>> coming up on c-span's washington journal, your calls and comments live. they we will discuss usaid to israel, ukraine and border security with al green. also, congressional reporter rhys gorman talks about house gop efforts to bring a vote to the floor to authorize an impeachment inquiry to president biden. we will continue with the conversation on foreign aid and the border and then later a preview of this year's un climate summit in dubai with rachel frazin. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning this thursday, november 30. welcome to "washington journal." we will spend our first hour talking about whether or not congress should expel

congressman george santos from their chamber. we are expecting that debate on a resolution to expel the new york congressman will happen today, as well as the possible vote, or the vote could come friday. it is your turn to tell lawmakers how you want them to vote. if you say yes, dial in at (202)-748-8000. if you say no, (202)-748-8001. even if you are not sure, join the conversation and tell us why at (202)-748-8002. you can also text us, include your first name, city and state, to (202)-748-8003. will go to facebook.com/c-span and post your thoughts there. you can also do so on x with the handle --@cspanwj. we will get to that conversation in a minute, but if you were watching c-span this morning before we began today's "washington journal," you probably saw from our archives the video with the late henrik

kissinger -- henry kissinger. he died yesterday at 100, at his home in connecticut, according to "the washington post. quote he has over 100 appearances in our c-span archive. if you're interested in taking a deep dive, go to c-span.org, and we will talk about his legacy coming up on "washington journal " between 8:30 and 9:30 eastern in the open forum. now to the debate over george santos. here are headlines to share. "washington post," mike johnson telling reporters that he has real reservations about voting to expel congressman george santos. also, another headline from "the washington times," a little bit more on the speaker's thoughts on it, johnson concerned that expelling him a set of poor precedent. the speaker is urging lawmakers

to vote with their full conscious. he said he would not be whipping this vote, so republicans are going to be able to vote their conscious if that vote happens today. we know the debate will start, but will an actual vote happened today? we will learn here on "the washington journal" this morning. the new york congressman will hold a news conference today at some point before that vote. the hill.com notes that only two house makers have been expelled since the civil war, and both were convicted of federal crimes. with that in mind, some democrats are voicing concerns that ousting santos, who has been indicted not convicted, could lead to a spike in expulsions for lesser political reasons. this is the same concern voiced by speaker johnson and other republicans. here he is yesterday talking to

reporters. [video clip] >> textile one of your members. do you support expelling him? >> i will say this, we had a meeting in the last hour, and there were opinion shared on both sides. listen, the republican party is the rule of law, and we believe in the rule of law. there are people of good faith to make an argument, pro and con, for the expulsion resolution for santos. there are people who say, you have to uphold the rule of law and allow for someone to be convicted in the criminal court before this test penalty would be exacted on someone. that has been the president so far. others say, upholding the rule of law requires us to take a step now because some of the things he has alleged to done, the house ethics committee have not done their job, our

infractions against the house itself. as a leadership team, we will allow people to vote their conscience, the only thing we can do. we have not whipped the vote, and we would not. i trust people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. personally, i have real reservations about doing this. i am concerned about a precedent that may be set for that, so everybody is working through that and we will see how they vote tomorrow. [end video clip] host: the speaker from louisiana yesterday before reporters. from "the usa today's" reporting, house to vote on expelling santos as outrage is growing. they know that the congressman has survived two other efforts to expel him from the house. it says that now the effort has picked up steam after the house ethics committee released a scathing report this month finding substantial evidence that santos broke laws and used his campaign for personal benefits. in the 56 page report, the

finding showed he misrepresented finances from his campaign and in one instance is accused of taking $50,000 from his campaign to make purchases at a luxury apparel store at only fans, sephora, and for meals and parking. the freshman gop member has long been a controversial figure in congress after it was reported he fabricated his resume and misrepresented his background to constituents. during his tenure, he has also been hit with multiple federal charges related to his campaign, including money laundering, wire fraud, credit card fraud, and identity theft. we will go to andrew in alexandria. you say yes to expelling george santos. tell us why. caller: yes. good morning. i have to say, i love c-span, i call it i can. i am so glad the public is

allowed to express their opinions. i think he should be expelled because he violated a few ethics rules and it is fascinating how he got this far. there was like no opposition research to when he was running for office. and i believe he admitted to basically just making up his whole resume to run, which if i was a constituent, i would be afraid he would get into -- who knows how he would vote. he says he believes in this, who knows how he would vote in office? that is what i would be afraid of. i have never heard anything like this. it is fascinating to me how he got this far.

i would also like to know who funded his campaign? the whole situation is incredible to me. host: all right, andrew in alexandria. sal in new jersey. what do you say? caller: i think that george santos should be expelled from the party because i think the republican party needs people like mike jensen of louisiana and other good -- mike johnson of louisiana and other good republicans because we cannot progress and continue with like george santos. host: are you a republican? caller: yes, i am. host: what do you say to mike johnson because he says he has real reservations about voting textile and it could set a poor precedent? no one has been expelled before. caller: i think he is being overly diplomatic. i think if you did the right thing, if he came to his senses, and he would say that he would get rid of george santos because

he is obstinate and very selfish. host: ok, you say he should go. caller: yes, i do. host: here is from "the hill" newspaper with a quote from nick melodia, one of the republicans from new york, who have pushed to expel his colleague from his home state. "i think there will be 150 republican votes or more for ousting george santos." if the prediction is near accurate, it would be enough to pass the expulsion, which requires two thirds of voting members to be successful. in a chamber of 435, chris, that puts the threshold at 290, and the democratic caucus, 213 members, is going to supply the bulk of it. democrats, some of whom did not vote to expel george santos in

previous attempts, now it looks like they are going to get behind this effort, and they will provide the bulk of the votes, along with if his prediction is correct, 150 republicans. here is what is at stake for republicans, the most obvious consequences also immediate. republicans lose a seat in a chamber where the majority is already a fragile vote. and with santos likely headed out the door, some lawmakers are already thinking about what comes next for new york's third congressional district, which could split lou, handing democrats a midsession pickup opportunity that would further reduce johnson's razor thin majority. santos' long island district voted for joe biden by nearly eight percentage points in 2020, and it is leaning democrat. while the district attorney blue is not a surefire outcome, there are concerns over inflation and

the influx of migrants in new york and republicans are realizing they may lose a key seat in their slim majority. does this factor in to your decision on whether or not to expel george santos? if you were a member of congress, how would you vote? the vote could happen as early today. we know debate will happen. it is on the agenda. you can watch it here, gavel-to-gavel, on c-span. you say no, dean, tell us why. caller: that is correct. they are all a bunch of liars. they have all used their credit cards for other purposes. they have all used their campaign money for other purposes. they have all told a bunch of lies. johnson included. so if you are going to vote mr. santos out, vote them all out. host: dean, this is the argument, eliza spier takes on the argument in "the new york

times'" opinion pages. "santos lies about many things," she is a digital media strategist, and she writes that some embellishing by politicians is common, but dishonesty needs limits. that is the unfortunate and all too common art, but the difference between those politicians, who embellish, and men like george santos is that mr. santos never even started out with the truth. it is reasonable to be skeptical of what all politicians say, in the same way it is reasonable to be skeptical of promises in advertising impressions on a first date, when both parties are on their best behavior, but the kind of line we are talking about here is toxic. it fosters not healthy skepticism but cynicism, and it normalizes the idea that dishonesty is just the cost of doing business in politics.

there is nothing wrong with having a laugh at the expense of these liars, especially when the lies are so absurd, any parent who have snickered when there child told an epic whopper understand the impulse, but we don't let our children off the hook when they do it, it is worth mustering up outrage for adult buyers who have been elected to office and are custodians of their constituents' welfare, and grounding them from public life. do you agree with this essay in "the new york times" written by elizabeth spier? john in salem, oregon, you are not sure. wh caller: well, after listening to the previous caer -- thank you for taking my call, appreciate that after listening to the previous caller, i think i am sure because george santos, he fabricated all of these things

to get there, and now you have got menendez. he is another senator. maybe he is not a senator? he is host: -- host: he is, from new jersey. caller: they found gold bars, and his wife, and, you know, it is the appearance of corruption, but he has not been convicted, neither has george santos. in this country, we have the rule of law, which means you are innocent until proven guilty. i am pretty sure we should not be kicking anybody out of the senate, thank you. host: ok, jonathan, idaho. jonathan, you'd be a yes vote if you were a member of congress? caller: absolutely.

while he has not been proven guilty in the court of law, i agree with that idea essentially. in this case, it is so obvious. the charges are so numerous that he should be kicked out of office. and, many politicians have left office without the charges against them being proven in a court of law, but they have created so much hullabaloo around it that they have stopped this place it takes in the news

in the public consciousness. thank you very much for taking my call. host: from "usa today's " reporting, mike johnson has stayed in touch with george santos and discussed alternative avenues for the embattled republican. he has not urged santos to resign but told him resignation would prevent gop lawmakers from having to take a vote. presented of kevin hearn of oklahoma told reporters tuesday afternoon after a closed-door meeting of republican leadership. santos confirmed to reporters tuesday that he was in contact with johnson and told the speaker he would stay in office until he is expelled or his term ends, causing them to put an expulsion vote on the floor. mr. santos was on the floor on tuesday this week, defending himself. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> in history, five members of congress have been expelled.

all five had suffered convictions in a court. all five had to process. this expulsion vote simply undermines and underscores the precedents that we have had in this chamber. it starts and puts us in a new direction, a dangerous one, that sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. are we to now assume that one is no longer innocent until proven guilty and they are in fact guilty until proven innocent? or are we now to simply assume that because somebody does not like you, they get to throw you out of your job? or, better more, does the constitution bear no consequence where a duly elected member of the house of representatives is elected by the general public but then a couple of politicians decide that they don't like that person? these are all matters and questions that can be brought up, but i will leave it at this,

the process in which the ethics committee engage was incomplete responsible and littered with hyperbole, and littered with biased opinions. the chairman of the committee himself admitted that it was not the full extent of process, and, therefore, he could not recommend from the committee a punishment for action. therefore, cheapening the process of the ethics committee, cheapening the process that this country has expected from this chamber. look, it is not a right to be a member of congress. the media will always remind me of that every time i talk to them. but it is a privilege. a privilege that you work hard for and you get elected to congress as a privilege to represent those who have chosen you. madame speaker, i think we can all agree that due process matters and that we should all be very concerned about the way

that we are conducting this process. i ask that all my colleagues in the house consider and understand what this means for the future, and to set the record straight and put this into record, i will not be resigning. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. [end video clip] congressman host: talking about -- host: congressman santos talking about the possible vote today to expel him from congress. how do you want your memr of the house of representatives to vote? that is our conversation this morning. you see that, yes he should be expelled, dialn at (202)-748-8000. if you s no, (202)-748-8001. not sure? join the conversation at (202)-748-02. facebook.com/c-span is also where you can post comments or on x with the handle @cspanwj.

