♪ host: this is washington journal. 's president-elect trump picks

says to have the pentagon says he is opposed to female troops in combat roles. we are asking you, should women serve in combat roles? here are the lines. if you say yes, (202) 748-8900. if you say no, (202) 748-8901. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8902. you can text comments to (202) 488-8903. you cannot who posed a question or facebook.com/cspan comment on facebook facebook.com/cspan at, or on x at @cspanwj. thank you for being with us today. president trump's defense secretary nominee ptech seth -- has been talking about women in

combat positions. it says he has reignited a debate that many thought had long been settled. should women be allowed to serve the country by fighting on the front lines? the former fox news commentator has made it clear in his own book and interviews he believes men and women should not serve together in combat units. if hegseth is confirmed, he could try to in the pentagon's nearly decade old practice of making all combat jobs open. pete hegseth was on the sean ryan podcast earlier this month. he talked about his new book. the issue of women in combat came up. here is the clip. [video] >> admission standards, overall standards. a huge one is women in combat

and quotas. the when they pushed that under obama in a way that had nothing to do with efficacy, zero to do with lethality and capability for >> you don't like women,? >> no. i like women service numbers you contribute amazingly. everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated. convocation in combat means -- complication in combat means casualties were worse. i got 99% positive response. when you break down what they did in the studies to open the door for women in combat, they just ignored them. the marine corps was duly service that tried to fight back and say -- i'm not exempting special operations which is held the line well.

they were lowering the standard to become a navy seal. that will change the capabilities and the ethos of the navy seals except for some female super soldier. but because of how washington works, they will push for quotas. the standards are not changing. they are just evolving. to meet the needs of today. >> they are not getting tougher. >> they are getting lower average. milley was calling out individual units. what is the chairman of the joint you doing pushing company command spots? it is all to say we have this or that. host: we are asking you the question, should women serve in combat roles? if you say yes, -- it was back

in 2015 that women -- it was announced women could serve in combat positions. this article from the new york times in a historic transformation of the wreck and military. defense secretary ashton carter said the pentagon would open combat jobs for women. no exceptions. it goes on to note the groundbreaking decision overturns a long-standing rule that has restricted movement from combat roles, even though women have found themselves in combat in iraq and afghanistan over the past 14 years. from 2015, here is then defense secretary asked carter announcing -- ash carter

announcing the decision. [video] >> we have seen women soldiers graduate from the army ranger school. we have women serving on submarines. we have opened up over 111,000 positions to women across the services. while that represents real progress, did means approximate 10% of positions in the military -- nearly 220,000 -- currently remain closed to women. including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and special operations units. over the last three years the senior civilian and military leaders across the army, navy, air force, marine corps and special operations command have been setting the integration of women into these positions. last month i received a recommendation. as well as the data, studies and surveys on which they were based.

regarding whether any remaining positions warrant they continue to exempt -- exemption from being opened to women. i reviewed the inputs carefully. today i'm announcing my decision not to make continued exceptions. that is, to proceed with opening all remaining occupations and positions to women. there will be no exceptions. this means as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. they will be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, lead infantry soldiers into combat. they will be of the service army rangers and green berets, navy seals, marine corps infantry, air force parrot jumpers in every thing else previously open only to men. -- parajumpers.

and the military will better harness the skills and perspectives talented women have to offer. host: we are asking you should women serve in combat roles? rory in nashville, tennessee is unsure. caller: good morning. i'm calling down from nashville. i'm not sure what the answer to this question would be. i appreciate the fact you have a separate phone line set up for people like me who don't feel comfortable making that call. it is not my place to decide. i never served. i truly respect and i'm so thankful for those folks who do serve in our military keeping us safe. i know a lot of men who i don't think -- i know a lot of men think would be fit to serve in combat. having said that, i don't personally know any women who i would say are either. i don't think it is appropriate for anyone who has not served in the military to have a strong opinion on that topic.

pete hegseth has served our nation honorably. i will defer to his better judgment. i'm not going to sit here and say i know if he's right or wrong. i do trust his judgment having served. host: harry in lawrenceville, virginia. he says no. caller: good morning america. i feel like women should not even be in the military. definitely not in a combat role. god gave us women. they are feminine. only in america -- do any other countries have women in combat? ma'am? host: say that again, harry. caller: do any other countries have women in combat and in the

military? isn't this only in the united states? host: i can show you this article from 2015 when the announcement was made. the headline is from cnn. women in combat. more than a dozen nations are already doing it including germany, canada, france, israel. all those countries have women and combat as well. -- in combat as well. caller: i didn't even allow my wife to work. i was married. i made enough money. i didn't want my wife in the workforce. host: were you in the military? caller: no. all my brothers were. a lot of my brothers served 30 years. others served 15. i did face the draft and vietnam. i just think women don't need to

be in that position. we love them. they are feminine. host: james in sebring, florida. he says yes. caller: i definitely believe women have an equal part of the military. both sides of my family, male and female, serve the country. one of my cousins is a first lieutenant. she was in desert storm. she was in a combat mode. she came back home fine. i had plenty of uncles that served in the military in world war ii to a nephew that serves now. the opportunity for equal/all, i do. we will not go backward.

please go forward -- we will go forward and say that one not have women? israel, their women's work in the military at 16 years old. and the same in cuba. there military has male in feet -- their military has male and female. thank you for responding but the other countries that do have females in the military. host: rose in illinois is unsure. good morning, rose. caller: thank you for what you do. you are a very attractive young woman. with regards to my decision, i said unsure but now am changing my mind. you might say this is out of the ballpark. it isn't. we had a partner in charge at our law firm in chicago. she was a woman.

the bottom line is for all this is women are too emotional. maybe they can get the job done. maybe they can use a rifle. they can do everything a man can do but a man sticks to the job, is consistent, full of conviction. the woman this temperamental. host: are you still there, rose? caller: i'm here. withegds to what pete h said, i believe he's right. it is distasteful that a woman tries to act like a man. have a wonderful day. host: oscar in spruce pine, north carolina says no. good morning, oscar. caller: am i on? host: you are.

caller: thank you. i'm an 87-year-old retired military veteran. i spent 25 years in service. retired in 1980. i'm what you call the old army. women are definitely of use in service. more or less, in medical roles and stuff like that. in a combat situation there are demands a woman could just not meet. physical demands. besides that, i am old enough to have grown up respecting women, putting them on a pedestal. i think if you are in a foxhole somewhere on a cold night and you are on duty with a woman to guard camp, i don't know how your feelings are going to be towards that woman next to you

instead of paying attention to what is in front of you. i don't think women should be in combat. they definitely have a place for them in service. that is all i got to say. host: during your time in the military did you ever come across a woman who was serving but had expressed an interest in serving in a combat role? caller: back in those days, 1955 to 1980, i never saw a woman and a combat role, no. host: that was oscar. one of the senators, tammy duckworth of illinois, she was on cnn last week. she is an iraq war veteran. she responded to pete hegseth's comments. here is a clip from that interview. [video] >> there are millions of women who served in the military. as someone who has not only served, your helicopter was hit.

you lost your legs and right arm because of it. what went through your mind as a woman who has served when you heard him saying women should not be in combat roles? >> he has shown he's absolutely that she has an absolute lack of experience and suitability for the job. anybody that is the military knows we cannot go to war without over 225,000 women who are serving on active duty right now. the military cannot go to war without female service members. this is not the revolutionary war where there is a line in the sand, combat on one side and the rest of us can stay behind this line. i would ask him, what you think about my legs? i'm pretty sure i was in combat when that happened. it shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare if you think we can keep women behind this imaginary line, which is not the way

warfare is today. host: we are hearing from you asking the question should women serve in combat roles? we are taking your calls. you can send us messages via text and social media. on facebook, jim says, " traditional combat roles, no. women do not belong in the front lines on the ground. i'm not saying they can't fly ansuort aircraft. just not on the ground. pete hegseth is right. we need a non-d military." elsie says, "the woman should be able to do anything sh wants. serving in combat, making the best reproductive choices for her family. " ray on the line for yes. caller: how are you doing? i say yes. a woman can do anything a man

can do. i believe a woman is smarter than men. i was in the military for six years. i have seen men faint getting a needle shot. woman can do just a damage as a man can do. maybe more. i agree a woman is just as good. that is my conviction. why woman? why? whnot a woman? why not a woman in combat? this is 2024. the woman can do anything a man can do. sometimes better. yes. host: that was ray in new york. dennis in wisconsin on the line for no. caller: yes. you want my comment? host: good morning, dennis.

caller: good morning. i could not imagine my wife or daughter or grandchildren -- granddaughters being raped by these wicked men if they are caught as prisoners of war. people would be standing on their wrists and ankles as other men raped them 20, 30, 50 times in one night. no. i would not want any of my daughters -- i would know what any woman to go through such an evil thing is that. host: lacretia in florida says yes. caller: good morning. i'm a disabled army veteran. i was in that first group of women that was breaking into support back in the middle 1970's. i missed vietnam three months --

by three months. i was an expert with the m-16. i qualified with the m-60. i was the last of the wacs. i could climb a rope. i played basketball, softball and football with the boys. my side always one. -- won. i don't understand why men want to think for women. if i could have gone into the combat field, i would have. those guys i was in the service with was not quite as good as i was. i'm tired of been thinking for women. i'm a kennedy kid. he said ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

what is wrong with everybody? me, me, me. i don't understand that. host: how many women did you serve with during your time? caller: oh god, not as many as they probably have today. in the barracks we had one floor . when i was with nato in germany we had four barracks and the woman only filled two of them of the firstor roo. that is how few women we had. host: do you know if combat roles had be open to you and the other woman, but anybody have been interested? caller: there were a few. i know i would have. still -- i'm 67 now. i can still climb trees and everything. when a woman sets her mind to it, it is just like a man.

