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 the

standard to become a navy seal just so women can be in the navy seals, that's going to change the capabilities and ito's of the navy seals except for a very small example of a female super soldier was capable of doing it. because of how washington works, they're going to push for quotas. the standards are not changing, they're just evolving. there just evolving to meet the needs of today. they are not getting tougher. they are getting lower. take someone like millie, i mean, he was calling down to individual units to make sure they had female company commanders when they graduate ranger school. what is the chairman of the joint chiefs doing? it's on agenda. it's all to say we have this first are we have this and that. host: for this first hour, we are asking you the question, should women serve in combat roles? the lines if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001.

and if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. it was back in 2015 that when it was announced women would be allowed to serve in combat positions. this article from the new york times, historic transformation of the military. the pentagon would open all combat jobs for women. there will be no exceptions, carter said at the news conference. it goes on to note that the groundbreaking decision overturned a long-standing rule that has restricted women from combat roles, even though women have found themselves in combat in iraq or afghanistan over the past 14 years from 2015, here is then defense secretary ashton carter announcing the decision.

>> we've made important strides over the last three years since then. we've seen americans soldiers graduate. we have women serving on summaries. as well as the data, studies and surveys on which they were based. regarding whether any of those

remaining positions warrant a continued exemption from being opened to women. i reviewed these inputs carefully and today i am announcing my decision not to make continued exceptions, that is to proceed with opening all these remaining occupations and positions to women. there will be no exceptions. this means that 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, fight wars, lead infantry soldiers into combat. they will be able to serve as army rangers in green berets and everything else that was previously only opened to men. the military will be better able to harvest the skills and

perspectives that women have to offer. host: should women serve in combat roles? roy is unsure. caller: good morning. i am not sure what the answer to this question would be. i appreciate the fact that you have a separate phone line for people like me who don't feel comfortable making that call. it is not my place to decide. i never served. i thought -- i am thankful for those folks who do serve. i know a lot of men who i do not think would be set to serve in combat. i do not know any women personally i would say are either. there is not a person who has not served who should have a

strong opinion on it. he has said he served our nation honorably and i will defer to his better judgment. i will not say he is right or wrong but i trust his judgment. i have not served. host: harry in virginia says no. good morning. caller: good morning, america. i feel like women should not be in the military. definitely not in a combat role. god gave us women and made them feminine. only in america does any other country have women in combat? ma'am? host: say that again? caller: do any other countries have women in combat and the military?

is it only the united states? host: i can show you an article from 2015 when an announcement was made. cnn, women in combat, more than one dozen nations doing it include germany, canada, france, israel. all of those countries have women in combat as well. caller: i did not allow my wife to wowrk. i made enough money. i did not want my wife in the workforce. host: were you in the military? caller: no. all my brothers were. one of my brothers served 30 years. another served 15. i did face the draft in vietnam. women do not need to be in that

position. we love them. they are feminine. host: that was harry. james in florida says yes. good morning. caller: i definitely think the women have an equal part of the military. i have on both sides of my family, male and female serving the country. my cousin was a first lieutenant and she was in a combat mode. she came back home fine. i had plenty of uncles and served in the military and world war two and a nephew that serves in the military now. the opportunity for people -- e qual.

we are not going to go backward. we are going to go forward. why not have women working, israel has women working in the military at 16 years old and the same way in cuba. their military has male and female. thank you for responding about the different countries that do have females. i support that. host: rose is in illinois, unsure. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for what you do. you are a very attractive woman on tv. as regard to my decision, i said i wasn't sure but i am changing my mind. you might think this is out of the ballpark. it really is not. we have a partner in charge of our major law firm in chicago who was a woman. the bottom line for all this is

that women are too emotional. maybe they can get the job done. maybe they can use a rifle. maybe they can do everything a man can do but a manti to the job, is consistent, is full of conviction where the woman is temperamental. host: are you still there? caller: yes, i am here. regard to what he has said, i believe he is totally right. he has been there, he has been fighting and there is nothing more distasteful than a woman trying to act like a man. host: have a good day. host:host: that was rose.