you can text us, include your first name, city and age, (202)-748-8003. a reporter with insider, sending out this tweet, george santos is having a news confence this morning, 8:00 a.m., at the house triangle. he knows it will be 31 degrees outside, this news conferee will take place then, and he says, i will be watching via c-span. you can find this news conference on our website, c-span.org, honor free video mobile app, c-span now, we will try to bring it to you, as well. a little bit of it on c-span, and we will update you on our coverage as we continue throughout the morning. the head of that, how do you think these lawmakers should vote? ed in ocean city, new jersey, you say yes. good morning. caller: yes. ed o'donnell.

he should be expelled. but the larger issue is all politicians in the u.s. and all over the world should resign right now, and we need to have constitutional conventions like philadelphia in 1776 and start government over again. government is failing completely. host: cornelia, idaho. no. why? caller: yes, correct. i do believe this would be a precedent that would be unwarranted in this case because, for instance, i remember a wild black, representative omar, i believe it was, this lady, she was accused of really serious things, and it was never really even really discussed in the congress, and i do think they need to be convicted by a court of law, have due process, and be considered innocent until proven

guilty in a court of law before they are expelled. because, you know, if you really check out every representative, i am sure you could dig out something, just like they are doing with donald trump right now. they are trying to find something against him so he cannot run for president. i do believe that it would be wrong to expel him, even if he is kind of not doing the wrong thing by everybody's knowledge, at least that was his claim. it definitely needs to be following precedent of being convicted before you are expelled. by a court of law. host: got it. cornelia referring to the history here of expelling members of congress. we mentioned that from "the hill's" reporting, where they noted that people who had been

expelled before, there were only two, and it was after the conviction when that happened, only two house lawmakers have been expelled since the civil war, and both have been convicted of federal crime. the new york republican george santos basis 23 federal charges, including fraud, money laundering, falsifying records, and aggravated identity theft, but he has not been convicted yet. do you agree or disagree with cornelia's argument? dated in messages -- david in massachusetts. you are not sure. caller: i am not sure, but in a way, i am sure. the woman that spoke, i really agree with her. this seems to be one of those things where, you know, look who was calling the kettle black, as we used to say, which meant that, you know, i have something to hide, but i am going to get you out there and get you out before you can show what i am hiding. this is what he did the other

day and his announcements, talking about with the other people in congress are doing. his -- this hypocrisy in the united states and in congress is enormous these days. i agree that what you just read, he has not been convicted of anything yet, so wait until he is convicted, and then i would personally say, yes, then kick him out, but, again, you have to look at what everybody else is doing before that would happen. thank you very much. host: ok, david. some sources online for you to view as you consider this question this morning, the new york magazine put together this piece. here's every single lie told by george santos, and they detail it in a lengthy piece n online atymag.org. there is also -- at nymag.org.

there is also the ethics report on our website. "the washington post" put together this piece with the headline noting the 11 of the most scathing allegations in the house ethics report about santos. we have outlined some of them in today's reporting in the papers. dennis in connecticut. good morning. if you could vote on whether or not to expel george santos, how would you vote? caller: i would vote yes. host: how come? caller: well, listen, from the very beginning, he started with false resumes, so, of course, this is wrong in all of politics, but if you are cocked, you are caught. if you started with false resumes and corrupted aliases,

you tricked the public. those are positions for honest people who want to work for the people. why try to fight and stay there when you clearly do not belong there? there is something wrong with you in the mind if you really, really believe that you are that person, that you are a public servant person. i mean, the bottom line is, if you really care for the public, you come in on an honest basis. host: in buffalo, new york, kyle. caller: good morning. i am not sure, but i would have to lean on the side right now of no because he has not been convicted of anything. previous callers talked about due process.

in america, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. a lot of accusation is out there, but, remember, he was voted in by his constituents. they should have fact checked his resume for they voted him in. i am sure he had a primary and all sorts of stuff, so that is on the voters in their own district. it is a slippery slope in america where we start saying that person is guilty before there is any conviction, and that is the problem i have. i do realize these allegations are out there and don't look good, but i need to have a court of law or some type of senate something, where they find him guilty of these charges, and then i am comfortable of removing him. but we have to stick to our guns in this country about innocent until proven guilty. that is where i am at. host: why is that important?

to come to that principle, innocent until proven guilty? caller: because we see so many times in this country where charges are made and then there is no fair treatment, especially in minority, we see so many times where people get labeled based on charges, and in the end, some of those charges were found to be false. sounds like they have a good amount of evidence, but our core process -- our forefathers gave us a good process of how we have due process, investigation all the way until the end of the verdict. that is our basis of america. and i think that is what we need to stick to. i hear people calling for him to be removed, but we need a trial, some form of conviction, and

then we can go ahead to the next level. we had a senator in our own area years ago, chris collins, who was dealt with insider trading. he pled guilty and resigned before they removed him. they were going to. and that is fine, you know? people out there, i mean, a false resume -- you know, if you look at a lot of these congressman's resumes, i am sure you will find some of them that exaggerated the resume. i don't know if that is grounds to be removed, but he was voted in by constituents. i am sure their area -- and that is something that we need to do going forward to elections in office these days. people need to be fact checked during their primary race or whatever office they are running for because once they get in, you know, now you want to remove

them, but their local medias and oppositions have a duty, too, to the people to fact check the person before the voters go in because the voters only know what they are told. and if there is no fact checking on either side, i mean, you cannot remove somebody just because he did not do your homework. you know? do your homework. host: kyle, listen to this firm pbs.org, small, local paper uncovered and reported george santos' scandal before the november election. they filed a complaint with the federal election commission, accusing newly sworn in santos of illegally using campaign funds. the leader of the small paper on long island broke the scandal

before the november election. by the time other outlets kicked it up, santos had been elected. this is from pbs newshour. this is the story of when this was first reported and talked about, the local newspaper did do what you are talking about. caller: i agree, based on what you just said, and that was campaign-finance. i think when voters hear about campaign-finance, we have seen so many times in this country were campaign-finance money is used for all sorts of stuff i'm not in the right way, so maybe there voters said, ah, this is a systemic issue with that type of funds, you know, that is like term limits say to be put in place. these people have work sheds of millions of dollars. every now and then, you hear about a senator or politician

where some of those funds went to the wrong way, so i think the voters out there are tired and maybe just fall asleep because there is nothing unusual. again, the paper did do what they did, and the opposition should have maybe took some funds and broadcasted that more for the media, but i think americans are just tired, and we are so used to scandal, especially when it comes to some of these things. these politicians really like to get an office. host: thank you for your thoughts this morning. let's listen to the democratic perspective from one of their leaders, keith aguilar, of california, yesterday. he talked to reporters. this is what he had to say about whether party stands on expelling george santos. [video clip] >> i think our positions on this have been pretty clear. we had a couple of times to vote on this and bring it to the floor. i would encourage you to look at voting records on where we have

wound up on this. this is all just performative on the side of the republicans. they are trying to afford george santos every opportunity to do the right thing and to resign. he is a serial fraudster. there is no sense that george santos should have ever been elected but for his incredible lies to his own constituents. unfortunately, you may be forced to take a position. there is not a lot of joy in this at all, but we feel that this is the appropriate remedy to deal with the serial fraudster that is george santos. it is unfortunate we are here, that is the position we are in. george santos has only been allowed to stay a member of congress because of the majority. if republicans had a 25 seat

majority, do you think they would care about george santos' vote? they needed him to vote for speaker mccarthy and speaker johnson. that is the only reason why he is still a member of congress. i appreciate the politics surrounding this with their newfound desire to hold their colleague accountable. it is not lost on us that earlier in the year, they had the opportunity to do that and they did not, but we welcome them to this discussion and encourage them to call us up for a vote. [end video clip] host: that was the democratic leader in the house encouraging republicans to call it up for the vote. it sounds like democrats will be voting, the bulk of the vote, to expel him and the majority could come from democrats. also, the republican from new york, who is on board with expelling his colleague is predicting 150 republicans who also voted yes on expelling george santos. we want to know how you would

vote and how you want your representative to vote. the debate against today. watch our gal-to-gavel coverage on c-span. they could vote asarly today, if not today, on fday. are you a yes on expelling congressman george santos? if so, (202)-748-8000. -- if you sano, (202)-748-8001 . if you a not sure, (202)-748-8002. mark in ryland. you are a no. caller: y, good morning. yes, i am. let me say i am not a big fan of this guy. i would not vote for him, and i kind of hope you resigns, but i do have to say that i agree with a lot of previous callers. the fact is, he has not had due process. this might turn out to be a

russian collusion hoax that went on for almost four years. and i do have to point out, i mean, i could give you three examples off the top of my head, you know, senater richard blumenthal lined out -- lied about military service on three occasions. senator elizabeth warren lied about being an american indian to get into law school. joe biden just recently claimed that he was the one who talked stroman to voting the civil rights act. news to joe biden, the civil rights act was seven years before he got into politics. it is kind of out of the democratic playbook. they tend to follow fillon schedules for radicals, and one of the big roses let you are actually doing, and that is the playbook they have lived by for

60 years, the same party that claims they are the party of civil-rights. they blocked the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and it was actually the civil rights act that passed with republican support, what if you believe democrats, they believe it was them. host: all right, mark in maryland. let's listen to the congressman from new york, republican george santos. here's what he had to say to reporters when the news broke that this expulsion vote was eminent. [video clip] >> i just want to ask about your conversation with speaker johnson. what was your conversation like? it seemed you spoke more recently than that. >> i did speak to him earlier today. sorry. there are no secrets in this place. it is amazing how you know what goes on. i just had a conversation with him.

he asked me how i was doing and if i made my decision. i said, yes. put up or shut up at this point. all of these members are pushing this. they want me to resign because they don't want me to take this top vote that sets a precedent to their own demise in the future because they are not immune from the nonsense that goes on in washington where you follow them around and there are cameras and microphones in their faces. they don't like it either, so they can keep doing this, but my message to them is put up or shut up and enough with the charades. >> did he urge you to resign? >> not at all. he made a point to say that he was not calling me into asked me to resign. [end video clip] host: george santos in the halls of congress on tuesday, reacting to this potential vote to expel him from congress. you heard him say there that he would like them to have to vote, put up or shut up. karina in indiana. you say yes. caller: good morning.

yes. i believe he should resign. i think it is the right thing for him to do. there have been so many, so many lies. yes, you know, there is corruption, people, politicians lie about their resume, yes, that is true. both sides, both parties. it is not a new thing. it has gone on a long time, but his lies are so egregious. they go back to where he went to college, did he play on championship volleyball team?

caller: if he's convicted in the court of law, then he can go, but, again, like other callers has said, it said support president of tabloid gossip being able to get new fired from your job. host: ok, and the history of expulsion from congress, this is from nbc news, expulsions from the house are so rare, that they have happened just five times in u.s. history and just twice the last 50 years. of the five expelled, three have cited against th many more chose to resign first over not reelected. there are the five. two have been expelled in the modern era, michael myers in