thank you do anything they want to, let me tell you. i go out every day to see how good i can get at it. host: talking about her experience. joe in, baker, louisiana says no. caller: how are you doing? , 10-year marine combat vet. -- ima 10-year marine combat vet. women already serve in the military that they should not be in line units. i was a ground troop in the infantry. they are already in. let them serve and support. they can be pilots, helicopters, airplanes, jets. they can probably be in artillery as well because they are behind the lines. as far as on the ground doing the hitting and rolling, they

should not be there with us. it is too fast. it is carnage. i don't want to see that done to a female. host: did you say you are active duty? caller: actually yeah. i was active duty and in reserves when i went over. no, they should not be in combat roles as a ground troop like that. they can be support. supply, motor, air wing and stuff like that. not in the ground unit. the end -- grunt units. the infantry units. they were in iraq but they weren't doing patrolling with us and stuff like that. i don't mind female serving -- females serving but they should

not be in the infantry units. host: you are serving in 2015 when secretary carter made the announcement? caller: no, i was out in 2010. i was done. host: stephen in new york is unsure. caller: good morning. i want to take a different take. this whole question. women are serving in combat. if they can obviously perform the whatever duties without the standards being lowered, i don't see a reason why not. the biggest thing is, should a felon be the commander-in-chief of the army and the military? i say no. that is really my take. host: that was stephen in new york. we wanted to show more from pete hegseth's appearance on sean

ryan's podcast earlier this month talking about women serving in combat roles. [video] >> the reason started -- woman started getting in combat is they were integrating a lot of the rear echelon activities into bct's, combat teams deploying forward as an entity. you had women truck drivers or mechanics or on the convoys. they would be ambushed and hit by iud's. now you have women in combat. that is maybe a modern reality of the 360 battlefield. that is different than intentionally saying we will put women into combat roles so they will do the combat jobs of men. knowing we have changed the standards putting them there, which means you have changed the capability of the unit. if you say you have not, you are a liar. everybody knows between bone density and lung capacity and muscle strength that many women

are just different. i'm ok with the idea that you maintain the standards where they are for everybody. if there is some hardcharging female that meets the standard, great. cool. join the infantry battalion. that is not what has happened. the standards have lowered. the general comes by and asks the question. you know the questions with general asks questions. it's a command. lieutenant, captain, major, why aren't there more women interviewed? that means get more women in your unit, now. that moves through the training pipeline. i'm surprised there hasn't been more blowback in the book. i'm saying we should not have women in combat roles. it has not made us more effective or lethal. it has made fighting were complicated. most -- many are pushed into a combat track because they are so highly capable. if they had their first choice

it probably would not be that. an 11 series job, armor or infantry. the marine corps did the study. integrating units did drastically worse than the all-male units. the secretary of the navy in 2015 said fuck your study. we are doing it because the obama administration wanted to. every thing else changed. i'm not saying that seeley point. -- saying that is the only point. imagine the demagoguery if you make the case for scaling back women in combat. as a disclaimer, i'm not into the disclaimer business, we have all served with women and they are great. our instant to shins -- institutions don't have to incentivize that. over human history men in these positions are more capable. host: a little over 30 vets left in this first hour -- 30 minutes

left in the first hour. we are taking calls and getting responses on social media and via text. this coming end from phil in florida. "i believe if women can meet the requirements for combat roles as they were already in existence for male rs whout lowering the standards or requirements to accommodate female soldiers, they should be considered for that combat role ju samas a male soldier. the requiremen are standards for combat soldiers should not be lowered to accommodate female soldiers are any other soldier this is from jueff in massachusetts. "it is not easy. easily quantifiable is there. get as important as t rles that are used. if women can be integrated into the unit without adversely affecting that, so be it." this is from amber in ohio.

"my husband is marine. heaid there is no female marines as train and as qualified as he was. their boot camp just took place at a different place." back to your calls. michael, babylon, new york. yes, women should be allowed to have combat roles. caller: good morning. how are you doing today? i would like to say as far as the women in combat roles, i have to agree with smither hegseth -- mr. hegseth. something america should try, something multiple other nations have tried, we should have female women brigades. have them serve weather specialties and they can qualify and make it in. like the people said, support groups and all that. as far as infantry is concerned, if they qualify, if they can do it, yes. if not, we should never be

lowering military standards. pete hegseth hit that on the head. there is a lot of positive roles women can -- females have different powers that men have. there's a lot of different brigades and specialties they can apply to the battlefield that can be effective, especially in the new style of warfare going on today. that is all i have to say on it. host: bradley in texas says no. good morning, bradley. caller: good morning c-span. i don't agree with the women serving in combat roles. is how they are framing the question for the topic. it should be phrased more like front-line units compared to combat roles itself. like the other gentleman said earlier, the former marine, i was a marine myself. i served on four deployments as a tank commander and section leader. it is difficult to do.

your health comes up first to begin with. a lot of times people come un deployable because of their health being up to part. with women it is more stringent. they have more health issues than men. as far as combat roles and front-line units, those are two different things. women can serve very effectively in support units. you will still face the obstacles of war. for tammy duckworth to say what she said -- it's the way she said it. in some ways she is making kind of a sexist topic. host: are you still in the military? caller: no. i got out in 1993. i was offered money to get up. there were a lot of things going on. the military is becoming a

social experiment. it is driving me nuts. host: that was bradley in texas. i wanted to show statistics about women serving in combat roles. this is coming from military.com, an article said around 30 men are currently serving in army combat roles across infantry, cavalry armor, and field artillery roles. that includes active duty rervand national guard and enlisted and officers. there are fewer than 10 women serving in the army's green beret ut. one womans is advancing through special forces training pipeline. 151 women have gradte from the army ranger school. that is a 60-day coat leadership course. nearly 700 women come early --

currently serve ivarying combat roles, including 112 infantryifmen and 15 arena officers -- marine officers. since 2018, the number of women entering combat roles has more than tripled for enlisted and sixfold for officers. back to your calls. brandon in lancaster, california is unsure. caller: good morning. host: hi brandon. caller: am i coming in clear? host: i can hear you. caller: i served the army in 2015. i got out in late 2018, early 2019. when i was getting out i saw a lot of my female battle buddies being promoted to higher ranks faster than the men. it was whatever.

once i got out, i'm an african american male but i have a hispanic background. i speak a little bit of spanish. my skin color got in the way of me trying to get promoted in the military. long story short, a lot of women started to get in. hi colin the tiktok generation -- the tiktok generation started to take over. that is when i saw the shift. as an african-american, maybe this will benefit me in the end. it didn't. i'm still unsure. a lot of women in the combat capacity were doing well and advancing. if it comes out as defending our country, you will do your job. man, woman, whatever you want to be. i appreciate everyone who is serving. i appreciated my old combat veterans.

you have to make sure to be with your battle buddies. host: it sounded like you started serving with the army right around the time that the announcement was made that combat positions would be opened to women. what was the response from those that you served with? caller: it was really positive. you get a pay increase. people start families. you settle into your role. as a cook we had long hours in the field. the real ones of the once in the infantry -- ones in the infantry. i'm glad i served. i'm done with my bachelors degree with the g.i. bill. i'm proud i serve my country but i think mentally if a woman is

ready to serve in combat she should. i saw a lot of women that did wash out. a lot of dudes washed out. it's about the individual. one thing. if we're going to escalate the war we are in now, i think a lot of people need to ask themselves are they really wanting to get into a situation where you have to actually defend your homeland. thank you. host: that was brandon in california. amanda in georgia says no. caller: good morning. i say no, and i want to make a quick comment. politics should not be in this right now. if you are serving your country, that means you are for your country. i say no. there are a lot of women that go into battles in the army or the

infantry, even policing. we don't stand up to it. if a woman is made out of that material, then maybe. but no. we are not going to stand up to it. i am a strong woman but i would never take myself to do a man's job. i'm not made for that. no matter how hard i tried or how hard i train, i'm not made for that. i can stay at home. i can handle 1000 things at one time at home. i can raise a family, cook, clean, do all that. but i'm too emotional to be in the army. i feel like women are a different type of being. we are intakers. men are stronger than we are.

bodywise and mentally on the battlefield, we are not going to be as quick as a man would to defend the country or defend your family. amanda is just quicker and we are not made for it -- a man is just quicker and we are not made for it. host: john. caller: good morning. it is not unsure or sure. this started way before 2015. i was an instructor in quantico as a marine instructor. even back then, since 2012, we start to get in the first females trying to go through. once i retired and got out, the standards to drop back in 2015. that is the ultimate factor that

ended up leading to more women. from there and the other branches as well. the issue is not only are women able to pass easily, because at that time none had passed, but there's a lot of males along with that. there was a lot of males that should not be in this combat roles. they cannot meet the original standards. if that makes sense. host: what happens to those individuals, to men who maybe don't meet the qualifications? are they put into combat roles? caller: negative. there are two different options. if the drop on request, they are not afforded an opportunity to come back. if they get dropped for academic, or let's say -- they could not be something

physically, they are afforded that opportunity to come back and retry. i don't remember the numbers. some do come back and into passing. some come back and they get recycled and do not pass unfortunately. that goes for males and females. the sad truth is that has it opened up a can of worms, not with just females but males that should not be in those roles to this day. host: that was john in virginia talking about his experience and the current defense secretary lloyd austin was asked about president trump's defense secretary nobody pete hegseth and his comments about women serving in combat roles. [video] >> your proposed successor pete hegseth has spoken and written

extensively about women in combat. how women should not be in combat and are judgment to u.s. combat units. what is your response to that? what is your message to women in the military who feel their services being questioned? >> i don't know the potential nobody. i cannot comment -- i won't comment on anything he said. i don't know what his experiences are. i can tell you about my experiences with women in the military and in combat. they are pretty good. i told the story earlier today where when i was a one star, deputy commander of the third infantry division. you remember the third infantry division was a major element that conducted the attack or assault from kuwait all the way up to baghdad. it was sentimental in taking the city of baghdad.

i was the deputy commander. i was at the front edge of the battle. my goal was to be in a position where i could see and feel the fight. that meant i had to be right there, right behind the lead elements and i was. in my headquarters and command post were several very courageous and very proficient women who did amazing things to support our effort and support their colleagues. in my three tours, three long tours to iraq and one tour in afghanistan, every place i went there were women doing incredible things. they were adding value to the overall effort. whether it was pilots, operational experts, intel experts. i see things differently. i see that because of my experience. that expands is extensive.

-- experience is extensive. i women at significant value to the u.s. military and we should never change that. if i had a message to answer your question two are women, i would say -- i would tell them we need you. we have faith in you. we are appreciative of your service. you add value to the finest and most lethal fighting force on earth. other than that i have not thought much about it. [laughter] host: about 15 minutes left in the first hour. should women serve in combat roles? john in rochester, new york says yes. caller: good morning to you. thank you for taking the call. most definitely yes, women should serve in combat roles. as a matter of fact, they should be drafted too. if that is where the motivations

lay and whether skill sets are trained, come the next big war a woman can go in my place if they are so motivated. host: did you serve in the military? caller: no. i was amongst the generation that fell between -- born during the early parts of the vietnam war and then raised up through the 1970's and 1980's. in the wake of the vietnam war recruiters did not even come around my high school. no one was interested in anything like that from everything that had gone on in vietnam. that whole situation. nobody. there was nobody i graduated high school with that poked around the military. a couple of people later on. the military was the last resort.

