Director of George Washington University's Institute for Korean Studies, addresses South Korea's recent declaration of martial law and its potential impact.
Also, Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon talks about the incoming Trump administration and the president-elect's Defense Secretary pick.
Also, New York Democratic Congressman Tom Swasey shares his thoughts on the incoming administration and bipartisan efforts to address border security and immigration.
Washington Journal is next.
Good morning.
It's Thursday, December 5th, 2024.
The House and Senate are both set to meet at 10 a.m. Eastern today.
We're with you for the next three hours on the Washington Journal.
We begin on the nomination of Army veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
Yesterday, Mr. Hegseth met with Republican senators and vowed not to back down from a confirmation fight.
But off Capitol Hill, misconduct allegations have mounted in the press, and new reports indicate that President-elect Trump is considering other options.
This morning, we're putting the question to you: do you think Pete Hegseth should be the next Secretary of Defense?
Phone line split as usual by political party.
Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can also call in if you're active or retired military, a special line for you, 202-748-8003.
That's also the number you can send us a text on.
Otherwise, catch up with us on social media on exits at C-SPANWJ on Facebook.
It's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And a very good Thursday morning to you.
You can go ahead and start calling in now some of the headlines from national papers today on the nomination of Pete Hegseth.
This is the Washington Post.
Allegations of excessive drinking have shadowed Hegseth.
This is the headline from the Washington Times this morning.
Senators await more information on Hegseth.
The sub-headline, defense nominee vows not to drink.
This from the New York Times, the lead story today.
Hegseth asserts he won't give up as support sways, making that assertion both in appearances in the media and in an op-ed that published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
This is part of what Pete Hegseth wrote in that op-ed.
The press has been peddling anonymous story after anonymous story, all meant to smear me and tear me down.
It's a textbook, manufactured media takedown, he wrote.
They provide no evidence, no names, and they ignore the legions of people who speak on my behalf.
They need to create a boogeyman because they believe I threaten their institutional insanity.
That is the only thing that they are right about.
I have never backed down from a fight and won't back down from this one.
I'm grateful President-elect Trump chose me to lead the Defense Department, and I look forward to an honest confirmation hearing with our distinguished senators, not a show trial in the press.
One of those distinguished senators that Pete Hegseth met with yesterday as he made the rounds on Capitol Hill, Kevin Kramer, Republican of North Dakota, he spoke to the press after that meeting with Hegseth.
This is some of what he had to say.
Well, I am, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I am ready to be supportive of getting him to that point.
I'm ready to get him in front of the committee.
I did warn him, I said, you know, not everybody on the committee is as friendly as I am, which I don't think surprised him.
But I also said, there's nobody on the committee that doesn't earn our respect.
And certainly there are people like Joni Ernst and Tammy Duckworth who earn more than I'll ever earn, given their history.
So I was very favorably impressed, quite honestly.
So I have to see no reason at this point to not be supportive of him.
Is he currently drinking or has he just said he's not going to drink or touch alcohol if he becomes well?
I didn't ask him if he's had a drink today or if he's currently drinking.
My commitment I was looking for was that he won't drink, you know, he won't touch alcohol and that he'd be ready for a phone call at three in the afternoon or three in the morning and every hour in between, which I thought was a good way to put it.
And I only asked just to be clear because I think Senator Schmidt said he was told that he's not drinking, which is different than from, I think, from what you got the conversation.
Well, I don't think that's in conflict with what he says, but I asked a different question.
So he didn't, I don't recall that he said he wasn't, but that wasn't my concern.
My concern is that he won't.
But are we convinced by his commitment?
I believe him.
Yeah, I mean, I do believe him.
Now, again, we're not there yet, but yeah, at this point, I see no reason not to support him.
Frankly, we'll see what else happens.
But yeah, I want to be supportive.
I wanted to be supportive of him from the very beginning.
The allegations, as I mentioned to him, and no surprise to him, are serious.