1980, james, democrat of ohio in 2002, expelled after he was convicted of charges of bribery, racketeering and tax evasion. fbi agent scott myers on tape accepting a $50,000 bribe. let's go back to 2002 and into the c-span archives. here is james chaffee in over 20 years ago, a portion of his remarks on the house floor during that debate to expel him in july of that year. [video clip] >> you know, there's something illegal here. you have the right to throw me out. a lot of people don't want me out. [indiscernible] ladies and gentlemen, in the

northern district of ohio, before it, passed a jury selection plan that was not ratified until after my indictment that excluded people for my area. c-span.org [indiscernible] it looks like an advisory board. not one person that represents me is on this jury, and not one who can validate that transcript. here's what i am saying to you, does not matter if you like me,

a lot of you do not like me. i want you to vote. and one to to be able to fight the justice department. [indiscernible] you know what i was told? watch what you say. you are too outspoken. watch what you say. shut up about the reno case. i am not going to shut up. one your vote because i think my vote is your vote. my people elected me.

and i don't think you should take the representative away. [end video clip] host:host: from the c-span archives over the debate to expel him. he was booted from congress by his colleagues after he was convicted of crimes. we want to know this morning, do you think that the house of representativeshould move on expelling their colleague george santos, the republican of new york, who has alleged to commit several crimes and has a 56 page ethics report outlining violations to him? but, he has not been convicted. these are the lines on your screen. let's go to steve in pennsylvania. hi, steve. caller: good morning, gta. excuse me. good morning, c-span. i was a member of congress, i wouldote a resounding yes,

boot the man out. you know, i am hein justifications for keeping him in. one of them is the old d process thi, which is valid, but unless, unless i am wrong, reporters did question representative santos, and he process is only a forli, andue i remind your listeners that the esident of the united states, richard nixon, resigned rhe than wait for being convicted because all of the republican leaders met with them and said they would have to vote to convict, so he resied

anothe justification is only five representatives have been forced out of, you know, congress, like it is some, you know, you know, and possibility. well, you also mentioned all the ones who had the decency to resign when confronted with their misdeeds. you know, the what aboutism's, or the other guy did this or that, it is deflections. and i see the same thing happening with 45. you know, he has not been convicted. the evidence is there. but the man does not have the decency to just go away. that is about all i have to say

this morning, greta. hey, everyone, have a great day. enjoy life. goodbye. host: thank you, steve. up on capitol hill, reporters are getting ready outside of the capital for congressman george santos to talk ahead of debate in the house of representatives on the resolution to expel him from congress. he is expected to go to the podium there for the microphones and cameras around 8:00 a.m. eastern time. we will try to bring you that here on "washington journal," here a little bit of what he had to say, and you can watch it in its entirety on c-span.org, or on our c-span now cap, are free -- now app. our free mobile video app. downloaded on any mobile device. brady in ohio. you say no. caller: yeah. the reason i say no is because

they have proof of joe biden on hunter biden. they have adam schiff. they have spent aliens of dollars on impeaching donald trump. they have nancy pelosi in a speech behind donald trump and all of her lies. now they are turning the tables and throwing it all onto the republicans. i mean, if the guy is guilty, he is guilty. if he is innocent, he is innocent, but it has to be proven. host: you mentioned the impeachment inquiry into president biden, led by republicans in the house. from "the washington post" reporting that the gop may hold a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiries. house majority whip tom emmer a told house republicans in a closed-door conference meeting wednesday morning that members probably will have to vote on formally authorizing impeachment inquiry into biden in the coming

weeks, after then house speaker kevin mccarthy unilaterally initiated it without house vote, according to persons familiar with the meeting. that could come up in the weeks ahead. republicans having to vote on record about whether or not they want to move forward with the impeachment inquiries into president biden and his family's as this ties. david in michigan. back to this debate over whether or not to expel congressman george santos, what do you say? caller: well, i am not sure because of a couple of things. i am not a lawyer or constituent of george santos, so i am not sure if he should be, from what i understand, he has taken campaign funds and use them for his own personal use. if he is found guilty of doing that, that is a crime, correct?

host: right, that is an alleged crime. caller: right, i said alleged. if he is convicted of that, that is a crime. to the caller from idaho who mentioned that representative ilhan omar should be expelled, all she is accused of is making anti-semitic comments. anti-semitic comments, although they may be aboard to most people, they are not a crime, correct? host: is that what you are arguing, david? caller: yes, it is not a crime. so the comparative of omar's comments to what george santos is being accused of are two different things. one is a crime. what is not a crime. host: thank you. speaking of anti-semitism, the leader of the democrats in the senate, chuck schumer of new york, went to the floor yesterday and gave a speech,

citing what the new york times said is the embedding of left anti-semitism. you can find it on our website, c-span.org. you can find the whole speech there, or on social media platforms, x, tiktok, instagram, etc. you can find the speech there. also, as we told you, george santos is going to hold a news conference at the top of the hour, 8:00 a.m. eastern, our cameras are there, and we will have coverage of it on c-span [applause] at 8:00 a.m. -- on c-span2 at 8:00 a.m.. we will try to show you little bit here on the washington journal and you can also find it on our free mobile app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. also want to go back to the news that broke last night, henry kissinger dinette 100.

-- diene at 100. many front pages of the national newspapers on his legacy. here is "the wall street journal." kissinger shaped war history and is dead at 100. and then there is this reporting from "the washington post," a strong-willed architect of the cold war at a critical moment in american history of diplomacy, he was second in power only to president nixon. he joined the nixon white house january, 1969, as national security advisor, and then his appointment to state in 1973, kept both titles, a rarity. when nixon resigned, he stayed on under gerald ford. for centuries, he remained the important voice on managing china's rise. he was the only american to deal with every chinese leader from now to xi jinping, and in china, even his relations with washington turned adversarial,

he was treated like as a royalty -- like visiting royalty. we will get your thoughts on henry kissinger coming up in our 8:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m. hour. it will be an open forum. for those who remember, henry kissinger served as secretary of state. we would like to hear from you during that hour on your thoughts of his legacy and life. john in hampton, virginia, you say yes to the debate on whether or not to expel george santos. caller: yes, greta, good morning. first of all, i have been voting since 1979 i graduated high school in arkansas, and i never gave a campaign donation, and i never will because people, it comes from people who barely have money, they get five or $10 and then they spend it on

whatever they want to. this guy lied, not only to the people of new york who voted for him, he lied to the republican party, and he admitted lying to them, and they still want to keep him in his seat. then he falsified documents, so just suppose if i go work for walmart, and walmart asks me about my past history, i said i never had any law violations, i had experience working at safeway, kroger, and then they find out i have no experience, so what do they do? they kicked me in my behind out the door. and then if you recall, anthony weiner, everybody should remember that name. anyway, when he got caught doing sex texting, republicans were all over that man, and they should have been. this guy needs to go. he lies, he cheats, and he is coming up at 8:00 this morning. every time his mouth moves, he is going to be lying.

i will not be listening to him, but thank you. host: rebecca in oklahoma. why do you say no to this question? caller: i say no because what happened to due process of law? you know? we could convict rosenthal, rosenbaum, whatever his name was, who said he was a war hero in vietnam, that was a lie. but there are a whole bunch of people in both sides of the parties that have light about all kinds of things -- lied about all kinds of things. even our president lied. he said he graduated top in his class, you know? there are a million lies. if we started checking every single thing out that every single one of our politicians said, they would all be getting kicked out. that is where i am at.

i don't think they should vote him out. and any that do, we should seriously consider removing them for lying to us that they would oppose the constitution. host: are you republican or democrat? caller: independent. host: rebecca in oklahoma. from "the hill" newspaper, the shifting winds send an ominous sign about santos' debate. while he survived two previous efforts to build him from office, republicans increasingly view him as a drag on the whole party, and vocal gop critics are predicting they have to vote to eject him this time. i think there will be hundred 20, hundred 50 votes or more, said representative nickelodeon, one of the new york republicans -- make the loader, one of the new york republicans leading the charge behind santos' oust. they note that it is tough for republicans, the most obvious

consequence is also immediate. they lose a seat in the chamber, where their majority is already a fragile four votes. and with santos likely headed out the door, some republicans are already thinking about what comes next for new york's third congressional district, which could put blue for the democrats and further reduced johnson's razor thin majority, that a speaker johnson. they voted for president biden by roughly eight percentage points in 2020. let's hear from ron in pennsylvania. you say yes. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i think we ought to remember that al franken case. you talk about enablers, the democrats, like children, said he had got to go, and they never even gave him a hearing. in two things they accused him about were really flamboyant. the one was on camera, film, and

he was not even touching a woman, and the other was a husband saying that al franken touched his wife while they were taking a picture of the two together. it was such a phony thing. of course, the democrats are really enablers. he has got to go, he has got to go. you don't hear the republicans saying that about santos. it is just amazing the difference in parties. al franken, you know, he never really got a chance -- he did not want to have a hearing. he just resigned. that is what george santos ought to do, resign. the guy has all these counts against and he is hanging on. it's such a shame. host: we heard from george santos earlier this week on tuesday who told reporters he would not resign. you think the colleagues who want to expel him should put up or shut up.

here comes congressman santos to the microphone let's listen and watch. rep. santos: thanks for coming out early today. just wanted -- good morning everybody, thank you for coming out. as you all know the vote that was supposed to happen today was moved to tomorrow but in lieu of keeping a schedule i decided to stay with today's 8:00 a.m. commitment to all of you and the american people. here is where we are. we are due to go for round three of expulsion of congressman george santos from ny three. i think we can all look back and say this is not how i thought this year would go, i don't think this is how most people in the media would think this year would go. it is an unfortunate

circumstance that i have to sit here and watch the american people waste -- congress waste the american people's time over and over again on something that is the power of the people not the power of congress which is to remove and elect members of congress. obviously some want to cling to some circumstances and allegations but there has been a long-standing precedent in the house that every single member that's ever been expelled and they are trying to join me to the group of confederates and people convicted in the court of law. if i am to get expelled tomorrow i will be number six in the history, the first republican in the only one without a conviction or without having committed treason. that is kind of where we stand today on that sense. let me go down a few things here to give you a sense of congress today and what it represents for

the american people. it represents chaos. chaos because we have a house that does not work for the people. a house where we have members with severe allegations against them having the gall to call the speaker a joke. i read that on the cover of politico where we are reading about members of congress trying to smear one of the most honorable members of our congress -- conference and the republican party. people with the rap sheet's who feel they are emboldened enough to call out other people over their policies. it is amazing to me that this house continues to want to push me out yet we have secretary majorca who is put all americans in danger as you saw last night the rockefeller center christmas tree lighting which is something that for years has been one of

the most beautiful celebrations in new york city. yesterday we had a band of vandals who thought it was appropriate to fight the nypd. this is what took place just yesterday and that's on the secretary because a lot of these people are not here because they love this country or want the best for this country. why are they here? that's what you get when you have open borders and -- as in the administration is oblivious to the issues taking place. lastly let's talk about consistency. we have a member of congress that earlier this year took a plea deal to obstructing a congressional hearing. he took a plea deal for pulling a fire alarm, a fire alarm which obstructed and delayed an official hearing and proceeding on the house floor. now had that been any other person, one of the members of the media or republican member of congress we all know that

person would have been charged with obstructing a congressional hearing. just like the 140 people sitting in prison right now because of january 6. that's why today at noon i will be introducing a privilege motion for expulsion of convicted and guilty pleaded congressman jamaal bowman and i stand there i think that consistency prayed let's hold our own accountable and make sure we do with the president of the house. if the house wants to start a different precedent and expelled me that is going to be the undoing of a lot of members of this body because this will haunt them in the future where

mere allegations are sufficient to have members removed from office when duly elected by their people in their respective states and districts. bearing that in mind -- host: if you want to continue listening to the congressman you can on our website, on our app or go to c-span2. we have that continued press conference live over on c-span two. here in studio with us is carson al green, a democrat from texas. you just heard from your republican colleague of new york. he says congress is wasting time and that they are taking something that is the power of the people and giving it to members of congress. how do you plan to vote and how do you respond to the congressman?