different than now. i'm almost 60. the vietnam weighed heavily. that was a heavy deal. that is what i say if they want to be in combat, god bless them. they should be able to be drafted too. that does not get talked about. everybody within the age of 18 and 26 should be eligible to be drafted. host: jim from north dakota says no. caller: hi. are you reading me? host: hi. caller: let's start off with visualizing a historical hypothetical. there were 22,000 japanese duggan at iwo jima. it took a marine's 30 full days to take them. the take me out sarah bocce the flag raising was -- mount sarah

urabachi. if we landed about 20,000 women on that beach the first wave or two, 45,000 women, 18 to 25 euros women ---year-old women, when they -- would they be able to burn them alive with flamethrowers? they never would have gotten off the beach. you might say that is different. that was back then. combat is still the same thing. you have to have the physical taking of a position. with more high-tech weapons, yes, but it's not a videogame. i agree about the draft. i still see that big sign. it says 18-year-old men. uncle sam wants you. you must register when you turn 18. we have that debate every couple of years. the women and congress never move it forward. -- in congress. women are not registering for

selective service. that is the starting point. let's start with that. think about conscription. they used to call the draft conscription. civil war, the world wars, vietnam. women talked about how they don't have control of their bodies into losing her bodily autonomy. men never had bodily autonomy. millions of young men were taken against their will by the government. their bodies used and taken to foreign lands all the way through unpopular war in vietnam. 1.5 million died before they were 21. they had no control over their bodies. the government took them and drafted them, millions of them is over the last 150 years. men never have control over their bodies. they are taken against their will. they are not even old enough to drink a beer but they are taken to a foreign land and used by the government in a meatgrinder. women should think about that and have gratitude for the 1.5

million men that died in our wars. some have died in our wars and we have a lot of strong great women. i see them everyday in grand forks. we have several air force bases here. i know women are great pilots and great things like that. our american women are the best, smartest and most beautiful and toughest woman in the world. i just don't think combat would be the answer for them. then again, they are already involved. let's start with selective service. let's talk about the draft. if there is an export coming. -- a next war coming. host: kathleen in pittsburgh, pennsylvania says yes. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have more faith in the military to believe they would assign somebody to combat that was not qualified. women should be able to serve in

any way they wish and that they are qualified for. thank you very much for the tammy duckworth segment. i have seen thatefore. i saw that interview. she was very gracious. if anybody should be insulted by saying should not be in combat, it should be her. sh. ly gave quite an ultimate sacrifice. i just can't understand what is up with women these days. pete has a real problem with women, i think. just remember that we have women police officers that are on the ground every day. in some of the cities do not think that is combat? we are firefighters. women should be able to do what they are qualified to do. they don't want to be in their 50's -- the 1950's where they can be the secretary but not the

lawyer. i don't understand what is going on. i really believe women should be able to do what they are qualified to do. host: that was kathleen in pennsylvania. jay in woodlawn, tennessee on the line for unsure. caller: kathleen said the most funniest thing i have heard in my 22 years of army infantry. women being cops is nowhere near compared to being in combat infantry. you had to be able to carry 80 pounds on your back for 25 miles, if not more than that.

walking at a speed of 5, 10 in that. the menu sir with, they have to -- the men you serve with, they have to be able to depend on you, that you will not slack out. why i say unsure is yes, if a woman can do it, come on. go for it. but i have yet to see a woman that can do that type of job and hang with. when i say hang with it, i may not start crying because your heart -- you are hurt. host: you say you have been in the army for how many years/ ? caller: 22 years. i served in the infantry.

i was with the 101st airborne. i was with the 10th mountain. i spent time in germany with mechanized. host: was it before 2015? caller: yes. i went in in 1987. i got out in 2019. i was let out on medical discharge. that is another thing. the infantry tears her body down. after serving that long, your body is no longer the same as when you first went in. host: you were serving in a combat role on this announcement was made back in 2015 that women could take combat roles.

what was the reaction with the people you are serving with? caller: most of the men i served with believe -- they shook their heads. the problem is you have politicians and people who had never served a day in combat in their lives. they want to sound good to everybody and be politically correct. men in the infantry today, i don't know. a lot of them probably are ok with it. but again, the army today compared to when i was in is nowhere near the same.

it has changed so much. host: tim is on the no line. go ahead. caller: i have a book here called "the amazons," a nonfiction book. the lives and legends of warrior women across the ancient world. this woman and her team dug up ancient burial sites throughout russia and other countries around there. she is describing the weapons and the skeletal remains of the women warriors. a lot of times they were allied with their husbands.

sometimes they were special or separate amazon barbarian women fighters who fought along. 978-0-691-14720-8. before they could become part of these barbarian vans, they had to kill a man by themselves before they could be accepted into the infantry of the barbarian tribes. granted that was 1000 years ago or whatever. the writings about the greeks engaging with amazon women were

true. it is worthwhile to note when the amazon women fought with their own groups without combined armies, the men barbarian tribes which were probably next, when they confronted a heavy greek armor they got wiped out. there were warrior women who were totally into being warriors . that is all this basically -- those people basically did all the time. practice with her bow and arrow, spears, horses. they had a significant equalizer back then called horses. everybody.

it was somewhat of an equal advantage to a man because of the powerful horse. host: tim talking about the history of women. there's an article on the uso from february last year. over 200 years of service, the history of women in the u.s. military. this is not specifically related to combat but it talks about women in u.s. history dating back to the revolutionary war. jean in ridgewood, new jersey. caller: hello. i wanted to contribute a memory from world war ii when the soviet woman sniper came through our town on a national war bond tour. 500 kills and she saved the soviet city. in terms of standards now, i have a feeling looking at the

first war in iraq that standards were beginning to erode in some ways because of recruitment problems. there were more young men who preferred -- then to put on uniforms. the biggest issue is what makes a force ready for the united states in perilous times. women have a lot to contribute and they should be allowed to be in of the service where they can be promoted. that means some will begin combat roles. i think they will do well. host: that was jean in new jersey. cabin as the last call for this hour from connecticut. caller: good morning. women play important roles, particularly in world war ii. the men were off to work, they made the factories. ironworkers, electricians.

like the last caller said, the women were snipers in world war ii. hitler and japan declared war on the u.s. that is when they pulled together. the woman had to go into german towns and get information. women are in the cia during spy work and all that -- doing spy work. hegseth was lucky. when he was in war we had nato allies. whoever joins the service now, now we have to wonder who will be allies with this we get into problems now. i think that should go back to fox news --hegseth should go back to fox news. he doesn't have the morals to have a job like that. happy holidays to everybody. host: that was kevin, the last

caller for this hour. up next, brendan pedersen from punch bowl news joins us to talk about congressional efforts to increase competition in the credit card market and what it means for consumers. later, joel berg of hunger free america will break down the organization's annual survey on hunger in the u.s. and discuss why food insecurity is rising. we will be right back. ♪ >> all weekend book tv will be live with the miami book fair. coverage begins at 10 a clock eastern on saturday an11:00 a.m. eastern on sunday. pilots include stacey abrams, author of "stacy speaks up," cara swisher, malcolm gladwell and an author roundtable

featuring stephen king. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a physicist explains the search for life outside of earth in his book, "is earth exceptional?" 100 p.m. eastern, stephanie gordon shares her book the icon and idealist which looks at the lives of rivalry between two key figures in the early movement for birth control and reproductive rights. she's interviewed by uc davis school of law professor mary ziegler. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a, peggy noonan from the wall street journal and former speechwriter for president reagan talks about her book, "a certain idea of america," a

collection of her columns. she discusses her time working in the white house and her career in radio after graduating from college. >> walter cronkite was the answer of the cbs -- anchor of the cbs news. he had a radio show. everyday he did a radio commentary. when dale minor was off on vacation i became one of the people who said and for him. when i was filling in for dale, who was ready for cronkite, cronkite took vacation. dan rather came in. dan became the anchor at cbs and i became his daily radio writer of his commentary, fabulous job. it was like doing a column everyday. >> peggy noonan with her book, "a certain idea of america," sunday night on c-span's q&a.

you can listen to all of our podcasts on the free c-span now app. >> the house will be in order. >> c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government. all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span. 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us down to discuss competition and the credit card market is brendan pedersen, a financial services reporter for punchbowl news. thank you for being here. the senate judiciary had a

meeting on competition and the credit card market. what was the crux of the meeting and who did they hear from? guest: dick durbin has been beating this drum for a while. he is a proponent of introducing measures in the credit card market to try to bring down swipe fees, the cost of processing a transaction. they are what the bank makes for making the transaction happen between a person at a company. in the data states it is high relative to the rest of the world. the average fee is around 2%. a little under that. in europe, they are capped at .3%. retailers are paying a lot more to do basic transactions than their counterparts in europe. what durbin has been trying to do with his judiciary perch is bring in members from the credit card industry itself. we heard from representatives of

mastercard, including president linda kirkpatrick, and the advisor to the ceo of esa and retail advocates to talk about what is going on a credit card markets. long story short, it was a bit of a drumming for the banking industry. we saw a lot of members say your swipe fees are too high, including bank advocates like senator thom tillis who was close to the industry in north carolina, and john kennedy. both serve on the senate banking committee. what we are seeing is a world in which more people are willing to

they might try to pass that on to you in one way or another. for the most

>>they have a ton of clout.

said they don't, they're relatively junior still. before donald trump himself went on the campaign trail card rates and said we would have a cap of 10% on interest rates, his campaign reached out to follow's office to talk about the best way with this issue. i think we are in a moment in which we are... the status quo definitely benefits banks. there is a really h

any time it happens. these are the really big guys, walmart, amazon, target. retailers will love to save money on their fees. banks would tell you there is no guarantee that they would pass along those benefits to consumers and more importantly, look, we use these profit margins. they also have all these credit card points and things like that. people love their credit card rewards and they say if you do big moves in the credit card market you will be taking away people's benefits. i think there is something it is clear that something has to get in this space. >> we are talking with brendan peterson financial services director about the credit card

market if you have a question for him you can start calling in now. if you're in the eastern or central time zone, 2027488001. you can also send us a question via text. something you mentioned is the credit card competition act, that have been introduced. it is still being considered. wao share some provisions of that. it would require credit issuers with assets over 100 billion to at least two credit card networks to be used on their credit least one of which must be at outside of the two large networks, nd mastercard. it prohibits t card

issuers to pose restrictions on uting of electronic payments such as failures to meet a certain threshold of payment on a credit card network. one of the things that they were talking about with that act is the impact to consumers. how would that affect consumers? the potential of losing rewards or points? >> i think it is to a certain extent an open question. there is something in the services space called the durban amendment which was introduced in the final hours of negotiating. it was an amendment on the floor when democrats briefly lost control of the floor. durban got this amendment in at two or three in the morning and it capped the

swipes fees of debit card. what happened after that, debit card awardswhich is to be a thing kind of went away. there are a lot of studies trying to assess what exactly happened with the durbin amendment, they were studies that found that retailers did not pass a lot of those costs on it is a hard thing to measure. were also in a different moment with credit cards because they represent a larger share of volume today and look at reports, the way that things happen in this country have changed since the pandemic. at the end of the day, consumers could save some money if retailers choose to pass laws. >> we will go to our callers. rod, you are up first.

