it might be more palatable to empower the speaker to do legislating temporarily, through november with government funding and into january.

the idea is that patrick mchenry is already in that role and can get the legislation going. they don't need to agree about the long-term and it will give them more time to sort this out. this is not how it typically goes in this situation has been unprecedented. host: is seem like last week the attempt to give him more power fell by the wayside. guest: for now it is on ice but it will work in the background because it is an option on the table to get legislation moving. there are things both parties want to do that they cannot because of the situation. some members of the republican congress have gotten frustrated with the inability to govern to

get things done and do what the american people are asking for. that will continue to be something in the background but it would have to be really towards the end. it would have to feel like something that's a last resort for republicans because there are some republicans that would never support that. and then having to go to democrats, that is something that gets very sticky. host: one of the things the new speaker would have to do right away is extend the spending deadline to next month. how much of that includes a short-term hunt when it comes to funding? guest: it depends on who emerges from the speakers raise. it would be extremely difficult. when kevin mccarthy was ousted, it is been weeks already.

it would make a continuing resolution or shut more likely. the closer it gets to november 17, it is really tough because house republicans can even say what they really want because there is not a clear leader here. it could look like a cr, but you're not sure how long that can go. that is something the speakers candidate will try to use the leverage they have. this situation has affected the government funding process and making november 17 harder. host: how many of the bills are ready to go? guest: the senate democrats do

not agree with the bills that house republicans have passed. the senate has a few bipartisan bills a try to get going. but neither chamber has passed appropriation bills to have that done in the new term. -- near term. host: we have anthony from michigan. caller: good morning, if congress could vote on his fourth, if a party is in chaos and cannot put a person in charge of the position, the minority leader could take the position until the party gets their act together. who knows, next time a democrat is in charge you can get their act together. it would force the opponent

party to put someone in charge to put them in position. host: thank you. guest: there are definitely questions about this process and how the lack of a formal speaker , we are in uncharted territory. patrick mchenry has emphasized that he is in this role just to elect a new speaker. he said he would resign if you were pushed to do more because that is what the role is and not the precedent set and he felt strongly about that. i think we are in uncharted territory. we have differing opinions on whose powers are what but how

republicans are handling it now is that his sole job is to get the next speaker elected. they are doing that with rounds of voting. host: whoever is the new speaker will have to deal with supplemental spending request that includes ukraine, israel, and the border. how is that playing out? guest: the senate is working through that and there are different opinions. one thing republicans in the house want is to separate ukraine from israel funding. they want those to be separate largely because in the republican conference there has become concerned about ukraine spending. there is disagreement on passing more without strings attached or

oversight. they want those to be separate votes. the bonnet administration wants all of this money pass. -- biden administration wants all of this money passed together. there is the question if there will be a speaker to move it through. host: larry, you are next. caller: my basic question is, are the republicans a legitimate party now? they are so fractured between republicans who voted to impeach and deny finance selection. -- biden's election.

guest: even divisions on how to govern an approach spending deadlines. how to negotiate with democrats are not negotiate with democrats even though washington is divided. i think we are seeing a lot of those differences on display and a lot of them are about how to govern. republicans agree on reducing nondefense spending. that does not agree on how to get there. these members are far apart on how they want to address and govern in these big moments and that has really been on display all year. host: how much influence, when it comes to their constituencies back home, how much is that

playing out? guest: it has been a factor in the race. some of these members from swing districts are really concerned that their constituents see this lack of ability to get legislation done. they can even say that we are going to push to get this done because there is no way right now, there is no speaker. they are feeling that pressure. we have seen it play out with the way republicans of handled candidates. there were a lot of vulnerable republicans who did not vote for jim jordan. host: any sense of resentment from jim jordan or steve scalise on how they fared in this process? guest: i think there are

frustrations. there are frustrations from their allies as well. even republicans are smarting from mccarthy being ousted. for most republicans, they did not want any of this to happen. but these are the reality of things that mccarthy negotiated in january. there is a conference with trust issues. differences on how to govern and address big moments. that is where they are at. host: how do you characterize the attitude towards matt gaetz? guest: there is anger and a real anger of what he did to senator mccarthy and he is definitely facing that backlash from colleagues.

he is talking. most but not all of the members that voted not to oust mccarthy have come out saying, we will let you have your ability to have that moment. it is a real factor. initially, you saw a lot of republicans that said they wanted to candidate that would punish these people. with needing to govern, you can isolate these people. host: this is john and george, on the republican line. caller: they need to work on

spending. according to the cbo 2023, the government collected 4.4 trillion. we spent two point 8 trillion on a portion of mandatory spending. the defense budget and interest on the debt was one point 5 trillion. we have no money. all of this aid we are giving to country is borrowed money. at the very least, it should be alone. if we don't do something about mandatory spending, we will not have any money to do anything. fiscal year 2022 we spent 3.7 trillion on mandatory spending out of 4.9 trillion collected. in fiscal year 2023 we collected

.5 trillion less. we paid for mandatory spending, defense and interest on the debt . host: we got you caller, thank you. guest: the government funding issue will come up very quickly. they did agree to reduce spending levels, however, that is something that a lot of house republicans still want to open up. they are not satisfied with the cuts in that agreement with democrats. we will have the discussion coming up very quickly and there is a discussion of things like a commission to address long-term mandatory spending. i think the immediate question here is the appropriation process. host: we have one more call from

alabama on the independent line. caller: hello, my interest in question has to do with the border. they want 10 million for border security. is that to let more illegals in order to keep them out? host: the 14 billion is the figure the white house put out in the first place? this has come and is a requirement to do ukraine funding. they will also leverage the power they have in the house to address the border. what the funding they would do is different than what the republicans would. what are you looking for today?

we are expecting that somebody will get a majority in conference. there will be a meeting behind closed doors. and back to the question of they can make it back on the floor? this'll be the third designee and his bout -- and about as many weeks. that was lower weiss, thank you for your time >> another perspective from the quincy institute. ♪

>> live sunday novber six on in-depth, the former a.c.l. president to talk and take calls abt the civil rights, free speeds -- sech and more. she is the author of a guide and in in the conversation, facebook comments and texts. live sunday. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, senate floors, two congressional hearings, committee meetings.

c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org, video of key hearings, debates and other events future markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest workers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend some time on c-span's points of interest. >> as part of our new series we

are asking you what books do you think shaped america. >> progress by john bennion. >> you can join in the conversation by submitting your pick for the book you think helped shaped the country go to our website. click the view to and select record video. in 30 seconds orestell us your pick and why. beure to watch books that shaped america, live every monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >>'s been shot.org is c-span's online store. browse through the products, apparel, books, home decor. there is something for every c-span fan and support our non-profit organizations. shop now at c-spanshop.org.

susan: -- "washington journal" continues. host: henry olson serves as the senior fellow and columnist for the washington post. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: back to the speaker race. what is the lesson most are getting? guest: cast, disarray. a more extreme version of what they have come to expect. the americans show great distrust for congress and it has been going down and if you are the average american, you just toss your hands up and safe these people can't get it together. i suspect right now they are saying it is just dysfunction in more of the same. host: are there common themes a wide publicans can't get a candidate to date?