But if they remain serious allegations that can't be verified from anonymous sources, well, then that's what they'll end up doing.
Kevin Kramer, that was yesterday on Capitol Hill.
Another one of those members that Pete Hegseth met with yesterday, Joni Ernst, the Republican of Iowa, female service member, a veteran, has worked on sexual assault issues in the military.
This was her tweet yesterday after the meeting with Pete Hegseth, saying, I appreciate Pete Hegseth's service to our country, something we both share today as part of the confirmation process.
We had a frank and thorough conversation.
That was the extent of her tweet yesterday.
All of this coming as reports, including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, that Donald Trump is considering possible other replacement nominees for Pete Hegseth, particularly the name Ron DeSantis emerging yesterday, according to several sources, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, was the first to report that.
This morning, we're asking you: do you think Pete Hegseth should be confirmed as Defense Secretary?
Phone lines for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and we'll particularly take a look at that special line we're holding aside for active and retired military.
Want to hear from you?
That number 202-748-8003.
But we'll start in Cleveland, Ohio.
William, Republican, good morning.
Good morning, sir.
Good morning, sir.
I just wanted to say I think it's very important that we have a person who will represent as a military representative for our country, someone who was a veteran and has military experience.
And as well as, and whether it was Pete Hegseth or not, there was still the, I can't think of her name.
She was from Hawaii.
I believe she was a veteran also, who also would have made a very good person to be assigned to that post.
Are you talking about Tulsi Gabbard?
Nikki Haley.
Pardon?
You're talking about Tulsi Gabbard?
Yes.
Yes.
William, the name floated yesterday, Ron DeSantis, Navy veteran.
Do you think he would be a better defense secretary than Pete Hegseth?
Well, you know, to be honest with you, I really couldn't say with regard to what branch of service or anything like that.
I believe that it's the personal hands-on experience living that life prior to your political career that you'll have a better understanding of how the military functions.
And we have to get rid of that CRT and that DEI because that's just garbage.
It was never necessary when I served.
And I don't see any need for it now.
You know, I think those things is what's driving people from enlisting.
William, when and where did you serve?
I am a military experienced person to be a representative in as a Secretary of Defense.
When and where did you serve, William?
I served with the 7th Infantry Division, Fort Ward, California, back under the Reagan administration.
As reconnaissance scout radio operator.
Thanks for the call from Cleveland, Ohio to Alexandria, Indiana.
This is Steve, also in line for Republicans.
Good morning.
Yeah, I think Pete would be a great pick for this job.
He's highly intelligent.
I've been watching him on the news.
He would be qualified for the job.
He's probably overqualified for it.
And that's the reason that they don't want to bring up all these issues about him because they know he's going to be highly good for it.
The Democrats is definitely afraid of him getting in there because he will shake up the bush and get things done.
At Stephen, Indiana, this is Pete Hegseth's resume, co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend, a former Army National Guard officer.
He served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, received two bronze stars and a combat infantryman's badge.
He's the former CEO of Veterans for America, that veterans group, along with former executive director Vets for Freedom.
His management of those two groups have come into question in reports that have come up since his nomination.
He's written several books, graduated Princeton University and Harvard's JFK School of Government.
That's Pete Hegseth.
That's who we're asking about this morning.
Do you think he should be Secretary of Defense?
He was on Capitol Hill yesterday.
His meetings continue.
The Senate is in at 10 a.m. today.
By the way, the House in at 10 a.m. as well.
Taking your phone calls on the Washington Journal.
This is Glenn in Lakeland, Florida.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
Doing well.
This guy is completely unqualified to do this job.
See, we're not talking about his record as a military officer.
This guy was a platoon leader.
A platoon leader consists of a platoon that has 30 to 35 soldiers.
They got a platoon sergeant.
He has never been in command.
He's never been a company commander.
He's never been as a major detachment commander or an XO.
He doesn't have the experience.
But when you look at his awards that he made, the two bronze stars, you just get those for doing a tour of duty in a war zone.
So that's what you get.