rod: good morning. i had a question about some vendors offering discounts on cash payment and some do not.some retailers commented that it would be against the agreement they have with the credit card company to offer discounts. my question now, is that still the case that it is against the basic agreement? or are the people that offer discounts breaking the agreement by doing it? >> that's a great question. i do think it probably depends based on the retailer. i see those signs too. i was in upstate new york a month ago and there was a sandwich shop in new york that was very mom and pop if they had a big sign on the counter that they offer a 6% cash discount. i didn't have cash so i didn't get the

discount. but yeah, you see it all over the place. i think a lot of the larger retailers have those sort of agreements that you built in. i don't have a lot of information about that specifically but i think it is a testament to just how serious some of these fees are because i was just reading one of the releases from the electronic payments coalition which is one of these groups that is trying to fit the durban marshall credit card competition act. they said look, retailers actually do save money when they use credit cards by convenience. we process payments so much more quickly than we can with cash. processing cash takes hours. there is some validity to that but when you zoom out at a global level, when you have businesses offering cash discounts is part of a larger problem. joe: good morning. i'm a farmer

in iowa. we have several things that we see because of our input costs, fertilizers, those kinds of things.my question is how long has this type of legislation been trying to be formulated to fix the problem if there is not an effective monopoly which i believe there is. also, when sen. holly cox, from him i would imagine he did not want to create problems to the redit card folks that are in front of you.i would imagine you probably got money for 's campaign for people with big money. so this is not being solved. please explain exactly what it would solve and why it is not happening. why is it not

being grabbed onto? it stops the monopoly wise and everybody happy about it? >> i will say this at the onset, visa and mastercard together on a really big share of the market. these are separate companies, it's important to remember. if people in the state are calling anything it is usually a duopoly. the zones about 52% market share of credit card payments in the united states, mastercard has closer to 22% which is still the second largest player but there is a bit of a gap between the two. we actually saw this play out in the senate judiciary which is fascinating. linda fitzpatrick, the president of mastercard actually made a point of saying like i'm a look, the department of justice has said that we are not a concern and we are a smaller guy than this one. she didn't actually point at the visa ceo but there is more scrutiny on

visa but mastercard has also brought on by working often in tandem with visa. they often raise their prices around the the same time which strikes people as duopoly stick behavior. like you said earlier, the act released in 2022. right now most credit card transactions, merchants have optionsof who ultimately pays only processes the transactions which have different needs. most of the time some of the credit cards in most cases that are offered in this country, the options are visa or mastercard which is not much of a choice which is why people believe the fee has gotten so high. what durbin and marshall is trying to do is say okay, we have these two guys, you're

going to mandate that operators over $100 billion, we are going to make you offer a third choice of payment, one of these smaller companies which will have lower fees, the idea being that it will bring a lot of competition into the market. i said before there is some skepticism among economists about how exactly this would work and how the savings would pass along to customers but that is where we are headed. i shouldn't say that's where we are headed because the obstacle to durbin marshall in congress are the same obstacles that exist for any meaningful visa legislation. durbin and holly do not agree on a lot but they do agree on credit card fees. this is a bill that banks are trying to keep from the floor in general because we never actually made this particular class of lawmakers choose between the banking industry and the retail industry. remember, those are two of the most powerful and oldest

conglomerates in the country. >> the credit card competition act has been hanging out there in a while, there's only a few weeks left in the current legislative session. what is the expectation for what can happen between now and then and what can happen in the future if it doesn't pass? >> we are in the session of congress right now, having conversations about what legislation might make it into a year—end package the credit card competition act often gets talked about at this time of year. i'm skeptical it is going to happen. it is a very controversial legislation. i have heard dick durbin say he is going to try to offer an amendment. i believe that amendment will have a 60 vote threshold to even be considered so it is highly unlikely that it will happen but it really

depends on what majority leader chuck schumer wants to do about it. there are other financial services legislation in the mix, including regulation to regulate crypto. they could in theory lower the voting threshold for it to be considered as an amendment. we are talking about crypto at the end of the year, we might also start having a very intense conversation about credit cards. we will keep you posted. otherwise, it will probably get punted to the next congress. >> lucas in pearl city, hawaii. lucas: it's really here in hawaii, i can't sleep. one of the things keeping me up is

credit card debt. i get paid, i make more than minimum wage but i find myself stuck in a never ending cycle. i get paid once a month's i put $1000 on one, 500 on another, 750 on another but i find myself each month just using the credit cards instead of my income. it's a never ending cycle. do you foresee anything, this might be wishful thinking on my part in many other americans part because i know i'm not alone. do you see any impactful action coming from the incoming demonstration to help people like me are stuck in the cycle? not poverty but just stuck in this kind of hamster wheel of credit card debt? >> like i said before, president—elect trump on the campaign trail did say that they were going to credit card interest rates at 10%. there is a reason you may not have heard about that it is because there

was not a lot of handwringing in the press about it because there is not a lot of expectation that trunk will make a real, meaningful run that. let me say this. we are adding pretty unsettled, uncertain economic moment, especially as far as democrats are concerned. it was pretty clear that democrat economic messaging did not work all that well this time around. i have been having conversations with lawmakers in the senate for a while. someone i talked to lottie sen. elizabeth warren who is now on track to be the next top democrat on the senate banking committee. brown in ohio is the criterion got knocked out of his race in ohio. warren is going to be in the majority. she told me this week that she supports a 10% on

credit card interest rates. it was a little bit of a troll because she was saying about trump, he said on the campaign trail, i can't believe that donald trump would say anything he didn't mean on the campaign trail. on the one hand, a little bit of a troll but there is also something happening among progress bernie sanders has said that he wants to work with trump on a 10% interest rate. people are thinking about credit card issues in a different way in credit card debt is a real problem in this country. it is very expensive. for military veterans, there actually is a credit card of about 36% for veterans under military lending act. can we apply that to more consumers? can we do something even lower? i think it is very possible in

something we are going to be thinking about in the weeks and years ahead. but someone like elizabeth warren understands policy really well, that is a change in how we talk about this. >> the question context from dave in new york. something you touched on earlier, please mention the impact of rewards programs on swipe fees. >> it is sort of the banking sectors card fight. people love their credit card rewards, they really do. people frequently lean on their credit card rewards to pay for vacations and flights and meals, all sorts of things. it is a pretty meaningful part of how people interact with the economy. i was listening to a random comedy podcast last night. someone said they would rather

retain their credit card points and go to a free concert which is an interesting little wrinkle in terms of how people talk about this. would they go away if dick durbin got his way? i think it is fair to assume that they would not change because credit cards can offer these kinds of rewards unless they are making bonkers profit. those profits are coming at the expense of retailers. we as a society have to make a decision between one of the two things. the potency of the rewards of the rewards question is a testament to how incredibly enmeshed rewards are in this economy. the airline companies are some of the biggest opponents of credit card competition act because airline pilots make so

much money -- airlines make so much money off of affiliate relationships with banks and credit card companies. a lot of airlines make more money through their rewards programs with banks then they do find planes. there is a joke that airlines are just banks for credit card companies that have planes. it is a fair question and i think it is the one thing that banks have at their back that has a meaningful connection to consumers. we cannot also ignore the effect that these fees are having on retailers so we will see. host: jason in pennsylvania. good morning, jason. caller: good morning. the anchor for taking my call. i am really into -- thank you for taking my call. i am really enjoying this. a little bit of a different angle on the credit card points, talking about a lot of consumers who love their credit card points. but one of the things i think about, and i am guilty of this, of using my points is when i go

to the american express lounge at the airport or use miles to upgrade to first class or whatever it is. that's a real damaging, direct damage to the poorer people who literally have to pay a higher credit card fees and it becomes this vicious cycle, right? where we have people who don't get these larger points and it's almost like benefiting, it's like a rich get richer, poor get poorer problem. i hear what you say about consumers may not liking the fact that these points might go away but i feel like there's an inherent social problem as social cost beyond just the money that we are seeing with the waypoints, reward systems have grown so popular in our culture. brendan: i think that's a fair point. i think in a lot of ways, i keep talking about pandemic. i think in a lot of ways the pandemic has sort of forced a recognition how we think about money -- reckoning and how we think about money and all the

things -- these things. the fact there is a war happening in congress right now over their future, i think it sort of underscores just how significant the stakes are for a lot of people, and also the industry fighting over it in the first place. i think just to reiterate what i said about liz warren, progresses our thinking about this in a different way than they have before. i think people have sort of taken for granted the status quo about how credit cards work in this country and the costs that are imbibed within them. i think it's important to say, however, that credit cards are often times the only form of credit that, like, folks of a lower social strata have access to. we talk a lot about access to credit. something that's important with a credit card, being able to front a $400 payment you don't have right now to pay for a broken down car, that's a real phenomenon.

we do not necessarily want to lock out the poor from credit at all. there are people who generally believe that if durbin got his weight, and it's not just points, but we have these really significant interventions in the credit card market, the ability for lower income folks or people with bad credit scores to access basic credit instruments would deteriorate. but on the other hand, there are others who would say, look, why do we have banks in the business of exacting 30% interest off of these folks when, you know, if there is a social need here, if we want our society to be able to afford that 400 are payments to their car repair place, why not have the government do that? have you ever heard of the postal banking? postal banking is this idea that let's let the u.s. postal service and all locations offer small cost loans. the government does not need to make money. they can offer it as a service. banks despise this idea.

post office is huge and represents a lot of retail competition but those are the sort of interventions we are talking about. who should be doing this? do we want credit cards doing this work? or should the government? that is a fair and open question right now. host: jim in georgia. caller: good morning mr., is it stephenson? brendan: we will take it. caller: i have three questions. one is, do you think that the fee with the truck, the -- the increasing per valence of credit card processing, paper money will become a lost art? printing paper money will become a lost art by the government? second question is, what would these smaller credit card companies look like? how would that play out? third question is, regarding,

regarding customer loyalty programs, do you think these points will be or are in competition with customer loyalty programs. i used to work at a place where they would give you points if you bought, you get a 1% point, you get one point for every dollar you spend. after a while, you could redeem those points and it was just at that retail location, it was not anywhere else. those are my three questions. brendan: cool. we will take them one at a time. i don't think that cash is going away anytime soon. you know, people like cash. it is nice. it's convenient. paypal and then mow and -- paypal and venmo and zelle are also convenient but there are some things that people just prefer to use cash on. i don't see that going away. there's always a little bit of

backlash whenever a store tries to tell people know more cash, because again, it does tend to lean on the poorest among us. there is more cash usage in that strata. i don't see that going away. but certainly it is changing and we are going to see how that goes. your second question, the smaller companies. it's sort of hard to say because there are a number of smaller payments processors out there. it is sort of hard to know who would leap into the lurch once this bill came through. important to remember there is a major credit card merger happening right now between discover financial and capital one. they will overnight become a pretty big credit card player, i think may be the biggest if this deal goes through which has not been approved yet. it's kind of hard to generalize how this would all shake out until we know what that merger looks like. last question, customer loyalty. i think it is a fair question.

i think customer loyalty tends to be so localized, and the fact that credit card reward points tend to be more, i don't know, they are a little bit like easier to use generally for different things. like chase travel or whatever. that it's kind of hard for me to say, i don't think customer loyalty programs would be affected by this legislation. host: we have a few minutes left with our guest, brendan pedersen , talking about competition in the credit market. you can find the hearing online at c-span.org. up next, gilbert in birmingham, alabama. good morning, gilbert. caller: good morning to your guest and the c-span audience. i would like to echo the sentiments of the guy from hawaii. but on another note, this credit card interest reduction act that senator hawley proposed and the president is talking about reducing interest rate on credit card. you know, the american taxpayers and voters, they allowed these

big megabanks back during the big financial crisis. but what do we get? usery and? highway robbery. these interest rates from 22% to 36% is no less than a threat to the national economy. the american public needs relief. and i am not so naïve to think that that can't be bipartisan -- there can't be bipartisan legislation passed in congress that they wouldn't do this for the american people. without this, these banks will bring the whole american public and our economy down. do you support the credit card reduction interest-rate act as an amendment? doesn't that sound pretty good to you? it's good to think about the swipe fees, but it is the interest rates that's killing the american public. brendan: yeah. i think it's a great question, honestly. we are going to see how the next few years shake out.