>> thank you for having me. i would like to start by saying as a member of congress, i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. no other flag or country. i love my country and my votes are in the best interest of my country. as it relates to mr. santos it is my belief that the integrity of congress supplants the integrity of lack of integrity of any member. we want the integrity of congress to stay intact. i am having difficulty with this. as has been indicated we will be doing something that has not been done before. we have all heard the news stories of the others and how they were removed for cause related to some sort of crime. this is my ash in my opinion is a giant step. i'm going to think through it

very carefully and my vote will indicate where i stand. right now i will stand on conscious and think through this carefully. there's only one way into congress. you have to be elected by the people. you can get to the senate by being appointed. you can get -- cannot get to congress by being appointed. in the senate you of a longer-term. but you can only stay two years. it may be in the best interest to allow the people to remove the representative that they decided should come to congress. host: you will be listening it sounds like that -- to the debate on the house floor today. >> i want to hear what has to be said and i will make a decision after i've heard. i do confess that there is consternation. this congress is one that tends

to be a little bit acceptance to little things and blow them up into major issues. i don't think we should find ourselves now at some point maybe on a weekly or monthly basis having someone set to be expelled from congress. i am concerned about that. the integrity of congress has to be protected. host: what kind of power does the ethics committee have if you don't follow up on this report? guest: i think knowing what he has done is something that his constituents should be very much aware of. all of these things are egregious. if there is a person that might do this in terms of expulsion this may be the person but i do also believe we have to be very careful so that we do not open a

pandora's casket, we have all of these ugly things that will decide the other reasons why members should be expelled from congress and become so partisan. it's a team sport now. you are on one team or the other thing -- with the other team. i tend to go my own way on a lot of things. >> what has your leadership told you about how to vote? >> not a single thing. i've not had any encouragement to vote one way or another. my leadership i respect and my leadership respects me. host: give us a timeline of when debate begins and when you are expected to vote. guest: i don't know when debate will begin. i'm assuming it is tomorrow and should happen before we leave tomorrow but other than those parameters i can give you anything better. host: there's been reports

debate begins today. cnn reporting the actual vote then could happen friday. guest: i think cnn has an inside track to a good many things. i find that they seem to present a good amount of credible news. host: here is a headline in the wall street journal. democrats way positions on israel, senate democrats are engaged in intraparty debate on whether to attach strings to military aid for israel in the hopes of limiting further civilian casualties in gaza with a vote that also includes assistance for ukraine and taiwan coming to the floor as soon as next week. tell us about this debate and where you come down on it. guest: i first have to acknowledge that a dastardly thing occurred when hamas attack

to israel. i think it would be inappropriate for me to say other things and not start with this point. i am very saddened by the lives that were lost. 80 is hard to imagine that human beings could do to babies what these reports have indicated was done to those babies in israel. i think israel has just cause to seek justice for what happened. but to seek justice requires that you do it in a just way and my concern about the way this war has been executed. i do not believe that in good conscience i could say it is ok to kill babies in an effort to get to a terrorist. i think that you cannot in the name of justice do something

that is unjust. if you in the name of justice do something that is unjust is still an injustice. it happened to those babies in both places is not what i would call justice. having said that and understanding the importance of israel, israel is an ally and has been fighting to defend itself since 1948. i think we support our allies, israel is an ally. i think ukraine is fighting for democracy. it was an invasion. we cannot accept another country being invaded, especially one that is central to some of the things that are important to the globe. what impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. ukraine has had an indirect

impact on grain and other places and on the united states. we have to do it we can to protect democracy and understand the conductivity of humanity. taiwan is an ally. we have supported taiwan, we have a strategic ambiguity protocol that we follow. if taiwan is attacked we reserve the right to do what we believe to be necessary. so all of these things are important. but here is something that is important to me as well. whether or not we will give aid with the understanding there will be a two state solution. i am for a two state solution. the president is for a two state solution. it seems it is the proper resolution for this concern between the palestinians and the israelis. i believe we ought to be going on record saying we support

israel. israel has a right to exist, without question, a or hesitation. palestine has a right to exist. i think we have to go on record saying palestine has a right to exist. i'm trying to do this with the resolution that came up and i could not get it in. i voted against because they would not indicate palestine has a right to exist. so tomorrow i plan to introduce a resolution that would be comparable to what we introduced. i voted for it by the way. but i would like to have congress go on record saying palestine has a right to exist. if we can go on record saying that it will be hard for me to continue to vote to give money to israel, who i believe needs it. but i'm going to do it with the

understanding there will be a two state solution. if there's never a two state solution than i will have to rethink how i will adjust my fellow congressmen who represent one country and i pledge allegiance to one flag. so i want to see saying there ought to be a state called palestine and if congress would do that it would go along way in terms of persuading me to vote for additional funding. >> from the new york times a quote saying in recent days i've heard a question after completing this stage of the return of our hostages will israel go back to the fighting. my answer is an unequivocal yes there is no situation in which we do not go back to fighting until the end. how do you react to that. >> the prime minister of israel

had an unholy acceptance of hamas as an enemy. , and unholy acceptance of hamas as an enemy. and it had this unholy acceptance because it benefited him as he sees the world in my opinion to have an enemy that would not agree to a two state solution. wanting to eliminate israel. hamas ought not to exist. we want israel to exist and palestine to exist. having control of the palestinian people. it seems to be most people of credibility acknowledge that hamas had taken the palestinians as hostages. i happen to believe in a two state solution and mr. netanyahu was cleverly using hamas to avoid having to deal with the two state solution because he would always say i don't have a

partner to work with because hamas wants to limited israel and i cannot negotiate with someone who wants to eliminate israel. that permeated the airways. which was true but it was also true because mr. netanyahu had this acceptance of hamas as an enemy. he rejected the palestinian authority, they did things to destroy his credibility. not about the people of israel. this is about policy. in my opinion because of his behavior 80's difficult to support him in the position he is in because i am not sure he wants to prosecute and execute a war in such a way to have a two state solution later. i don't think they have the right to obliterate gaza.

what happens afterwards? we have to be prepared to move towards peace. i don't think he is establishing the best methodology and the pathway to a two state solution. host: jared in delaware, democratic caller. you are up first. caller: good morning. brother green i want to commend you on everything you've done for the democratic party. i look up to you and want to thank you for what you said this morning. october 7 was the genesis i think you do know not only genesis of hamas but the palestinian israel conflict. i also want to say netanyahu is a criminal the same way george santos is a criminal. he is trying to change the really democratic laws here in israel.

more people have been arrested and murdered in the west bank than of been released during these hostage exchanges. they have been letting these young palestinian men out of jail in exchange for hostages but they are going back to these neighborhoods arresting people not allowing the media to speak who seemed to be women or children or teens, they are calling the military age teenagers that are being arrested and held. the idf is just not allowing them to speak. i want you to understand people especially the democrats that have been carrying the party since obama we see truth so if you could speak some more truth to power, i really appreciate you sir. >> you related to me as a brother and i appreciate that.

we are all related in one way or another. i thank you. i tend to agree with you the dastardly deed performed by hamas on october the seventh was not the genesis of the conflict in the area. i reference that data because it is something that has caused a certain number of other things to be set into motion and these other things we have been discussing. but you are right, this predates october 7. in terms of things that have been occurring there have been wars, the six-day war and other events that have occurred. now, i still contend that the best means by which in the long run will be the two state solution. i want to share just a thought

because the last thing i would like to do, i consider this extremely important in terms of speaking truth. it is my belief that a two state solution requires three things. the first we have to recognize israel's right to exist. we did that with h raz 888. we have to recognize palestine's right to exist. we have to recognize israel's right to exist, of the palestinians right to have a state as well. and then the third thing, we have to, the united states of america conclude that we need israel's permission to recognize the palestinian state. in 1948 when we recognize palestine from israel as a state we didn't get the permission of the palestinians, we took it upon ourselves to do so because it was the right thing to do. it would be the right thing at some point for us to recognize

the palestinians and their right to have a state. if the united states would do this it would take us a way towards having a two state solution. we don't need israel's permission. we would only have to have the will to do from the palestinians as we did for the israel eez. thank you for the call. >> i want to show you from the new york times front page, trust in hamas only deepens. prisoners release ad to the image of hamas as their protector in the west bank noting that the 210 palestinian teenagers and women who have been freed from israeli prison and with folks in the west bank some of them reacting and cheering on hamas. guest: you won't find a kind word emanating from al green as

it relates to hamas. and there are things that i don't agree with. things that i do not agree with that i can explain. i can explain things i do not agree with. but let me give an explanation. these people have been locked up, they are now being set free because of something hamas has been able to leverage. i don't find it unbelievable that there was a tend to lean towards hamas in some way. they have been freely -- i think hamas is an organization that has to be removed from the politics of the area and also people are now afraid that hamas will do again what they have done already so we cannot allow that to happen again. but do that in a just way. don't kill babies to get to a terrorist.

i cannot condone that. i don't condone what hamas did and what mr. yahoo! is doing. >> grant in washington dc, independent. >> i just wanted to ask whether the ethnic cleansing the took place by nine terror groups clearing out 750,000 is something that he would condemn as well. the ethnic cleansing of palestine. i also wonder national >> i think he's referring to 1947, 48 when the united nations by way of resolution indicated there would be these two separate entities in the area. there is a lot of history there. i appreciate his terse and

laconic expression of the history but i think it takes a lot more than simple words to capture what happened in that time. i will just leave it at that. host: anthony in pennsylvania, republican. caller: good morning congressman green. i just want to call to say -- i have a comment and question. you were kind enough to respond to my question last year on immigration when i called up and spoke to you and i want to commend you. you are an amazing guy. you followed through and came through with the numbers i asked you for. i am a republican, i don't always agree with congressman green. he is a standup guy and i want to commend you for that. i want to talk about what's going on in gaza now and in the west bank. i'm not smart enough to know the

answers are to solve this. i know that hamas and palestinians are -- they have cartoons, summer camps , ak-47s, that's their mantra. it doesn't mean the two state solution. i don't know how they will get to a two state solution. like i said i'm not smart enough. i don't know if anybody is to deal with this. i know a lot of people were killed and babies were burned, babies were beheaded. i just want to say that i think the pause is good. i don't know how to root out hamas out of gaza that something has to be done out of the hatred . it is on both sides but i think moss is causing more problems than the israelis are. guest: thank you for calling.