I've known a lot of guys who got those, and all they did was their job.
They didn't do anything spectacular.
CID, that's what you get if you're an infantry officer and you're in training.
That's for everything you do as a training level.
This guy doesn't know what he's doing.
And on top of that, if he's got an alcohol problem, most military members, when they have an alcohol problem, they go to rehab and try out, and most of them don't get promoted.
So this guy, I don't know what they're talking about because this guy does not know what he's doing.
He can't lead a bunch of four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. military across the board.
He doesn't know enough.
He doesn't have the level of expertise as a military officer to make it happen.
He's a platoon leader.
Glenn, did you serve?
I've learned more than that.
Say what?
Did you serve in the military?
Yes, I did.
When and where did you serve?
I served overseas in Germany with the first ID.
I was in the first infantry division in Germany, and I spent 11, 12 years there.
But I know exactly what he doesn't know.
He doesn't know as much as I do because he has never been to that level of expertise.
You're talking about a guy like General Austin who's a defense secretary, and you're going to replace a four-star general with this guy?
He don't know what he's doing.
How's he going to motivate troops when he don't have an idea that he hasn't even been a, he wasn't even a company commander when he was in the military?
Plus, he was in the National Guard.
He's a part-time soldier.
He is not full-time.
It's Glenn in Lakeland, Florida.
This is Raphael Frederick, Maryland.
That line for active and retired military.
Go ahead.
Hi, good morning, yes.
So I have sat for 12 years.
I just retired.
And it's interesting how people think that when someone sets in the military, it means that they are sometimes, you know, qualified to take out certain jobs.
I mean, that's not how it works.
So I'm just saying this guy with his record would have been kicked out of the military.
I don't see how he makes it to become defense secretary.
That's just appalling.
And it's a disgrace to all veterans.
So that's what I have to say.
Raphael, why is it a disgrace?
I mean, so when people have to serve, there's a moral standard.
There have to be leaders that could become role models that we can look after.
It's one of the criteria.
So look at all of these things that are coming up.
I hope it's not true, but if it's true, then it's just not representative.
There are so many qualified people who can do this job.
So let's put politics aside and let's look at America.
That's Raphael and Frederick, Marilyn.
Moore from Pete Hegseth's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
It's in the print edition today.
It was up yesterday afternoon.
The headline on it, I've faced fire before and I won't back down.
He writes that I've been through a lot, combat tours, job changes, divorces, and family challenges.
And he writes, yes, I love my mom very much and she loves me, referring to the reporting on that email in which his mother was taking him to task on his treatment of women from back in 2018.
She's since walked back that email, that report in the New York Times.
He writes, I have always led with honesty, integrity, and passion.
Tragically, many veterans never find their purpose for the next chapter and succumb to the bottle, depression, or worst of all, suicide.
I understand what they are facing because I've lived it.
But by the grace of God, I took another path.
My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has renewed and restored my life, and I am saved by his grace, Pete Hegseth, saying he won't back down from this confirmation fight.
Again, reporting yesterday that President-elect Donald Trump is considering other options, specifically Ron DeSantis.
It's the editorial board of the Washington Post today that takes a look at other options, or as they say, better options for Defense Secretary in their lead editorial today.
Other options that they write about include Congressman, former Congressman Michael Walls of Florida, who slated to become National Security Advisor, but they write he'd be a solid choice for defense secretary.
Other names in the mix include Bill Haggerty of Tennessee, Rep Wesley Hunt of Texas.
One name they write that Mr. Trump has reportedly been floating to associates, Governor Ron DeSantis, who served as a Navy lawyer before running for Congress.
Mr. DeSantis has the requisite experience, they write, and relishes the cultural battles that Mr. Trump apparently wants Mr. Hegseth to fight.
He has also shown a willingness to assert his independence at times, which is why we'd be surprised if Mr. Trump gave him such an important role.
But for all of our disagreements with him on policy, Mr. DeSantis would be a far better choice than Mr. Hegseth and probably could be confirmed, they write, barring disqualifying new information from the confirmation process.