i've said this for a number of years now, i think the last 15 or so years of like financial services news, lobbying, policy regulation has already evolved around the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. the dodd frank act made a lot of changes and we have been sort of fighting about the applications of the ever since. i think we are entering a new era. i have been saying this for a while. it is sort of uncertain what the faultlines and the battle lines are going to be. as a rule, though, i will say it's really rare to get financial services legislation done in this congress and in general outside of the crisis of some kind. the retailers being squeezed by swipe fees or consumers being squeezed by debt, those are problems obsolete, but they are slow burn crises. it takes like this dramatic episodes to really draw the

lawmaker attention, get them to lock in and do anything about anything. and then it also requires a sort of concerted pressure to get any legislation along the finish line. we've seen the pressure. retailers want this. banks are i think getting a little nervous about this. but i think it will take a bit more dramatic of a something to get us to a point where we are going to be thinking about this more sincerely. and that is unfortunately just how congress works. host: keith in peter's town, west virginia. good morning. caller: i was just calling in. thank you for taking my call. i was just calling in as former business owners, we were in the building supply business. and our credit card fees were, as a business, were we .5%. and so, you get folks coming and playing -- paying with their credit card after they have beat

you down on the price of something that you are not making much on anyway, and then they without a card -- whip out a card, so you say uh oh, there goes 3.5%, 4% of that. we had enacted a convenience fee basically trying to cover some of our costs. and we noticed things after the covid, as you say, a lot of young people do not carry cash. so, you are automatically footing the bill. so, i would just pass that along as a business owner. i mean, it is, you cannot absorb but so much cost. so, i thank you for taking my call in. brendan: yeah. i mean, you hear these stories a lot. and that's not to say that, like, these anecdotes are

perfectly flat tunable across the united states but suffice to say you hear these stories a lot, people see those convenience fees and this kind of dovetails into something the biden administration has been fighting in a different arena but related, is this like crusade against junk fees, which takes on a lot of different forms. that is something the consumer financial protection bureau has work -- been working on. it's something the federal trade commission has been working on under lina khan. they want to make it harder for businesses to charge renda fees at the end of transactions. but in your case, as you said, a convenience fee might not be so junkie. that might be a way of you trying to protect your bottom line or just make this business work when you're been squeezed from a bunch of different angles. it kind of gets into just how hard some of these market interventions are when it comes to lowering costs. the government can do a lot but there are always weird downstream consequences so we

have to sort of go in with our eyes open and hope for the best. host: time for one last call. rick in texas. good morning. caller: i was calling, first off, with the credit cards, and the old days the kind of interest they charged, they basically called loansharking. it amazes me. i take advantage of the credit card system with the 0% interest. i've been doing for 30 years. i will get a credit card for zero, i will use it then the last six months i get another card at zero and i pay that off. to be honest, i take advantage of the system. for 30 years, i'd buy stuff on 30% interest. a lot of my card is paid off by the interest kicks in. and the old days, you go to a mobster, they charged you the kind of interest that was called loansharking. but like i said, there is an advantage, the loopholes, 0% interest, and you can take advantage of it as long as your

card is paid off. i do it consistently but i got a good line of credit. i think my credit score is like 858 or something. but anyways, that's it. brendan: i can appreciate that. i think there's always ways to go around the margins here. again, there's a lot of people who can use credit card balances responsibly. and that's one of the arguments here -- i hear from the industry. a lot. why are we penalizing the many people use their credit card balances, who get those points, who cash them to go to boca raton or whatever? look, fees, interest rates, that's banks' way of trying to ensure that people are paying. you have to make sure that credit cards are unsecured lines of credit. you are not like putting up a bunch of collateral like your house to get that credit card. the bank is taking on a certain amount of interest, are sorry, a certain amount of risk. those higher rates are sometimes a reflection of those higher risks. but again, when you're talking

about, you know, over 30% interest, it's not common, but it's not unusual, or it's not unheard of, that is what some people, including bernie sanders, would call usury. and it has gotten their attention. host: brendan pedersen is a financial services reporter for punch wonders. thank you so much for being -- punch bowl news. thank you so much for being with a spear next, we will be joined by joel berg of hunger free america. he's going to break down his organization's annual survey on hunger and the u.s. and discuss why food insecurity is rising. we will be right back. ♪ >> all weakened, book tv brings you live to the miami book fair. highlights include stacey abrams, author of the children's book "stacey speaks up," caret

swisher and her book malcolm gladwell with revenge of the tipping point and an author roundtable featuring dave barry, mischa alum and stephen king. astrophysicist mario lidia explains the search for life outside of earth in his book, is earth exceptional? on afterwords, stephanie gordy shares her boothe icon and the idealist, which looks at the lives and rivalry between two key figures in the early movement for birth control and reproductive rights. she's interviewed by uc davis school of law professor mary zigler. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule under program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> boston considered himself a full-time lawyer and a full-time historian. . 's latest book is called how the best did, leadership lessons

from the top residents. he chose the first four of eight off the face of mount rushmore. in addition, mr. boston shows 24 distinct leadership traits he says were exhibited by these presidents. the other four presidents, by the way, included in his best leadership category are fdr, dwight eisenhower, john f. kennedy and ronald reagan. 71-year-old talmage boston lives in dallas, texas. >> lawyer and historian talmage boston with his ow the bested, leadership lessons from a top residents on this episode ofooknotes+. booknotes+ is available on the c-span now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates

45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979, we've been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us not to discuss food insecurity in the u.s. is joel berg, the ceo of hunger free america. welcome to the program. joel: good morning. host: thank you for joining us. can you start by telling us about your organization, the mission, and who you work with? joel: hunger free america is a nonpartisan, national nonprofit organization that works to enact the programs and policies necessary not just to ameliorate the problem but to end hunger in america once and for all. our motto is ending hunger lifts

us all because ending hunger would lift us up spiritually, ethically as a nation, but also would dramatically help our economy because hungry workers are more economically productive. hungry students do less well in school. i'm sorry, less hungry workers, more nourished workers are more economically productive. nourished students do better in school. you must be fueled. to be well read, you need to be well fed. we run the national hunger hotline and americans can call us at 1-866-3-hungry to get help to be connected with a private or government source of food. we help people access govern assistance programs like snap, wic, and school meals. we better utilize bond tears in the fight against hunger using professional skills to make a bigger impact. we have an americorps vista program, which is based create domestic peace corps helping organizations around the country build their capacities to fight hunger. we have a new workforce

development program funded generously by the albertsons company foundations to help people access jobs and social services so they have a better living so they don't need food support for the long-term. and finally, we are in advocacy and policy organization. because ultimately, the way to end hunger in america is to make sure we have economic opportunity for all and people have a living wage and can afford the cost of living and food. anyone who wants more information can go to our website at hungerfreeamer ica.org. host: you report coming out and you will hear the phrase food insecure. explain what that means and how many people fall under that category? joel: food insecure is a totally wonka's term coined by the federal government. i can never explain it to my late mother what it meant. in english, it means people struggling against hunger. it means people choosing between food and medicine and rent. it means people rationing food.

it means parents going without food to feed their children. it means people buying less healthy food because it is more affordable than healthier food. we generally do not have starvation in the united states like you might see in the sudan are parts of central america with people literally dying in the streets. we used to have that in the depression and before we had a safety net. but the level of hunger we do have in the united states is appalling. we are a nation with this -- appalling for a nation with this much economic wealth and this much agricultural abundance. according to usta, the number of americans living in food insecure households, and we crunched these numbers ourselves based on raw data, increased from 34 million in 2021 to 47 million in 2023. that's a 40% hike. we can go into why that is we believe. there is a different way of the

federal government counting hundred and the census bureau asks, do you have enough food? between 2021 and 2024, there is a 55% increase in the number of americans who just did not have enough food. whether you measure whether they have enough food or whether you have food insecure households, you can see a really sharp rise in hunger over the last few years in america. and just to put this in perspective, what does 47 million food insecure americans even mean? that's more than the combined total populations of the states of pennsylvania, illinois, ohio, and virginia. so unfortunately, we are suffering a food insecurity crisis in the nation. host: your organization will be releasing its annual report next week. your office shared some of the new numbers from it and it found that americans who did not have enough to eat over two one week periods increased by mother 55% between august and september of 2021 and august and september of this year.

you touched on it. what are some of the factors for that increase, that sharp increase? joel: let me say, many americans sort of assume that if you're hungry, you are homeless. their mental picture of who is hungry in america is person with a sign, "i will work for food," or someone panhandling on a subway or streetcorner. but 99% of the people in america who are hungry or food insecure are not homeless, they just don't earn enough to feed their families. today in america, one in six children, one in 10 employed adults, and one in 20 all americans struggled with hunger in 2021 to 2023. one in five u.s. children so the stereotypes of who is hungry are a misperception by most americans. we think the cause of the

increasing hunger is a number of factors. first and foremost, the expiration of pandemic era benefits. there was a sharp increase in cash going to low and middle income americans through the child tax credit. . that expanded child tax credit was ended. there was an expansion of the snap program. it used to be called the food stamps program. that expansion ended. there were universal school meals that particularly helped rural and suburban communities. and those universal school meals ended and when you combine that with the cost of inflation, not just food inflation, but housing inflation, health-care inflation, as your last guest was talking about, credit card fees, that are as to -- adds to an affordability crisis in america. the growing hunger in america is not just this little miche issue -- niche issue, it's a marker of

the decline of the middle class more broadly. beyond the people struggling to put food on the table, we have countless markets who can no longer afford a down payment on a first home, can no longer afford to start a small business, can no longer afford to save for retirement, can no longer afford to send their kids to higher education. hunger and food insecure, really the canary is in the coal mine that really help us understand a broader problem with the u.s. economy and our social services and a broader decline of what was the strong american middle class. host: we are talking with joel berg. he is the ceo of hunger free america. if you have a question or comment for him, he can start calling you now. the lines for this segment, they are regional. if you're in the eastern or central time zone, it is (202) 748-8000. nonspecific, it is -- mountain pacific, it is (202) 748-8001. if you're experiencing food

insecurity, there's is a line for you. it is (202) 748-8002. and a reminder, you can also send us text messages at (202) 748-8003. something that you mentioned, the number of children who are considered hungry, food insecure in the u.s. this headline omhe ohio capital journal, majority of ohioans are in favor of universal free school meal programs, according to a poll. you mentioned that they were, some of them were put in place and are no longer because the pandemic has ended. but how could programs like that, universal school lunches, impact food insecurity? joel: well, let me say first, hunger used to be a bipartisan issue and we desperately needed to become a bipartisan issue again. people like richard nixon, the late great senator bob dole, and thad cochran, a conservative

republican from mississippi all were great champions of antihunger programs and we need to go back to a time where all parties embrace a robust set of programs to end hunger in america. when thad cochran was head of the senate agriculture appropriations committee, he said he believed enacting universal school meals would actually save the federal government money over time, because you would eliminate this massive paperwork that teachers need to collect, that schools need to collect, that school districts need to collect, that state education departments need to collect, and then usda needs to collect. and i point out, we have been universal programs in public schools. i grew up in a suburb of new york city, and frankly played pretty mediocre jv soccer. i was better on the debate team then the soccer team. but my school district gave me free jersey. many students get a free ride to school on a school bus.

