>> we believe that whether you live here, or here, or in the middle of anywhere, you should have access to reliable internet. announcer: mediacom supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. announcer: coming up on "washington journal" this morning, your nationwide calls and comments live. and then miles yu of the hudson institute and jake werner of the quincy institute discuss u.s. china relations. and npr's roben farzad discusses the u.s. economy. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is "washington

journal" for november 17. if you had to assign congress a grade, what would you give it? you may turn to recent events like the house ethics committee or members of congress challenging people to a fight. we ask you to give congress a grade and why you gave it the grade you did. here is how you can call and let us know. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and independents (202)-748-8002. you can call and text at (202)-748-8003. if you want to post your thoughts on social media, you can post to facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x @cspanwj. maybe one of the things

factoring into your grade is productivity. a recent piece this week takes a look at the history of productivity in congress and greats this congress -- grades this congress the least productive since the great depression. with only 21 bills making it into law the 118th congress is on the most sluggish pace to make law since the congress that met in 1931 and 1932. hoover was president, the great depression was started, and movies were still new. the people at huff post say of the 21 laws made so far this year one was merely to keep the government open -- which would have expired today -- two were

name veterans affairs buildings after. people, one was to nullify a local law. congress has not spent much time renaming post offices. those accounted for 64% of previous congress' laws. while it takes two chambers to tango when it comes to passing bills, the house has had a tougher time getting its act together this year. you can factor those in wen yu assign congress a grade. the numbers again if you want to call in, (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, and independents

(202)-748-8002. you may also factor current events into the situation, such as what happened about the things leading up to a cut off of government funding, which was set to take place at the end of today and has been circumvented until early next year. there is also yesterday concerning george santos. the house ethics committee issuing a report that you can find online. this is what you will see. if you go to the hill, they will give you five takeaways coming from that report. one of the categories was improper use of funds on luxury goods. the hill highlighting that among the transgressions detailed in the report thousands of dollars of improper purchases that showcase santos' expensive tastes. $1500 for botox, another $1000

in unreported cosmetic purchases. the report noted over $2000 spent at resorts in atlantic city. $1400 at a skincare spot and over $3000 for an airbnb. it goes on from there. factor that into the situation as well. two things we ask. tell us the grade, tell us why you gave the grade. arthur in wintergarden, florida starts us off. what would you start with? caller: i would give a b+. my reason is i believe the intention of doing the right thing.

i know they can be pulled in different directions but as far as intention, i would have to give them an a-or b+. it is hard to say right now a grade i would give them. host: do you think it is good intention? if i am hearing you, it is good intention on average. they have good intent on getting things done. caller: i would hope so, yes. host: what do you think keeps them from doing that? caller: i believe the other side is trying to block what is going on. eventually they are going to be led to compromise and end up not

doing anything of what they intended to do. host: ok. arthur in florida with his grade and reasoning. let's go to the line for democrats. this is william in ohio. same thing as far as the grade is concerned. caller: as far as i am concerned the grade would be so low you could not recognize it. i have said for years anytime is all you have is crooks and politicians. there is not one of them that deserves one third of their salary. they always want to cut social security. why don't they talk about covering these corrupt politicians' salaries? it is a shame we have to go through nonsense like this. i blame nobody but the big money that line the politicians'

pockets. host: before you leave, if the grade is so low, what fixes the issue? caller: eliminate half of the politicians. there is no state that needs 40 or 50 congressmen. host: william on the line for democrats. your grade of congress. virginia next, independent line. alan, you are next. caller: yes, i would give them an a+ for the grade for congress. host: an a+ you said. caller: yes. host: what gives them the a+ in your mind? caller: we can do a better job.

host: but they are allready getting an a. why are they getting an a from you? caller: i don't know. host: robert in indiana, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i give our congress -- well, i give our country a complete f. can i read you something? host: hold on. let's stick to the grade first. what grade would you give congress? caller: failure. host: why? caller: all they do is fight amongst themselves. they do not worry about the people of this country. let me read you something from david jeremiah. host: let's stick to the topic. you say it is congress' fault. why? caller: it tells you what we are

in. many people claim to be the messiah and claim to have the answers. near time people will be crying for leaders to deliver them and they will seek mystics and religious leaders who claim to have deeper knowledge. host: that is robert. he talked about the fight. in the new york times, it talks about fighting among congress. the fight house republicans really want is how they headline it. speaking about mike johnson saying, mike johnson has had to scramble to prevent the government from shutting down. he came up with an oddly structured stopgap bill to keep the government open which the has passed tuesday. president biden has agreed to sign it. for a moment it was a moment of bipartisan warmth but almost

certainly false spring. within a day republicans were fighting one another over extremist demands. the far right was raging about the swamp and the failure theater, and veiled threats were made that mr. johnson better get with the spending cut program fast. leeann on the democrats line in detroit. caller: i would give them an f and this is why. they do not put the american people first. if someone has a great idea and they get credit for it, it is not about the people. they want the credit. we did it better first. just like macarthur. he was not the best but because he was willing to negotiate with the other side, you know, they took him off as speaker of the house.

how can they say they are giving them an a when they do not want to work together because they do not put the american people first? they should not get paid unless they negotiate and get a deal. host: ok. that is leeann in detroit talking about the ability for congress to work with each other. in california, republican line, this is steve. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would also give them an f and i will tell you why. back in the late 1700s, early 1800s there was a famous historian that came from france to give his perceptions of what is going on in our democracy. he made the comment when the

electorate, the common voters, realized they can vote themselves money. the experiment will be over. lately, the last 25 years, that is exactly what has happened. the electorate has voted democrat and they have done that because democrats give them money in the form of welfare and all the social programs. it is sad but the experiment is coming to an end. i challenged last month somebody to tell me what the plan is when our currency is of no value and we have to take a wheelbarrow full of money to purchase a load

of bread. what is the plan? host: steve in california. the travel of the frenchman to the united states were highlighted in a c-span series that goes back several decades. you can still find it on c-span.org. it talks about the travel, interviews people about those travels, and what was discovered. go to the website if you want to find out more. it was earlier this week that new york representative brian higgins from new york decided he was going to leave congress and announced his retirement. one of the reasons he expressed for doing so was the ability to function. here is some of his comments. [video clip] rep. higgins: moody's just downgraded america, citing the dysfunction of congress and the dysfunction of washington.

congress is not the institution it was 19 years ago. it is a very different place today. we are spending more time doing less and the american people are not being served. for example, last week we had late multiple votes. most of those votes were to reduce the salary of administration officials to a dollar. we are in a rough patch right now. the country is deeply divided. economists did a piece not long ago stating that in the midterm elections in 2022, 107 million people voted for the house of representatives. the difference between democrats and republicans was 6,670 votes. the idea of crossover appeal has

been replaced with performative behavior which makes a mockery of the institution of congress. congress is article one of the constitution for a reason. it is the most important branch of the three in government. the most important branch of congress is the house of representatives. why? because it is closest to the people. host: brian higgins talking about some of the reasons he is leaving congress. maybe you could share the sentiments when it comes to giving a grade to congress. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202)-748-8001, and independents (202)-748-8002. when it comes to that government shutdown if you want to factor those discussions in, it was president biden signing the bill that keeps the government-funded for the short-term early on next year. he did that during his travels in california.