guest: salute lee. the republican is not a party. if we were in europe, the republican party would be three or four parties and they would go there separate ways and negotiate coalition agreements. in the house you can count on my colleagues who say there are five parties but no one is ever negotiated a coalition agreement. nate come in, other problems should be hammered out but because they haven't acknowledged the truth, they say this percent doesn't support my values. you should have thought about that a year and a half ago when you were organizing the house and those are the discussions we are seeing on the floor come in private discussions, all of the stuff that should've been handled 18 months ago. host: you talking about the five families as they are described,

going back to mafia terms. guest: they have been going to the mattresses for weeks. host: a member said there could possibly be a name out there that would emerge. you think there is some coalition that could take place? guest: all the initial signs is the vast majority and the super majority wants it to take place in all it takes is five people to say heck no i won't go. indications are there are some who have the five that won't go. if you have a different set of holdouts, you still have irreconcilable then i think you'll get close to rock-bottom weather is is amber someone else

they were throw up their hands and say we have to get over. host: henry olson is with us. if you want ask questions (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8001, for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats,? for independents (202) 748-8002 . there was an idea that ultimately the house speaker will have to move toward the center. can you elaborate on that? guest: both outside and inside congress the wheelhouse is in the center and if the republicans want to get a larger majority they have to do with they couldn't do in 2022 and convince swing voting, independents who voted for biden and didn't like his tenure to vote for republicans. in the negotiations with a

democratic control center and controlled white house you have to come out with something that they are willing to compromise on, which means maybe advance the conservative agenda have an endgame that is more moderate. a speaker who does not understand either of these things is a speaker who will fail on the floor or elsewhere host:. with -- elsewhere. host: what are the ideas that they could do that with a moderate end? guest: americans want america first but america first for all americans that is their beef with trump who thinks -- who they think doesn't include all people. the problem is both the republicans and democrats are stuck on either side where the

center wants a good lend of both and a speaker who gets there with a republican geordie is someone who can begin gaining support and gets compromise within the chambers and more important for the republicans build a small majority to a large majority. host: one of the concerns going in was spending issues. is there a way of dealing with it and people coming together? guest: there is going to be larger spending for international affairs. so they have to dig in and safely after fix the border and you want money for ukraine and israel and we have to fix the

border if you want money for those. there are democrats in the senate and white house who supported all of the increases. you have to find a targeted cut that you can maybe get along with as part of a bargaining to sign off on things you wouldn't otherwise sign off on. it is called compromise for a reason. host: you can call on the lines but you can also text us at (202) 748-8003 four questions for henry olson. speaker pro tem is talked about extending the power and some talking about the legality and constitutionality. was that a good plan or a questionable plan? the republicans have to get their act together. for me the reason to go ahead with the plan is it gave them two months to get their act together. the fact that they didn't take

it suggests they still don't understand the phenomena i mentioned at the top of the show which is, they are a different party. they need time to work out their differences and say, house freedom caucus you may not like this but mainstream partnership we don't like what you want and why can't we agree. given that they won't give yourselves time, we are seeing what we see now is yet another food fight. i think it would have been a good idea because they need that time to do what they should have done 18 months ago and it is unfortunate they decided to settle it. host: the democrats have been weighing in. jimmy panetta saying for three weeks democrats have been aching out to the republicans toork with them in a bipartisan fashion and the republicans have refused. selling the idea of working together is something? guest: problems is the terms the

democrats put on are not palatable to republicans. publicans may differ significantly among themselves but there is not one that would find an uncomfortable home in the democratic congress. when you have bipartisan deals is because you have people who could fit into the other party on one of the winds. democrats want to help and they should tell their members, there are 20 of you, why don't you cut a deal with the republicans so you get some power and a less conservative alternative. they are tethering their whole party to the most extreme elements and that is not palatable to the republicans in any fashion. host: let's hear from tom in florida, republican line with our guest henry olson. go ahead. caller: i am into renewable

energy. the republican party doesn't do a whole lot with that. there is a john curtis, conservative climate caucus in march. is there any hope we will get anything done? he's sort of a biomass guy. guest: with respect to renewable energy there are people in the house republicans conference under the leadership who are interested in that and i think you are seeing more support for that. what you won't see is all in for green energy and what you won't see it is a climate emergency and let's spend trillions of dollars to a sickly decarbonizing economy over a decade and a half. many republican governors and

legislators subsidize wind and solar power so there is a republican support for some elements. it won't satisfy the green activists because it is not owing to be the aoc style that we have six used to save the planet. instead it'll be let's slowly bring along alternative technologies while painting an all of the above energy strategy. host: another time in new york on the democrats line. caller: my question is, did the republicans try to form a coalition when they first elected mccarthy and had an escape clause? at the other was a coalition agreement with mccarthy. guest: i think there was in mccarthy's mind and with some of the people it was never negotiated broadly. people asked what did he give or

what did he trade and there was never a clear, explicit agreement that all the different factions bought into which is one reason why you have some questions we are hearing being posed through sources is people saying what are you promising? what are you saying? that is because mccarthy treated the coalition agreement as a personal agreement that he would impose on the conference rather than a conference wide negotiation. the caller is right and there was that attempt and it fell apart, precisely because it was never transparent and fully bought into and accordingly there was different interpretation as to what was contained. host: one of those was to vacate change. should there be a change to that process or does that to be amended? guest: i would think it would need to be amended. think of it as parliamentary. if you vote no confidence in

government, it fails for can't perform and then you go for elections. we don't have that prospect here. so given that and given that a body cannot function without it, i think what you should do is that you can have a no-confidence motion but you must have an alternative. so if you want to vote no on mccarthy, you have to vote yes on somebody else at the same time so you are replacing a speaker. that is not something that would have happened. the votes for repealing mccarthy work 98% from the democrats for hakeem jeffries and 2% of republicans who were no on mccarthy. they couldn't agree on not attorney to -- on an alternative.

crossing smoke bombs into various conversations and enjoying the chaos. he is now the dog who caught the cars he finally has created enough chaos and i am not sure he knows what to do with it. what happened after he left mccarthy, he was actually a de facto leader. one should have done is say ok, let's let us be the people who determine who the next conference leader is, and the fact that he wasn't in the position to move in that direction much less put something together shows that he is kissed drawing it. -- that he is capable of destroying it. host: next caller. caller: i don't think they

really know how to govern. so what is the alternative you are talking about? guest: the republicans cannot govern until they understand that they have to govern together rather than wait for somebody to lead them. they are used to falling in line behind president. they don't have the president to fall behind. the idea that there is one person who without having substantive suggestions to suddenly bring this set of ingredients into a tasty stew is naive. i wouldn't be surprised if they settle on somebody who is minimally acceptable but that

person would be wise, i don't have the chair but don't have the gavel, meaning the power. nancy pelosi said something to ro khanna a few years ago that should be repeated after he asked for her endorsement. she said she couldn't do that but she says, you have to remember that power isn't given, it is taken. when the person holds the gavel, they have to take the power and the way to take power in the caucus is to solve the problems that divide the caucus. no one has wanted to do it in the last 13 years. the first person who will become a national figure. host: the republican candidates made their pitch in secret and the vote will be done in secret. a viewer asks do you think that it is ethical to have these meetings that affect the american people in secret? guest: yes, i do. it is no different on the

democratic side. not to say people won't come out and say what they are going to say it, but all parties in a parliamentary system well not all that when you have a parliamentary system with the members is done behind closed doors for a reason because you have to air some differences that aren't large enough to overcome your similarities, but which to people on the outside could hurt your unity. you have those discussions in quiet and in secret and then you come up and present a united front to the people and ask what you have agreed on in secret. it is no different with the labor unions and what is going on in detroit. they're having their discussions in secret and it is because negotiations need a space where you are not constantly under attack to allow people to give and take and find room for

improvement. it is no different than anyone else involved in bargaining wants, needs and host: columnist for the washington post and a senior fellow at the public policy center. guest: is a think tank that advances judeo christian values and discussions. host: let's go to the republican line, brenda from nebraska. caller: ample little nervous so i hope you give me time. i totally think speaker mccarthy should have been removed. i bet everybody forgets why he lost his speakership during the hillary clinton hearings. one of the most stupid comments he ever made. he should have never made it or he wouldn't have had paul ryan. now paul ryan sits at fox news and is destroying that.