i do recall working with you. you're very kind to acknowledge it. i happen to believe a two state solution is the only resolution. i don't know if it can be resolved. i do not abide with having palestinians removed and them not being a palestine. in 1948 when the united nations decided they would survive the area in a place called palestine. it doesn't mean the israelis don't have a historic right to be in the area as well so it's -- the history is not something that can be explained in just a few words. i do believe the two state solution can be done because in the interregnum that will take place we have to be prepared to move forward with the two state solution. we recognize the congress of the united states of america playing

a role, israel's right to exist, palestine's right to exist as a state. if the congress won't do those two things in the congress is not committed to a two state solution. the united states has to acknowledge a state of palestine and we don't need israel's permission to do that. if we are going to wait on israel's permission my fear is we will be waiting longer than we should have. we also commit to others in the neighborhood commit to rebuilding gaza and billed it as a place for human decency. we have to want to have a minute -- but there need -- there needs to be trade, just as israel does for the united states. i think there's that kind of prosperity is the kind of thing

they can look forward to if we demonstrate to them that we are going to be there for them to help them establish their state. we have to have that kind of commitment. if we don't have that commitment i don't think we will have a two state solution. i'm willing to make that commitment as a member of congress. >> the majority leader chuck schumer chides leftists abetting anti-semitism. giving a 40 minute speechhe gavt anti-semitism in this country and was critical of some in his own party. i want to show our viewers a little bit of what he had to say and get your reaction. [video clip] >> anti-semites are taking advantage of the pro-palestinian movement to espouse hatred and bigotry towards jewish people. rather than caught this

dangerous behavior, we so many of our friends and fellow citizens, particularly young people who yearn for justice unknowingly aiding and abetting their cause. worse, many of our friends and allies who support we need more than ever during this moment of intense jewish pain have brushed aside these concerns. suddenly they do not want to hear about anti-semitism. the ultimate goal of hamas. when i've asked some of the marchers what they would do about hamas, they do not have an answer. many do not seem to care. jewish americans are left alone, at least in our eyes, to ponder what this means and where it could lead. can you understand why the jewish people feel isolated when we hear someone praise hamas and chant its vicious slogan? can you blame us for feeling

vulnerable only 80 years after hitler's wiped out half the jewish population across the world while so many countries turned their back? can you appreciate the deep fear we have about what hamas might do if left to their own devices? the long arm of jewish history teaches us a lesson. it is hard to forget. ultimately, we are alone. host: congressman agreed? -- congressman green? caller: -- guest: i am moved by what the senator said and i think he is correct when it comes to anti-semitism. we have an obligation to fight anti-semitism and any form of hate including racism, islamophobia, xenophobia, sexism. we have a duty to fight them. i think he makes that point very well. i want to assure him that i do

not think the jewish people are alone. we see some people misbehaving, i do not think the mass of people think anti-semitism is the way to resolve the issues associated with palestine and israel. i do not think so. i oppose that and i oppose anyone who projects anti-semitism. i want to be clear. i am absolutely antithetical to those who would promote anti-semitism. i want to add one more thing. we held an event in houston for the palestinians who were suffering, for the innocent lives being lost. no coverage of it because nothing happened. nobody said something antisemitic. we have to get to a point where we expose the positives that happen as they relate to palestinians and jewish people working together.

this is important to me. i want to see both sides prosper but i am with him and i want jewish people to know that as long as i live they are not alone. as long as i live, palestinians are not allowed. as long as i live come if you are a jew you are not alone. if you are righteous person in your speaking words of people of goodwill. host: let's get the team in arkansas, independent. caller: good morning. there cannot be a two state solution when the state that lives next to you has it in their core the idea they have to kill you. you cannot live next door to people like that. if president obama had not given them -- host: may i ask -- guest: may i ask you a question? what would you propose we do if we do not have a two state

solution? caller: let israel do what they are going to do. take over the whole gaza strip. the people there voted. there was a two state solution. they voted in leaders that preached killing and annihilation of another people. they could have all been dressed in little white hoods if you wanted. that is where the democratic party gets its start, isn't it? host: we will leave it at that. guest: there have been clans persons in the democratic party and i condemn them. with reference to your comment that let benjamin netanyahu do what he is doing my hope is that what he is not what he intends to do. the president does not support that, world leaders do not support that.

you're in a minority supporting obliterating gaza and just taking over. nobody supports that except a few people in a minority. you are anti-palestinian. palestinians have rights. a good many people with credibility agree that what hamas has done is wrong and hamas is holding the palestinians hostage. we have to get to a point where we can recognize that palestinians have rights and those rights would cause them to have a state of their own. i support that. host: representative al green, thank you for the conversation. appreciate that. caller: -- guest: thank you. host: more calls after the break. we will turn our attention to any public policy issues on your mind including the death of henry kissinger. we would like to know your thoughts on his life and legacy.

we will also talk with republican congressman pat fallon of texas and get an update on a formal vote authorizing their impeachment inquiry into president biden and later energy and environmental reporter for the hill previews the u.n. climate summit into by that kicks off today -- in the by that kicks off today. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest books. uc berkeley law professor john yoo joins book tv's in-depth to talk and take calls on the supreme court, executivbrch authority, and more. at 10:00, stanford university

story professor jennifer burns shares her book milton friedman, the last cservative, about the life and career of the nobel prize-winning economist. she is interviewed by alex and rasta. what looked to be sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span studentcam documentary competition is back. this year's theme is 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 she would like to see in america. over the past 20 years what has been the most important change in america? we are giving away $100,000 in total prizes with the grand

prize of $5,000 and every teacher who has students participate in this competition has the opportunity to share a portion of an additional $50,000. the competition deadline is friday, january 15. >> this year book tv marks 25 years of shining a spotlight on leading nonfiction authors and their books, with talks from more than 22,000 authors, 900 festivals visited, and 16,000 events. book tv has provided viewers with 92,000 hours of programming on the latest literary discussions on history, politics, and biography. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two or online at book tv.org. book tv, 25 years of television

for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is rhys borman, congressional reporter with the washington examiner. we heard yesterday republicans have plans to bring to the house floor and impeachment inquiry into president biden. what would this look like? guest: the main knock from the white house on the impeachment inquiry going on into president joe biden is the fact there was no official vote, it was just kind of announced by former speaker kevin mccarthy on a random tuesday. he came out and said we are opening and impeachment inquiry, giving them the freedom to start investigating. house republicans are thinking to give it more power they will

have to take it to the floor for about. the white house has been pushing back saying is not a real inquiry because there is not a vote. that is the thinking, they will bring it to the floor for a vote and put to rest that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry. host: to they have the votes for it to pass? guest: it looks like it. there been people against it who said with the evidence that have come out we will support it. i think ken buck is the only person publicly saying he is leading no on impeachment inquiry. you will see this will pass the floor. this is not a vote on impeachment. this is a vote to authorize and impeachment inquiry to give legitimacy to this investigation into joe biden. i think a lot of members feel more comfortable that as opposed to voting on impeachment. host: the house committees have

been investigating hunter biden and the other biden family members business ties to foreign entities. what have they discovered so far? guest: they have discovered through talks meetings joe biden had with his son and business partners, these phone conversations, about 20 over the span of a decade he had when he was vice president at a private citizen. they also discovered the checks that joe biden's brother sent to joe biden there are bank records that show joe biden paid james biden the same amount of money stop joe biden claim to this was a loan repayment.

comer and his team in the impeachment inquiry committees have said there is no proof this is for a loan repayment. one of the checks went back into the same banking account it went out of. they are also touting sg 1023 that claimed joe biden and hunter biden or bribed to get rid of the ukrainian prosecutor. there is no substantive proof to that mind is document they have. there is testimony to the contrary that said they were not aware of joe biden getting any money from burisma up i think a lot of this will play out. they have a lot of allegations. they are bringing forward some evidence but a lot of it pertains to joe biden's family. there's not a lot that ties directly to joe biden as it comes to whether he is getting

money, whether it is influence peddling. the most substantial thing they have on joe biden's these meetings he had with hunter biden's business associates and the phone calls he took with them. host: on hunter biden, will he testify in public before congress on these investigations? (202) 748-8000 -- guest: that is what his lawyer is offering up. james comer, jim jordan want him to sit for a closed-door deposition with lawyers and staff. the reason for that is because they think through a closed-door deposition they can get a lot more questions in. if you get lawyers and staff and people trained to ask the questions, trained with what they are allowed to ask and know how to get answers. that is why they want a deposition. if it comes to a public hearing, one is as a public come and two is a positive for whether it be

hunter biden, if he thinks he can negate the narrative of the committee investigating him and his dad, or it could be a positive for comer if they get hunter biden to admit something. there is a lot of risk involved. we have seen a lot of times hearings go off the rails. the first impeachment in great went off the rails. marjorie taylor greene blurt out the nude images of hunter biden at a committee hearing. that is the fear. if they have hunter biden testify publicly it could go off the rails because you have so many members wanting to ask questions, wanting something to campaign off of. that is a worry they have. you will have to see. hunter biden can fight the deposition and drag this out but

he is offering to sit for a public hearing. we will see what comer and team want to do. do they want to fight for a closed-door deposition? host: when will this vote on moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against the president take place? guest: our reporting says in the next few weeks. it could be next week, the week after that. they want to do it before christmas break. they want to authorize it before they break for christmas. probably the next week or two. they want to talk on friday. they have a policy meeting where they get together. talk about they have the vote, see what they can do, then vote after that. whether it be next week or the week after. host: you are at the news conference with george santos this morning. when will the debate begin on

the resolution to expel him and what have you learned about the vote? guest: debate is supposed to begin today. they will start debating it. they will postpone the final vote until tomorrow. the final vote will be tomorrow. debate will start today. it will pass. he will be expelled. santos is admitting he will be expelled. most members are saying he will be expelled from congress. a lot of people will vote to expel him. it will pass. at the press conference he filed a resolution to oust bowman. he has not been convicted of anything. he ate -- he has been indicted. we saw over the summer when one person filed a resolution to

censure, all of these others started rolling come this could start with expulsion. if people expel george santos who has not been convicted of anything, he would be the first member of congress to be expelled without being convicted of a crime or joining the confederates in the civil war, people like jamaal bowman who have pled guilty, it does set a new president to open the floodgates to maybe we will see more expulsion resolutions. we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. host: reese gorman, congressional reporter with the washington examiner, thank you. guest: thanks for having me on. host: reese gorman with a couple of topics you can discuss here in open forum on the washington journal. any public policy or political issue including a possible vote to start an impeachment inquiry into president biden and also

the debate started today on the house floor on whether or not to expel george santos and a boat happening on friday. that is all on the table as well as the life and legacy of the late henry kissinger who died yesterday at the age of 100 at his age in connecticut. the former secretary of state serving in the nixon administration and also staying on in that post in the ford administration. we will show you little bit from our c-span archives of our coverage of henry kissinger coming up. first let's get to some calls. in new york, democratic caller. caller: can you hear me? my grandparents were brought from india and spread all over the world, i am from south america. i practice behavioral teaching

in religion. i saw you on tv for a long time. i am in this country through the front door. i have been told a lot of things when i started to work. i've been in this country for eight years. i have two grandchildren in the military. my eldest grandson is teaching cybersecurity. he had an audience with president biden. i do not want to take your time off. i want to tell you something before i go ahead. host: we will move on. carol in wisconsin. what is on your mind. caller: i want to say that i read in the paper this week that three ukrainians were convicted

of conspiring with the russians and rudy giuliani to promote from in the 2016 election. -- to promote trump in the 2016 election. with all of the things that went on back then we are not hearing about, yet it did take place. i think it is a very important thing. i just wanted to have a comment about that. host: harvey in dallas. republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am sorry i missed the opportunity to talk to mr. green. he has a platform that gives him national attention. the fact is there are 2.5 million people in gaza and there are 9 million people in israel proper, of which part of that is arab. 98% was given to the "palestinians" as a peace offering.