That's the editorial board of the Washington Post.
This is Melissa Independent, Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. McCartney.
Good morning, America.
So I'm all for Pete.
Pete, I see nothing that's disqualifying for Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.
The man has been shot at.
He is the perfect person to be the disruptor that that entire industry needs.
And I saw his mom yesterday on her very long interview on Fox, and she's right.
Whatever she was discussing, she said was like eight years ago.
People change, and we move on.
So these same senators who are seemingly uncomfortable by something that I don't really understand because nothing I have heard is disqualifying for Pete.
These same senators confirmed a man pretending to be a woman, I think a couple of them in this current misadministration.
Pete's very brave.
He's gone to Harvard, Princeton.
He's written several books.
He's a multi-millionaire.
I'm not even sure he really needs this job.
But this is the swamp fighting back because they can't continue to line their pockets if Pete is actually doing something about it.
And that's what he has been very, very outspoken about on podcasts and in at least one of his books that I did read, The War on Warriors.
So I like Pete.
I hope Pete can be confirmed.
President Trump should get all of his picks.
He won by a landslide.
He won every swing state.
He won the popular vote.
He won the electoral vote, electoral college vote.
He should get everyone he picks.
So I'm all in for Pete.
Yes, I love Ron DeSantis.
I love Wesley Hunt.
There are plenty of people who might be great.
But Pete is who President Trump picked.
And I'm 100% behind Pete.
I see nothing disqualifying that I've heard thus far.
And Alyssa, like Charles, Louisiana, you mentioned Pete Hegseth's mother.
A 2018 email that was published by the New York Times is what brought her into the spotlight.
That 2018 email in which she wrote on behalf of all women, and I know it's many you have abused in some way.
I say get some help and take an honest look at yourself.
She also wrote, I have no respect for any man that belittles lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego.
You are that man and have been it for years.
That was her 2018 email that she has since walked back.
She was on Fox News, Fox and Friends yesterday morning to talk about that reporting on that email.
You never in a million years thought you would be doing this because you didn't realize that this email you wrote in 2018.
Somebody leaked it to the New York Times and they printed it.
I'm going to read part of it.
You say, this is to Pete during the 2018 divorce.
You say, I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, and sleeps around.
And you go on and say, you are that man and have been for years.
And as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is a sad, sad truth.
You say, we still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and your lack of character.
When you wrote that, what's the backstory?
What was going on that made you so angry you wanted to write that?
Well, I will tell that story in a moment, but let me make two statements first, and one is to President Trump.
And I want to say thank you for your belief in my son.
We all believe in him.
We really believe that he is not that man he was seven years ago.
I'm not that mother.
And I hope people will hear that story today and the truth of that story.
So the other thing I want to say is I am here to tell the truth, to tell the truth to the American people and tell the truth to the senators on the Hill, especially our female senators.
I really hope that you will not listen to the media and that you will listen to Pete.
That yesterday on Fox and Friends, back to your phone calls this morning, simply asking you, should Pete Hegseth be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense of the United States?
This is Robert in Hamilton, Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
How you doing?
Doing well.
Go ahead.
I absolutely believe he should become the next DOD.
Now, what I'm really curious about is how low journalism has become.
Like, there's no facts.
There's no substantialness to nothing.
You're just going by hearsay and mother to son talk.
Like, there's just no concept to it.
I really don't understand how low journalism has became.
You know, get to the point.
Get to where the facts are.
Go out and do your job instead of sitting here and allowing some unknown anonymous thing to become on the news.
Why y'all are criticizing this man that is obviously to be able to prepare to be able to be the DOD?
So it's just ridiculous.
It's Robert in Ohio.
This is Peter, Trenton, New Jersey, Democrat.
Good morning.
Yes, to me, take my call.
I think he's qualified enough to have that position.
I believe the governor, I think he's qualified.
And again, thank you for taking my call.