as far as don bacon goes, i called his office repeatedly because the act like a five-year-old and i have asked him over and over to quit but he keeps doing it like he wants to punish people. that is not his job. i respect the man immensely because we have political prisoners here in the united states and we are doing nothing for them. i hear no one talking for them. i am sorry, the man should never have been in speakership. without paul ryan because of it and of the whole country is paying. guest: i think that is a common view among republicans. it not be the majority view but it is a widely known view that we need somebody from the right flank to be the speaker and that mccarthy wasn't sufficient. the thing is it is not unanimous in what you need to do is find some way to bring people like

the caller and people who would agree with them to say what can we agree on. that is what i was saying has not been done. people want to pretend these things aren't emotional and these differences are important enough to what we are seeing is they are. until you say the republican party's faction has to talk to each other it will continue to see this chaos whether there is someone in the chair who can't create 217 votes. host: is there an ideal speaker that has the ability to cross a lot of those bridges and factions? guest: the name i keep waiting for is elise stefanik -- elise e fanner.

g comes from an obama -- she comes from an obama district. she has credibility with moderates. she is super maga and has credibility with trump. it is a compromise everybody can live with. it is not one of the eight and we will see whether they can do it and if it is not her, who will do it question mark it has to be somebody who don bacon and chip roy can live with. it doesn't mean they have to love them but can live with. at some point you have to say the perfect is that the enemy just of the good but the ok. host: let's go to annie in texas, democrats line. caller: first of all, i think

the republicans need to join with the democrats and you have to pick someone that is not interested in losing their job and is willing to lose their job and stand up for the american people. it joined with the democrats and root out the chump party. right now we have three parties and eight republicans have to get donald trump's attention. if you need to pick someone who is willing to lose their job and say, look, this is what we are going to do. we have to pull the country together and work for the country.

and out the republicans and then you will have a two-party system where we can work together. you can't put a price tag on freedom. you need someone that can broker peace between hamas and israel. you need a strong person. why don't the republicans think about a woman? when i think about margaret thatcher and pelosi. pelosi didn't bring them to the floor unless they had the votes. you don't keep voting and voting. guest: i will comment on a couple things. since trump came down the escalator there have been saying

why don't the republicans join with us and the -- democratic party would have to find room for centrist to moderate conservatives within their party, which means accommodating them in some way on policy issues that would anger. they haven't wanted to do that. that is why you don't have it. i am sure there are people who silently would prefer to have more in common with moderate democrats than some republicans but they have nothing in common with the progressive democrats. on the woman side, there are 34 women, republican, in the conference. most are. others are no dishonor to them,

but not speaker material. and most of the men are speaker material. but that leaves a man who has been there since 20 -- a woman who has been there since 2010. she has experience on the house and national stage end is a national fundraiser. when i look at the women in the conference and i say, who theoretically hold the gavel and will that effectively, at this point she is the one. the republican women are moving up. are more in the senate and house. nikki haley is proving herself on the campaign trail. we will get a woman who is head of one of the legislatures. as we have at the local level. host: let's hear from paul in

missouri, independent line. caller: you are kind of dancing around the main issue here, which is a problem in the republican congress, in the republican party. you say the specter of trump, let's talk about the reality of trump because what you have here and i know a lot of people like to call him president trump. he is actually now defendant trump. have members of congress who rather than vote for what is right are only concerned about making sure that donald trump allows them to keep their seat. when you start talking about different factions the party, a lot of guys might believe one thing. 10 guys might feel another way but the crux of the matter is you've got 40 or 50 of them who

will stand on and they have their own network, they will stand on television and tell you that what they support is a lie and it is documented that it is alive that is 2.5 years down the road. when you start talking about picking a speaker, there is no hope for them picking a speaker. guest: it is an indication of the divisions i am talking about. you have anywhere from ultra maga to the quintessential northeastern moderate. there are clearly diehard trump loyalists. that is an element that has historically felt disrespected or under respected but they are not the super majority of the party. are part of the party that needs to be accommodated and seriously

accommodated and that they can't impose their will on to other parts of the party. this is never taken place on a serious level and that is the sort of question that whether now or whoever holds the gavel needs to start having, just not just what are we against but what are we for. to get an answer and allow party to be fully aired and discussed without a precondition and try to bring people to some type of agreement. that is when you begin to seek healing. it hasn't happened nationally in the presidential and queens, the floor of the house or senate. that is a major reason for the dysfunction. host: what do you make of the house and senate in respect israel? guest: it shows there are issues

that span the parties, overwhelming a jordan -- majorities of americans back israel in the fight against hamas that even polls showed that earlier in the year plurality -- polarity of the democrats may have strongly act the palestinian side and that is an indication there are values and issues that can unite both parties if the president were willing to have a standalone israel bill it would be on his desk within 48 hours. host: what you think of the management on the humanitarian side and what they should be doing on capitol hill? guest: the humanitarian part is difficult, because israel has stated it is not in their interest to permit hamas to have any sort of control in the gaza

strip following this horrific act of barbarism and to focus on humanitarian aid is a primary goal rather than the elimination of hamas, it means that you are creating a barrier between the united states and israel. i think that what is going to eventually happen is the united's -- united states is going to -- thomas knows that -- hamas knows that there are civilian casualties and they are trying to provoke israel into civilian casualties is the only card they have and they will play it. and the united states will have to stand the hind it's allies.

if hamas wanted peace they would have to negotiate a surrender that operatives leave gaza which they won't do. host: emily is in pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: there is very good person who is a very good speaker and why do they not go and ask nikki haley? she is a very good speaker. she has a lot of opportunities to share with everybody. please ask her. she is good for our country. host: the topic of a recent column of yours. guest: nikki haley wants to be present president and that is more important than speaker. she has defined expectations throughout her career and i suspect she won't be the presidential nominee but will have acquitted herself well and

consequently will be to fight another day. if she wanted of the house she presumably could find a seat that she could run for. one suspects there will be a large coalition who may not want to see nancy pace anymore. i can imagine a speaker haley emerging if she wants to pursue that but she wants to be president and is making her bid for presidency. we will see if she succeeds and she is certainly gaining strength. host: your column talks about this pyd think she is gaining strength? -- about this. why do you think she is gaining strength? guest: we had pullers one side

and the other side. there are one third to 35% of publican party clearly does not want a trump party on policy and does not want donald trump. she is positioning herself as that person, and that means there is room for her to grow into being trump's major challenge. apostle -- problem is running into the 60% to 65% between the pre-trump party and post trump party. my column was about how to mobilize the millions of people who are not usually republican primary voters where in georgia in 2022 600,000 people who don't normally vote in primaries came out. if haley could localize them, he

and millions of people like him would have to come out and sam not normally a publican primary voter but i need to support nikki haley even if i will get her but just to get rid of donald trump. she has to get to the place where she is only there. host: victoria is in connecticut. caller: i love this conversation. i think henry has touched on a few things. i really believe that americans understand that the minority caucus of the maga faction of the republican party has taken over. even though they are the minority, the vitriol and chaos that has ensued is making it so that there is no compromise and

until we accept that fact as a country and throughout the extremism and chaos that exists because of it, we are not ever going to have a speaker. we are sitting ducks and it is time we come together. guest: there are extremists in both parties peered i would say if you were to ask someone who is willing to talk as a republican, they might say what about your squad, many of whom still won't condemn hamas over this atrocity. they don't get the attention because their leader has never been elected president. you have the democratic socialists of america and democrats who are pushing. compromise may not be something

you love but something have to live with. it is very hard to see how you can have compromise in the middle until both sides are willing to come to the middle and the democratic party could have had a super majority against trump had been willing to move to the center to accommodates -- accommodate publicans who didn't want trump. hillary clinton didn't do that. joe biden is at 40% job approval despite a somewhat better economy and that is -- host: henry olson, a columnist with the washington post. thanks for your time today. guest: thanks for having me. host: later on will be hearing from the quincy center about events going on in israel. aro open forum is next. (202) 748-8001 for republicans,