palestine did not come into being until yasser arafat was their leader. there is no country of palestine, there is no currency. how about the camps in lebanon and syria that still have palestinians? they are not mentioned. it is always israel. mr. green had his neighbors as the ku klux klan and they were the minority and he was the majority with a allow this? host: are you saying all palestinians to the ku klux klan? caller: i am saying in the same regard not all white people are part of the ku klux klan. when hamas is the control and they have all of their influence in government and the way their government works, they flew palestinians to gain control. their neighbors do not want them.

they were thrown out of egypt because of the muslim brotherhood. host: you are talking about hamas than. sean in new york. democratic caller. caller: i want to talk about the impeachment inquiry into president biden. i do not believe they have substantial evidence against president biden the even think of an inquiry such as impeachment. what do you think? host: we are getting your thoughts this morning. you think there is not substantial evidence. caller: president biden -- his son -- any evidence against his son is a black book up his was black and there is was blue. the only evidence they have on hunter biden is a book that was not even his. host: sean's thoughts in new

york. democratic caller. we want to get your thoughts on the life and legacy of henry kissinger. cnn was running a dateline moments ago saying he was revered and reviled for his foreign policy. from the new york times reporting this morning, historians have written shelves of books about mr. kissinger and vietnam. it was a war he was convinced america can never win yet many scholars have argued he helped widen and prolong the conflict by favoring secret attacks and bombings to pressure his adversaries at the negotiating table. others have been even more damning. into the c-span archives, we want to show you an interview with the late henry kissinger where he talks about one of the toughest decisions he had to make in his career. [video clip]

>> the decision at the beginning of the nixon administration was how to deal with vietnam. we had 550,000 troops in place. it was increasing on a schedule established by our predecessors. nixon made the decision we would begin to extricate ourselves. how you extricate yourself when you are the leader of an alliance in the middle of the cold war and how to maintain the position of the united yourselfn you are the leader of an states and maintain the options to

opening to china and elsewhere that we had in mind, that we went through many agonizing periods trying for a quick military outcome which we thought was precluded by previous experience. we were overwhelmed by proposals of sudden withdraws. we chose what we chose. you're asking me what was the crisis point. there were many crisis points. there were long nights making decisions. it gets very quiet in crisis

because decision-makers -- events impose certain necessities that you then have to feel your way quickly to a decision. at least that is how it was in my experience. in my experience the people who made the decision in the crisis moments were together and were not arguing. host: henry kissinger in 2011 talking about the toughest decisions he made. the former secretary of state died yesterday at age 100. today in the papers, headlines like this one from the washington post. celebrity statesmen drew acclaim and criticism. we are in open forum this morning. if you have thoughts on henry

kissinger's life and legacy we want to hear them. catherine in wyoming. democratic caller. caller: hello. one thing i want to say about israel and hamas. if you go back into the 1980's, benjamin netanyahu set up hamas to get rid of the plo. he funded money to hamas through qatar. let me just say he made deals with the leaders of hamas and then he did not follow through. this catastrophe of palestine and israel has been going on for decades. i agree with king of dolla from jordan. a lot of israel's problems originate in tel aviv. thank you.

host: larry in ohio. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i wanted to say in regards to mr. kissinger's family, he lived a great life and i hope they -- i pray for their family. i would also like to say for the record that the story about the snake president donald trump speaks of is the truth in regard to that. everyone should listen to that story seriously. have a nice day. host: kenneth in watson town pennsylvania. republican. caller: hello. i would like to make a comment about the ieachment. i think of joe biden had one brain cell to rub against the other he would resign and the

democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee. it is in plain sight. thank you for your time. host: we are in open forum. you can talk about public policy or politics. from the reporting on campaign 2024 in the new york times, here is a headline to share. in early primary states nikki haley is building momentum. eddie townhall in new hampshire were almost half the people in the audience raise their hands when she asked if there's was their first time watching her speak and she drew louder one day earlier, she addressed an audience of roughly 2500 people, the largest yet in her home state. walking on stage with chants of "haley, haley."

another article about her bid, "nikki haley gets a new list from jimmy diamond and a a pac. he threw his support by nikki haley on wednesday as a group of entrepreneurs confirmed they were forming a super pac to try to draw independent voters to her. at the same time, she earned a -- it's said it would focus on new hampshire where republican voters are more moderate than in other states and where voters choose to participate in the democratic race. after the primary on january 3, the group will return to south carolina, nikki haley's home state and selected super tuesday states with open primaries. she is getting the backing of this new pac called independents

moving the needle as well as jimmy diamond's backing -- jamie diamond's backing. you can watch the coverage of the campaign 2024 if you go to our website, c-span.org. we also have a program this friday called campaign trail. highlights, polls, fundraising numbers, and all the latest from the campaign trail erring on c-span 7:00 p.m. eastern time. in chicago, independent. hi. caller: good morning. how are you? january -- can you hear me? host: we can. what is on your mind? caller: it amazes me hearing some of the, this morning. one in particular was the one

about the ku klux klan, even mentioned the congressman. that is the most racist comment i have heard. i think this is what the problem is. i am independent for a reason. i am african-american. this country is supposed to be in god we trust but everyone that calls and chooses a side are non-christians. if you were, you would not say some of the things that you say. jewish people in particular, they are going to follow the biblical way. the truth as to why they were -- from the land. event is not yours. the moment anyone says anything

against them, anyone is anti-semitic. people are enraged because there are innocent children being killed. it has nothing to do with these people like henry kissinger. -- harry kissinger. host: henry kissinger. caller: yeah. they are to blame for it as well as the current prime minister. host: let me hear from rosa in california, democratic caller. let me try one more time here. their. -- there we go. rosa in california, democratic caller. can you hear us? let me move on to samuel in maryland, independent.

caller: hello. i would like to express my regret at henry kissinger's passing. anyone interested in the man, consider reading his books "diplomacy" or "world order." they show a wonderful picture of the world as he thought. wonderful books and worth a read. host: what do you remember from when he served as secretary of state? caller: i was not even born then. i was born in 19 seven. host: i could not hear the youth in your voice. caller: it is interesting. it is very clear that his position, his job was at a very tough time.

considering the limitations he had, i think you did a wonderful job. host: anthony, pikesville, maryland. caller: good morning to you. i would like to briefly speak about the passing of agreement -- of a great man. dr. kissinger is not the most memorable secretary -- if not the most memorable secretary, he will be the most recognizable because there is no way you can miss that force and that face. i was in uniform at the time he was serving in the nixon administration. that had to be tough enough because when you hurts and going on in paris, he was in a conference with the vietnamese representatives. you knew he was doing his best. i think it's wonderful that this man had given his life to public service and he continued to do that until the time he could no longer do so.

i commend him and i extend my condolences to his family. host: what is your reaction to headlines where they called him a celebrity statesman? he would have famous women on his arm and be in the gossip papers, going to restaurants in new york and other places with these famous people. do you remember that image of him? caller: yes, i do. that was really the slideshow. it was nice to see he was out and among the public, even though he was not actually a member of the public. he was a figure for the public. i have no problem with him going to restaurants and having people on his arm. what mattered was when he walked into the office he was all business and that is the more

important thing to remember. host: anthony there talking about the image of henry kissinger. if others are there have some thoughts on the way he conducted himself in office as well as out of the office, we want to hear that. this morning until 9:30 a.m. eastern. until then, we are in open forum. this is from the new york times's piece about henry kissinger, "a man about town." they were talking about -- at the height of his power, this harvard professor was seen in georgetown and paris with stylists on his arm joking that power is the greatest aphrodisiac. one woman dated him and returned to his small apartment in

washington with a single bed for sleeping and another that held a mass of laundry. reported that between the mess in the presence of aides, you could not view anything romantic in that place even if you were dying to. to joke in washington was that he flaunted his private life to hide what he was doing at the office. john in new york, a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i called on the republican line but i am more middle-of-the-road. 5'4" whatever politician i believe is telling the truth more or less -- i vote for whatever politician i believe is telling the truth more or less. you had a segment on george santos and on whether you should let your representatives know to vote yes or no or kick him out of office. i agree with the callers who

said this guy has charges against him. he is not being convicted of anything. the one thing i never recall you doing is having a similar segment on resistive slow well -- representative saul well going around with a chinese spy or something. did you do any segments on bob menendez of new jersey? his charges are much more egregious than any charges against george santos. he was dealing with the egyptian government. they supplied him with a new mercedes-benz. they give him tons of money in gold, he had it hidden in his suit cook pockets and all through his house. should he be removed from office? how come you don't put him under

the microphone? host: have you got into our video archives and looked? i encourage you to do so. go to c-span.org. we certainly discussed senator menendez. i cannot recall about the congressman, but go to our website, c-span.org/washingtonjournal. go to our search engine, put in those keywords and see what we have done here on this program and c-span at large, all of the other programs we have. speaking of c-span coverage, coming up today at 10:00 a.m. eastern, lawmakers for the first time are going to hear from the new cdc director. dr. mindy cohen will be testifying. you can watch that live at 10:00 a.m. eastern ooufree video mobile app, c-span now, as well

as oine. at 10:00.m., the senate judiciary hearing will debate and possibly vote on whether to subpoena harlan crow and leonard leo as part of a probe into unreported gifts to supreme court justice is which the committee is investigating. that is life this morning at 10:00 a.m., c-span now, or online at c-span.org. 2:00 p.m. eastern, another conversation on capitol hill about migration athe southern border. lawmers are going to hear from the former acting dhs secretary who served in the trump administration. he will be in the -- beforehe house foreign affairs committee. you can watch that on c-span3, c-span now, or c-span.org. charlie in windemere.

