Farmers told me yesterday that they feel as though they had been betrayed by the Conservatives, but they now feel like they have also been lied to by Labour.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister think again on this measure so that our farmers can feed Britain?
Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to hear that Cathy is distressed by what I would say is scaremongering around what the Labour Party is doing.
The budget delivered $5 billion for farming over the next two years, a record amount.
The last government failed to spend £300 million on farmers, and our plan is sensible, fair, and proportionate and protects the smaller estates while fixing public services that they rely on.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are only seven places in England, according to the House Library, where school funding per pupil is lower than my constituency of Aldershot and Farnborough.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that something has gone badly wrong when teachers are being forced to pay out of their own pocket for basic school supplies and so many others have left the profession in droves over the past 14 years?
Will ministers work with me to tackle the root of this problem so that we can give every young person in my constituency and beyond the very best start in life?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Every child deserves the opportunity to succeed in school and beyond.
I'm sorry to hear of the experience in her constituency.
Last week I visited Raisingfield Primary School in my constituency whose school council had a lot to say about the resources to our schools and we have increased the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year, increasing per-pupil funding in real terms.
And as her constituency, home of the British Army, I know she will also welcome the expansion of childcare support to service families deployed overseas, saving families around £3,400 a year.
I'm happy to ensure she gets a meeting with the relevant minister.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a few weeks ago, from that dispatch box, the Minister for Rural Affairs said that he'd been congratulated by a farmer over the introduction of the inheritance tax.
Now, I think this farmer must have been a cannabis farmer because just yesterday we had 10,000 farmers on Whitehall protesting against this madcap decision.
So does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that this decision should be thrown in the trash can along with Rachel from Accounts CV?
Well Mr. Speaker, he talks about CVs.
It's good to see the Honourable Member doing well on his bench, once a Labour councillor, then a Tory MP and now a reform chief.
Every time he switches party, he gets a promotion.
Mr. Speaker, I've already outlined what we've done to support our farmers and we'll continue to support the farmers and we'll continue to invest in our public services to get Britain back on track.
Riem Stringer.
My Right Honourable friend has come under intense scrutiny from the press at different times.
She must have found it very difficult.
A press free to scrutinise politicians is absolutely vital in a free society and a democracy.
Is she as concerned as I am about the Stasi-like interview that was given to Alison Pearson, the Daily Telegraph journalist, a week last Sunday?
And does she agree with me that the Essex Police Force and other police forces would be better trying to deal with shoplifting, burglaries, and other crimes rather than intimidating journalists?
I thank my honourable friend for that question.
And also, it is incredibly important around free speech and our press.
It's part of our democracy.
But it's also in direct response to his question.
Of course, police are independent and it's a live investigation, and therefore it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on that.
But I do believe that we should have a free press.
It's part of our democracy and we should have free speech.
But with that comes the responsibility of those that do it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, I met with three constituents in Parliament: Duncan Hawley, his wife Nicola, and his 10-year-old daughter, Hattie.
Duncan is a sheep farmer and he stood in his family farm for most of his life.
He's outraged and hurt and worried about the government's deeply damaging family farm tax.
And he's deeply worried about food security, food inflation, and whether he'll even be able to pass that farm on to future generations.
So my question to the Deputy Prime Minister is very simple.
Why has this Labour government declared war on British farmers?
Well, I say to the honourable member and to Duncan and Nicola that this government hasn't declared war on farmers.
The vast majority of farms will not pay any inheritance tax and we have protected them.
We have been as generous as we can.
The farmers rely on our public services like everybody else.
We inherited a £22 billion black hole from the Conservatives who spent reserves three times over.
We are investing in our schools, our hospitals, our public services, and housing.
And if the honourable gentleman wants to suggest what he would do differently, if he doesn't agree with that, like the Leader of the Opposition, then he should say so.
Dr. Samova.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The previous government failed countless women through chronic underfunding of maternity services.
At Stroud Maternity Hospital, postnatal beds have remained closed for over two years.
Local midwife-led units like Stroud deliver fantastic quality of care for women whilst having really low intervention rates during birth.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister outline what steps this government will take to improve maternity services?
Well, I thank my honourable friend for that question.
I'm sorry to hear about the situation in Shroud, and I thank him for raising this important issue for women in his constituency.