(202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can text at (202) 748-8003. we will take those when "washington journal" returns. >> wednesday night at 11:00 eastern, president biden and first lady joe biden hold estate dinner. -- hold a state dinner. watch guest arrivals, dinner toasts in warp or watch the white house state dinner wednesday night at 11:00 eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> c-span out as a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in

washington. keep up with floor proceeds and hearing from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your your tips. and the latest episodes of washington journal and c-span television schedules and radio and podcasts. it is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's eyed about books with current nonfiction book releases and bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider reviews. you can find it on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch as we fellow candidates with meet and greets and you make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now, our free video mobile app or online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. "washington journal" continues. host: this is open forum, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independent, (202) 748-8002. abc and others reporting that michael cohen to return to a

courtroom in new york in a civil fraud trial. the former president's inner circle have resulted in present time and disbarment and flip to become one of his most vocal critics. esther trump is expected to attend the trial which would likely mark the first time they have seen each other in person in i've years. that is from the abc news. at 9:00 today is when the house republican congress will gather it for the vote to see if someone will emerge to become the next nominee for house speaker. they are expected go to the floor of the house later on today. stay tuned to c-span for coverage of that. get on our mobile app at c-span now. robert in texas, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you.

i am not -- i have been in austin since 2011 and i am originally from chicago where i still believe in the type of democrats that are hidden chicago and i am a jim thompson type of democrat, centrist, where this is something that needs to be addressed throughout this country and what has to be addressed in congress right now. when it comes to that, even henry spoke about the progressives but you also have

the speaker three weeks ago. congress needs to get to the point of getting back to the middle and then you can address as far as what things need to be put as far as bills go. illinois was a purple state as far as i'm concerned. host: darnall in philadelphia, democrats lined. caller: i would like to speak of hamas in gaza as it aligns with black panther black neighborhoods. as america is seeking global leadership, there are still issues at home, illustrated by george floyd. in my city of philadelphia, some

black neighborhoods are almost excluded from construction. my whole point is that as we seek global leadership, we have still not dealt with 25% of the colonial population and if still not dealt with the real reason the civil war was fought. as we seek mobile leadership, we have issued here at home, aligning with the black panthers in the black neighborhoods. we knocked out the lack panthers in two years but weren't the black panthers a necessary component to end certain types of discrimination? rosa parks, carolyn lookout was

around before she won a court case work public transportation a hundred years before rosa parks. the people that stop that trajectory was the black panthers. we eliminated the black panthers , but at what cost to the black neighborhoods and our global leadership? host: gilbert in california, independent line. caller: hello. thanks for taking my call period would like to see a program devoted to the open southern border, where the president refuses to enforce immigration law every day. host: hold your thoughts. we want to. before we go into the -- we went to hear before we go into the meeting. >> 63 net seats as we did in

2010. it is a magic equation that is understood among those people. that is what he is going to say today. it is up to the people in the room, not me. host: is one of the eight being voted on today, a private meeting that takes place 12 minutes from now. in texas, john, republican line. caller: i am a vietnam veteran and i'm tired of all the egos in congress and what they need is a poster child. it seems like everybody thinks they are there for their own benefit but what about us or

people. i am a veteran in mont disability, but what about the people with all of the credit cards in interest rates going through the roof. the poor people can't afford this. they have nothing but egos and they should leave them at the door and do something for everybody. there are people from louisiana, california, everybody. they need help and the congressman, all they are doing is sitting on their egos doing nothing. all they are are egos sitting on their tush doing nothing. they are poster child. host: the previous color brought up immigration. axios reporting border officials have returned more migrant

families and the last month in the last month than previous fiscal year. it is a global humanitarian crisis saying that while the new u.s. data shows a large number of border crossings, that is only those at the legal programs there were 269,000, -- encounters along the southwest border. a new fiscal year high of 2.7 4 million. there is more there at the axios website. missouri, democrats lined, carol, you are next. caller: i live in missouri. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: problem is i don't believe that the justice system here is focused on the senior citizens of missouri. i am 68 years old.

i have lost my home through mortgage fraud period have followed all the rules they told me to do. i have not heard back. i lost my home in 2018. it was sold to another company. my deeds were electronically changed from my name to another person's name. i can't seem to find an attorney here in missouri that will take this case. i have all of the evidence, all of the paperwork. i have done a lot of legwork i self. i have contacted and found the person that used my name in the mortgage scam and to find out her son is a ceo at bank of america, the same bank that stole everything i had. i had to file bankruptcy and they sold everything i had.

once i got to discovery in 2021, this scam has been on the since 2007, all the way to 2018. i can't find attorneys that will take a mortgage fraud case in missouri. host: let's hear from virginia, texas, republican line. caller: the whole republican party wants to act like children . i have a suggestion for them, pick out the 10 most that everyone agrees on and pick out five of those and put them in a boat and the one that is drawn out is the one everyone will agree on. host: who would you like to see in that? she hung up. let's hear from shirley, florida, independent line. caller: that's hope today brings civility and understanding to how our government is supposed

to work. this has been a fiasco and if they keep it up, they are handing it over to the democrats in 2024. so let's have a healthy government and agree to disagree and just get along. host: do you think anything has changed significantly from last week that will make that happen? caller: absolutely nothing has changed except for the faces and names they are putting out there. no he wants this job and they don't understand the power that they have. but just handed over to the democrats. host: is there a person you would like to see in the position? caller: liz cheney. host: why is that? caller: because she stood up for her oath of office and it seems to respect the constitution and the oath she took.

not that any republican would vote for her but she would have my vote. host: that is surely in fort myers, florida calling on this open forum. later on and during the day we will bring you the latest when it comes to the house speaker election. >> it is going to be very interesting. i think at least make the final four. he has a good shot. very dynamic. who drops out and what support they had. >> [inaudible] >> has had good expense in the florida legislature. i was 37 years old when i became the fire chief of miami.