this is oscar. caller: i spent 23 years in service and retired in 1980 in what you might call the old army. women are definitely abused in service. they are more or less in medical roles. in a combat situation, there are demands that a woman woman could just not meet. physical demands. beside that, i am old enough to have grown up respecting women more or less putting them on a pedestal. if you are in a foxhole somewhere on a cold night and on duty with a woman to guard your camp if it is attacked, i don't know how your feelings will be toward that woman if they don't

pay attention to what is out there in front of you. i don't think women should be in combat. host: during your time in the military did you ever come across a woman who expressed an interest in serving in a combat role? back in those days -- caller: back in those days, i never saw a woman in a combat role. host: one of the senators, tammy duckworth from illinois, she was on cnn last week. she is an iraq war veteran and she responded to comments during an interview. here is a clip from that interview. [video clip] >> there are millions of women who have served in the u.s. military. you also served and your helicopter was hit by an rpg and

you lost your legs and partial use of your right arm because of it. what did go through your mind as a woman who has served when you heard him say the women should not be in combat roles? >> he has shown that he has absolute lack of experience and suitability for the job because anybody that truly knows the military knows we cannot go to war without over 25,000 women who are serving on duty right now. the military cannot go to war without the female service members. this is not the revolutionary war where there is a line in the sand and combat is on one side and the rest of us can stay behind this line and it is not combat. i would ask him where do you think i lost my legs, a bar fight? it shows how out of touch he is with the nature of modern warfare. if you think we can keep women behind some sort of 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 on social media. facebook jim has responded and said in traditional combat roles, no. women do not belong in combat roles on the grod. i am not saying they cannot fly aircraft. just not on the ground. he is righ we need a non-dia military and -- we need a non-dei military. ray in new york is on the line for yes. good morning. caller: good morning. i would say yes because a woman can do anything that a man can do.

i believe a woman is smarter than men. i have was in the military for si years and i have seen m get shot in the military. woman can do what a man can do, maybe more. i would agree that a woman is just as good and that is my conv. whyot? why not a woman? why not in combat? this is 2024. a woman ca anything that a man can d sometimes better. host: that was ray in new york. dennis is on the line from wisconsin. good morning. caller: you want my comment? host: yes, good morning.

caller: good morning. i cannot imagine my wife or my daughters in granddaughters being raped by these wicked men if they are caught as prisoner of war. people would be standing on their wrists and their ankles as other men rape them, 20, 30, 40, maybe 50 times in one night. no, i would not want any of my daughters. i would not want any woman to go through such an evil thing is that. host: lucretia in florida says yes. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a disabled army veteran. i was in that first group of women that was breaking into support in the middle 70's.

i missed being in there three months. i was an expert with the m-16. i qualified with the m-16. i was in the last of the last, the beginning of the integration of schooling. i played basketball, softball and football with the boys. i played center. my side always lost. i don't understand why because those guys were not quite as good as i was. i am tired of men thinking for women. i am a kennedy kid. he said as 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 other women did you serve with during your time? caller: not as many as they probably have today. in the barracks we had one floor. in germany we had four barracks and the women only filled two of them on the first floor with the least amount of room. that is how few women we had back then. host: do you know if combat roles had been opened to you and the other women you served with, would anybody have been interested? caller: there were a few. there were a few daughters. i know i would have. i am 67 now and i can still climb trees and everything. what a woman sets her mind to, it is just like a man.

they can do anything they want to. i would go at everything i can and see how good i could get at it. host: lucretia talking about her experience. joe in louisiana says no. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a 10 year marine combat vet. i don't believe women should be in line units. women serve in the unitary -- military but they should not be in line units. in the infantry, no female should be in the infantry. let them serve in support. they can be pilots for helicopters and airplanes and 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. females, i don't want to see that going to females. host: did you say you were an active duty marine? caller: actually, yes. i was active duty and in the reserves when i went over. but no, they should not be in combat roles as a ground truth like that. they can be in support. supply, but not in the grunt units and the infantry units. they were in iraq with us anyway but they were not doing patrolling with us. i don't mind females serving but they should not be in the infantry units. host: you were serving in 2015

when the defense secretary at the time made that announcement? caller: no, i got out in 2010 so i was done. host: that was joe. stephen in new york is unsure. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to take a different take. this whole question, women are serving in combat if they can obviously perform 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 and i say no. that is really my take. host: stephen in new york. i wanted to show you more from to texas -- pete hegseth.