let's hear from jim in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: ok. i firmly believe -- is there a grade lower then f? host: i guess you could go f-if you would do so. caller: i guess so. i believe our government is nothing more than communists and crimals. at the federal, state, and local level as well. it is just so bad. i believe our elections are fixed. in fact, know for sure. my mom voted in 2020. the only problem is she has been

dead for 10 years. host: given the current congress, give me a specific why. caller: first of all i believe the real problem is this. all these policies and legislation is not coming via the congress. it is unelected bureaucrats making these changes to our laws. when they say we make rules and regulations, those are laws and they cost us money. everybody says, well, inflation is at 3% now. it is not really if you factor in energy and food. it is much higher. you say, well, unemployment is low. how about the people that quit looking? and then you see our country being flooded with illegal immigrants and they say, well, we will just parole them and it is part of the refugee system.

that is not the law. the law says they are supposed to be held in detention. host: gary in new hampshire. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to say happy thanksgiving to everybody. i give congress a failing grade. number one, there has been too much infighting amongst the republican party. kevin mccarthy should not have been given the lead he was given. number two, they never bothered to take up gun control. if you look at the statistics, the number one killer of children are guns. the republican party did not take up one bit of that this year. i feel so sorry for the poor families that had to bury their loved ones because of this gun violence going on in this country than our republican congress refuses to put a stop

to because they are so aligned with the nra. number three, i am tired of them being aligned with donald trump. donald trump is a criminal. he committed crimes. he instructed a riot that killed capitol police officers. what if it was one of your relatives that died because of the election lies? thinking about how you would feel. host: that is gary. gary refers to january 6. several reports looking at those who died and why they died. you can check that out online. you can factor into your grade of congress if you wish. carla in oklahoma, republican line. caller: hello. i give them an average grade, c. they pass bills.

we have to give them credit for that but they are blocked in the democratic controlled congress. a couple of those instances are the irs increasing so they can go after taxpayers. border control. they tried to pass bills for border control. it is kind of hard for them to do their job or get their job done. host: what do you think would improve that? caller: probably a republican-controlled senate. host: even with the republicans in the house and the disagreements overspending issues and you saw that play out with the extension of the funding deadline? caller: they do have their problems but they are getting it together i think and they are

trying to do what is best. one thing i wanted to say is it is not all about bills. i appreciate their oversight committee. i appreciate the way they are looking into matters about china, the bidens, our exit from afghanistan. i appreciate the house of representatives on that. host: the house with those oversight committees. when those hearings take place we bring you a good chunk of those when it comes to giving it to you. you can also see them again on a variety of ways. c-span.org and the app at c-span now. you can follow along on one of those fronts. when it comes to this front, a

grade for congress. tell us why. a variety of grades already given. john is in florida, independent line. what is your take on grades and what do you think? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i give congress an f-. i agree with the previous caller from pennsylvania. the legislative branch of our government has deteriorated. they do not work for the people anymore and between the legislative branch and the executive branch of our government, they are going to spend us into a depression that is going to be worse than the great depression of 1929. host: that is john in florida. a few of you commenting on the various sites. a viewer on x says, i would

grade them "i" for incomplete. another says removing leaders when they are clearly incompetent. steve on x sayg the worst failing grade. it is going nowhere. its the worst house in thre lifetimes. mlb saying, i am not willing to grade 435 people as a group. we have to start to see bipartisan effort. i am hoping congress will be worthy of the people that they represent. one of those people on the various networks talking about bipartisan efforts was asked about speaker johnson's approach when it comes to dealing with issues in the house, particularly spending issues as

we saw a voting against short-term funding of the bill. here is a portion of that interview. [video clip] >> i voted in support. he is putting forward a budget that will be approved. i know he was just thrust into this position and did not have a choice. this keeps the government open. he appears to be pushing aside the harder right flank of the republican conference. how do you see him negotiating, navigating this in the future? >> bipartisanship should be controversial, especially when the reality states that we have a razor thin majority in the house, a democrat senate, and democrat president. if you say you care about the american people, paying our border control agents is caring for the people. making sure our veterans maintain their health services is caring about the american people. working in a bipartisan manner to get this spending bill

through so we can get our conservative appropriations bills through the house and the negotiate with the senate to make sure we fund the government while we are looking toward the future so we are not bankrupting our future. we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. i am proud to continue this funding. host: you can grade congress and tell us what. jim in west virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: i would give congress -- if you are speaking to the house of representatives -- i would give them a healthy d. i wanted to answer a couple of your callers that called in a moment ago. the guy from pennsylvania was whining about immigration and the horrible problems. i would say to him ask the previous president why he dismantled our immigration system. a guest on your show last week

was talking about border issues and he said people don't realize -- they are screaming about 151 people on the terror watch list coming across the border. people do not realize more than that have been stopped coming across the northern border from canada. it is silly talking points coming through political -- host: back to your first comment as far as the d. what factors do you measure in giving the d? caller: gracious, there is a lot of things that need fixed. republicans, oh gee, we have a five person majority so we are going to spend our time blocking aid to ukraine because president trump wants to help russia. these political pursuits of hunter biden. things that were actually looked into in 2015 and straightened out and clarified but they want to keep making -- twisting it

into, how i view it, as putin and giuliani and trump's warped version of what happened in ukraine. but what i wanted to say to the woman from pennsylvania, she was worried about hunter biden and the biden family. look at the billions that trump and kushner got from the saudis and from china while in office. host: jim talked about the majority the republicans in the house currently hold. that may come into play in concerning george santos. the chair of the house committee from mississippi is expected to introduce an expulsion at 9:00. look out for that. factor that in if you wish what

it comes to this grade for congress. it was senator lankford and representative jodey arrington of texas taking a look at ways they think that congress can improve, or at least improve its service to the people. they write, if you want to see a grumber of congress, talk to the a weekend when they ark in d.c., missing their child's game. when you takey ti you have have proposed severalttention. safeguards to prevent endless contin resolutions. our solutions includes a quorum call vote seven da week preventing campaign funds from travel. bipartisan, bicameral which shift the pressure poi fm shutting down the government to shutting in the policis. that way lawmakers will feel the pain of their failure and do the most fundamental job of funding

the federal government. those legislators giving thoughts. factor that in if you wish. republican line, connecticut. caller: the first comment i would like to make is on the last caller. i think the gentleman watches too much cartoon network. trump, trump, trump. let's give the speaker the benefit of the doubt. he is coming in and taking over a difficult situation. i think he is an eloquent speaker. i think he is intelligent and i expect good things from him. i give congress an 8 out of 10. he has done a beautiful job controlling the spending by president biden. he signs everything in front of him and put us deeper and deeper

in debt. he is doing a beautiful job of controlling that. that is what we need. he keeps talking about bipartisan, bipartisan, but as long as the democrats get their way, they are going to say we had bipartisan. that is all i have to say. have a great day. host: georgia to darrell, independent line. caller: yes. my only issue is i do not see the president being a problem either way. it has always been congress. if we do in fighting in america amongst each other, i would give them an f. congress is the issue, democratic and republican. host: what do you mean by that? give me a specific. caller: they don't do anything for the american people. i am 39-years-old and this is the -- i do not care if you are

democrat or republican -- this is the first generation -- we live in a lower living. it is lower than our parents was. we need education. we need health care. nobody is fighting for either one of those things. that is what our generation needs because no job is secure no more. we are not being in a job for 30 or 40 years. you might get shut down tomorrow and you have to find something else and you don't have health care. nobody is trying to put in the money to retrain either. you are caught in between.