i think i did pretty good job and ended up being city manager. host: that the representative who on his twitter feed gave support to his fellow floridian byron donalds to become the next nominee. the secret vote takes place today. let's go to charlene in california, democrats line. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is that small portion of representatives on that republican side almost conducting themselves like hamas , holding the rest of the party hostage. that is not right. there should be laws for this. there should be other laws to not have a a few individuals be able to hold so many people and then they want to compare it to the democratic side. there are differences, big

differences. but they are not holding one another hostage, especially to an individual who has already committed multiple crimes in the country. this is not right. there should be a law that does not allow that to happen. that's what i have to say this morning. host: the washington post reporting that the biden administration repairing for the possibility that hundreds of thousands of american citizens will require evacuation if the bloodshed in gaza cannot be controlled. the operation comes as israeli forces prepare for what is widely expected as a ground offensive against hamas. reignited hostilities, officials speaking on anonymity detail the americans living in israel and neighboring lebanon art of can -- of concern and the evacuation

of that magnitude would be the worst case scenario and other outcomes are more likely. let's go to william in illinois, republican line, go ahead. caller: i have a question to sq. when they were president underneath the obama administration -- to ask you. when they were president underneath the obama administration when the others crossed lines and brought immigrants in and use them for different guinea pigs. why don't they put pictures on the voting cards and getting the

immigrants out and give us the floor and to our country? they don't want to do anything for the united states. host: clarence and maryland, independent line. caller: hello. i am calling in. i am an 86-year-old redneck and i wanted to see jim jordan get elected and now i am changing to brian donald from florida. host: why is that? caller: because we need somebody on our side who can fight. mccarthy was probably a good man but wouldn't stand up to him. jim jordan would have an donald

they will have trouble with him because of his race. host: another congressman stepping in front of the camera. >> this is actually going to be somewhat cathartic if nobody gets to the majority of the first round. it will have more of a convention feel. the lowest goes out and you keep going and that might be helpful. we will get there. i think all of them have learned from what has happened in the last couple of weeks. if you would with a fair majority, you can figure out if you can get the votes. >> [inaudible] >> i haven't followed them

closely but he is clear when you read those if you are supporting somebody and not against somebody else the distinction between those two things. i think everyone in their has done a great job and we will see how it goes. >> is there when you are gravitating towards? >> i like the secret vote and we get to keep it that way. i was out front in my support for jim jordan and i will let them use it. >> is there any one candidate you are gravitating toward?

thank you all. host: that vote is a secret vote to see who will emerge if anyone of the eight candidates to come out. if that takes place, could be a vote on the house for later today. one more call in this open forum , ohio, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am happy to be able to give what i had in my heart for a long, long time. we talk about the disruption in congress. why don't they just go to each candidate, each official and go to their oath of office and see what it's directing them to do and think about, not about themselves but about their purpose in office.

a caller a little while back mentioned liz cheney. i would promote her. i trust that woman. she is true to her oath of office. she sacrificed her personal safety, her reputation and perhaps her profession for speaking truth. i wish america would get back to voting in people who they understand what their motivation is in taking their office. host: that's finishing off this open forum. thanks to those who participated. we will continue our discussion about events in the middle east with the executive vice president of the quincy institute next. ♪ >> c-span's studentcam

documentary competition is back, celebrating 20 years with this year's theme, looking forward well considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create a 5-6 minute video addressing one of these questions -- in the next 20 years, was the most important change like to see in america? or, what has been the most important change over the last 20 years in america? we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes they grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate in this year's competition has the opportunity to share a portion of an additional $50,000. the deadline is friday, january 19, 2024. for information, visit studentcam.org. >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and

influential interviews on the afterwords podcast and on q&a here wide ranging interviews. we regulate feature fastening authors of nonfiction books in a wide variety of topics. the about books like as take you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews and bestsellers lists. find our podcast by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. >> monday, what's he spends a in partnership with the library of congress, books that shaped america. we will feature my antonia published in 1918. is part of willa gathers prairie trilogy until the story of the

friendship of an orphan boy from virginia and the elder daughter in a family of bohemian immigrants to settle in nebraska known for bringing the american west to light. the book addresses the immigrant experience of the time. melissa homestead from the university of nebraska has taught about the book for many years and will join us on the program. watch books that shaped america, featuring my antonia, monday, live at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. be sure to scan the qr code to listen to our companion podcast. you can learn more about the authors of the books featured. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining is now is trita parcy, thanks for giving us your time. a little bit about the institute and the positioning it takes

when it comes to conflict worldwide? guest: we are of the view that the united states should move its foreign policy toward a strategy centered on military restraint. we do not believe america is safer by dominating the world stage. we believe we are in a much better position to find peaceful solutions which does not mean we should have a weak defense. it means we should not get involved in all of these different conflict around the world unnecessarily. host: when it comes to israel, how would you gauge the u.s. response? guest: the thing that i am concerned about is there is a very significant risk of this conflict escalating and dragging u.s. into it. if there is a ground invasion by the israelis, there is a significant risk that there will be a response from hezbollah in lebanon and indirectly iran as well. that will likely drag the united

states into the war because it will likely also be attacked against u.s. troops throughout the region by various groups. this you should be the absolute priority of the president, to prevent that scenario because the last thing we need some other war in the middle east the u.s. is involved in. strategy so far has only been to move more forces to the region and try to deter hezbollah and the iranians and others. i think that makes sense but what doesn't make sense is that we are not between anything to also put pressure on the israelis not to take the actions that could trigger this war. instead, we are giving a green light to them knowing that this might drag us into a very bloody war with no clear exit strategy. host: we see military hardware and troops, how much more could possibly take place if it escalates?

guest: one of the things u.s. officials have been telling israelis and others is that part of the reason why there is a delay to the israeli land invasions because the u.s. wants to move more assets to be able to protect its troops. that means the united states fully recognizes the invasion will likely trigger attacks on u.s. troops and a broadening of the war. it makes sense to make sure those troops are as safe as possible by adding more protection what doesn't makes sense is when it also tried to avoid the very act that will trigger these attacks on these troops? they need to try some other solution. at the end of the day, it's important to recognize that there is no confidence in the u.s. government itself that such an invasion will be successful. it was president biden who pulled out of afghanistan just

two years ago. we invaded that country and occupied it for 20 years. and the taliban are still in power. the idea that these type of solutions, these military actions are some form of a solution, needs to be more scrutinized. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats, an independents (202) 748-8002. is there in the united states best interest in the dismantling of hamas? >> if you want to dismantle hamas, you have to it -- ask why they exist in the first place? we have gone through several of these cycles in the past where we see various palestinian radical groups pop up and are destroyed and the reason they pop up is because of the occupation. we say we are in favor of a two

state solution but we have moved beyond that. on the u.s. side during the trump in particular, we move for normalizing relations between israel and the arab states. that was according to jared kushner and he says we are moving beyond that saying we don't care about the two state solution. they will have to accept to live indefinitely under occupation. that has proven to be a tremendous mistake. it led to violence which many of us predicted it would. you cannot put millions of people under occupation and expect something good will come out of that. if we want to get rid of these radical organizations, we have to change the radical situation that is giving birth to them. as long as you have people in occupation and we say we supported two state solution but we are doing nothing diplomatic to move that forward people have

lost hope in the idea that a diplomatic move can deliver. it's as if president obama said yesterday and that will make the response much more violent and radical which is what we so with that horrific attack by hamas against israeli civilians. host: you said initially there has -- the u.s. should work toward another way to prevent escalation. what are some of those avenues that are more workable? host: we need to have a cease fire. it is an indefensible position in an isolated position internationally for the united states to stand in the way of any effort to bring about a cease-fire. the united states vetoed the resolution at the security council and instructed its own diplomatic officials at the state department not to use the word de-escalation or cease fire or ending the bloodshed.

that is making sure that we are paving the way for this work to continue. if it isn't for a concern of what will do in because and israel, i think the president should put it at the top of his agenda. they should make sure this does not escalate into war to drag the u.s. into another war in the middle east and standing in the way of the efforts to bring about an end to this. it traumatically increases the risk of the united states being involved in the war. host: sunday, the defense secretary talked about what the military aspect was when it comes to the conflict. >> we have seen rocket and uav attacks against housing in iraq and syria. we are concerned about potential escalation. in fact, what we are seeing is

the prospect of a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and their people throughout the region. because of that, we will start what's necessary -- we will do its necessary to make sure our troops are in a good position and protected that we have the ability to respond. this additional deployment sends another message to those who would seek to widen this conflict. as president biden's and earlier and as you heard me say, if any group or any country is looking to widen this conflict and take advantage of this unfortunate situation we see, our advice is don't. guest: secretary austin is quite correct.