[video clip] >> we were integrating into combat teams that were deploying forward. you had women truck drivers or fuel or mechanics on these convoys in iraq and afghanistan and they would be ambushed and suddenly you have women in combat. that is may a moderate reality in 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 that we have changed the standards in putting them there which means you have changed the capability of that unit and if you say you have not, you are a liar because everybody knows that bone density and lung capacity and muscle strength, men and women are just different.

i am ok with the idea that you maintain the standards where they are for everyone and if there are some hardcharging female that meets the standard, great. join the infantry battalion. but that is not what has happened. the standards have lowered. the general asks the questions. you know what questions are when generals ask questions, they are just a command. lieutenant, captain or major, why aren't there more women in your unit? that means get more women in your unit. i'm surprised there has not been more blowback already. i am straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles. it has not made it morally full, more complicated -- more lethal, more complicated. if they had their first choice, it probably would not be that.

an 11 series job or infantry. the marine corps did the study and integrated units between male and female did drastically worse stemming all male units and the circuitry of the navy said -- your study, we are doing it. the obama administration want to did and else changed. i am not saying that is the only point and i don't know if that will change. imagine a demagogue saying we should scale back women in combat. as a disclaimer, we have all served with lemon and they are great. our institutions do not have to incentivize that in places where traditionally and over human history, men in those positions are more capable. host: a little over 30 minutes left asking should women serve

in combat roles. getting responses on social media and via text. this coming in from phil in florida, wen can meet the requiremen of combat roles without lowehetandards requirements to accommodate female soldiers, they should be considor tt combat role just the same as male soldiers. th requirements should not be lowered to accommodate female soldiers or any other soldier. this from jess in massachusetts, there is aerhood that special ops. front lines and in it is not quantifiable but it i there, just as important as the rifles used. if women can be integrated without adversely affecting that, then so be it. this from amber in ohi i husband is a marine and he said

there is no female mine that was not a strain or as qualified as he was. their boot camp is took place at a different place. and back to your calls. michael from new york says yes, women should be allowed to have combat roles. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i would like to say as far as the women in the combat roles, i have to agree with mr. hegseth. absolutely, women should be in combat roles. something america should try, we should have our own female women were great -- women brigades. show them where they can qualify. people said, support groups, as far as the infantry is concerned, if they qualify, if they can do it, yes. if not, we should never be lowering our military standards.

mr. hegseth hit that right on the head. there are a lot of positive roles. women have different powers than men have. there are a lot of specialties they can apply to the battlefield that can be effective especially with the new warfare that is going on today. host: bradley in texas says no. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't agree with the women serving in combat roles. how they are framing the question, it should be phrased more front-line units compared to combat roles themselves. like the former marine said earlier, i was a marine myself. i served on four deployments as a commander and section leader. your health is what comes up first to be in with -- to begin

with. people become unemployable -- undeployable because their health is not up to par. men have more health issues than men. combat roles and front-line units are different things. you will still face the obstacles of war. tammy duckworth, it was not right for her to say it the way she said it. she is making it in some ways a kind of sexistshost: bradley, an the military? caller: i got out in 1993. 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 3800 women ar currently servinin army combat res across infantry, cavalry armor, and field artillery roles. that includes active duty reserve and naon guard and enst and officers. there are fewer than 10 women serving in the army's green beret unit. one woman is is aanng through special forces training pipeline. 151 women have graduated from the army rangerchool. that is a 60-day combat adership course. nearly 700 women come early -- currently serve in varyin combat roles, including 112

infantry riflemen and 15 arena officers -- marine officers. since 2018, the number of women enteri 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 bable to serve in any way they wish and that they are qualified for.

anyou very much for the tammy duckworth. i saw that ierview.fore. she was veryracious. if anybody should be insulted by saying women shoulnobe in combat, it should be her. she really 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 kin, 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 and 11:00 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?" 10:00 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

>> but i doubt it is in mr. callahan's interest. my question is, when you have walmart and other major competitors getting charged much less than you are, why in the world would you stick with these guys? why would small businesses continue to use visa and mastercard when you're getting charged so much more? >> in my opinion it is a matter of convenience for customer, and customers matter to our business. >> is because visa and mastercard are effectively monopolies. >> certainly part of it. >> 80% of the market?