The Darcy report clearly set out that under the previous government, the NHS was broken, with patients waiting too long for care.
We're committed to ensuring that all women and babies receive safe, compassionate, and personalised care through pregnancy birth and critically following those months ahead.
We will ensure maternity services deliver the best outcomes for patients as we invest to build an NHS fit for the future.
I know how much professional care work means to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Carried Care Homes and Portmadog tell me they won't be able to absorb the additional exorbitant costs imposed by her government's budget.
They tell me they believe this poses a threat worse than COVID to their business.
Will she personally intervene, therefore, so that her government at least makes care providers exempt from the rise in employers' national insurance contributions?
Well, she's absolutely right to say that I absolutely value the work of care providers and care and carers across the whole of the UK.
That's why we've put additional funding in through the budget as well.
And we've also been making sure that care providers and those that work in the charities, including hospices, amongst the tax regime provides the most generous amongst in the world, Mr. Speaker.
This includes tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth over £6 billion for the tax year of April 2024.
We put record funding into our NHS.
We've increased funding into adult social care and children's social care and will continue to support our public services that were left on the knees by the last government.
Two weeks ago today, the Chancellor announced a historic £22.6 billion investment into the NHS because it is our duty to rescue this country's health service after 14 years sadly of mismanagement, under-investment and unfortunately also misleading announcements from the party opposite.
In Plymouth, Dereford Hospital, where I represent, serves not just my constituency but 19 constituencies across the southwest.
It is the only major trauma centre for adults in the southwest.
However, we have really suffered from those decisions from the Conservatives.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister outline how that historic investment is going to make its way to Plymouth?
Well, I thank my honourable friend for being such a champion for Plymouth.
As he knows, we're providing £25 billion extra over the next two years from the Department for Health and Social Care, including the largest capital budget in real terms since 2010.
We'll make sure that every corner of the UK can see the generosity and how that will improve services for them.
I'll make sure he gets a meeting with the relevant minister to discuss in detail how Plymouth will be able to capitalise off that.
The town of Chesham in my constituency of Broxbourne has no banks or building societies.
We've been told we're not eligible for a banking hub.
We've been told we're not eligible for a banking hub.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that every town that wants a banking hub should be eligible for one so that my residents can have access to their hard-earned cash?
Well, Mr. Speaker, we've committed to 350 banking hubs through this parliament, and I'm sure the Minister will be happy to meet with him on that point.
But I'm also hopeful that he will be thankful of the levelling up fund round two money that we've secured with £14.3 million going to Wolfham Cross resistance process regenerating the town centre for his constituents.
I know better than most that under the last Tory government, neighbourhood policing was stripped away, leaving the police invisible in towns like those I represent in Pendle and Clitheroe.
As a former police inspector, I'm delighted that the new Labour government has committed to rebuild neighbourhood policing.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure my constituents that Labour's neighbourhood policing guarantee will soon ensure that every town has a dedicated neighbourhood team?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his expertise in this area and for the work that he did previous to coming to this place.
Tory austerity has decimated neighbourhood policing and we'll put thousands more neighbourhood police and PCSOs back on our streets to ensure every community has a named local officer and will tackle illegal drugs, half-night crime, crack down on anti-social behaviour and go after the gangs who lure young people into violence.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
The Scottish and Welsh governments have banned the construction of new waste incinerators because of health and pollution concerns.
The last government paused them and committed to banning them.
Why then is this government busy approving them?
Well, Mr. Speaker, planning, as the Honourable Gentleman knows, we always follow the strict rules in regard to that, making sure that safety and other factors are always taken into consideration and we'll continue to do so.
Thousands of families in my constituency of Earlian Woodley have moved into new bill developments in Schinfield, in Lodden Park and beyond.
But many have found their dreams of home ownership punctured by unfair and opaque property management charges.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents by setting out how the leasehold reform bill will address these concerns?
And would she like to meet with me and affected constituents?
Well, I welcome my honourable friend to her place.
Unjustified increases in service charges are completely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
The leasehold and freehold reform acts will provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, and that includes greater transparency over service charges.
For too long, leaseholders have been ripped off.
It's this government that will start it out.
The House, Sir Edward Lee.
Today is Red Wednesday, in which we remember all those persecuted for their belief worldwide.