this is a very significant risk for escalation. going back to what i said, is quite logical to do everything we can to protect the troops and other u.s. interests in the region by making sure there is an element of deterrence. a strategy that is based on deterring one side but not doing anything to restrain the other side is not likely to succeed. as a result, it will give way to a nightmare scenario that secretary austin is warning about. if the objective is to avoid a scenario where u.s. troops will be attacked and drag us into the work on does not make sense to only rely on that to turned and not do anything to restrain israelis and taking very steps we know are likely to trigger those attacks. host: let's take some calls.

caller: two issues that are overlooked. most of the palestinians are under the age of 16. that means they are not being trained in a way the israeli army transits troops and the united states transits troops. the people are hungry. any water. -- they need water. if we tell the israelis not to bomb hospitals and make sure we try to find a way once or twice a week to ship people out, the americans out of there, then i think we can sit down with the united nations and talk about long-term issues. these palestinian people are kids. they are under the age of 16. they are being manipulated in so many different ways. guest: i think the callers quite

right when he talks about the dire situation in gaza. more than 5000 people have been killed in more than 2000 our children. there is the dire situation in the israelis have cut up water and electricity and fuel and that is collective punishment. in international law, that is a war crime. under those different circumstances, we need to get a cease fire in order to find a pathway to a diplomatic solution. simply not allowing the cease fire to take place will increase suffering on both sides and will make it more difficult to find a lasting solution. host: from scott in arkansas, republican line. caller: yes, i've got two scenarios in the problem over there. if hamas unilaterally lay down

their weapons, what would happen? the other scenario would be if israel laid down their weapons, unilaterally, what would happen? please tell the audience. guest: thank you. i don't think any of those scenarios are likely. that's not going to happen but cease fire is a different story. it's giving a humanitarian pause to be able to give time to find another solution. if hamas were to lay down its weapons, i find it more likely the israelis would move in even further and try to completely eliminate the organization. if the israelis did the same, the reverse of that is also likely. this is not about giving up in any way, shape or form. it's about where we are in no is we are killing more civilians

than hamas terrorist. and is only making more protracted and difficult to find a solution and on top of that, risks and regional war that will suck the united states into it and it's not worth it. we need to avoid this nightmare scenario that would get the united states dragged into another war in the middle east. host: there is a picture of two of the hostages being released as of yesterday. how does this complicate the future of the u.s. involvement? guest: many of them are actually americans. hamas originally said they wanted to use these hostages to exchange about 7000 prisoners in israeli jails and many of them were children. taking hostages is completely unacceptable. what hamas did can be qualified as a war crime as well. about a week or 10 days into

this war, they change their position and they said they are willing to give up the hostages in return for a cease fire. it's not clear exactly what the u.s. policy is around us. some israelis are surprised because usually israel is externally adamant about making sure they get the hostages out alive. in one case, they would exchange palestinian prisoners for one israeli soldier who had been a hostage for a long time. in this case, it appears as if the israeli calculation, they cannot save the hostages and they are moving forward with a containment. host: let's hear from sam in d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question regarding the role of the media, in the united states and the abdication of the responsibility and propagating the misinformation.

to be precise, the way it is portrayed in the united states, this thing happened on october 7. would you be kind enough to explain, this goes back seven years. basically, the dehumanization and the rape and killing of the palestinians by colonial israel. could you be kind enough to shed some light on how the media is portraying this. even british newspapers are instigators of the primary problem. they are advocating for more

violence and more crime against palestinians rather than bring it to more meaningful resolution so these two peoples can live side-by-side. guest: this is a very old conflict. it is true to say that much of the world including western media had stopped paying attention to what was going on in palestine and in gaza. as a result, when the attacks by hamas took place, it looked as if this was the beginning of a new war that came out of nowhere. obviously, the occupation had been a very dire situation for the past years. that's not a justification for that type of attack. the narrative in the media has said as if this came out of nowhere. part of the challenge in all of

this, the biden administration followed up what the trump administration was doing was that it was trying to push aside the palestinian issue and go forward with normalization between israel and other arab states. the biden administration put in a lot of political capital to normalize relations between israel and saudi arabia even offering a defense package with them which means the biden administration would serve as a mediator. all of this based on the ideas would bring about peace but with the assumption you can simply ignore the plight of the palestinians. part of the reason why this belief came about is because after the arab spring, it is true the arab world by and large stop focusing as much on the palestinian issue because of the civil wars in syria for example. many eyes returning inward. the assumption that that was a

permanent shift is a very questionable assumption. that was a temporary shift because of temporary developments that were horrible. the idea that the arab world as a whole had forgotten about the palestinians was never true and it was never true the palestinians had forgotten. some of these assumptions, that assumption unfortunately has let us down the path with very problematic policies. host: this is carl in florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm very interested in what you have to say today. i would like to know, is there any chance there is a small group of palestinians within gaza that may be willing to ally themselves with israelis after this terror attack by hamas in order to throw hamas or

eliminate hamas from gaza so that palestinians may have a better chance of getting the two state solution? i will hang up and listen to your answer. thank you very much. guest: hamas has had a very brutal rain in gaza. the opportunity for opposition groups opposed to hamas emerging have not really existed. there has been some attempts of repression. i find it externally likely they would side with israel against hamas because that is presuming is just the existence of hamas that has been the problem in the past in the conflicts. the israelis are also bombing the west bank where hamas does not exist. in the previous month, most of the violence we saw was in the west bank where israeli settlers were killing many different

palestinians. the simplistic view that just the existence of hamas is the problem is not correct. hamas actually was not created until the 1980's which was tickets at the occupation started. early on, the israelis supported hamas. they wanted to see hamas emerge as a competitor to the plo. back then, it was seen as more problematic by the israeli government. this is a very complex history. unfortunately, there are no easy answers or solutions. host: one of the things in the background from united states officials is iran. how directly do you think they were involved? guest: i don't think there was any operational involvement and there's no evidence that has emerged. there is no doubt that the iranians have supported hamas and continue to support hamas the tickly militarily. when it comes to funding, i'm

sure that's not been the strength of the iranians. they have been training many of these different places. there is a reason why hezbollah has become so strong is because of the training iran has provided. israelis were very surprised and shocked to see the efficiency of that horrible attack that hamas engaged in. there operational involvement is something completely different and there is no evidence of that. if this court continues and if hezbollah steps in, from the u.s. perspective, it will be seen as a direct involvement by iranians in the conflict. if iraqi militia starts attacking u.s. bases in troops, it will be seen as if the iranians are behind in that well lead to direct military conflagration from the united states. as a reminder, i ran fought a

horrible war and cause the united states a tremendous amount area iran is a much more potent military enemy. under these circumstances, when united states has a crisis in ukraine and a potential crisis in the philippines with china and the idea we were walking to another war in the middle east is absolutely horrible and must be stopped. host: when issue is the freezing of the $6 billion by the u.s.. what do you think of that move? guest: i think that was more of a political issue. the mechanism that have been put in place to make sure that money cannot be used for anything else is a very solid mechanism. it was surprising the administration that had defended it ferociously suddenly shifted

on that position. it is now shifted back but the bottom line is, that money which is iran's money would never go to iran. it's a very solid mechanism that can make sure none of that money was able to go to iran. host: this is from indiana, republican line. caller: i would like to thank mr. parci and the institute for bringing this fresh perspective on what's going on in the middle east. i'm a veteran of the indochina war. i adamantly opposed iraq because they fear the united states we get more deeply involved in ground wars in the middle east. there is a lesson from history, namely the romans rector themselves by endless involvement in the middle east.