i'm having a hard time understanding. you are making over 50% profit margin. you are able to give the shaft to small businesses. the estimated cost to missouri businesses from these fees is $1.5 billion. billion dollars a year. why aren't all of these businesses running away from this model? because they don't have a choice because you control so much of the market. this is classic monopolistic behavior, yet your testimony here today is you do not want any competition. you have 80% of the market but you don't want any competition. i'm having a hard time finding that position defensible, let alone sympathetic. it is unbelievable, the amount of money you are making. it is unbelievable what you are charging small businesses and consumers, yet your testimony is, please, please, please we

can possibly have any competition. host:host: brendan, you spoke earlier about where some of the key players in this situation come down. what is your take away from the hearing, in terms of where is of congress stand on the issue? guest: i think the banking sector underestimated these guys. not because they have a ton of cloud. they are relatively junior members still, but these guys have made inroads with

president-elect donald trump. i had someone tell me a while ago that before donald trump himself went on the campaign trail and talked about credit card fees and saying, we are going to bring down the credit card interest rate. you're going to have a cap of 10%. his campaign reached out to josh hawley's office to talk about talking points, to figure out the best way to message on this issue. i think we are in a moment where banks are a little flat-footed as to what the trump campaign might represent want to come cash represent once they come into office. in general the status quo benefits banks. in terms of congress. there is a really high bar for moving financial services legislation, and this is a particularly ugly fight. i've talked a lot about small businesses, but the people in the retail sector pushing for this are the really big guys.

walmart, amazon, target. retailers would like to save money on fees, and they say they can pass on the costs to consumers. banks will tell you there is no guarantee that they would pass along those benefits to consumers. and more importantly banks have said, we use these profit margins to make your payments more secure. do you want a big hack of visa and mastercard? 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 to that, but it is clear from members both at this committee hearing and other places that something has kind of got to give in this space. host: we're talking with brendan pedersen, financial services reporter for punchbowl news. if you have a question or comment for him you can start calling in now. the lines are broken down regionally. if you are in the eastern or

central time zone, (202) 748-8000. if you are in mountain-pacific, it is (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a comment or question via text. (202) 748-8003. brendan, something you mentioned is the credit card competition act that has been introduced. last year was introduced, still being considered. i wanted to share some provisions of that. it would require credit card issuers with assets over $100 billion to enable at least two credit card netwo be ed on theirt cas instead of just one. at lea of ich must be outside of the top two largest networks. it prohibits crerd iuers from putting certaitatns on routing of electronic ansaions, such as a penalty for failure to me a certain

threshold of transactions on a particular payment card network that is from senator to durbin's office. one of the things they were talking about with that act is -- apologies -- is the impact to consumers. and how would that affect consumers beyond the potential of losing rewards or points? guest: it is a great question. i think it is an open question. dick durbin has done this exactly once before. there is something in the financial services space called the durbin amendment, which is something introduced during the final hours of negotiating. frank. as an amendment, when the democrats briefly lost control of the floor when they were hammering out the final bits and durbin got this amendment in, it was 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, i want to say, and it capped the swipe fees of debit cards, white -- right?

what happened after that is, debit card rewards, which used to be a thing about did kind of go away, and the economic effects are kind of ambiguous. there has been a lot of studies trying to assess what exactly happened with the durbin amendment. there have been some places that have found retailers did not pass a lot of those costs on, that it is kind of a hard thing to measure, right? you're also in a different moment, because it occurs represent a much larger share of volume today. and the way in which payments happen in this country has changed since the pandemic. it is all a little different. at the end of the day consumers could save some money if retailers choose to pass along the savings. host: we will go to our collars. ride in ambler, pennsylvania. i'm not sure if i said that right. good morning. caller: i have a question about some vendors offer discounts for cash payment, and others do not.

for years some vendors commented, it was against the agreement they have with the credit card company to offer discounts. so, my question now is, is that still the case, that it is against the basic agreement? or all the -- are the people that offer discounts breaking the agreement by doing it? guest: that is a great question. i think it probably depends based on the retailer, but i have seen those signs too. i was in upstate new york may be a month ago and there was a sandwich shop that was very mom-and-pop, and they had a big taped sign on the counter. they offered a 6% cash discount if you paid in cash. i didn't have any cash, so i did not get that discount. which is a testament to how money has changed. it is really not uncommon. i think 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 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 fight the durbin-marshall credit card competition act. they said, retailers actually you lose money when they use credit cards. we process the payments so much more quickly than you can process cash. processing cash takes labor, and there is some validity to that. when you zoom out at a more macro, global level i think, like, when you have businesses offering 6% cash discounts, it is evidence of a larger problem. host: joe in iowa. good morning, joe. caller: good morning. thanks for having this conversation. i am a farmer in iowa. we have similar things we see