A recent report by Aid to Church in Need shows that in the countries surveyed, the persecution of minorities has increased by 60%.
In the light of this, will the government commit to reappointing the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, a post that has remained vacant since July, so that, and do that as soon as possible, hopefully by Christmas, so that we in the United Kingdom can play our part in defending religious and belief minorities worldwide.
Well, I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his question.
We are committed to champion human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief.
I join the Right Honourable Member in marking Red Wednesday, an important moment to show support for all those persecuted around the world for their religion or belief.
Today we'll light up the SCDO buildings in the UK in red in support of that.
Envoy roles are under consideration and will be decided upon in due course.
Hashita Brella was killed and found in the boot of her car as it was taken from her home in Corby on 14 November.
This tragic murder left the community shocked and scared and is being investigated by the police.
Hashita was protected by a domestic violence order that lasted 28 days.
It was not renewed.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all must be done to reassure the community and to bring the perpetrator to justice?
And would she further agree that in some circumstances domestic abuse orders should last longer than 28 days when the victims are most vulnerable?
I thank my honourable friend for raising this case Mr. Speaker.
Hajita's family, my thoughts are with her family in this horrifying set of circumstances where Hajita should have been protected and felt protected.
This government is committed to halving violence against women and girls, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to do our work, hopefully, across this House, to make sure that we can end circumstances where Hajita faced and we can stop this kind of barbaric action.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Spellthorn Litter Pickers are an outstanding organisation of a thousand volunteers who do great work up and down my constituency.
Come rain or shine.
And last week, they were awarded the King's Award for Voluntary Service.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government, indeed the whole House, like to join me in congratulating the Spelthorne litter pickers and to thank them for all that they do?
What can I say?
I absolutely agree with the Honourable Gentleman, may I say my honourable friend, in terms of the Spelthorne litter pickers and say what an important role across all of our constituencies where local communities come together and volunteers help, particularly young people as well, do a lot of this in our constituency, Mr. Speaker.
So I think across the whole House we congratulate them on their award and those that do the voluntary work and support our communities.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I draw the House's attention to my register of interest as a very proud trade union member.
In 2019 the party opposite promised to deliver an employment bill that would protect and enhance workers' rights in the UK and like so many of their promises they never delivered.
But my right honourable friend has done it.
Cleaning up the mess that the party opposite left behind.
So would the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that her employment rights bill is the biggest upgrade to workers in a generation?
Thank you Mr. Speaker and declaring an interest.
Me and my right honourable friend used to be conveners for Unison North West as well and I champion the work that she's done on behalf of her constituents and for working people of this country.
The government is delivering on its plan to make work pay and to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy.
The employment rights bill will benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country and will save them up to £600 per year in lost income from hidden costs of insecure work.
So I commend the work that many honourable members, some across the House and in particular on our benches, have brought this bill to fruition.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
The whole House recognises the authenticity of the Right Honourable Lady's backstory, her pride in being a carer and indeed in her recent elevation.
By contrast, in June the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Was sacked for misrepresenting his CV.
And just last month, Tanya Nasri, the nurse, was imprisoned for five years for doing the same.
Does the Right Honourable Lady agree with me that such serious consequences are right and just in such cases?
Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the Honourable Gentleman, I know where he's trying to go with this, but while it's tempting, what I would say to the honourable gentleman is, sorry, the right honourable gentleman, I do apologise.
What I would say to the right honourable gentleman is our Chancellor in the last four months has shown more competence than the last four Chancellors that he has.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My home city of Edinburgh, despite being Scotland's capital, is the lowest funded per head local authority in Scotland due to austerity inflicted on us by the SNP in Long React.
That means great projects like the Ripple face closure.
Now that my Right Honourable Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has secured the biggest block grant to Scotland in the history of the Scottish Parliament.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me to ensure the Scottish Government uses that to end austerity for my constituents?
I absolutely agree with my honourable friend.
It's entirely right to raise the impact of SNP's irresponsible management of Scotland's finances and the austerity that they're inflicting on his constituents.
Our budget rejected a return to austerity and we delivered the largest funding settlement for Scotland in real terms since the evolution.
The result of the budget is clear, Mr. Speaker.
The SNP have the powers, they have the money, they have no more excuses.
I was contacted last week by a constituent whose husband has stage four bowel cancer.
He had a routine scan in June but didn't receive a result until early November.