they took their eye off the ball in terms of dealing with germanic tribes in the northern border and the rest is history. i pray to god we don't get involved with another war in the middle east. the eye on the ball for us is communist china. that's where the real game is. we don't need another big war in the middle east. host: to you think the biden administration has an overall strategy for the middle east? guest: the strategy they did have was explained earlier. they have set aside almost all are the issues and focused only on the idea of securing a normalization agreement between saudi arabia and jordan. i can see why that was extremely attractive to the administration. strategically, i did not see any basis for it either working for

bringing it to a piece they envision or per trade. the idea in addition that we would be offering the saudi's a defense package as well as nuclear technology again raised significant questions about what is the big gain in this to offer something as drastic as that? the united states doesn't have any such agreement with any other state middle east except for turkey was a member of nato. we have the non-nato status ally in qatar but that is nowhere near the type of agreement that was being discussed by the united states and the saudi's which would commit the u.s. to support the saudi dictatorship. host: next caller. caller: good morning. i am sickened by everything. my question is, why does the

united states not shut off aid to israel until the apartheid ends in gaza and the west bank and they come to a solution? the only way the israelis will stop this apart side and now it's genocide of the palestinian people, it's got to stop. what are your thoughts on that? guest: i think the u.s. cutting is not particular significant. the administration is considering -- is proposing a significant increase of funding. i agree we need to have a major viewing of the nations when it comes of this issue to be able to bring it to a solution.

the peace process and the two state solution has been dead for more than a decade. we are still pretending it's a lie but while we are pretending, the situation on the ground has gotten much worse and now we are seeing the consequences of that in a horrible way. we need a completely new re-think that goes back to the fundamentals of international law. we have set aside international law extensively on this issue. even today, the united states and the biden's ration is encouraging the israelis to make sure the attacks are in line with international law. much of what has happened clearly violates international law including the collective punishment to the blockade and the stopping of fuel and food and medicine from getting in. these are things that ultimately will backfire in u.s. interest as well. united states has ended up in an isolated position

internationally. the veto that was used against the resolution put forward at the un security council by brazil come a strong ally of the united states, had a vote from everyone in the council except united states. other european and western states voted in favor of it. i think we have to rethink our approach to this. we are getting isolated and the rest of the world are shaking their has because we talked a lot about rules-based order when it gave you you create so where are the rules -- when it came to ukraine so where are the rules in this scenario? what happened after the russians vetoed the resolution condemning their illegal invasion of ukraine was that a new mechanism was put in place which a matter could be you just moved from the security council to the general assembly if the councilmember uses the vita. the question remains to see if this issue will be moved to the

general assembly. if that were to happen, again, we will see a position against the humanitarian efforts which are difficult to defend. according to tete, 80% of democrats believe there should be a cease fire and humanitarian policy and only 12% support the position of opposing that. even among independents it's a strong majority, 66% believe there should be a pause in the cease fire. i suspect a lot of that is because of humanitarian concerns, not wanting to see more civilians die on either side but a lot of that is because of the fear of not having a cease fire would lead to a war that would drag united states into it. host: one more call from virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning.

i heard you mention turkey. has turkey designated hamas as a terrorist organization? i believe they have not and ably president trump actually praised the president of turkey. my main question is, there is a lot of u.s. support for israel when trying to root out hamas from the neighboring areas. a lot of that support is coming from people were said to be pro-life, knowing there is a lot of children dying. what are your thoughts on the support of israel even in light of so many casualties of civilians including children that are on the ground? i will listen to your answer offline. guest: for your first question, turkey is not designated hamas a

terrorist organization. hamas comes out of the egyptian muslim motherhood which is also related to er45dogan's they are eyeing a role to be a mediator in this conflict. it's not going to designate hamas as his cue over a short kid c2 -- as a terrorist organization. they don't want to eliminate its own ability to play mediation role. on the issue of this port, i think blind support is not support. for a lot of israelis, the idea the united states stands by israel is of tremendous importance. to support a strategy that is

likely going to lead to a worse situation is not really support. even the president pointed out that after 9/11, we engaged in a lot of excesses that were counterproductive. no one of our friends were telling us that perhaps we should restrain ourselves for think longer term before we engage in those practices. the president said these things publicly. the extent to which that is being received by the israelis and the extent to which privately the president is being more firm, we have not yet seen clear evidence for. that would truly be the support of israel to make sure it doesn't engage in something we know based on our own experience will not make a difference. host: what are you watching for the next few days? guest: i'm worried about a land invasion and what that will trigger but also if there is an intensification of the air containment against gaza.

there's is also the likelihood that will trigger some form of reaction but not the same as a ground invasion but it could lead to a rising of the war. i'm worried about what will happen elsewhere in the region. host: the organization is quincyin.org. thanks for your time. until the end of the program, open forum, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats ands independent (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when we return. ♪ >> wednesday night at 11 p.m. eastern, president biden and first lady jill biden host a state dinner in honor of the australian prime minister.

watch as the bidens welcome the prime minister to the white house. guest arrivals and dinner toasts , watch the white house state dinner wednesday night at 11 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> live suay, november 5 on in-depth, author and former aclu esident joins book tv to talk of calls about civil rights, free speech and censorship and more. she is the author of defending pornography, hate and the recently published free speech. a guide to free speech law. joining the conversation wit your phone calls, facebook comments and texts. in depth with nadine strossen sunday at noon eastern.

nonfiction book lovers, c-span is a number of podcasts for you. listen to best-selling nonfiction authors and influential interviewers on the afterwords podcast. on q&a here wide-ranging interviews. book notes plus injuries or weekly hour-long conversation that future fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics. in the about books podcast takes you behind-the-scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with insider interviews, industry updates and bestseller lists. find our podcast by downloading the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website, c-span.org /podcasts. >> c-span shopped at orc is our test c-span shopped at org is our online store.

-- c-span shop.org is our online store. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: there were eight people, republicans going into the nominating process to become the house speaker and now there are only seven. the republican from alabama, gary palmer is out of the race for speaker. that leaves seven candidates in a secret vote is taking place as we speak. a potential floor vote perhaps taking place later today. stay close to c-span2 to watch that and you can follow along on the app at c-span now and you can follow along on your computer at c-span.org. nancy is up first in this open forum from massachusetts, democrats line.

caller: good morning, yes, i am wondering if anyone has noticed that the religious conflict in the middle east. one of the main religious tenets of almost every faith is thou shall not kill. how do you justify going against your religion to prove your religion is superior? that's my point. thou shalt not kill is still that shalt not kill. host: republican line from fargo, north dakota, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for having your previous guest. i learned a lot. one of the things that really impacted me as a young person in the u.s. was the pool attack at the olympics, the munich olympics in 1972 when we had the massacre of israeli athletes and

some of the hostages were taken. west germany, nobody knew how to negotiate with terrorists and taking hostages so they tried to settle this with undercover police. it turned into total chaos and mayhem. all the hostages ended up dead. five of the hamas militants were also dead. it took a while to track down the other ones and the repercussions have been on ever since. for the sheer brutality what happened october 7, it was another reenactment of some other terrible things that the palestinian liberation organization seems to be doing by claiming victimhood. they are using that to justify the sheer brutality and slaughter of women and babies.

when we hear about the geneva convention, we are about thou shalt not kill, what is the punishment? there must be punishment for these acts, these horrible acts that were perpetrated by whatever segment you want to call it. host: two stories involving former president trump -- eric is in new hampshire manchester, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine thank you. caller: thank you for having me on.