because of our input cost. fertilizer, fuel, and those kinds of things. my question is, how long has this type of legislation and trying to be formulated to fix the problem, if there is in fact a monopoly? which i believe there is. also when josh hawley talks, senator hawley talks, he always has a in some way. from him, i imagine he did not want to create problems to these credit card folks in front of you who are getting those fees. i would imagine that he has probably gotten money for his campaigns from those people that have big money. so this problem not being solved. this thing durbin is bringing forward, please explain more about exactly what it would solve and why it is not happening, and why it is -- why is it not being grabbed onto? if it stops the monopoly or the fees to small businesses why isn't everybody happy about it? thank you. i appreciate the conversation on

this subject. guest: visa and mastercard together own a really big share of the market. these are separate companies, it is important to remember. people in the space, if they are calling it anything the usually call it a duopoly. it is also a disk -- difference in kind. lisa owns a 42% share. mastercard has closer to 22%. which is significant, but there is a bit of a gap between the two. we saw this play out in the senate judiciary hearing, which i thought was fascinating. linda kirkpatrick actually made a point in terms of her remarks of saying, look, the department of justice has said we are not an antitrust concern and we are a smaller guy than, you know, this one. she did not actually point at the visa ceo or his advisor, but there is more scrutiny on visa. but mastercard has also brought it on by working often in tandem with lisa.

they often raise their prices around the same time, which strikes some people as duopoly stick -- duopolitic behavior. dick durbin has been kicking around this idea for a little bit. i'm not as familiar with previous versions of the bill, but right now in most credit card transactions merchants have options of who ultimately pays or who processes a transaction. but most of the time the credit cards in most cases that are offered in this country, the off -- the offer is either visa or mastercard. it is why people believe that the has gotten so high. what durbin and marshall are trying to do is say, we have these two big guys, fine. we are going to mandate that for credit card operators over $100 billion we are going to make you offer a third choice of payment, one of the smaller companies, which will have lower fees.

the idea being that it will bring competition into the market. i have said before there is some skepticism around exactly how it would work and how the savings would get passed along to customers. but that is where we are headed. i should not say that is where we are headed, because the obstacles to durbin-marshall in congress are the same obstacles that exist for any other meaningful piece of legislation. it does not exactly break down upon -- along partisan lines. saw durbin and josh hawley do not agree i'll -- 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 have never actually made this particular class of lawmakers choose between the banking industry and the retailing industry. you have to remember, those are two of the most powerful and oldest lobbies in this country, and they have been throwing billions of dollars -- i shouldn't say that -- they have

been throwing a lot of money at this, and that is where we are. host: the credit card competition act has been hanging out there for a while. there is only a few weeks left in the current legislative session. what is the expectation for what could happen between now and then? and what could happen in the future if it does not pass? guest: quick question. we are in the lame-duck session of congress right now. we are having conversations about what legislation might make it into a year end package, and the credit card competition act often gets talked about at this time of year. i am still skeptical it is going to happen. it is a very controversial piece of legislation, but i have heard dick durbin say that he is going to try to offer it as an amendment. i believe that amendment will have a 60-vote threshold to be considered, so it is highly unlikely it will happen. but it really depends on what majority leader chuck schumer wants to do in the senate.

it was an important wrinkle, which is there is other legislation in the mix, including legislation to regulate crypto, for example. if there is a relevant bill offered on the floor they could in theory lower the voting threshold to be considered as an amendment due to senate procedural rules. if 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 is probably going to get hunted to the next congress. host: lucas in pearl city, hawaii. good morning, lucas. caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. it is early here in hawaii. i can't sleep. one of the things keeping me up unfortunately is my credit card debt. i have about $10,000 on three different cards, all around 27% apr. i get paid, i make more than the minimum payments on all of them but i find myself stuck in a never ending cycle.

i get paid once a month, so i will put $1000 on one, $500 on another, 750 dollars on another. i find myself each month using the credit cards instead of my income, and it is a never ending cycle. i question to you is, do you foresee anything -- this might be wishful thinking on my part and the part of many, many americans dealing with issues, because i know one not alone -- you foresee any impactful action coming from the incoming administration to help people like me who are stuck? not poverty, not bankruptcy, but stuck in this hamster wheel of credit card debt? guest: like i said before, the president-elect, donald trump, on the campaign trail did say that they were going to cap credit card interest rates at 10%. there is a reason you may not have heard about that. that is because there was not a lot of handwringing in the press about it. even the business press, because