living is different for us than it was for our parents. host: that is darrell in georgia. another george on the democrat line, michael. michael in powder springs, georgia. caller: good morning. i am going to echo with the last caller said in regards to the standards of living. every other american must understand you are in a service economy and when you are in a service economy wages are going to be low. bill clinton told everybody that we were transitioning to a service economy when he was leaving office and that is what we have had for the last 40 plus years. congress can get an f.

they are bipartisan when it comes to the military budget but everybody is talking about social programs and the high cost. they don't understand corporate welfare is a social program as well. i have three sons in the military and i understand we need a military, but joe biden the other day standing up with china talking about capitalism and how to grow the economy in the private sector overseas. that is why you have no jobs. your jobs are in china. when i hear people saying, hey, they are against china. they don't understand your taxpayer dollars are invested in china. host: michael in georgia talking about congress. giving it a grade.

referencing the president meeting with chinese leaders. we will talk more about that in our next segment. we also talked about matters of the military. it was earlier this week on thursday on the set floor -- senate floor where they attempted to advance military nominations. two republicans spoke up -- one against the policy and one supporting tuberville's position. [video clip] >> there has to be a way to change the policy. that is our job. it is not the job of these nominees. it is our job to make sure the policy is right. it is president biden's fault we are in this situation. it is lloyd austin's fault that

we are in the situation. it is chuck schumer's fault we are in this situation. i understand that we have the ability to put holds on nominees. my folks had a saying. just because you can does not mean you should. ok? yes, you can put blanket holds on these nominees. but what is that doing to our nation right now? it is not solving the travel policy. that is our job. we have to figure this out. and it is not getting these men and women into the positions that are needed. >> we have been told over and over again that these 1, 2,

three, and four-star generals are being punished for something they had nothing to do with. here again the same could be said of babies whose lives will be snuffed out with the assistance of taxpayer dollars. we are told over and over again about how pro-life these speakers are. i do not doubt that they are. but one minute they are uttering those words and the next they are accusing mr. tuberville of -- i get it.

they do not love the tactic he has chosen. it is not the one i chose. it is not what they chose. but it is what he has chosen. if they are going to passive aggressively tell him he has to find another solution, they had better direct him toward one. host: that was early thursday morning on the senate floor. you can see more of that debate that was amongst republicans on our website and app. let's hear from a viewer in maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for picking up my call. i am giving the democrats a d. at least one trump was in office, he tried to secure the

border. now the border is wide open. this government should be ashamed of itself. [indiscernible] it does not make no sense to me. host: president biden and the mexican president set to meet on the sidelines today in san francisco to talk about various aspects of policy when it comes to the u.s. and mexico. migration one of those things. look for news coming out of that meeting while the president is traveling. next also in maryland, independent line. caller: i give the republicans in congress an f. they are not going to pass a budget.

they have not taken up any appropriations bills and had nancy pelosi not passed those bills before, our country would be in a real pickle. the arguments they are bringing up is a joke. i think hakeem jeffries needs to take over and get the business done. host: there are several appropriations bills republicans have worked on. the president signed into law the short-term extension. let's hear on the republican line in michigan. david, you are next. caller: this is my first time calling c-span. you do a wonderful job. i am a republican and i was a democrat for years but i had to

change and go republican because with the government the way it has been run, i know i did very well in previous years. with trump, i had a good time with him when he was president. for people that are democrats, hey, we are living in a bad time. with the borders wide open we have got more problems there than anywhere in the country. i give trump and i give the republican congress a b. they are trying but the democrats do not want to vote for their proposals. i want to thank you very much for letting me speak today. host: david in michigan giving

us his thoughts. stephen in michigan sending us a text at (202)-748-8003. congress gets enough -an f-. on facebook, an incomplete. they have not done much of anything. facebook, they passed the cr which will be a d with previous legislatures i will give a c. jaree saying incomplete. they are so wrapped up and in lobbyists they are not addressing american issues. you can send us a text at (202)-748-8003.

william is in arizona, independent line. caller: hello. i would grade congress as an f. they are the most disorganized organization i have ever seen. i have been involved in many organizations. congress makes up their own rules, violates them at will to gain advantage on both sides. any organization that would allow one individual to control the fate of a bill, via it through filibuster or whatever rule it is that tommy tuberville is using, is nuts. then you go to the house and they bring up bills and they change the rules as they go along. why can't they operate as a

democracy and follow roberts' rules of war? have a straight up vote and the winner wins and the loser loses. this is ludicrous behavior. host: becky in ohio, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i have been taping what is going on in the house everyday. people need to do this. if you saw what is going on, it is ridiculous. i mean, these spending bills that they are trying to pass, i mean, there is 150 amendments the republicans put up in the democrats are fighting them on it. they are so stupid. reducing salaries to a dollar. defunding the board of education. they are defunding everything and the republicans are fighting

them on everything. when they do vote on these none of them -- half the republicans do not even vote. they are just wasting weeks and weeks with the stupid amendments. they will not let the democrats put up any good amendments. and then they end up passing these bills and they get on tv and say, we passed this bill. it is so stupid. it is always these far right republicans putting these up, like, scott and green and boebert. host: you said you record these every day on your television? caller: yes, i am retired. i can just go through and listen because a lot of people cannot do that. they cannot sit there all day and watch this. it saves time when you tape it.

they vote all at one time later in the day after they debate all day. but after you watch about five or 10 of them, it is ridiculous. host: that is becky. faithful taper of the events of congress. i will tell you and the others you can also resort digitally. our website at c-span.org for the activity with congress and i have mentioned the app. if you want to see the latest, you can go to the app too. you keep taping if you wish. go for it. let's hear from ginger in alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i know this is hard to say for me about the congress in my country but i would give congress an f. i would give them an f on

teamwork, leadership, professionalism, customer service, and furthermore, as an independent, i will break down the dems in one way in terms of the budget. i think they approach it as if they are santa claus and the republicans as if they are scrooge. i just want to pray the season that they come together and try to work together as a team, the professionals, and really respect to the customer more and that is the american people who pay their salaries and their taxes. i would pray they also become better leaders and more fiscally responsible with the money in their hands. it is broken down to -- i would not even say like kids. we teach our children better. in the public, they should have more decorum, dignity, respect, and more maturity.