Sid, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I do not support Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
You know, just because you wrote a few books, you never really went beyond the rank of a major, not doing the Army National Guard.
He has no experience working with admirals, generals.
He's going to be responsible for civilians, active duty personnel.
Okay.
And even when he was an advocate for veterans, he bungled that up.
He was a drunk.
He was forced out of those organizations with a million-dollar severance pay.
I think he's not qualified to hold that position of trust, confidence, and also showing as a major force in the world.
I don't think he is.
Just because he wrote a few books doesn't make you qualified.
I think he needs to go back to Fox News and be a TV host because that's what he is good at.
That's Sid in Maryland.
Here's the math for a confirmation battle in the 119th Congress in the United States Senate.
Republicans will hold a 53 to 47 majority.
That means if Democrats stick together and oppose a nominee, Republicans can only, the nominee would only need, could only lose three Republican votes to be that nominee.
The Elizabeth Warren in the United States Senate, Democrat from Massachusetts, liberal senator from Massachusetts, wrote this yesterday about Pete Hegseth.
In 2023, over 29,000 active duty troops were sexually assaulted, including more than six in every 100 women in the military.
Many service members never report these crimes.
The rates of assault are estimated to be up to four times higher.
She writes, Pete Hegseth must not be the defense secretary.
This is Roy in Wake Forest, North Carolina.
Republican, good morning.
Hey, John.
Number one, I want to say, Republican, Democrat, hey, look, let's all remember that we are still Americans, and we've probably got a tough year coming up.
I mean, listen to what the liberal media is talking about going on with Trump and guns and attacking and all this crap.
They are simply pretty what the deep state is thinking about doing.
Okay, and to the subject, yes, I think he's qualified.
A lady a couple callers earlier said it way better than I'm going to.
I mean, at least he knows what gender he is, which is that makes him smarter than the latest Supreme Court justice that the Democrats put on last year in that seat.
But let's clear this up, John.
What are the qualifications needed for the job?
You guys like to fact check every other Republican that calls in, but you never bring up Russia, Russia, Russia, which was termed to be false.
What are the qualifications, John?
Does he have to be a certain age, an American citizen?
What?
Yes, technically, he is qualified when these people call in and say he's qualified.
What are the qualifications?
Clear that up for us, John.
You can do it in a second.
What do you think should be the qualifications for a defense secretary?
What do you want to see in a defense secretary?
I want to see a man or a woman that loves and respects the Constitution of the United States, knows what it is that our government and specifically our military is supposed to do, which precedes to protect our country and maybe our borders as well.
Yes, totally our borders.
But that's the qualifications.
And a person that the military would love, not some liberal nutcase from a university that pushes a piano a day.
He can't do anything real.
He can only teach, he thinks.
That's Roy in North Carolina.
This is David, also in North Carolina, Concord Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Y'all have a great day.
Yes, Pete Hagg says he's qualified.
The man's done everything.
He's God-fearing.
And that's all you need to be qualified.
And then you have men and women who think that they are above or have a better knowledge of the person.
I don't think so.
We have a four-star general running our Air Force that's right now has said that we have too many white people in.
He's biased.
And he's a full-star general.
We have a fans in our Congress.
It's okay.
You think that's okay.
But it's not.
All that is wrong.
Y'all have a great day.
Dennis, Laurel, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Good morning, everybody.
Listen, this is America.
This is America.
He's qualified.
Trump picked him.
Let him go.
You know, this is America.
Anything goes in America, right?
So, yeah, let the guy be confirmed.
Let the guy have a shot.
You know, he drank back in the day.
He got himself together now.
So let the guy do it.
This is America.
We voted for Trump.
Trump's in office.
Trump made the pick.
So let's go at it.
You know, I love this country because when Joe Biden was president, everybody was screaming, he's not my president.
But now, Trump won.
If you say he's not your president, then you're not American.
You got to love this country, man.
You got to love this country.
You know, one thing I love about Trump is when he said this country is a divided mess, that's what I agree with.