many get free use of lab equipment, get free use of textbooks. and arguably, nutritious breakfast and lunches are more important for the education experience, more important to ensuring educational excellence than all. those other things are. it makes good antihunger sense, it makes good educational sense. that's why a number of states have moved to universal school meals. that's why we, you know, have the community eligibility provision in federal law that makes it easier for states to enact and counties and school district cities to enact universal school meals. we are concerned because project 2025 did propose cutting back free school meals for kids. we hope the new republican congress and the new trump administration does not embrace that proposal. it would be extraordinarily counterproductive. free school meals are one of the most cost effective ways we can

improve public education. and really, reduce child hunger in america. they are not an end all, because schools are only in session generally 180 days out of the year. and even if you have a breakfast and a lunch at school, a child would still get at least 2/3 of their meals at home. that's why we need other child new christian -- child nutrition programs to be robust like snap, which used to be called food steps, wic. and that's why we need to higher wages across america, most importantly, so people who can move beyond relying on these programs to be able to support their own families with the wages they earn. host: we have callers waiting to talk with you. we will start with james in akron, ohio. caller: it is a lot to understand with this. you were talking about seniors. the majority of seniors, and other words, the income you get,

social security, we are already at the poverty level. and in most cases not eligible for food stamps. that concerns me, that we look at the united states, out of the 38 industrialized countries we are number 38 as far as taking care of our seniors on social security or whatever type of income. then a look at health care. we are also number 38. we are at the bottom of everything in the most wealthiest countries, supposedly. but our seniors are really getting screwed around. we just had a vote and we voted for the very people that are against keeping seniors hungry, keeping the middle-class down. we just had a vote, so evidently the country accepts this. mississippi, one of the poorest states, they voted totally against it.

maybe you can explain to me, why do people continue to want everybody else to suffer? thank you. guest: well, hunger free america is a nonpartisan organization, so we don't take sides in elections. that being said, i think a lot of people even in poverty were frustrated by the lack of progress on these issues. right or wrong they thought the democrats were the incumbents. we were not necessarily aware of the nuances of public policy, of what the democrats may have done to improve the situation and how the other side, conservatives, may have called for cutting these programs. so, people voted for change. it is true the hungriest states in the united states, the most food-insecure, art texas, arkansas, louisiana, mississippi, and kentucky. those are all reds states, and we hope that the elected officials representing those states understand just how much

their constituencies need these programs. now, you mentioned seniors, and obviously as an anti-hunger advocate i think it is unacceptable that anyone in america ever goes hungry. but the fact that millions of seniors can't afford enough food? the people that fought our wars? the people the elder economy? the people who raised our children? now in the golden years that older americans cannot afford food? that is appalling. senior hunger is at a smaller percentage than child hunger. why? because we still do have social security benefits. still do have medicaid and medicare benefits, and those have dramatically reduced senior poverty. but it is still appalling that we have this level of senior hunger in america. you said seniors are not eligible for food stamps generally. that is not true.

in fact, older americans are one of the populations in america most likely to be eligible for snap, food stamps, but not getting them. if any people have any questions about whether they may be eligible they can call the national hunger hotline at 1-866-3-hungry, or go to our website. we will provide you the help you need. an unfortunate number of americans now are raising grandchildren. and that is a whole another issue. the parents may have died, the parents may be incarcerated, parents may suffer from mental illness or occasionally substance abuse. that is relatively rare, but a fair amount of children in america are being raised by grandparents, and those grandparents can often get snapped not only for themselves, but their grandchildren. i urge them to go to their state social service office or go to our hotline.

host: in woodbridge, virginia. morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: we are doing well. caller: i have a question because my question is, america is one of the laziest countries. i am from africa. i never imagined in america there were homeless and people on the street. america spends a lot of money overseas for so many other worse things like over $190 billion, but they don't spend a penny of the money which it is spending domestically for the poor and needy, the homeless. why the politicians always lie and they come up for us to vote for them, but the next day they want something else which is not for the american population? i don't understand in america even one person is hungry for food during the thank you very much. -- food. thank you very much.

guest: i think it is important to differentiate between food and development aid to the rest of the world and military -- military aid. the vast majority of our funding overseas is military aid, and the amount of american tax dollars that go to foreign food aid is pretty darn small. and as a domestic anti-hunger advocate i say we have more than enough money to join with the rest of the developed world to end hunger worldwide and end hunger in the united states by cutting corporate welfare here in the united states, making sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes, by cutting truly unnecessary government programs to find really vital programs like food support. we can indeed ensure there is enough support to feed all americans and do our part to make sure the world does not go hungry. i will just say, occasionally when we give weapons to either

what we call at the time freedom fighters, or allies, even if they are undemocratic allies overseas, sometimes those weapons are eventually used against the united states. but never in all of american history has our food aid, to my knowledge, ever been used against the united states. my view is, we have enough resources to feed the world, which also is great for american farmers, and to make sure no american goes hungry. host: something you mentioned earlier is inflation as one of the reasons the number of people who are food insecure has increased. i wanted to show you this headline. last week food prices rose 28% in five years. how exactly did those two connect, and what can be done to help those who have, as the caller mentioned earlier, may be

a limited budget? guest: i would say a few things. and one is, we absolutely need to deal with inflation. it is true that it is an international problem. virtually all western developed democracies have been suffering some inflation. some far more extreme rates of inflation than the united states. and incumbent parties in many of those nations have suffered electoral defeats or setbacks because of this inflation. sometimes there has been too much economic happy talk in america. the gdp is going up. well, people cannot eat the gdp. the bottom line is, we have to ensure that there is a reduction on price gouging. there is a lot of consolidation in the food industry and a long economic debate, how much of the increase in prices is based on price gouging versus other fact is. i think it is a combination of fact is, we need to deal with

companies who might the unfairly raising prices, and we need to make sure there are ways these companies can be more competitive. particularly by helping small and medium-sized farmers grow healthier food and changing the way we subsidize food in america could eventually make healthier food more affordable. because that is a real problem in america. and assuming rfk junior is confirmed as hhs secretary, i hope he follows the lead is leg-great father, -- late great father, who is one of the great champions of anti-hunger programs in american history. i hope rfk junior champions the safety net, but also works with the usda to use corporate welfare going to produce very unhealthy foods. we spend a lot of money

producing corn syrup and animal feed them and i'm certainly a carnivore myself, so i'm not saying we should eliminate meat consumption in america. but we need to balance that with subsidies for future -- for fruits and vegetables. if we make sure american fruit and vegetable producers, and people who own orchards and produce nuts, you know, are able to survive economically, they can reduce prices for those healthier foods. and we also need to increase the food processing capabilities regionally. a lot of food grown in the northeast is transported to the midwest to be processed and then sent back. not only does that increase prices, that increases the carbon footprint we saw during the pandemic. there was a lot of food waste on the farm. we were dumping out milk when americans were going hungry. another solution is smart government, private industry partnerships to increase

regional food processing so there is less transportation cost, less costs for the farmer, rancher, producer, and easier to get to middle and low income americans. host: sylvia in virginia. good morning, sylvia. caller: good morning. when michelle obama, when the obamas were in the administration she made sure that the children had salads at school. beautiful buffets. and they said they were dumping it? i didn't see that when i was volunteering in a school. they would eat the salads. and then the trump administration came in and got rid of all of that, and the food is not worth two cents. how do you see it coming back to where we are having garden foods in the schools again? thank you. guest: great question. were significant improvements during the obama administration on healthy school food and significant numbers of

republicans in congress supported that. i would say that the trump administration, the first trump administration, did make some marginal changes in the food requirements. but in general most of them were actually maintained, and most of the improvements in the obama administration were maintained in a nonpartisan, bipartisan manner. it is very difficult for schools to serve meals that are both healthy and good to eat. -- and the kids will eat. some in the junk food industry exaggerated how much food waste the healthier meals resulted in, but it is also true, i have seen for myself, food waste in school meals, and it is really tough for big school districts particularly to create meals that are both healthy and the kids will eat. new york city public schools alone serve close to one million

meals per day. more meals than any entity in america other than the pentagon. so this is a challenge. we do need adequate school meal reimbursements, and i would say the national school lunch program was started by conservatives in congress originally. as a defense program, because our young men at the time after world war ii were too malnourished to fight. so, i hope the strong conservative and progressive support to strengthen school meals, to make sure there is adequate reimbursement for school districts, to make sure they are universal, so we can serve healthy and tasty meals that kids will actually eat. because the truth of the matter is, providing healthy foods to kids and americans overall will dramatically boost the health of americans, and not only is that the right to do morally, it would significantly decrease health care spending over time, would increase life expectancy. so, healthier school meals,

healthier meals for all is smart economically. host: lives in new jersey. good morning, liz. caller: hi. i believe that the crisis with the food costs, but also the low wages that have been paid since, basically, the administration of ronald reagan, reaganomics, it has made it difficult for people earning low wages to keep a roof over their head and food in their household. i am a retired teacher and one of the best programs we have for children is the free lunch and free breakfast programs, where they exist. but all of the record-keeping that goes into that, we could feed all of the children and not lose any money in this arrangement.

for people living in new jersey, if you believe in that, there is a bill floating around the state house somewhere that proposes free lunch and breakfast for all new jersey schoolchildren. i think the elderly are another issue that is going to be a problem, because we did away with the idea of a defined benefit pension. there are more retiring in poverty. we have a system set up for married couples to retire, but like myself and many others, host of us in the baby boomer generation are going to be retiring often alone. i don't think america has prepared adequately for either situation. thank you. guest: i agree, caller.

and the fact that children are going hungry and older americans are going hungry is unacceptable. let me say this about the politics of the situation. some people say hunger is not a political issue. i say, the truth is, it has become a political issue. it should not be. again, hunger free america is a nonprofit organization by law and practice. we work collaboratively with people on any side. we are going to advance policies that reduce hunger or address the root causes of poverty and lack of economic opportunity that increase hunger. we also on the other hand do hold elected officials accountable when they seek to cut these programs. -- programs that would increase poverty, increase hunger. we have criticized both republicans in washington who saw to cut these programs and criticized democrats who have cut these programs as well. so, going forward we hope the

new administration will do something possibly about these issues. resident electron won more votes from low income people than previous republican candidates for presidents have in recent decades. so, i hope he honors that and helps those populations advance economically and with use their hunger. but if he doesn't and the new congress doesn't we will hold them accountable as well. let me just also say, you know, what we really need is broader economic opportunity in the long run. not just more redistribution of programs, but helping people enter and stay in the middle class. the biggest difference between people in poverty and not in poverty is not income. it is wealth. wealthier people, upper-middle-class people own things and earn interest, or accumulate assets in their homes. low income people odette and pay interest.

if we really want to reduce hunger in the long term we need a broad bipartisan commitment to what i call an asset empowerment and gender, to help people move from a wing to owning. again, i'm not naive. i have been in and around this work for many decades now. i'm not naive about our divided political system. but for goodness sakes, if we can agree on one thing, it is the one thing that ultra-liberal george mcgovern agreed with bob dole, it was the need to fight hunger in him america. -- in america. i'm hoping we can have a serious national commitment to address this problem. yes, we need more donations to charities. i would be remiss in my role as the chief fundraiser for my

organization if i did not encourage anyone watching can afford to go -- to do so go to hunger free america.org -- hungerfreeamerica.org. i greatly appreciate any painting anyone can donate to us. the real answer to this problem is insuring our economy works and our social programs work. host: kurt in mount union, pennsylvania, calling on the line for food insecure. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to address mr. berg. i feel his political bias somewhat blinds him to being hunger-free america. he wants to be in charge, or whoever he represents, wants to be in charge of the choices that somebody that is hungry is going to make. if somebody is hungry you should make all choices available to them, not worry about them.