And unfortunately, within that period, he received unsuitable chemotherapy and his cancer has progressed.
Given that Shropshire has the worst record in the country for CT and MRI scan results, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister the same question that my constituent has asked me?
When is the government going to address this problem?
Well, I'm sincerely sorry to hear about your constituent's husband and the terrible diagnosis at stage four and the delays in that.
We've set out before how difficult the inheritance was in terms of the cancer diagnosis waiting list.
People are waiting far too long for treatment.
It's why the Chancellor put record money and funding into our NHS so that we can catch cancer on time.
And I know that the Health Secretary is determined to do this as a personal endeavour to him to make sure that people are not having to wait and don't end up in the circumstances that are so tragic for your constituent.
Just for the record, I'd like to apologise to Mr. Kruger.
I got the wrong person.
Mr. Wilder's now warmed up to it.
What I would say is don't say to their own member is don't sit next to him again.
On Monday, Peace Corps Director Carol Spahn will speak about the future of the Peace Corps and its role in the Indo-Pacific from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Watch it live at 9am Eastern on C-SPAN 2.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
Talmadge Boston considers himself a full-time lawyer and a full-time historian.
His latest book is called How the Best Did It: Leadership Lessons from Our Top Presidents.
He chose the first four of eight off the face of Mount Rushmore, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt.
In addition, Mr. Boston chose 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 Talmadge Boston with his book, How the Best Did It, Leadership Lessons for Our Top Presidents, on this episode of BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
If you ever miss any of C-SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org.
Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
Nearly 30 years ago, Mediacom was founded on a powerful idea.
Bring cutting-edge broadband to underserved communities.
From coast to coast, we connected 850,000 miles of fiber.
Our team broke speed barriers, delivered one gig speeds to every customer, has led the way in developing a 10G platform, and now with Mediacom Mobile, is offering the fastest, most reliable network on the go.
MediaCom, decades of dedication, decades of delivery, decades ahead.
MediaCom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
And now the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCall, talks about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the threats it poses to U.S. interests, and the Biden administration's recent decision to allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia with long-range U.S.-made missiles.
Hosted by the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C.
This is about 45 minutes.
Welcome to Atlantic Council front page, the Atlantic Council's premier live platform for global leaders tackling today's greatest challenges.
I'm Fred Kemp.
I'm President and CEO of the Atlantic Council.
We're delighted to welcome Congressman Michael McCall, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to the Atlantic Council.
Even more, Mr. Chairman, we're delighted to welcome you to the first Atlantic Council front page event in our new headquarters at 1400 L Street.
And we hope all of you who are watching online will come visit us soon.
And thank you to those who are here at the headquarters.
Chairman McCall is currently serving his 10th term in Congress, representing Texas' 10th District.
In addition to serving as chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman McCall is the former chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
He's one of the nation's strongest, most principled, and most consistent leaders on U.S. foreign policy.
Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he's been a staunch advocate for supporting Ukraine's victory and resistance against Russian aggression.
It's wonderful to have the Ukrainian ambassador here today.
I know the Moldovan ambassador is here as well.
Thank you to both of you for being here.
Chairman McCall's impact is evident in his committee leadership, through which he has introduced critical legislation such as the Repo for Ukrainians Act, overseeing the markup and passage of many other critical bills, supporting Ukraine in condemning and deterring Russia's aggression.
And he has pushed for the passage of aid to Ukraine.
Russia's aggression is augmented by its growing partnerships with autocratic nations that we've been calling the Axis of Aggressors, Iran, China, North Korea, whose increasing collaboration pose an existential threat not only to the Ukrainian people, but also to Ukraine's neighbors, the U.S. and NATO.
This, of course, is underscored by 10,000 North Korean troops in Russia at the moment threatening Ukraine.
For this reason, we at the Atlantic Council will continue to advocate for strong measures to ensure that Ukraine prevails.
Our discussion today will be moderated by Ambassador John Herbst, former Ambassador of Ukraine, former ambassador to Uzbekistan, and senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, whose team and teams across the Atlantic Council have really taken a lead on this set of issues.
For those in the audience and for those watching virtually, submit your questions to askac.org.
We'll get to your questions later in the show.
I'm now honored to welcome Chairman McCall and turn to Ambassador Herbst to start this important Atlantic Council front page, this inaugural Atlantic Council front page conversation and new headquarters to you.