there is not a lot of expectation that trump will make a meaningful run at that. which would almost certainly take legislation, ok? let me say this. we are in a pretty uncertain economic moment. especially as far as democrats are concerned, after they got trounced in this election. it was pretty clear that dem s'economic messaging did not work well this time around. i have been having conversations with lawmakers about credit cards, and someone i i talk to a lot is senator elizabeth warren, who is on track to be the next top democrat on the senate banking committee. because sharad brown got knocked out of his race in ohio. elizabeth warren is going to be in the minority come about she is very influential in financial policy. she told me another reporters that she supports a 10% cap on credit card interest rates. it was a little bit of a troll, i'm going to be honest, because she was saying about trump, he

said it on the campaign trail, i'm excited to work for him. i think her words were, i can't believe 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 something happening among progressives in congress. bernie sanders has said he wants to work with trump on a 10% credit card interest rate cap. it is not to say it is a serious effort yet, but progressives and democrats in general are thinking about economic issues in a different way, and credit card debt is a real problem. it is very expensive. there have been proposals out there for a long time to produce some kind of cap. for military veterans there is a card cap of about 36%, for veterans under military lending act. and we apply that to more consumers? can we do something even lower? i think it is certainly possible and something we are going to be talking about in the weeks and years ahead. but i think the fact that you

have someone like elizabeth warren, who understands financial policy really well, taking it seriously, that is a sea change in how we talk about this. host: a question coming in on text from dave in new york. something y touched on earlier. please mention the impact of reward programs on swipe fees. this is something that senator durbin also brought up during the hearing this week. guest: that is exactly it, yes. it is sort of the -- it is the banking sector's trump card in this fight. people love their credit card rewards, and they are also a pretty significant part of the economy at this point. people lean on their credit card rewards to pay for vacations and flights and meals, all sorts of things, right? it is a pretty meaningful part of how people interact with the economy. i was listening to a random comedy podcast last night in which someone said they would rather have -- they would rather

go to a concert -- sorry. they would rather retain their credit card points thing 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 and passed the credit card competition act? i think it is fair they would change, because, again, credit cards cannot offer these kind of rewards unless they are making honkers profits, -- bonkers profits, right? those are coming at the expense of retailers. we have to make a decision between one of the two things. but the potency of the reward question is a testament to just how incredibly enmeshed rewards are in this economy. the other thing i will say is, the airline companies are some of the biggest opponents of credit card competition act right now because airline companies make so much money off of their affiliate relationships with banks and credit cards.

a lot of major airline companies actually make more money through their reward programs with thanks and credit cards than they do flying planes. there is a joke in this space that airlines are just thanks or credit card companies that have planes. so, it is a fair question, and i think it is the one thing that banks have at their back that makes a meaningful connection to consumers. we also cannot ignore the effect that these fees are heavy on retailers. so, we will see. host: jason in pennsylvania. good morning, jason. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm really enjoying this. one talking about a lot of consumers that love credit card points. one of the things i think about, when i go to the american express lounge at the airport or a use miles to upgrade to first class or whatever, that's a real

direct damage, i think, to the people that have to pay higher credit card fees. it becomes a vicious cycle. we have people who don't get the larger points. it is like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. i hear what you are saying about consumers might be not liking the fact that the points might go away. but i feel like there is an inherent social problem, social cost beyond just the money we are seeing with the way points and rewards systems have grown popular in our culture. guest: fairpoint. we keep talking about the pandemic that keeps coloring everything. right? i think that in a lot of ways the pandemic has forced a reckoning in how we think about equality, money, all these things. and i think credit cards are not at the center of a lot of

people's lives in terms of how we think about the economy. 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 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. ♪ >> 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 book how the bested, leadership lessons from residents on this episode of booknot+. bookte 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 from the 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 of his 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 vis studentcam.org for all the deils 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 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-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. ♪

that is where we are as a country. reveals there is not much

agreement over what is harmful content. that has been true most of u.s. history. we are a country that disagrees with each other quite a lot. the idea that we can have some type of resume that says, this content over here is uniformly considered harmful and, therefore, we will limit its distribution to children or adults or what have you, i don't see that working. >> monday legal analyst debate the outcome of anderson v tiktok that found tiktok had liability for content recommended to users on its algorithm. watch that discussion on the case and the implications for social media companies starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile app and online at eastbound.org. -- at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband.

buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these are their television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president elect trump's pick to be the next attorney general withdrew his name. former republican florida congressman matt gaetz made the announcement thursday after a busy week on the hill included a house ethics committee meeting at apparent resolutions on his nomination introduced on the house floor. first, we show you remarks from house ethics committee ranking member susan wilds after the committee failed to release their report on the made it -- member from florida. >> good afternoon,