worry about whether it is healthy or whatever. if they are hungry they need to eat. what is your true drive, your true political bias, which i can see? guest: that is a rate question, sir. perhaps i gave you the false impression. we adamantly, forcefully oppose any attempt to micromanage what low income people eat. there have been various proposals over the years to say that if you get this program or that program you cannot get this food or that food. we forcefully oppose that. we think families themselves are the ones best able to make those decisions for themselves. now, we do support healthier school meals, because that is children, and the parents do not get a choice over that, but for adults and adults buying for their families, we strongly support choice and strongly oppose the imposition of restrictions on what people eat.

that being said, when we asked the people who we represent, when we asked low income people, do you think we should focus on just ending hunger or focus on making healthier food more available, low income people tell us overwhelmingly they want both. they want more adequate food and they want healthier food. to paraphrase field of dreams, if you build it, they will come. if you make food affordable and available and convenient, low income people will voluntarily consume more healthy food. we don't want to force anyone to do anything, but you want to give people the freedom to be able to afford the healthier food they want and need. host: gail in north carolina. good morning, gail. caller: good morning. i am originally from upstate new york, but i have been living in the south for the past 30 years southern virginia and in north carolina. -- years.

southern virginia and in north carolina. i live in appalachia. the kids in school, sometimes that is the only food they get, especially in southern virginia. i had heard there were programs that gave some kind of provisional food for children on the weekends when there was not school, because their parents did not have the resources. and i would like to know more about those programs and whether they exist and whether they are a practical thing to do. guest: thank you for that question, and i hope any policymakers watching now, or maybe watching videos of this later if they do not happen to be watching c-span on an early saturday morning, if they hear nothing i have said i hope they really focus on these collars. as you know, c-span callers are independents, republicans, and democrats, and it is startling how many people throughout the country tell stories of how in their local communities there is this problem.

sometimes there are people who want to deny that hunger in america even exists. having quoted field of dreams i will now quote chico marx, who are you going to believe, me or your eyes? our report shows soaring hunger nationwide. weekend meals are a challenge. we have seen programs where schools provide extra meals for kids to bring home. those are better than nothing, but those are sometimes pretty inefficient ways to provide meals to the kids. so, we think a more effective way is to raise snap benefits, raise wic benefits, and raise wages so families have ways of getting meals. i will say, in the northern united states there are snow days, and the only kids in america who root against snow

days are hungry kids, because they know they will be missing what is often their only true mia love the day, dear -- the school lunch. host: david in louisville, kentucky. caller: good morning. i think your guest is kind of -- leans democratic then he leans neutral on all of this, because he brings up points like, he brought up project 2025 again, which trump has denied. so, there is no project 2025, but you guys keep on spinning it. then he talks about the billionaires or corporations not paying their fair share, which they actually do. it is a democratic talking point, because if you look up elon musk he paid over $50 million in taxes. you go look them up and they all pay their fair share of taxes. but money that kids eating at school or even people on low income and not eating, you might want to check with people that are on welfare that are receiving food stamps or

receiving money from the government and what they are actually doing with that money that they are getting from the taxpayers. because it is not being spent -- a lot of it is not being spent on what it should be spent on because they are treading there's -- their food stamps in. everywhere i go today -- and i use my debit card -- do you want to donate, do you want to donate? you still see commercials for the same people on tv that are asking for donations where you go to swipe your card for donations and it is like, where is all of this money actually going? then you had feed the children or feed this or feed that, this is an ongoing thing that never stops and never stops, but i think someone is lining their pockets or making a lot of money off of this and they are scamming the people instead of the money going where it should be going. california right now cannot account -- can't find where 28

billion dollars in california went. they don't have no clue where the money went. they have nothing. all they know is there is $28 billion that was spent and they don't even know where it went. host: david, we will get a response from our guest. guest: i think you for that. i always love people that challenge me. in terms of hunger free america -- how hunger free america spends our money, we post our independent audit and tax forms online. you can see my salary and that i earn about 30% less then when i left the federal government 24 years ago. so, we practice what we preach and are very frugal with leadership salaries to make sure our money goes to fighting hunger. number two, i have mentioned project 2025, and the truth is that donald trump, president-elect trump, has appointed a number of the architects of project 2025 tell -- to high roles in his

administration. it is an open book of whether the trump administration pursues those policies, and i hope they don't. if they don't and they support a robust safety net and higher wages for low income people, we will support them wholeheartedly. we have a republican on our board of directors, who was the under secretary of agriculture during george w. bush's administration. we will work with anyone who is trying to fight this problem. and i would say, in terms of the snap program, what people call the food stamps program, according to the independent office of inspector general of the usda the fraud rate in that program is about 1%. that is 1% too much, but compare that to pentagon spending, compare that to fraud in some large businesses or other entities, and you will see fraud in the federal nutrition assistance programs is really,

really small. again, it needs to be reduced, and we support reducing it. lastly, in terms of taxes paid by the wealthiest americans, just a few facts. when did dwight d. eisenhower and a republican -- dwight d. eisenhower was president the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest was more than 90%. now it is 37% and many of the wealthiest use loopholes to get away with not even paying their 37%. i'm not saying that taxes should be over 90% again, that i'm saying it is a factual matter that we have, in terms of the last 100 years, or at least 80 years, the lowest level of taxation on the wealthiest that we have ever had. host: we have time for one last call. robin in dallas, texas. caller: good morning. i wanted to ask mr;. berg, how come there is all this gmo?

it is not healthy, but you go to the store and all of that food is genetically modified organisms. it is not healthy food. i want to know why you don't go to all natural and you don't fight for that? that's all i got to say. guest: thank you for the call. we fight for the right of everyone to have enough money and enough benefits to buy whatever food they want, whether it has gmo's or non-gmo's, whether it is organic or non-organic. having said some things that perhaps some conservatives disagree with, i will say some things perhaps some progressives disagree with, and that is there is no proof gmo's are bad for you in health. they are probably bad for small farmers worldwide. they may be bad for the environment. there has been no serious scientific evidence that gmo's are bad for human health. i think people should have the choice. they should have the knowledge of which foods are healthy and unhealthy and they should have enough benefits and enough in

wages to be able to choose which foods they want for their own families. host: our guest, joel berg, ceo of hunger free america. you can find the organization online at hungerfreeamerica.org. that is all the information joel was talking about, including the national hunger hotline information on that website. thank you so much for being with us today. guest: thank you so much, and for all of your viewers tired of the news, just turn on c-span and you will see reality. host: appreciate that. next up, we are wrapping up the show with more of your calls. you can start calling in now. here are those lines. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents -- and independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back.

♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america, it's time to make your voice heard. c-span's student documentary contest is here. this is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness and make an impact. you documentary should answer this year's questions. your message to the president, what issue is most important to you for your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories. studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world, would $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded. for your creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter. the deadline is january 20,

2025. ♪ >> all weekened, book tv brings you live to the miami book fair. highlights include stacey abrams, author of the children's book "stacey speaks up," kara swisher with her book, malcolm gladwell with revenge of the tipping point and an author roundtable featuring dave barry, and stephen king. astrophysicist mario lydia explains the search for life outside of earth in his book, "is earth exceptional?" on afterwords, stephanie gordy shares her book the icon and the idealist, which looks at the lives and rivalry between two key figures in the early movement for birth control and reproductive rights. she's interviewed by uc davis school of law professor ma zigler. watch book tv every weekend on

c-span2 and find a full schedule under program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase will help support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum until 10:00 so just about 25 minutes or so. we will start with julia in ohio, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was shocked that the phone was

answered. i am sorry but i would very much like to respond to the points that the gentleman just made. i am disabled. i have a broken back. and i receive assistance. i.e. to on my food stamps. but -- i eat on my food stamps. but i would say about 40% of the people that i know that receive stamps do not eat with them, they trade them, they sell them. that is the first thing. it is also very untrue that we are given plenty to eat on. oh, no, we are not. i eat peanut butter jelly and noodles on a regular basis. the fact that i can buy real butter for my fridge i think is astonishing when i do it. so that's not true. and in all the years, this is just so important that i definitely want to ask this. in all the years, i have never

once heard a government official make a recommendation that someone who has been convicted of a felony, especially a gun felony, why are they still getting food stamps? because i know a number of people that fall into that category. so, that's what i called for. thank you so much for taking my call. host: that was julia. john in minnesota -- i'm sorry -- new mexico. line for republicans. good morning, john. caller: yes. i just wanted to tell the people that are talking about going in and taking all the illegal immigrants and shipping them back to the countries that they came from that and the people that run the big cities, minnesota, minneapolis, los angeles, san francisco, i would suggest that tom homan skip those cities for now. just get the flyover states, clean them up, and let all of

cities that are sanctuary cities kind of get their dose of all the criminals -- jos so all -- dose. so all the criminals were rushed to them until they leave us alone at last. host: roger. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i have lived mostly under republican control. can you hear me? host: yes, i can, roger. caller: i have lived mostly under republican control and i am a disabled coalminer. and i have black lung but they say it's not thick enough to collect on. i have been trying for years to get my black lung. i missed out on my -- my one days work.

even though i doubled back many times. never got credit for it. now, donald trump says he don't like to pay overtime. he will go out and find somebody else to keep from paying overtime. but here's another thing about him that really bothers me. he took a -- to the taliban and the never brought the afghanistan people to surrender when he surrendered to the taliban. and that's why biden had a harder time getting those people out of their, because he surrendered. i don't know if people know that are not -- or not. but i would like to see something done about black lung in the federal government. they could do something to lower the threshold or whatever it is for people like myself who have worked as life in coal mines be

able to receive the benefits that they are due. i know people running around with oxygen tanks on. i don't have an oxygen tank on me. but it won't be much longer until i have one. so, that's another thing that bothers me. i just want to say thank you, biden, for all of your hard work over the last four years. even though the republican house had two years and they did nothing. what did we run on? you run on hate is what they did. host: that was roger in virginia. this headline in this morning's wall street journal, trump selects hedge fund manager scott bessette to lead the treasury department. bessette in recent months has become a kyiv and arming -- key

economic advisor to trump and his team. he has defended trump's economic proposals in the mist of opposition from some of wall street, who worry that the president elect's pledge to impose sweeping tariffs will trigger trade wars and ultimately lead to higher prices for american consumers. if confirmed, bessent would be tasked with -- and determine whether the president elect follow-through on some of his most eye-catching economic policy proposals from you limiting tax on tips to slapping across-the-board tariffs on u.s. imports. up next, skip in pennsylvania, line for independents. good morning, skip. caller: yeah, good morning. i'm just calling, i'm just wondering about the price gouging that's going on. and i go to the local food bank at our gotten older vehicle, but

yet, i see folks with brand-new vehicles and going and getting food stamps and stuff and getting help. i am 70 years old. and i was just wondering about that. thank you. host: charlotte in london, kentucky, line for republicans. good morning, charlotte. caller: yes. good morning. i believe the government is underestimating the inflation, especially on food, because i am an avid shopper and i go shopping. and i mean, prices have doubled on many, many items. and i think the president does have the authority to put a price freeze on groceries. i'm not sure about that. my other comment would be about the hundreds and thousands of acres that china owns of our property. they are growing vegetables and they are sending them back to china. and i would really like to know what the united states is going

to do about keeping china out of america. thank you. host: tom in st. paul, minnesota, line for democrats. good morning. caller: hey, good morning. i appreciate you taking michael. i just -- my call. i just first want to push back on the ridiculous notion that donald trump somehow won a mandate from the country. he did not and it's clear already that has vote total will be less than 50%. and clearly also, the house of representatives, look for that over the next several months to actually flip to control of democrats. there is a real potential that for periods of time democrats' hakeem jeffries will be speaker of the house. that's something i look forward to. there is no mandate at all. with respect to his cabinet picks, it's a cabinet full of

sex pests. republicans, i hope you are very proud of the clowns and buffoons that are being tapped for service. it is all a smokescreen. it is just a message to government, people working in government actually doing work, trump is in charge. i can put any person, i can put anybody in charge. it doesn't matter. i'm the one who's going to run it, just don't you forget it, so that's the message. mostly just pushing back against this false narrative that's developed about a mandate. there isn't. and for all the whiny republicans who are going to complain about all the names we call trump and all the things that are going to be said about him, i just ask you to get used to it. remember brandon and associated things. and i will just look forward to hearing from the republicans. thanks so much. host: brenda in new jersey, line for democrats.