it is broken down too much for me. i give all of them an f. thank you for listening. host: thank you for calling. one of those perspectives on the performance of congress comes from the l.a. times. she wrote, there is a parallel between congress' mayhem in 2011 and 2023. resolving to shake things up under a democratic president 2011 it was the tea party takeover. now e the maga house. over decades of covering budget policy i have watched them squander that brand, insisting on cuts while imposing any tax increases,hrtening near default. those are not the tactics of fiscal conservatives and we are sick and tired to the brink. if only republicans were too. you can read that on the site of

the l.a. times. we will hear from lisa on grading congress. caller: hello. you just had on ginger and becky and then your social media folks were all spot on. i do not even remember what party they are from. i am a democrat. i would give congress a d. the only reason i would not give them an f is because the democrats are holding it down. why would i give them a d? i feel it is the gop gone wild. you have mccarthy, senator mullin's and the teamsters, someone testifying before you and juergen ask them to fight. that is very thugish as former president trump would have called it if it were anyone but his own. scalise calling another

representative a smurf. george santos absconding with the money. whatever happened to florida gaetz's allegations of trafficking little girls? i would give them a d. thank god for my buddy from new york, the leader of the democrats, hakeem. my original state of new york. i hope he is the next speaker. host: that is lisa and maryland. she brought up the activities and actions of oklahoma senator mullen from earlier this year.

he was on fox news later on that week to talk about the actions he took and why he did that. here is part of that interview. [video clip] >> people say this is -- i am from oklahoma first. you do not run your mouth like that. unfortunately, he did and i called him out on it. i do not like bullies. i never dealt good with bullies. they stand up for other people and when you run your mouth, you need to be called out every now and then. if that requires you getting punched in the face, that is what is going to happen. there is consequences for your actions and i raised my kids under that too. >> this has gone viral and has been playing all over the world. i you did not anticipate that. do you regret anything? do you think it would be wise to get together?

where does that stand? >> i do not take it personal. i fought professionally for a while. it is never personal to me. as a kid, you get in brawls every now and then with your buddies or whoever. you get up, just yourself off, and keep playing. it is not personal to me necessarily. [crosstalk] >> it hit a nerve with you. that was pretty clear. of all the things he said, what got your goat more than anything else? >> calling me out. when he said you know where to find me, anytime, anyplace. i was like, ok, how do i not respond to that? host: that interview from earlier this week on fox news. you can find it online. julie in rhode island, republican line.

julie from rhode island. caller: can you hear me? host: i can. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to give them a b. democrats will not work with them. they will not work with them. they say no to everything. they are just going hog wild about hamas and the palestinians. look what happened to the dmz wednesday night. they were rioting and they send all of these people from january 6 to prison for what? walking peacefully through? if you look at kissinger's comments he made on "the view," he brought a handgun to congress

that day. you think he had a clue something was going to happen that day? host: let's hear from daniel on our independent line in illinois. caller: good morning. i give congress an a++. they are doing their job. they got the continuing resolution going and this is the way congress has been for 250 years. it is always going to be controversy. there is always going to be push and pull. i give them an a++ for not letting this government get shut down. host: daniel in illinois. another vieweoff of x saying, d is the grade for disappointed. no action on gun violence. a viewer in ohio says, congress

has ma themselves unaccountable for their constituents. th need to spend some time nvsing their districts. ellerby saying, they procrastinate. let's implement a four-day yea for congress to get more done. and then margaret texting us saying, congress is a reflection of the american people who put them in office. the grade of f. no diversity, no equity, no inclusion. you get what you vote for. that some of the ways you can communicate with us social media wise. carolyn in d.c., democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for having me. i give the congress a d. i think we are in a lot of trouble. it is very frightening. i do not think we understand

what money is and what money should be doing. i do not think we are considering that china's backing their money with gold and russia is backing their money with gold. we are spending money we do not have. we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign countries, yet we are struggling to keep our own government open. we are giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to migrants and our own citizens are sleeping in the woods under tarps. it is embarrassing. it is extremely frightening and i wish they stopped acting like children in the sandbox and be adults. most of them are lawyers and they are intelligent people. it is embarrassing and very frightening to watch the country go down the tubes because this is a corporateocracy.

people need to be represented by their congresspeople. host: brian in next in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: hello. do you hear me? host: yeah. go ahead. caller: i would give congress a solid f. they have become lazy and unresponsive. they stopped giving money to ukraine but they fund to push israel that is doing a genocide in gaza. they should be ashamed of themselves. you have only 40 million aliens in this country that are not paying into social security, not paying into medicare, but the normal person has to work their lives to support themselves and when they get old they are not taking care of, social security is not high enough and medical bills are outrageous.

you have to have these congressmen accountable and do some work. they have become lazy. thank you so much. host: jim is next in texas, independent line. jim in texas, hello? caller: has anyone ever said we need to lock congress and the representatives in a room without their cell phones to get something accomplished? they need to watch c-span without their cell phones. we almost have to treat them like kids so they know what the american public thinks about these people. i used to be republican. now we need to vote for who is right. it is called common sense. i had a guy down the road the

other day who turned the american flag upside down. i said this is not right. that flag stands for what we are. what is going on right now is not what that flag is paired that is our forefathers and our history. if you have a grievance, let people know about it, but leave the flag alone. let's get some things accomplished at a for who is right instead of which party. host: one more call and we will hear from catherine -- sorry about that. emmett in los angeles, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: ok. i am going to grade congress an f. actually, a d because of the democrats. the democrats have been holding the line. the republicans are leaderless. they have a criminal for their leader.

the other thing i want to tell you is this guy in the senate that is holding up the line against the military, he needs to be sent to boot camp. he is not too old to go to boot camp. if he survives boot camp, he will know what it means to serve in the military. host: emmett finishing off this hour of your calls on grading congress. thank you for all who participated. coming up, we will talk about the president's trip to the west coast to meet with chinese leadership to talk about issues that affect both countries. joining us is miles yu of the hudson institute, and jake werner of the canwe will talk aa relations. later on, a discussion on the current state of the u.s. economy with roben farzad, the

host of full disclosure. those coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> booktv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest books. beginning, live coverage of the miam book fair with the author of "our migrant soul" on what it means to be latino. and "the king" the life of martin luther kingr.. and at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, the author of "the world i see: curiosity at t dn of ai." she is interviewed by jeremy sue. watch booktv every sunday

c-span two find a full schedule or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> monday, watch the conclusion of the series in partnership the library of congress books that shaped america. it will feature the words of cesar chavez published in 2002 it is a collection of speakers -- of speeches and other writings. it follows the history of the farm labor movement and explained how he used nonviolent messages to deliver his message for better play -- pay and working conditions. marion powell, the -- his biographer will discuss the book. watch books that shaped america featuring "the words of cesar chavez" monday live at 9:00

eastern on c-span, c-span now or c-span.org. beast sure to scan the qr code to listen to the companion podcast to learn more about the authors of the books featured. c-span's studentcam documentary competition is back celebrating 20 years with it the looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create a five to six minute video addressing one of these questions, and the next 20 years what is the most important change would like to see in america, over the past 20 years what is the most important change in america. we are giving away $100,000 in prizes with a grand prize of $5,000. every teacher who has students participate has the opportunity to share a portion of an

additional $50,000. the deadline i friday, january 19, 2024. for more information visit studentcam.org. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work and where citizens are truly informed. get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nations capital to wherever you are. it is the opinion that matters most. this is what democracy looks like, c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: president biden travels to talk with china's president on the larger topic of u.s.-china relations. two guests to talk about what