i am really disappointed in our administration. i voted democrat the last four elections. everything from the economy, everything is thrown into chaos. i won't be voting democrat this year. i will be voting independent. a little bit disappointed with this administration. the things that are going on in the middle east are terrible. again, it's almost inevitable u.s. will have to get involved again for a long occupation of more middle eastern countries. based on this atrocity, the israelis did not perpetuate this. nobody seems to say anything

about the war crimes that hamas has committed or these protesters across the u.s. country that are just protesting in support of hamas in palestine but none of them say anything about the 500,000 dead in ukraine. host: let's go to beverly in florida, republican line. caller: yes, i'm calling because i want to say first, we have to begin with america and repent in america. as it is in israel, where as we have to take their lead for their nation. israel, in order, we need to close our borders because we can't continue in having people who are terrorists call the shots.

then we get to structure and. we need to do as israel tried to compromise with hamas and hezbollah. we need to close our borders so we don't have the same thing that happened in our own country. host: the front page of the washington times --

joe in indiana, independent line. caller: hi, i believe it's reprehensible what's happening and what the israelis are doing in gaza. their bombing is indiscriminate. they're not getting any information and not targeting hamas. at all. you can look at the photographs that are being shown of the buildings being destroyed. it's block after block. it's just ridiculous. i understand that people are saying they are in shock for what happened on october 7.

rightly so. but at this point, there is no reason to continue this way. this will not work. you look at the humanitarian crisis that they caused them for the united states to not turn a blind eye but say we will let them go on because it's obvious revenge. but revenge against these people are between iraq and a hard place. host: arizona, republican line, go ahead. caller: i would like to see byron donalds get the speaker of the house. also, i want to know, when can we expect to have the cadaver in

the white house removed? host: why mr. donald's? caller: i heard him speak and he is truthful, he doesn't beat around the bush and he speaks in a language that we can understand. he's not afraid. i don't think he is on the take. he is of the right age and we don't need another elderly person in there. host: ok, they made their pitches and their case to become the next speaker and after that he came before cameras and talked about what he expected. [video clip] >> will mr. fisk be in there? >> might pitches simple, this will be a process where its member driven, not speaker driven. we need to get back to work and secure a borders and run our government responsibly and hold this administration responsible and last but not least, we have

to be focused on purpose and mission, that's it. i spoke to the president and i think the president will watches go through a process i think you will be happy on the next speaker of the house. i think that's what will happen. . >> [inaudible] >> i love the president and he has supported me and i endorsed him. this will be a process by the members. i think we will be done pretty quickly. >> [inaudible] >> i do. i spent 20 years in the business community i was a member of our state legislature. i know the legislative process and i worked with our colleagues to get policies done. we have a lot of talent in our leadership team and in his body. 's not about one person, it's about all members collectively.

host: that was yesterday. the vote is taking place now. look for that to play out on c-span. next is independent line. caller: hi, i'm calling because the man that was on earlier, i want to correct him a little bit. they are sending aid into gaza. they said hamas is taking most of it. it's not true they're starving the people. the palestinians had a chance to have a two state and they wouldn't take it. i wanted to let you know that. also, i think people have to think that if their baby was shot in their head was cut off,

their mothers, their fathers shot and killed and burned, how would they feel? would they want to let the hamas people go? i don't think so. that one lady said about the fighting, killing is wrong. it is wrong but it comes to war, in the bible it says they had many battles of war. it's not common that a christian would think that they had to have battles. host: linda from north carolina come republican line. you are next. caller: yes, my concern is why israel cut off the fuel, water and food to the hospital and the innocent palestinians. isn't that killing them slowly?

that is no different than what hamas is doing only differences, they are killing them slower. host: robert in ohio, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am concerned about the situation in the east. i have two grandsons in the military now. one is a lieutenant in the other is an enlisted man. they might get drawn into something that's unnecessary. i think people have to learn to try to live together and respect each other. apparently, the human race has a problem with their situation. thank you. host: the house speaker race and its current status is something to watch out for today. you can keep watching on her

main channel and on the website or our app. it's c-span now and you can download it and see some of the programming we do during the course of the day. mary and in minnesota come republican line. caller: hi, i'm calling about the congressional speaker thing. d i believe byrononnells would be a good person to choose. he not only speaks well in public but he seems to play well with others. and he well-balanced ideas on things. i think he has a lot of guts. i'm kind of rooting for him, thank you. host: rosaura in maryland, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about the israeli-hamas war. what upsets me is the way hamas

went in and attacked israel. now, america and allies are trying to help israel, we are being asked to tiptoe around hamas. there is all this talk about make sure you don't hit civilians and make sure they get aid. it's not that i want civilians to be hit or people not to get aid but hamas had to know when they attacked israel what the outcome was going to be. they had to know their own people would be killed. it just shows must doesn't care anything about the palestinian people. their goal is to annihilate israel and annihilate [no audio] host: she broke up so we will move up to linda in missouri, democrats line. caller: i have a statement on

israel. thank you for taking my call. i listen to some of these people and they seem not caring. if they went in and killed those people, it was a few. there are millions of people being affected by this. i don't call that a war. they don't have anything really to fight back with. to have control over their water and everything, i don't understand how that can happen. they are committing genocide. which should be on our ballot is if we should continue to fund the israelis? what they are doing is totally wrong. they are going to freaking far. host: lisa in pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning. we are calling from our classroom in pennsylvania. my students and i have c-span on this morning because we are

excited to watch the house republicans figure out there speaker and i was calling for us to share our thoughts today. would anybody like to share with me a thought with pedro? we are live. they are giggling now and are little nervous. host: you put me on the spot as well but how are your students reacting to what has been going on the last few weeks? caller: they are staring at me. we are shocked and have been frustrated but they been curious how the house republicans will get their conference together and pick a leader. we see what's unfolding in israel. the united states needs to deal with some internal problems like the inflation. we just wanted to let you know we are watching the show today and are excited for c-span to show us what's going on live in the house we wanted to say thank you so much for providing that opportunity to us. host: if they want to say hi on

air and let their voices be heard, i am open to that, 1, 2, 3, go ahead. caller: hi! host: thank you for your participation and your students as well. we are watching what's playing out and whether there will be a house speaker chosen. educators in the audience, we have an educational component we put together material for classrooms to teach them about the process of how government works and how washington works. you can find that at c-span.org. u.s. of a viewer can watch along and see how the process played out by sticking to this channel or going to our website at c-span.org and follow along unser beast -- on c-span now. that's it for our program today and another edition of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. we will see you then. [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] ♪ >> tuesday morning october 24. in the u.s. house, republicans are voting behind closed doors to select a new nominee for house speaker t comes after a conference forum last night where the candidates made speeches for the top job. the eight candidates including majority whip tom emmer. conference vice chair mike johnson. along with representatives austin scott, jack bgman, byron donalds, kevin hern, gary palmer, and pete sessions. this morning's meeting set for 9 a.m. eastern, members voted multiple rounds until a candidate win as majori of all votes cast. the u.s. house is thencheduled

to meet at 11 a.m. eastern with a floor ve on electing a speaker possib. as always youan watch live coverage of the house here on c-span. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, can you find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> on wednesday, president biden and first lady jill bid host a state dinner honoring australian prime minister. that evening will show -- we' show lie hi lights including the arrival to the white house. the guess aarrils on the guest

carpet and dinner toa. watch at 11-eastern. on c-span. on the c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. when citizens are truly informed, our republic thrives. get informed straight from the source. on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. because the opinion that matters of most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. >> president biden announced plans to invest in 31 regional tech hubs around the country while speaking about the economy and his administration's policy agenda. in addition to his prepared remarks, the president also talked to reporters about