So, John, over to you.
Fred, thank you very much.
And Chairman Nicole, thank you for being here.
As Fred said, you've been staunch in defending American interests as we deal with an aggressive Russia, an aggressive China and North Korea and Iran.
Okay.
Moscow has been waging this war in Ukraine for 10 years.
Their big invasion began almost three years ago.
The U.S. has provided substantial military and economic support to Ukraine since the big invasion.
What are the U.S. interests in this war, and why are we engaged?
It's a great question.
I get asked that quite a bit from my colleagues.
I want to thank the Atlantic Council for inviting me and your new facility.
It's beautiful.
And my good friend, the ambassador from Ukraine, we've been through a lot together past couple.
It's vitally important.
I have to remind some of my colleagues about history, 1930s, a lot of parallels today between 1939 and today.
A lot of them didn't grow up in the Cold War.
I did.
Russia was not our friend.
They were our enemy, an adversary.
They still are today.
You call it an access, I call it unholy alliance, that Chairman Xi and Putin made at the Beijing Olympics two weeks before the invasion into Ukraine.
We knew it would happen after Afghanistan fell.
We saw the satellite imagery of the Russian Federation moving towards Ukraine, and we warned the world about that.
And obviously, it did happen.
Why is it important, though?
I believe, if you get into Putin's head, that his legacy is very important.
He envisions himself as like a Peter the Great.
Restoration of the Russian Empire is important to him.
He was in Berlin when the wall fell and thought that his leadership betrayed him.
That would be Mr. Gorbachev and then Yeltsin.
He has great animosity towards them, and he feels it's his responsibility to reclaim what is rightly Russia's.
Ukraine's always been the breadbasket of Russia.
It's always been the prize of Russia.
Stalin, obviously, exploited that.
Eight million Ukrainians died.
We had Chernobyl.
We had the Budapest Agreement that was then violated.
Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal.
No enforcement mechanism.
Ukraine's been the victim for quite some time.
But I have to say, is the United States' posture in the world stronger or weaker if we allow Mr. Putin to invade and take over all of Ukraine?
I think it's weaker.
We're projecting weakness, not strength.
That would invite more aggression from Mr. Putin.
It also impacts Chairman Xi and his calculus, looking at Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.
Moldova would certainly fall within a day, as would Georgia.
And then all of Eastern Europe would be under the threat and the dark cloud of Russian aggression.
So therefore, if past his prologue, if we could have stopped Hitler in 1939, my dad wouldn't have had to participate in that war.
And I think the goals are similar in this case.
And I think when you go to Ukraine, they say, we're fighting for you, so you don't have to fight this war.
And I think there's a lot of truth to that.
They are fighting this conflict for us.
And it's our moral obligation and responsibility to stop regression where it exists, to defend freedom and democracy against what is becoming now between Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, a very formidable adversary alliance of the unholy alliance that I call.
Thank you.
You know, you don't need to just point to the past.
Just remind those who don't understand our interests here that every day Putin or someone sitting in Moscow describes the U.S. as Russia's principal adversary and act that way.
You've already described what would happen if Russia succeeded, if Putin succeeded in Ukraine.
You talked about in terms of Europe.
But you've mentioned, Fred mentioned, and anyone who could look at the geopolitical scene understands, we do face increasing cooperation by our four foes, right?
Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
Some people argue that China is our most dangerous adversary, and therefore we should direct all of our geopolitical efforts to the Western Pacific.
However, the leaders of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea say, if we want to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan, make sure Putin loses in Ukraine.
How do you see this?
Well, don't take my word for it.
I've met with the Japanese ambassador from Japan and the National Security Advisor.
Every Asian country I talk to, whether it be Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, the Indo-Pacific region, they all see it the same way, that what happens in Ukraine impacts Chairman Xi's calculus as to whether he will invade Taiwan.
I do think China is the greater threat.
The great power competition, AI warfare, the Indo-China, Indo-Pacific conflict could result in, when you look at a World War III analysis, that is the one I worry the most about.
We have two hot zones, and they're all tied together.
You can't separate the Ayatollah from Putin.
Putin invited Hamas to the Kremlin right after October the 7th.
The alliance between Xi and Putin is clear.