the trip will accomplish. from chicago, jake warner -- werner and joining us in studio, miles yu, the senior fellow and china-centric director. thank you for giving us your time today. guest: good morning. >> grant -- glad to be on. host: you go first. when it comes to the president he has set to travel to california in part to hopefully stabilize relations with china over these meetings. what do you think about that, and do you think that steps towards that have been accomplished? guest: president xi jinping has been playing hard to get because he has a vision for international accords because he has been treated equal. he did not want to go to g20

hosted by india. so he came to california itself. it is breaking the pattern. because the one thing china right now is in a major crisis of governance and the situation is getting in trouble. so china figured out that it needs the west, particularly the united states much more than the other way around. so he has come here to stop the problem and president biden of course is thinking it an opportunity to stabilize the relationship because the u.s.-china relationship has been soured recently. i think that overall, they will stand down and have talks. i was looking at a picture of them in the yard and it was very interesting. without any aides or interpreters and these two have smiling faces and are not

looking at each other. xi jinping does not speak english and president biden does not speak chinese. there is no common language. and they failed issued -- to issue a joint statement. host: same question to you. >> at -- has the relationship and stabilize? tenuously and temporarily because the two sides did not address the underlying problems. the key problem being that each side increasingly sees the other as a main obstacle to success in what it wants to do in the world, whether that is in the military or economic realms. and if we have the two most powerful countries in the world seeing each other as the main optical we can expect conflict sooner or later. unless they are willing to talk about the zero-sum pressures pushing them against each other, we have not truly stabilize the relationship. in the short term, yes, the

rhetoric has lowered substantially over the past year. we have the two sides talking to each other at high levels, again. but, what are they talking about? we are not privy to the full range of discussion, but the indications are that a lot of this is sharing their position on things rather than looking for ways to find common ground or cooperate together, looking for initiatives that might open up space so the u.s. and china can coexist in the world. until we move towards that, we will continue to have very dangerous tensions between the u.s. and china. host: what do you think would be a good first step towards that, building up relationships. from the topics that have been discussed until of session california to other topics. >> the agreements denounced are a good first step because each

side indicates that it has an interest in talking to the other and that they respect the other. that basic dignity being recognized on both sides is a key prerequisite for future diplomacy. but future diplomacy needs to get into the substance and that has to do with the military situation in the western pacific especially around taiwan or all -- and also in the south and east china sea. and the nature of the global economy, whether the rate of growth can be increased and be distributed more equitably so there is enough space for chinese and american companies to succeed even as they compete with each other. those are the kinds of security arrangements in the global system, the economic arrangements and the things that have been off the table. until we see the two sides getting together and trying to negotiate a common position. we should be somewhat uneasy. host: the same list or what

would you add as far toward step to a better situation -- situation? guest: i would move away from transactional labels. i think both sides should recognize a new mode of relationship which is three things that china has to agree to. number one, china cannot just blame the united states for all of the problems in this relationship. china has to take some agency, so it takes to to tango. secondly, china cannot demand the united states to only engage china on a very limited spectrum of some issues and not others. we have to engage china on the full spectrum ranging from human rights and intellectual property theft as well as economic and technological transport. all aspects have to be sort of

negotiated and talked about just like they are in other countries. number three, it is important for china to stop thinking that the world's china -- problem is between china and the united states. the problem is very much between china and the rest of the world. this is one of the reasons that china has a fixation about the united states, forget all of the other things with the e.u. and its neighbors in the south china sea and other parts of the world. the united states share much can touch much of the concerns about the pattern of behavior so these are the three things conceptually that both sides have to really agree to in order to make the relationship more healthy and move forward. host: both guests joining us. if you want to ask questions it is democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001.

independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us you can at 202-748-8003. you can post on facebook and x. it was yesterday that president biden address the relationship between oath countries and talked about the issues that you brought up. i want to play what you have -- what he had to say and then get your responses. [video clip] pres. biden: we have very -- we have differences when it comes to beijing when it comes to a level playing field and protecting your intellectual property. we will continue to address them with smart policies and strong diplomacy. we have also taken targeted action to protect national security interests. let me be clear. we are de-risking and diversifying, not decoupling. not decoupling. we will be firm standing up for our values and interests. and i was straightforward as he

was with me yesterday. at the same time, on critical global issues such as climate, ai, criminal narcotics, where it makes sense to work together we have committed to work together. we are going to continue our commitment to diplomacy to avoid surprises and prevent misunderstandings. [end video clip] host: a portion from yesterday. as far as what he talked about in some of the topic -- and some of the topics, what did you take away from that? guest: the president's approach has two major aspects. one is that he wants to compete with china rigorously which is what we have been doing through the last two administrations. the issue of competition strategically and vigorously is a bipartisan consensus. on the other hand this is where the parties disagree, democrats and republicans.

that is if you take that vigorous competition to the logical confusion -- conclusion there will be confrontations. the two systems are fundamentally uncompromising and very different. so the thing is how do we approach competition with china when that moment comes. and i think this administration is very confrontation of verse. and they tried to do everything just sort of prevent confrontation while the republicans are more inclined to think that the confrontation might be inevitable. i have a -- i think we have to really, given the overall policy and the kind of direction i think there are nuances the difference. >> i absolutely agree. if we continue to push it will end up in confrontation.

we are currently on that trajectory. that is a terrifying prospect. china is a second most powerful country in the world and the most successful developing country over the last 40 years. many of the developing countries look to china as a possibility for their own success. and through direct economic connections and through understanding how chinese companies remain competitive, if the u.s. and china get into a conflict, that will split the world and it will certainly lead to massive economic damage and likely to military conflict. maybe something short of outright war between the united states. but outright war between the united states and china is a terrifying process. we need to step back before the brain can find a way to live with china so we can avoid the terrible consequences that the conflict would bring. and i think that the key to that is healthy competition which the

biden administration says it is supporting. the problem with the approaches that sometimes it is competing that it is also excluding. we see this in the way that the biden administration has tried to cut off access from chinese companies to advanced technologies. if chinese companies cannot get the advanced technology that they cannot compete. that is not competition, that is exclusion. that is a terrible provocation. the chinese government is advanced and high technology and they see it as core to their technology and for the united states to say to china i am sorry, but you will not be allowed to compete, that puts us on the path to conflict. it is these exclusionary measures that we should be in voiding. we should be embracing competition and avoiding exclusion. guest: i disagree with much of what he says because going back to my earlier point, we have to

give china the agency in deciding the nature and direction of the relationship. it is not the united states that is becoming provocative. china is the ultimate source of instability. they have all sorts of policies that are not good for the healthy competition. and competition is not my favorite word to describe the relationship. the chinese government described the bilateral relationship is one of a in epic life and death struggle. you die or i live. it is from their point of view, china has a problem with virtually every american labor. so china -- so yes, i think the ultimate confrontation is very dangerous. they said that the u.s.-china confrontation will be dangerous and it is terrible. but it is united -- not the

united states to blame. the source of the problem is china. i agree with the diagnosis of the problem, but i really do not like the prescription because we have to go to the source of the instability and danger. host: a quick response and then we take calls. >> i completely agree that china is blaming irresponsibly and i believe that the giant -- the united states is plate -- is acting irresponsibly. each side is provoking the other and imposing restrictive and exclusionary measures on the other. each side is looking to a future that it can create that does not really have a place for the other. both sides are contributing to the dynamic. both sides need to step back and stop blaming the other for all of the problems they are seeing. and they need to think pragmatically about how they can work to open up space so there is enough room for both of us to succeed in the world.