in open form, go ahead. -- open forum, go ahead. i am glad -- caller: i am glad i did not eat breakfast after hearing that man prays henry kissinger -- praise henry kissinger. rolling stone wrote about how henry kissinger was complicit in killing throughout the world, probably 6 million from his days with nixon. things he did in chile come executions there, east timor, and so on. he was a celebrity and the funny thing about that is he really

did not do the things that were necessary. he hated mr. hitchens who you have had on a number of times who basically wrote a book, i guess there is a movie about the trials of henry kissinger. one other thing i want to add in terms of nixon, nixon depended on him in the vietnam war even though in my opinion nixon was an anti-semite and i will leave it at that. i came across a quote, a quote from ben-gurion, the first president of israel. this was a quote i was shocked at seeing that says why shouldn't the arabs make peace? if i was an arab leader, i would

never make terms with israel. we have taken their country. sure, god promised it to us but what does that matter to them? our god is not theirs. we come from israel, but it was 2000 use ago and what is that to them? there has been anti-semitism, the nazis, hitler's, but was that their fault -- hitler's, but was that their fault? we have stolen their country. why should they accept that? it shocked me when i saw that. when i showed that to a relative's jewish, she said i don't believe that. that must be incorrect. thank god for c-span because all do respect to all other -- msnbc, cnn, forget about

newsmax, at least to get some of the truth. host: i have to leave it there so i can hear from crystal in west palm beach. caller: i could listen to that color for the rest of my time. but thank you for taking my call. my concern this morning is the bias in the media regarding the conflict in israel and palestine. there are two issues. one is the bias reporting. just yesterday there was a killing in jerusalem of israeli citizens. three died. it is covered on cnn. in the same period just yesterday on live camera, the idf shot an-year-old in the box in the back while playing -- in

the back while playing football and a 16-year-old. host: where did you watch that video? caller: i saw that on algae here -- on al jazeera. i understand why a lot of americans are ill-informed or maybe never heard of the quotes the previous caller mentioned. to them, these things never existed, they are not covered at all. let me move to the second point. there is a disparity also with history. the jewish people, we have to hear never forget. in the black community, african-americans want to erase 1619. we can't be if we cannot see. we need to hear truth, we need to have our truth reported accurately.

i want to encourage everybody to go on to youtube and see al jazeera live and not depend on biased or wearing -- biased reporting. host: we are going to capitol hill because pat fallon, the congressman, is joining us. thank you for joining us. we know you have a busy schedule. let's get to the latest on where things stand with debate over aid to israel. rep. fallon: says -- rep. fallon: israel's funding is top priority and because of that it should be voted as a standalone bill. ukraine funding should be considered separately. i don't think you should but these issues together and we need to consider securing our southern border and aid to taiwan. there are four separate issues,

it should be four separate bills. i believe in standalone bills. host: there are efforts to tie them together. what level of aid would you like to see for ukraine? the president wanting around $60 billion. what do you think house republicans are comfortable with? guest: with republicans, you have 222 members, you may have 222 opinions. personally, i am on the armed services committee and they told us it costs $3 billion a month to have ukraine in the fight. considering have been at war around 20 months or so, that is about $60 billion worth of eight. the president has issued $130 billion and he was to authorize an additional $60 billion. that is not including the aid the eu and other nato members have given.

it seems like it has been overfunded. i want ukraine to win and i want this aggression -- and i don't want this aggression to be rewarded. at the same time, it is difficult to vote for more aid when the southern border is being ignored by this administration. host: what would you like to see for border proposals and what have you learned about what republicans want to put in a build -- in a bill? guest: we had ever seen, in our history where we had 200,000 illegal border crossings. it has happened 17 times. august we cracked the 300,000 threshold. what joe biden policies have done has made every state a worse state. there are several things you can do, namely begin perfection on the border wall. barriers to work and is never

going to reduce integration to zero but it is going to take a flood to a trickle. the portable, make sure the border is fully funded and they have 22,000. they have been well under full strength. 22,000 agents would be wonderful. it would be good to have air operations running 24 hours a day with 11,000 hours. that would be very nice. that would prohibit the administration from getting money to the ngo's that can around and help folks come to our country illegally and then tell them's -- tell them things to say to trigger fear. i think you should wait in mexico while you asylum claim is being adjudicated. we know the facts are that 99% of these folks coming across the

border illegally want a better life and i feel for them. that is an economic migrant, not a political asylum seeker. what the left has done is turn this into if you say some magic words you gain entry into the country. that is only go to encourage more illegal migration. i would like to see e-verify mandated in this country and the visa program. if you overstay your visa right now, you get a slap on the wrist. we should increase legal migration. there are people who want to come to this country legally and the average person waits nine years. i think it is unfair and un-american to reward illegal migration while punishing people waiting in line. host: here's a headline in the wall street journal, president biden requesting $14 billion in aid to israel. democrats weigh conditions of israel aid in the hope of limiting civilian casualties in

gaza. your reaction? guest: i don't think we should attach conditions. i trust israel. war is ugly. you had a caller talking about this, throwing around moral equivalencies and saying somehow hamas for stans extension of hamas have a moral superior than israel. i think that is false. the israeli government and the idf do not purposely target innocents in any war and any conflict. innocent people become casualties and that is a human tragedy. we want to limit that. the idf understands this is a war being played out in public opinion. they are taking great care to ensure the safety of civilians. the problem with hamas is the hide behind them. hamas kills innocent civilians and when israel response, where

is the great quarters? under the hospital? where do they store weapons? in mosques and schools. they use their people as shields and that is going to create more casualties. they are our strongest ally in the middle east and they are a thriving democracy. we cannot say that unfortunately for a lot of countries in the region. host: you arehost: a member of the oversight committee, one of the three panels investigating president biden and his family. we learned this week that you all could vote on the floor on a proposal that would start an investigation, and impeachment inquiry into the president -- an impeachment inquiry into the president. guest: the evidence we have seen on the committee is overwhelming that there is corruption in the biden family and i believe hunter biden was used as the bagman for the operation. everything we have found over

the last year always fits together perfectly with what we already know. nothing contradicts the facts we have discovered. if we had this discussion 18 months ago, i would've told you we can prove that women in dollars of foreign money went into the biden coffers. now that number is 24 menu dollars. every time we subpoena bank records, we find additional moneys that went into the biden family pockets. it doesn't make sense. -- who was married to the mayor of moscow who the american investor set was a poster child for corruption. she gave hunter biden $3.5 million. why did she give him that much money? i cannot wait to have hunter biden testify so i can ask him. a few months later she had dinner with hunter and his dad, the sitting vice president. when he is president, she was among the oligarchs in russia

sanctioned by the biden administration. when you have 50 of those kinds of examples, there is so much smoke, there is clearly fire. we are compelled to do additional investigating. host: what is the fire? what evidence is there that president biden committed a crime? guest: we have a $200,000 loan from his brother. they call it a loan and folks say in the memo that it was a loan. it just so happened that day jim biden got a $200,000 lawyer from a company going through a bankruptcy. on that same day he got sloppy and gave his brother $200,000 and claimed it was a long. we have that with hunter biden getting a payment of $400,000. it just so happens that 10% of $400,000 is $40,000 that jim gave to hunter and hunter gave to joe.

you have layers. everybody in congress at some point has been accused of something. i'm am eager to address the charges -- the accusations because they are false. if the bidens did not loan my to each other, if i were joe biden, here is the time when i lent jim the $200,000. but they have not done that. they have not been cooperating with the investigation and there is so much material that we could teach a college course about what has been happening with the biden family. host: how do you plan to vote on the resolution to expel commerce and george santos -- commerce majority santos? -- congress member george santos? guest: that is a great question. i have been wrestling with that. the evidence i see with the

ethics committee is very troubling. everybody deserves their day in court, equal protection under the law. i would say george santos is probably going to get convicted but he has not been convicted yet and i believe in due process. the only times that the civil war we have expelled members has been after they have been convicted. i am reticent, very cautious to vote to expel any member. i think george santos gives the republican party a blackeye. we have seen multiple reports over several months. i think he should resign considering the allegations leveled against him. to expel is a threshold. i cannot say definitively yet. i am any court not voting to expel because i don't want to set a diggers president to remove someone sent a dangerous precedent to move someone from -- set a dangerous precedent to

remove someone from congress before their convicted. host: we appreciate it. back to calls and open forum. denise in sunnyside, republican. caller: good morning. i watch your show daily. i cannot believe so many people have such a difference of opinion and are so ill-informed a man called earlier saying he gets information from rolling stone? please. a lady called and said she gets her information from al jazeera. when are americans going to wake up? we need to care about our country, period. host: work you get your news -- where do you get your news? caller: i get my news from newsweek/-- newsmax.

i don't watch local news anymore because they tell you have the story. we are in a big pit with all of these invaders. they did not have food so our own homeless people -- for our own homeless people this thanksgiving but they had food for the invaders. this is ridiculous. host: dave in illinois, independent. open forum. what is on your mind? caller: i would like to make a comment on mr. kissinger's passing. i think there has been a lot of armchair quarterbacking in the american climate regarding politics and our viewpoints on both sides of the aisle. we as americans can take time to

have a breath and review mr. kissinger's legacy. he has been deified and denigrated. but one thing that he has always been is deep knowledge and integrity in regard to for policy. there are so many people who are misinformed and uneducated. a lot of us need to step back and really study these things before going on social media or looking at bias media streams regard as if they are left or right. host: you and others can do that by going to our website, c-span.org. you will find over 100 videos with the former secretary of

state henry kissinger and you can do a deep dive into his life and legacy. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, turn our attention to the united nations annual climate summit known as cop28. it kicks off in dubai. we will be talking to rachel, the energy environment reporter for the hill. ♪ >> live sunday on "in-depth," john you joins book tv to take calls about the u.s. supreme court, his support of the bush and trump administration's command more. his book is "crisis in command." and recently published "a

politically uncorrected guide to e super court." join with your calls, facebook comments, and texts. "in-depth," live on c-span two. >> friday, december 1, what c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a roundup of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover where the candidates are traveling and what they're saying along with first and accounts from political reporters, updated numbers, data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail starting friday, december 1 on c-span, c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, or wherever you get your podcast. c-span, your unfiltered view of

politics. >> if you ever missed any of c-span's coverage, you can find it online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events future markers that guide you to newsworthy highlights. these point of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen. this time i'm tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest points of interest -- points of interest. >> traveling over the holidays? make c-span's podcast part of your -- c-span bookshelf features multiple episodes with critically event authors discussing history, biography, current events, and culture from our signature programs.

listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed this holiday season. you can find it on the c-span now free mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website. >> c-span's campaign2012 before coverage continues with the presidential primaries and congresses -- and caucuses. watch live is the first votes are cast in the upcoming president election along with candidates pieces -- candidate speeches. beginning with the caucus and the primary on january 23. campaign 2024 on c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at our table, rachel, the

energy and environment reporter with the hill. thank you for being here to talk about cop28. what does that stand for? >> it is a conference of the parties, all of the countries that are party to the paris agreement. host: this kicks off today in dubai. what would be the agenda? what will they be discussing? guest: there are a lot of things to look out for, but the big thing they are try to get at is how can we as the world combat our challenge of climate change. host: what leaders will be there? guest: leaders of several nations will be there. kamala harris is going to be there. joe biden is not going to attend. host: what about the other leading countries, those that lead to the world in admitting greenhouse gases? will their leadership be there? guest: i have not looked at a list of who will add to want.