North Korea has now sent 10,000 troops into the conflict.
So all these four dictators, we don't choose our enemies.
You know, they choose us.
And, you know, when I gave my closing argument on the floor, it was, do you want to be, think about this vote, because it's historical.
And do you want to be remembered as Chamberlain or Churchill?
Because that, at the end of the day, is the decision that we had to make.
There were a lot of courageous members that did the right thing.
There were members who were afraid of their own shadows.
But you know what?
We didn't get the blowback that everybody said we were going to get when we went back home.
In fact, more people say thank you for standing up against Putin and what he's trying to do.
And so I don't know if that answered all of your question, but again, I view them all in this together.
You really can't separate them.
You can't say, gee, I'm against communist China, but I kind of like Putin and Russia because they're allies.
You're right.
And you know, some folks who oppose our policy of supporting Ukraine are all in for supporting Israel, which is good, but then they deny the connection between Russia and Iran.
And of course, when the Israeli forces went into southern Lebanon, they found huge stocks of Russian weapons controlled by Hezbollah.
Okay.
The Biden administration just lifted finally restrictions on abilities, Ukraine's ability to use our attackems against targets in Russia.
Samoa, something which you have advocated for not just months, but first you advocated for years that they get the ATACMs and then without restriction.
At this late date, when many Russian military assets have been moved out of the range of these missiles, and again, these long strikes only go 180 miles, right?
So they don't go deep into Russia the way people say, what will be the impact of this decision?
The impact, well, better late than never.
But I'll take you back to the very beginning of the conflict.
Please.
My frustration with the administration has been the slow walking of these defense articles that we promised we would deliver to Ukraine.
And yet, you know, it started with the javelins, the Stingers, then the High Mars.
For those of you who don't know, it's another launching of a missile F-16s to tanks.
Finally, the ATACMs.
That's a long-range artillery.
Look, I empathize with President Zelensky and the ambassador.
They can't really bite the hand that feeds them.
So I become the advocate and say things that maybe they can't say diplomatically.
But it is, do not tie our hands behind our back.
That's not a way to win a war.
You're either all in or you're out.
And I think history has always taught us that.
If we're only halfway in this thing, you get into a stalemate.
And if you get into a stalemate, Russia wins.
So give them everything they need now.
That was two years ago to win this fight.
We were told to be over in five days.
Ukrainians proved us wrong.
And the resilience of the Ukrainian soldiers and the citizens' soldiers, I should say, and the toughness of this fight is why I think the will and determination of the Ukrainians is far stronger than the cannon fodder that Russia puts on its front lines, which is why I'm optimistic.
I've always been optimistic about this conflict, but I have not been optimistic about the slowness of the weapons.
What we've seen now with the threat of ATACMS now is that Russia is now receding its weapons.
These glide bombers are coming across.
Most of this is in the Kersk region.
That's where the 10,000 North Koreans are.
I got a briefing yesterday.
That is where the strongest part of the fighting is, and that's where the ATACMs will be used, and they will be very effective because it will not just be air defense.
It will be projecting strength across border at Russia, so they will have to retreat.
Why is that important?
You know, I know that the president-elect had met with Putin and said, please do not escalate.
He has not taken the president-elect's advice.
In fact, what we're seeing is almost a counteroffensive now.
And Ukraine, I believe, needs these ATACMs because if and when the moment happens where a ceasefire is declared and a negotiation takes place, Ukraine has to be in the strongest possible position with the most leverage to get the best negotiation at the table.
Right now, they're not there because of the slowness of Jake Sullivan and the National Security Council in delivering these weapons.
Now that they have the ATACOMs, I hope, and Kirsk was actually part of, was actually Russian.
Putin does not like that at all.
And so I think the more they can push the Russians out, the better the map's going to look at the end of the day.
There have been some critics, including from the Republican Party, who claim that this provision of this authority to the Ukrainians is going to make it harder for President Trump to succeed, or incoming President Trump to succeed with his peace initiative.
Any thoughts on that?
I disagree.
Explain why, please.
Maybe I'm in the minority of my party now.
I don't know.
I always ask the question, what would Reagan do?
To my Republican colleagues, what would Ronald Reagan do?
The guy that brought down the Soviet Union.
And now we have these pro-Putin, Russian-loving people.
I don't understand it.
I think just the contrary.