we are not going to be able to do that as long as we continue to trade the blame around the problems that we are experiencing. host: let me get in mike from reston, virginia. democrats line. go ahead. caller: i do not know why we have to create enemies. if we believe in the system why can't we compete with each other? you are talking about human rights with china, while you are supporting genocide in gaza. and china will take taiwan, i believe that and there is nothing we can do about it. let us be honest, we cannot disengage from china. we need china and china needs us. we need to work together not to create enemies. china is a powerful country. they are building infrastructure, talking to others and we are just having literal outpost everywhere. host: you go ahead.

guest: i do not think we are creating china as an enemy, china is creating enemies left and right. the reason -- xi jinping was willing to come to san francisco is because half of the countries have been bullied and harassed by china on a weekly and daily basis. the philippines and even japan. that is why he comes here to have a summit with the united states. he is trying to modify that kind of displeasure. that is a problem. china has very important agenda on its plate. and we have to realize that this causes tension. i do not think it is right to have the equivalents to blame the united states on china. but the united states have given china more opportunities to cooperate. it is china that refuse. for example intellectual

property rights and also fentanyl and i was working in the previous administration so it was absolutely maddening to see how irresponsible china was in responding to america's appeal to cooperate with the drug that killed 100,000 americans each year. both sides have to realize importance of the bilateral relationships. and they had been acting responsibly. the irresponsible part of the game is not the united states but china. host: you were the previous china advisor to mike pompeo. mr. werner go ahead. >> i agree we need to recognize the positive things that china is doing and that china could do. china has a lot to contribute to global development and tackling

the climate crisis and to creating a safe, global public health system. these are things that china has a lot to contribute to. i disagree that in order for the u.s. and china to have a good relationship, the u.s. needs to ignore the way in which china is undermining global commonwealths. there are serious problems with chinese behavior. chinese foreign policy, the lending practices leave much to be desired around the world. despite the fact that china has all of these things to contribute. i think that the best and most practical way to deal with this is for the united states to create a positive relationship with china. and on that foundation push to correct some of the negative impact of china around the world. that is the only way that china will listen, honestly. chinese leadership is very proud, nationalism is a core part of its legitimacy. if the united states aims to push china around the chinese

leadership will automatically shut down and become defensive which is what we have seen over the last five plus years. we need a positive relationship where both sides feel like they have a stake in this and they are working towards a global common good that will allow people in both countries to thrive. and that will open up space or a dialogue between the two. one additional point, i do not think that we would -- we should a seed to the idea that china will take taiwan. for china to annex taiwan would be a horrible catastrophe for china, taiwan, the global economy and the western pacific. it would lead to a clash of all securities and economic interconnectedness. i think we absolutely must prevent conflict over taiwan. how do we do that? the key to achieving that is for the united states and china to maintain a good and constructive

relationship. both sides have been willing to tolerate the strange and ambiguous status quo where taiwan exercises status sovereignty if not formal sovereignty. the problem recently is that the two sides no longer trust each other. so when china says it does not intend to forcibly conquer taiwan the united states no longer trust that. when the united states as it does not terminate -- intend to permit lee separate -- permanently separate taiwan to china china does not trust that. the key to taiwan is rebuilding the u.s.-china relationship so the two sides can trust each other when they say they do not want to cause this terrible instability and conflict that would come from any sort of contingency around taiwan. host: john, illinois. independent line. hello. caller: i remember back in the

90's when bill clinton got elected the chinese issued a statement that if they ever decided to take back taiwan and we got involved, los angeles would be their first target. and i thought that is saber rattling because they could not reach us and they did not have the technology. and then bill clinton sold them more top nuclear technology, the china gate scandal, look it up. we turned them into a military superpower. they were 30 years behind us a nuclear capability and now they have everything we have thanks the chinagate scandal. and then the wto members and the wto, they did not want china in there because of human rights violations but bill clinton sponsor them to become a member and after that, look how many of our products are now made in china, how many manufacturing

jobs that we shipped to china now that they have free-trade agreements and it all comes back here and they do not have to pay tariffs. it is a win-win for china. host: that is john in illinois. go ahead. >> it is not a win-win for china because of the imbalances that we have seen in the global economy as a result of the shifting of manufacturing into china has created a lot of hostility. and it has created an unstable global economy. i think chinese leadership recognizes that to a certain extent and recognizes it will increase the level of consumption in the chinese economy to keep the economy going and make sure that investment is solid rather than just building up a new financial bubble. this is a very hard transition for china to manage towards a more solid kind of growth model. and the u.s. is complicated the -- complicating it by imposing

these restrictions. so, i think we need to recognize two things and both are true. the transformation of the global economy really helped both the u.s. and china. the u.s. and chinese economy are bigger than they were four years ago and that is through the interdependence that we have seen that growth. it is nonetheless also true that many people were hurt in many american workers or chinese workers as the stability and security of labor in china also increased along the united states. and the distribution of the wealth created was extremely unequal. the u.s. and china are facing the same problem. we need to deal with the inequalities that we have created and to create a more balanced growth. we need to find a way to keep the global economy integrated but move it to a more stable and

equitable kind of growth. this is something that only the u.s. and china can work on together. the two leading economies need to come to an agreement if there is to be any reform. at the same time if they are not working together we will not solve these problems. we will end up bashing and hurting each other, disrupting the global economy for everybody, not just us. and it will not solve the problems but make them worse. we need to confront the problem but also talk about them. guest: again you are saying that china and u.s. problems and i think that is incorrect. we have recognized that the biggest problem of our time is that we embrace and accept essentially a china that is moot -- ruled by a single party into the global trading session. much of the problem what's with that.

the color and bill clinton talked about the past. yes, we had neutral trust for decades. we did not try to cross each other. reagan said famously in the 1980's it begins with trust, china violated every major trust that we have placed on them. and now our approach has changed even from the reagan formula to this trust. much of the system and the economic problem right now is not necessarily caused by the up and downs of the global economy, but a systemic institutional problem. china does not have property rights protection or label -- labor laws and the party bureau decides economic policies. the united states is different. that is why our economy has some setbacks and make some progress, but is also part of the global

free-trade system. that is why china's economic problems are different in nature and scale than the united states. eventually i think the two sides must figure out one thing that is very important, which is not -- we are not of equal into -- institutional virtues. china and the united states have recognized the competition is not just for economics it is also about political and edl -- ideological differences. that is important for us to realize. host: from robert, north carolina. democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes. in 1951, the korean war we were afraid of going into north korea because the chinese were at war.