good morning, brenda. caller: good morning, america. i am calling in regards to i hope in the future when president elect donald trump says that things get better for the part that the last couple years wasn't good. i couldn't believe being a democrat on how things got out of hand. i really feel bad for the president right now. they let him just like do his thing till the end and donald trump take over and hopefully things will get better. i know it will get better. he is picking a cabinet with different people that i read up on are going to really help america be good for the next three to four years. when he's in office. i just really and hoping -- am

hoping for change, good change. and i know donald trump will do it. thank you for listening. host: that was brenda in new jersey. a couple callers talking but president elect trump's cabinet nominations. we talked about scott bessent being nominated for treasury secretary. this from today's washington post. the article says president-elect has also shown no sign of shrinking from his choice of former fox news host pete hegset h for secretary of defense or any of his other picks. his team is taking a more cooperative approach to the upper chamber after initially demanding a bypass confirmation hearings and votes. president trump appreciates the advice and consent of senators on capitol hill but, ultimately, this is his admin trade, said

stephen chung's trump's choice for white house munication stricter. voters gave trump a mandate to choose cabinet nominees that will affect -- reflect the will of the american people and he will continue to do so. it goes on to say that he has also brought back for his upcoming cabinet and team his first term budget director. he is a key author of project 2025 policy blueprint, who advocated for unilaterally rejecting spending the congress authorized, firing federal workers and taking control of independent regulators. trump also announced plans to bring back controversial foreign policy aide sebastian gorka, who was trump -- left trump's first white house under then chief of staff john s. kelly. a former representative for north korea and a state department advisor was named to return as the principal deputy

to national security advisor, a position trump has asked congressman michael waltz, a republican of florida, to fill. trump's choice for labor secretary is representative lori chavez-deremer, a republican in oregon. she flipped the usual republican pattern because organized labor lobby for a while business leaders objected. he named jeanette nash what, a medical contributor to fox news, as his pick for surgeon general. former congressman dave weldon to lead the center for disease control and prevention. john hopkins surgeon and public health expert marta mccarrick's food and drug administration commissioner. and retired football player and former texas state representative scott turner for secretary of housing and urban develop. -- urban development. about 15 minutes left. edward in rochester, new york, line for republicans. good morning, edward.

caller: yes. i am african-american and my name is edward. and people are entitled to their own opinion. but they are not entitled to the fact. you know, ice just arrested three people in massachusetts, i think it was yesterday or thursday. these are illegals that they arrested, accused of sexually assaulting children. so, all those who are advocating that illegals should be in this country, illegal, no background check, and that they should be here, and you get these governors, democrat governors who the oath of office is to protect american citizens and obey the law. but they allow these people to come in here and give them sanctuary. an fbi director wray says there is about 20,000 people who

was on the terrorist list that want to destroy america. this is a democratic fbi america, wray said this. and i sit here and i see this writer, they are so open door for these illegals to come here. but when they sent illegals to martha's vineyard, what was it, within 24 hours they got rid of them? they did not want the illegals at martha's vineyard but we are going to put them in the city. and now as chicago where my brother live at, black people are angry and frustrated by these illegals. they are living in the schools so black people cannot go to school. they are living in the rec centers that my tax dollars are funding it. you know, i don't want my tax dollars. do i have the right as an american, ok, this is we the people, do i have the right as an african-american to say where i want my tax dollars spent? i don't want my tax dollars

going to people here who have not been vetted, most of them are criminals. another report just came out that the kansas city chiefs quarterback and a couple of football players house was invaded and they believe, the fbi believes they were done by illegals. i don't understand why we put illegals ahead of american citizens. host: james in kingston, new hampshire, line for independents. good morning. caller: welcome to the great state of new. thanks for your time -- new hampshire. thanks for your time. so meeting to talk about, so little time. a country is measured by how they treat their children and how they treat their elderly. and i'll tell you, been looking around and we are not really doing a very good job of either, either one. 300 something children that we don't know where they are, even though they come from another country, it doesn't matter, they are people. i don't know what to say. i have been washing your show for years and years.

we need to get these cameras in the courtroom as well, the supreme court, we really do. we don't want anything swept on the rug. another thing with the government, it seems as though they try to pin people against people to keep them in power or whatever. i don't know what it is. i don't have the answers. it seems like black, white, yellow, green, i don't understand it, i really, really don't. but please, america, let's get together. and let's look forward to the holidays. and so forth. but once again, thank you for bringing so much to this great show. the american people are so smart, they are so intelligent. they call in and out of there so much everyday. thank you so much and have a great holiday. host: tom in minnesota, line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. to get back to your appointments that you just read, he just appointed i think pam, department of justice, who is an

election denier. just like most of the trump supporters that don't believe that biden and the democrats they believe that biden and the democrats cheated to steal the last election, they only believe in justice if they win. trump and his followers were ready to spread the same lies if kamala had won, now they are silent. that's called hypocrisy. we are all hypocrites for sure but no one on the republican side will stand up against donald trump. they laugh when trump mocks the disabled and belittles others that he doesn't like. i am not really sure that god has chosen trump to deliver us into the promised land. for all you christians that support trump, what are those fruits listed in the bible? love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, humbleness, humility, not anger, selfishness, not pride,

confusion, hating, making trouble, spreading lies. i mean, do you see your hypocrisy, christians out there that are supporting this man who is totally what christ stood for? so anyway, thank you for taking my call. host: that was tom in california. greg in virginia, line for republicans. good morning, greg. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. boy, i have to say, you know, what i see from the democrat side right now is there is no, they don't base anything on policy or outcomes, it's all emotion. i do not understand how so many people could support joe biden's presidency. looking back, he has failed in every area. economically, fail. border, fail. geopolitical, fail. his transgender stuff, men

playing in women's sports, and you know, transgender sex changes on minors without parental consent, this is what your party believes in, democrats. i know you don't want to believe that but all you have to do is listen to what they say. open your eyes. you know, you got to get your emotion out of it and apply some logic and figure out, what are the best policies for the united states of america for us to succeed? and right now, it is on the republican side. and i am sorry that these people just cannot get it together and keep emotion out of it. thank you. host: john in alabama, line for democrats. good morning, john. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about these african-american man from new york who says that illegal aliens are taking their jobs, they can't get houses and every thing. they need to check the history because before the illegal aliens even came here, he could

not get a job, the housing was discriminated against, jobs were discriminated against, schools were discriminated against, so illegal aliens don't have anything to do with that. and going back to donald trump and whatever you are talking about, when he came to office, there was the covid. people forget that they were waiting in line for miles in cars trying to get a box of food or some water. this what was going on and that created the inflation. that's what created the inflation. and then, biden did everything he could to keep the prices low. but that's what created the inflation. the other thing is that trump right now, if anybody thinks that trump is going to make things better, he's going to cut federal jobs, cut social jobs, entitlements, cut medicare,

medicaid, and all these people who are trump supporters, they are going to be the ones suffering and feeling these notorious cuts. that elon musk and vivek ramaswamy is in control of because trump is not controlling the economy. he's putting tariffs on it and everything. but musk is the one that is really calling a lot of the shots that's going on. so get back in line for your foods, for your foods, and try to make a living. thank you for taking my call. host: just a few minutes left. carol in pennsylvania, line for republicans. good morning, carol. caller: good morning. we all get frustrated about one issue or the other. but one issue that has kind of gone under the radar in all of this election stuff and the cutting of the government workers is the huge cybersecurity issue, cyber criminals from around the world.

and in watching the c-span hearings with the senators and the house of representatives, you realize that we need every man on board that we have, every good worker in the government to protect us from cybersecurity issues. the other thing that i would like to say is that people may not realize this, but all of the policies, the housing policies, the rental properties with private residential rental owners that drive people to court to spend a lot of money and everything like this is causing more homelessness. thank you. host: and our last call into today's program, chris in alabama, line for democrats. good morning, chris. caller: am i on? host: yes, you are. caller: ok. sorry.

it's more of an economic question but i will make it real quick. are the bubbles that are created now and again, and then they pop, everybody owes a lot more money, are those artificially or just missed? host: that was our last call in today's program. thank you to everyone who joined us and everyone who called in and participate in the conversation. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific with another "washington journal." enjoy the rest of your saturday. ♪

>> all weekend, book tv brings you live to the miami book fair. highlights include stacey abrams, author of the children's book "stacey speaks up," kara swisher with her book and malcolm gladwell with revenge of the tipping point and an author roundtable featuring dave barry, and stephen king. astrophysicist mario lydia explains the search for life outside of earth in his book, "is earth exceptional?" on afterwords, stephanie gordy shares her book the "icon and there shares her book the "icon and the idealist," which looks at the lives and rivalry between two key figures in the early movement for birth control and

reproductive rights. she's interviewed by uc davis school of law professor mary zigler. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule under program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the toolshey need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ host: this is "washington journal" for saturday, november 23. pete hegseth, president elect trump's pick to have the

pentagon, says he opposes women troops serving in combat roles. he's been criticized for his position. and to start today's program, we are asking you, should women serve in combat roles? here are the lines. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001. and if you're unsure, (202) 748-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. be sure to include your name and city. you can also post a question or comment on facebook at facebook.com/c-span or on x. good morning and thank you for being with us today. president trump's defense secretary nominee pete hecht seth has been getting attention for his comments talking about women and their role in the military, specifically combat positions. this from the associated press.

it says that he has reignited a debate that many thought had long been settled. should women be allowed to serve their country by fighting on the front lines? the former fox news commentator has made it clear in his own book and in interviews that he believes men and women should not serve together in combat units. if hegse confirmedth is confirmed by the senate he could try to end the pentagon's practice of making all combat jobs open to women. pete hegseth was on the sean ryan podcast show earlier this month. he was talking about his new book "the war on warriors," and during that discussion, the issue of women in combat came up. here's that clip. >> admission standards, overall standards, i think a huge one is women in combat and quotas. i think the way they pushed that

under obama in a way that had nothing, zero to do with efficacy. zero to do with legality and capability. >> you don't like women in combat? >> no. >> why not? >> i love women service members who contribute amazingly because everybody about -- everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated and complication in combat means casualties hours. and when you actually go into the hood, again, and i've got response, of got 99% positive responses. a few, a little bit of pushback but when you look at what they did in the streets to open the door for women in combat, they just ignored them. . the marine corps was the only service that try to fight back. obviously, i am exempting special operations which thus far has held the line fairly well. if they were lowering