i don't believe china will be there. otherwise i would expect a lot of world leaders to be there. host: why is this meeting happening this weekend what is the goal? guest: every year leaders and negotiators gather to try to talk about how we as a world can collectively work on this climate challenge and come to some sort of agreement. this year is being called the global stock take because the order to assess how far we have come since the paris agreement and what more there is to do. guest: there is one device -- host: there is one divisive issue, the loss and damages fund. . explain. . guest: at last year's cop, leaders agreed to set this fund which is to compensate countries that have faced the worst impacts of climate change, especially those who are lower income and cannot afford to rebuild their infrastructure.

this morning, the agreed to adopt a framework for setting up the fund, that includes things like being hosted by the world bank and governor -- and governed by the board. host: we are talking about climate change and the summit that begins today. we want to get you involved. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. text us, include your first name, city, and state at 202-748-8003. you can join us on facebook.com as well as on x with the handle @cspanwj. imagine leakers agreement, the goal was to limit the rise of temperatures. where are we in reaching that goal?

guest: the good is it we have made progress, a recent report said the missions were projected to increase by perky 30 -- increase by 2030. now they are only expected to increase 3%. that is to an increase and we are not on track to reach that yet. host: why not? guest: there is progress to be made in terms of limiting emissions. countries have not put forward plans and dishes enough to drive those done enough to mitigate global warming. host: what does the u.s. agreed to and how close are we to reaching our goals? guest: the u.s. agreed to all the things the u.s. agreed to to try to keep the world under 1.5 degrees celsius. since then, the u.s. has said it hopes to reduce emissions by 52% by 2030. host: what is the biden

administration doing to reach that goal? guest: they passed ambitious policy, with major subsidies for clean energy and renewables that are carbon free and expected to bring in missions -- bring down emissions. they have some rules that have not been finalized that would bring a insurability vehicles. host: remind our viewers if this goal is not achieved because they have seen the headlines, the national climate assessment reported by the new york times with warnings about the chronic conditions. we estimate that headlines about the warmest year on record. what is at stake if the goal is not reached? guest: climate change is exacerbating extreme weather and it is going to make it that much worse.

more intense for cancer, more intense heat wave, floods, and tipping points where wednesday things happen you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube, things like -- ice sheet melt, that will make the sea rise. a lot has been reported about the host country for cop28, dubai. why are they who is to get and why is there criticism? guest: there is a complicated process in terms of moving around the world to decide host country but the uae has faced scrutiny, one is fossil fuels, is a major producer of oil. they have put their company in charge of the conference. host: who is this the uae appointed the head of the company. guest: i'm not sure if i set it right, but he is the head of the national oil company, he is also

chair of the national renewables company. he is very much in those worlds and there have been some accusations that he is 20 use his position to try to broker deals to bolster both of those companies. host: at this summit? guest: yes, that is the accusation. he has denied that. host: how long will the summit last? guest: it is good to go for another week or two through mid december and in the weeks ahead, we will see a lot of speeches and commitments and pledges for things that businesses or stakeholders are doing to combat climate change. the second half is going to shift more towards negotiations, things they can agree to. some things we might look to our if the world will agree to ramp up renewable capacity or if they agree to some phased out phase out of fossil fuels.

host: walter is up first in this conversation, st. john's, arizona. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first question is, rachel, what would be the three top groups that are having the most impact on positively affecting solutions for climate change and what they are doing? the second question has to do more or less with the government of the u.s. and climate change. there are about 240,000 separate cities, counties, states, government oppositions -- government operations and collectively they have a 40

between dollars in investment capital as a conservative figure. how much effort is being placed to utilize and influence the investment needed to affect climate change from the government entities and do you know a possibly how much invested by local governments? host: you had some very specific questions. when you say the top groups, what do you mean? caller: top three. host: what do you mean by groups? caller: groups working with climate change to positively affect an outcome. host: rachel. caller: -- guest: that is a tough question. i am not sure i could name a lot of ngos doing a lot of advocacy and work in communities to help

make those communities have fewer emissions and bolster them and make them more as it to climate change. i don't feel equipped to say who is the best group. there is an effort to mobilize capital. atlas commits from the private sector to help out with the climate problem. host: -- was in lauren boebert's district talking about what his administration is doing to invest in clean energy jobs. here is what he had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: when i think climate, i think jobs. that is what climate is about. that is not the end of the story .

i signed a law combating the that of, change -- combating the effects of climate change. it makes wind towers in america and bolsters clean energy projects to use those wind towers to power american homes and an additional $200 million to expand the facility here. because of the investment -- employees will receive end of the year bonuses as well. it matters.

when i hear climate, i think jobs. host: that was president biden in colorado. rachel, you wrote a piece, "president biden's first climate summit snob carry weight." your thoughts. guest: he has vowed to combat this and engaged abroad after president trump withdrew and this year he is not going. in other climate activist say he has a chance to show his figure ship on this issue, to show this is important to him and then you can walk and chew gum and carry multiple issues at the same time . i think a lot of folks are disappointed. i don't necessary -- i don't know necessarily if his actions will affect the outcome. host: what has the white house said about why he is not going? guest: they have been vague, that emphasized his focus on the middle east between israel and the palestinians.

host: the vice president is attending. ricardo in greenville, democratic caller. caller: i voted for biden but i am disappointed with his work in climate so far. when you say china is the biggest emitter, i feel like you're leaving the u.s. army out of the equation. there is a lot of pollution. if you think of the number of solar panels, china is producing the most, yet we are buying solar panels from china. they also made more train tracks. they have the fastest trains -- they have faster trains than we do. they are doing more for the climate that we are. they have battery plants where they store power using solar panels.

they are doing a lot as far as green energy. i feel like our countries behind and china is beating us. they dish to call them the biggest -- to call them the biggest producer when we are the number one. i think it is unfair when they are doing the most out of any country. they are selling more electric cars. they have a lot of electric buses. they invested a lot. host: rachel. guest: we made some good points. it is complicated to pass climate blame. all china is the biggest emitter right now, the u.s. is the biggest emitter historically. over time, we have distributed the most. that is not to let the u.s. off of the hook. all different kinds of countries are looking to bring those down, including the u.s..

there is certainly a lot of work to do to bring the whole world under 1.5. host: gwen -- glenn in greenbrier. caller: there is no such thing as climate change, that is a life. -- a lie. host: we will go to elise. independent. caller: i wanted to take care of one piece of housekeeping. today and yesterday a woman called claiming hamas was something created by israel, specifically by netanyahu. hamas is in the offshoot of the muslim brotherhood, it is not created by israel.

to the climate issue. there has been controversy about having this summit being held in a country that is a large will producer. -- a large oil producer. i remember mr. clinton saying to the saudis they need to focus on advancing non-oil-based energy, such as solar energy. we have not seen anything of great note coming from any of the countries that are known for their oil-producing part of opec. i find it interesting that that is glossed over. guest: it is complicated because a lot of these countries produce oil that is used by the world.

at the same time, you cannot just come off the taps like that. there has to be a transition. there has been concerns about supply. last year during russia's invasion of ukraine, that was part of the discussion. host: gary in kentucky, republican. caller: china is not going and the president of the u.s. is not going, the two biggest emitters. i am just wondering, is this a taxpayer paid vacation for kamala harris? it seems like a vacation for un people. not much will get done. host: will not much get done because the top leaders are not there? guest: i do not think their absence will impact that because there are some negotiators. john kerry is on the ground, china has an negotiators.

that is not to say that nothing is going to get done. it is -- to say what will likely get done. host: the role john kerry plays in the biden administration and the work yesterday in his tenure. guest: john kerry has led the negotiations all the climate summits during the biden presidency and he has worked with nations around the world to develop a deal. he will be doing that again this year -- will he be doing that again this year? host: -- will he be doing that again this year? guest: yes, he travels with all different countries to work with leaders to get them to step up their commitments to combat climate change. host: kirk in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. i am kind of a bomb thrower, not unlike our president. there is an incredible amount of

war emissions today. nobody talks about nuclear being an issue for the environment. i am going to throw out a bunch of comments and if you can talk on any of them, feel free. the ice caps may be melting from the core of the earth, little unstable and heating up. they are melting from the bottom. all of this stuff -- population control is the only answer. with that said, have a great day and breathe the air while you can. host: those are kirk's thoughts. we talked about president biden's initiative on beating the paris climate agreement. there are officials that are upset with him about new oil leases. talk about what the administration has done on that front. guest: while there have been

policies aimed at combating climate change, there have been some that lock in more fossil fuel use. one is the project in alaska that would allow conocophillips to drill a lot of world out of alaska and a lot of climate activists are upset by that. they have complained about the approval of the mountain valley pipeline and legislation in west virginia and approvals of the confide natural gas exports. folks are saying we need to turn off fossil fuels, they have been upset by this. they think the president's actions are not far enough and locking in more years of fossil fuels. host: what is the white house say in response? guest: on the role of project-based say there were legal constraints and they had to approve those because of actions that happened before their tenure. they have also made the case

that some of this energy is needed now. host: lynn in bishop, california. independent. caller: good morning. biden talking about investments, you can only make an investment if you have money. the money comes from taxpayers. that is one misnomer. i just want to know what people are willing to give up. if you google what is made from petroleum products, all of the shipping from amazon, all of the things we get in the mail every day, you talk about climate change but i don't see any change of people's lifestyles. it is go, go, travel, travel, spend so we can have a good economy.

the economy only stays strong because people are spending and they don't have money. to watch all of these global leaders fly all over the world in their jets, i am sure they are going to be in luxury hotels burning fossil fuels. i think that is where you get a lot of the distressed. -- the distressed. -- distrust. host: i will follow up with -- "do you have a chart of the jets used by the leaders around the world." guest: either to have those numbers offhand, private jets contributed to climate change issue. in the grand scheme of things, i'm not sure how that weighs compared to huge emissions coming from our activities. like the caller said, there are

trade-offs in lifestyles. host: corporations give tax incentives by doing things that lessen their vertical footprint? fewer cars on the boat will help trucks get to places faster, battery operated, so many ways. guest: there are some tax incentives for businesses and individuals who make hiring upgrades to their home. there are also incentives for new renewable energies, things like that. host: ed in denton, texas. democratic caller. caller: hello. host: question or comment? caller: i think the massive subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry should be taken away. not just in the u.s., but internationally.

secondly, i think the fossil fuel industry should be called on for information and greenwashing they are doing. i think the idea of many of them saying they're going to get to and zero, when you get into the weeds and look at it, you see they are allocating something like what percent of their budget for doing such things. host: rachel. guest: the fossil fuel subsidies is interesting because that is something that came up. there has been language that says they want to be an efficient fossil fuel subsidy. it is not clear what that means. some folks don't like that qualifier and they want to get rid of all fossil fuels. host: who already folks? -- are the folks? guest: a lot of climate activist's. they kept that language in there because those have to be adopted

by consensus. host: if you have the word inefficient in there, how many would it apply to? guest: to be honest, i'm not sure. i am not sure what counts as efficient or inefficient. it might be a judgment call. host: you can follow rachel's reporting on the cop28 summit if you go to thehill.com. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will take you to the house of representatives about to gavel in.