in vietnam we were afraid to go into cambodia because that might start a war with china. here we are 70 plus years and we talk about china. china is buying property in the united states and you cannot to a store without purchasing something made in china. so somebody is bs saying, to? host: can i ask you about what has happened in the trip with the president and one of the things that came out was an improvement when it comes to military to military communications. what does that mean and what is the significance? guest: it is very important to have a high level military to military communication hotline to avoid misinterpretation of intent. that is very responsible to do. but we should not have too much of an expo that -- of an

expectation of that because we have a hotline on the military level. none of the hotlines have worked in a time of crisis. in 1999 there is the bombing of the chinese embassy in belgrade. we placed an urgent call through the hotline and they refused to pick up. in 2001, the same thing happen. because we have to really understand the polyp -- the party military relationship. the chinese party super leader would now a lot -- would not allow its military high command or to have an independent communication line with his counterpart because his supervisor cannot trust him. we have the military hotline established before but china does not even have a minister yet because xi jinping sacked his minister a while ago for no apparent reason.

so that is why we have to push china for a high level military to military communication. but we have to realize the futility of that. that is the problem because ultimately the system works very differently from the united states and you mentioned about taiwan and the vietnam war and korean war, those wars were based upon one theory that we would not allow communism to take one spot and then it would be like a domino. we are in a similar problem in asia. taiwan is not just about taiwan. many countries, japan, vietnam, india and philippines they do not have a good relation with china and those countries will be affected if taiwan is taken by china. they might not be -- they might be next. for some people who knows history, taiwan might be and i think it might be the sudeten land. that is why taiwan is hard, it

is no longer a regional but a global issue. host: are you going to address the collar and then a little bit of the military communication, if we could improve communications during the spy balloon incidents and otherwise. could that ease things over? >> i think it is a good start. i agree that it is absolutely essential to establish lines of communication. we sought when the united states accidentally bombed the chinese embassy in 1999 and the accident between the u.s. spy plane and a chinese air force plane in 2001. these are the things that we have to have high-level communications to be able to manage because the relationship has grown so toxic on both sides, and accident does risk spinning out of control for a full-blown computation that would be damaging for everyone involved. we need communications.

at the same time it is not enough. just having the two sides talking together is not enough. we need -- we need to institutionalize and deepen it. we need to collect -- connect political and military on either side. they have been acting for crisis management connections and china has been resistant because china things that the united states is pushing china and creating a crisis and wants to get off scott scot-free once the u.s. crisis has taken it. at the same time, i think the chinese side has a point that we need to talk about the root causes of the tensions that threatened to spin out of control. i think the way to solve this with to be recognized that both sides are right and we need to set up a talk to manage any kind of accident that might happen or some sort of crisis that might break out but to begin talking

about the root causes that are driving countries towards crisis and understanding how the sides can work together to address those causes. both sides are right and have a good point. the problem is that each side is vilifying the other and refuses to recognize the good point. we need to get the same room and recognize that we have something to contribute and start working together in a much more realistic and practical way than we have seen in the recent years of confrontation. guest: i do not believe that the root cause is mutual for both sides. one of the most dangerous maneuvers is the chinese pilot and chinese ship captains come with extremely provocative measures in international waters and airspace. what the united states wants to make sure is that the chinese military commanders no the international -- know the

international rule of engagement. it is not the u.s. to blame but it is the chinese side of how they have acted professionally. professionalism is very important. and i think china so far has refused to take that responsibility at least professionally. host: a quick response? >> you know, i think the chinese side inks that the american side is at fault. miles and many of her american leader -- many other american leaders think that china is to blame. i disagree and that both sides are contributing to it. if you take one side and say only one side to blame it is not pragmatic and not smart diplomacy to therefore say that we are not going to talk about these things, that the other side has to change or we will be in a war. i do not want to pose that question. i want to get us talking so that we can find common ground behind

closed doors and out of the spotlight of toxic politics that have taken hold in both countries around the other. get people talking to each other in informal ways to iron out differences and find ways to compromise and to address the zero-sum pressures pushing the u.s. and china into conflict. host: two jet -- tests -- guests joining us, michael you and jake were in her. -- jake werner. alex from chicago, go ahead. caller: i wanted to start off by saying that i do not -- i think the root cause of the problem is that you are dealing with a regime in china, the communist party, that is basically able to manipulate the country's economy and military for its own purposes, not for the purposes of the people. and i think the common thing that people who want to defend

what they are doing including xi, they will conflate china with the chinese communist party. for instance in the speech yesterday, he says that he does not want to -- people should not try to change chinese culture. and so, with -- what he is asking people to do is to conflate their system of control and repression with chinese culture. that is not correct. people i went to school with with chinese nationals they say that the people who run my country are like the mafia. i cannot understand why people after 20 or 30 years of engagement that has made increased inequality and the wealth gap and both parties agree that it is helping the chinese people i cannot believe we are still talking about engagement with a group that is obviously out only to benefit themselves and not play by the rules. i guess the only thing i can see is that there is money behind it. host: thank you.

go ahead. >> i mean i am not making that much money, i am sorry. the issue for me is that i want to avoid a war that would damage everyone and potentially be spun into world war iii. i want to avoid the possible collapse of the global economy and avoid the really destructive nationalism that comes out of these conflicts on both sides that helps nationalists and authoritarians in china and the united states. when xi jinping can point to u.s. hostility as a reason that china is having economic problems he has making the case to his people it is not my fault, but the american imperialists. of course that is only a small part of the picture that it helps him gain legitimacy and the chinese communist party game legit is see -- legitimacy to have a foreign antagonist. when the two sides are working together it opens up space for democracization for china.

if we care about human rights and i very much care about these things, the absolute precondition is that the u.s. and china not be engaged in geopolitical conflict. this applies on the u.s. side as well. obviously the u.s. is a democracy and china is not. there are authoritarian currents in the united states. there are threats to human rights and civil rights. we have seen a huge bike and anti-asian racism. these are threats to human rights and democracy in the united states a well and geopolitical conflicts contributes to them. i want the two sides talking to accomplish something important but to open up space for real democracy to brew -- to move forward in china and the united states. guest: i think mr. werner's statement has a lot of idealistic efforts. yes, nobody wants to have a war

and both sides have to work together. you have to find empirical evidence to prove that kind of model would work. after 50 years it has not worked, so we have to be very realistic. i think the chinese government, the caller is absolutely right. the chinese government does not represent the people. we have to understand what the chinese people is like under the government. there is a lot of economic growth, but a lot of people -- a lot of people in china are not wealthy. 40% of them are making five dollars a day, that is 600 million people. the government itself is very wealthy and powerful. they have used that to develop military strength and to push the global agenda. so to help china we have to have a very good relationship, the american people and the chinese people. the u.s. government is trying

very hard to push people to be more engaging and to other chat -- tragedy in china. the chinese government is afraid of that thing. as of today, 2023, there are about 300,000 chinese students. we have opened our arms to them. do you know how many americans study in china? fewer than 500 because china has created an environment where they review. and they do not put in the same investment. the direct investment in china has come to zero because china is a country that is on investable. -- uninvestable. i agree having a relationship that is hard because it is authoritarian. we can have a very healthy debate about within america.