Because the ATACMs can be used, the better leverage at the table Ukraine will have in the negotiating process.
Without the ATACMs, they wouldn't have that position of leverage.
Better late than never.
I wish it was sooner.
But if you look at the real leadership in the House on national security, it is the three national security committees.
So the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Turner, agrees with me, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mike Rogers.
They call us the three Mike's.
And then we have Mike Johnson, the speaker.
So I remember talking to Mike Johnson the E before he made his heroic decision to move forward with Ukraine.
And I said, you know, at the end of the day, it's not your district.
It's not even the United States.
It's the world that your decision will impact.
And I said, Mr. Speaker, you want to be on the right side of history.
And that's what I appeal.
History will judge us at this moment in time.
And what side of history do you want to be judged on?
And I truly believe that we're on the right side.
You mentioned that Putin wants to, in effect, restore Moscow's control over the entire post-Soviet space.
And you could even say the entire space of the Warsaw Pact, which takes care of a bunch of NATO, new NATO members.
If that's true, and I think it is with you, then it would seem to me the only way President Trump could have a peace agreement which ensures Ukraine's survival, which he said is important to the United States, whereas others in his party have not said that, is to give Ukraine leverage.
Would you agree with that?
I agree.
You know, let's go.
What was Putin's goal?
It was to divide and weaken NATO.
Just the opposite occurred.
It's now more united than it's ever been, and it's stronger than it's with the ascension of Sweden and Finland, two great superpowers, if you will, in terms of military, the strength they bring to NATO is phenomenal.
So now Putin is seeing that what he did is actually not working the way he had planned.
I would say that he is the one losing, not Ukraine.
But we can't allow Ukraine to fall.
I think President Trump's right about this.
I still believe he has voices in his head, in his ear, like myself, like Mr. Waltz, who was on my committee, like Rubio, like Mike Pompeo and Robert O'Brien, and like-minded, you know, people probably more back from the Reagan era, that we can't afford to lose this fight.
And it's vital to our national interests.
Because if Ukraine falls, Taiwan is next, and that would be World War III.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Projected strength.
Breagan, it's an axiom that's historically correct.
I mean, project strength, you get peace.
Project weakness, you invite conflict, aggression, and war.
Thank you.
Coming back to the peace initiative, which President-elect Trump keeps discussing.
While the key elements of the plan are obviously not public, we have certain indications.
For example, Ukraine making some territorial compromise.
Perhaps a demilitarized zone between Russian and Ukrainian troops.
Perhaps in that zone, European forces.
Perhaps arming Ukraine substantially so Russia doesn't dare attack after this peace agreement.
Almost every voice we've heard from Russia has essentially rejected these things.
How do you see this negotiation playing out given these circumstances?
I think it'd be very difficult.
I know that President-elect Trump envisions himself as the great negotiator.
I think Putin is a very, very smart, clever man.
Don't ever underestimate him.
Wants KGB always.
He wants all of Ukraine.
That's rightfully his and his mind.
And it's rightfully part of Russia.
It's a breadbasket.
I find it very hard to negotiate that.
And by the same token, it's very difficult for President Zelensky to acquiesce the Donbass in Crimea without having a revolution on his hands after everything they've gone through.
So I think this negotiation is not going to be easy.
I think it would be very, very hard on both sides.
But whatever, if a negotiation is finalized, my strongest advice is to put teeth into the agreement and put an enforcement mechanism.
As you know, the greatest sin and weakness of the Budapest Agreement, which took all the deterrence away from Ukraine to give up all their nuclear weapons, had no enforcement mechanism so that when they gave all their weapons up, what happened after that?
Then Russia moved into the Donbass in Crimea with no enforcement, and we betrayed Ukraine.
The world stage, NATO, betrayed Ukraine at that moment.
So if ever a negotiation is entered into again, you have to have enforcement.
Good.
Okay.
You mentioned NATO.
Obviously, the great peace that we've enjoyed since the end of World War II in the Great Power War, perhaps is due to NATO more than anything else and American power properly applied globally.
NATO is the core, as we face, as you call them, the unholy alliance.
But what we've seen over the past six and seven months is A, a much larger Russian sabotage campaign in NATO countries, in Europe, but also, if we believe the Wall Street Journal, they were going to put bombs on DHL planes coming here and coming to Canada.