but ultimately, america provides help for the rest of the world. each year there are about 250,000 applications into the united states. the second largest number is germany at about 1/10 of that. so america does have open arms. you talk about the asian hate of the citizens here. there are idiots and ignoring people, but there is no institutional barrier for success people like my origin. so i do not think there is a systemic problem in this country. we need to improve a lot of things but i think fundamentally this country is of goodness. so to equate china on -- the united states on the same sort of level is profoundly wrong. host: chris from south dakota. republican line. caller: thank you for having me

on and it is an interesting discussion between mr. yu from the hudson institute, he has such a knowledgeable guest and really good. i would like to start off by throwing something out there. i know that there are a lot of decisions that were made post-world war ii. i believe that they were primarily made by democrat administrations to established the current world order that we have, which is a western based world order. i would just give it back to your guests if they want to comment on that and if any of those decisions post-world war ii are affecting the current situations that we has america face now dealing with china. host: let me take the question and parallel it to this and i will get to you mr. werner, we saw in the obama administration

a pivot to asia. does the biden administration build upon that were how would you direct its own approach to china after all? guest: the pivot by asia were made by the same people in charge of china positive. that's china positivity. those were very preliminary. the big change came done -- came under the president trump's administration. we changed in three areas. we really gave the chinese communist party the agency to decide the relationship. but of course we have to really make china act responsibly. so secondly, we wanted to engage china in the full spectrum, not just the usual places we have engaged. the full spectrum has to be addressed including human rights , and on tommy and hong kong and the taiwan -- autonomy in hi, --

and hong kong. number three, i think one of the most important things is that we reprioritize our strategic focus. we shifted our focus away from europe and then into the indo pacific to deal with the china threat. and china is just not a threat for taiwan, they have the different region. the chinese believe that the international order since world war ii is fundamentally not good for china so china wants to create a different model of international order led by the chinese communist party. it is very explicit. all of his talks, that is the reason why they believe that the competition is correct, just not the competition, the economy and military and the high check -- high-tech, it is really the

choices of two different governments. the stakes are high. >> i appreciate the question about the ins touche and set up in the post world war ii period. united states was at the head of the order, it was a multilateral order centered around the u.n., the world bank, imf and the global economy. it was very successful. china was on the outside under mao zedong from 1949 until 1976. as a result the u.s. and china came into conflict repeatedly. we had u.s. and chinese troops facing each other in the korean war. the -- china helps vietnam during the u.s. invasion. and there were dozens of conflicts between the two during the cold war. we are looking at a lot of blood spilled on both sides coming out of those conflict. what happened after richard nixon opening to china in 1972

is that china was brought into the order. it was integrated into the united nations, imf and the world bank. it became a wto member. that was a stabilizing measure that allowed the chinese and american economy to grow and a lot of economies to grow. it dramatically reduce the violence that took place between the u.s. and china. and not between just the u.s. and china. china has not engaged in overseas military conflict since 1979. at the same time the united states managed increasingly managed this global order in a unilateral way. it was willing to violate the u.n. charter when it invaded iraq and just in a whole range of ways american unilateralism posed a deep threat. even as leaders were being integrated they were on their guard against u.s. unilateralism.

what we are facing right now is that global order might split apart again because the and china are increasingly confrontational towards each other -- each other. we could see a fragmenting that would be very destabilizing, militarily icy -- militarily, and economically and it could spin out of control to conflict. the alternative is that they work together because both the united states and china have a deep investment in maintaining certain aspects of the global order at the same time so they both want to reform it. there have been serious problems in the global economy as the 2008 financial crisis. they are obvious. russia ingrate -- invading ukraine and the israel hyson -- israel-gaza conflict and the military order is starting to fall apart. as the number one and two most powerful countries if the u.s. and china can find common ground and ways to manage this and open

up spaces so both countries can succeed so we maintain global stability to get the global economy growing again in a more equitable way that works for everybody. this is the way to save the global order and to put it on a new foundation that we will stabilize and make it more legitimate and to avoid the terrible consequences of a conflict. host: our discussion concludes. you heard from jake werner, quincy institute for responsible statecraft. and also miles yu of the hudson institute, the senior director. thank you for giving us your time today. >> thank you. host: in just a little while we will be joined by roben farzad talking about the state of the u.s. economy especially with recent data looking at inflation. we will have that discussion, but first open forum will take place. the representatives will come in for a pro forma session at 9:00 but we will do open form until

then. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. go ahead and start those questions and we will take them as washington journal continues. ♪ >> c-span's student camera documentary competition is back celebrating 20 years with the theme looking forward while considering the past. we are asking middle and high school students to create a five to six minute video addressing one of these questions. in the next 20 years what is the most important change would like to see in america. or, over the past 20 years what has been the most important change in america. as we do each year we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes

with a grand prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate has the opportunity to share a portion of an additional $50,000. the competition deadline is friday, january 19, 2024. for more information visit studentcam.org. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. rouse the latest collection of products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> a healthy democracy does not just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, and citizens are truly informed.

get informed straight from the source on c-span, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nations capital wherever you are. because the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like, c-span, powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: that houses expected to come in at 9:00 for a short pro forma session. you might expect that the chair of the ethics committee might present a explosive proposition when it comes to 9:00. we will come back to the program when it is done, but we will do open form until then. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002.

we will start with ron and california, republican line on this open forum, go ahead. caller: thank you. i have to make a comment, if i can make two comments i would love it. the comment i will make is on the china issue. first of all, 100 -- 1.4 billion people, so the size of the country is four times as big and they have so many problems. and the problem with us having a confrontation with china is because it is not the best interest for either country to change the taiwan policy. that is a very important thing to keep global stability. number two is that when you have a china in a situation where it is calling the stock -- the shots on moral judgments and so

on, it is very hard to stop being a hypocrite because they could pick on us for all of our moral judgments. having said all of that right trust elon musk, aircraft and all the countries that are in china that are working to make our economy go. so that is number one. host: i have to leave it there for the sake of time. patrick in maryland on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: thank you so much. i want to talk about something that should be pertinent in the minds of the american citizens and that is gun control. and i am always going to call in and talk about this because it is so vitally important. so, essentially what i would like to talk about is a gun-control bill that i thought of and i called it the no nonsense bill. it covers ghost guns, gun-control, mental health and the ar-15 ak-47 and it is very

quick. those people who do not know what ghost guns are, they are homemade rest -- weapon so how do we deal with that? we register that part of the weapon that makes it operational and that takes care of ghost guns. gun-control, across-the-board, minimum age to buy a gun is 25. the reason for that? it is because most mass shootings are caused by those people under 25 years of age. how does that handle with mental health? it is easy. if anybody 18 years old or 18 to 24 wants a gun, they will have to be 25 and up. host: related to that out of lexington, kentucky saying that jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict on civil rights charges and the police

officer that killed breonna taylor prompting the judges to declare a mistrial. he was charged of using excessive force. he fired 10 shots into the window and the glass door after officers came under fire during a flawed drug warrant search and some of his shots flew into a neighboring apartment but nobody struck anyone. erica new hampshire, -- eric in new hampshire, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, i had a question about climate change and fossil fuels. i wish mr. yu was still on because i would like to ask a question if america was to increase oil production, would china go into agreements with the u.s. to buy oil with the

u.s. rather than iran and two, climate change in over 100 years, china's average temperature has only increased by close to one degree. and over 20 years of going all in on green energy since the clinton administration the u.s.'s temperature has changed by three degrees. why is that? host: ok. thank you to eric. let us see if we can get into. pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. a quick comment. i wish i could save the earth and all of that. but as regards to the debt ceiling, that crisis. i have a