We're a divided mess.
Black, white, green, purple.
Let's stop the nonsense.
Get the guy confirmed.
Let's get on with business and cut out the crap.
Have a good day.
That's Dennis in Laurel, Maryland.
More reaction from members of Congress, the senators who will have the final say on Pete Hegseth's nomination, including Scott McFarlane of NBC News reporting on Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat from Connecticut, saying, I'd be surprised if we're still talking about Pete Hegseth on Monday.
Blumenthal, again, a Democrat, said that there are five to ten needed votes that Hegseth is lacking, which apparently would mean five to ten Republican votes.
Again, he can lose three Republicans in the 119th Congress.
It would be Vice President, incoming Vice President JD Vance that would break a tie if it was a tied vote in the United States Senate.
JD Vance's tweet yesterday talking about Pete Hegseth's mom on Fox and Friends defending her son.
JD Vance saying that she points out that she sent an emotional email and then apologized two hours later.
The media never talks about the apology because they're trying to destroy him and not tell the truth.
We're coming up on 7.30 on the East Coast.
We are simply asking you this morning about Pete Hegseth as Department of Defense Secretary.
The nomination is currently in dispute right now on Capitol Hill, according to members of the United States Senate.
He is unclear if he would receive the 50 plus one votes needed to win a confirmation battle.
That's happening as Pete Hegseth makes the rounds on Capitol Hill.
We've been showing you videos of the reporters and the press following him for those meetings with senators.
A brief interview from NBC News with Pete Hegseth in the hallways of the United States Capitol.
Have you had any conversations with the president-elect or downloading you with Governor DeSantis?
I spoke to the President-like this morning.
He said, keep going, keep fighting.
Find your own way.
So you're in this all the way.
Why would I back down?
I've always been a fighter.
I'm here for the more fighters.
This person passes me.
You're not withdrawing your name from consideration, just to be clear.
Meeting all day with senators.
And then your mom was just Tom Fox.
Pete Hegseth there with Nicole Killen.
It's CBS News is who Nicole Killen is with.
But those hallway interviews happening across the Capitol as Pete Hegseth making the rounds up here on Capitol Hill.
Taking your phone calls, about a half hour left in this opening segment of the Washington Journal.
It's 202-748-8000 for Democrats to call in.
202-748-8001 for Republicans.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
A special line for active and retired military.
202-748-8003.
We'll go to that line.
Gary's waiting in Wisconsin.
Go ahead, Gary.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
What do you think of Pete Hegseth?
Has former military?
Absolutely not.
We would love you lead by example.
He's a terrible, terrible individual for leading by example.
When I was in, I've been retired over 15 years.
But you could even get pulled off active duty if you were having an extramarital affair.
No violence, none of that.
I just can't believe that we would even put a man like that with some kind of morals in charge of our military.
It's a terrible, terrible day for the military if he ever gets appointed.
Jim's next out of Texas in Prairie Hill, Republican.
Good morning.
Yeah, very trumpet to you, John.
I'd just like to say that Pete is giving his life to Christ.
He's an entirely different man.
He's totally changed.
He'd make an excellent job nomination here.
He'd be great for the job.
Now, if they decide that they don't want him, then Ron DeSantis will step in.
I'll tell you what the Democrats and the liberal corrupt media is mad about.
They're mad because it's not Democrats.
Anybody that Trump picks, I don't care what it is or what it's about or do anything, they're going to lie and corrupt.
This boy here, he's being cavanaugh, just like they did Brett Kavanaugh, just like they Judge Thomas.
The liberal, lying, corrupt media is going after him.
Anonymous stuff.
Now, he, you know, the boy's giving his life to Jesus.
He's a totally complete changed man.
But if he don't, Ron DeSantis will step in and do a great job.
You know, what you ought to be talking about is why Biden's overseas right now blowing taxpayer money, giving it to every country.
I mean, he's writing blank checks on taxpayer money against us.
He's doing anything he can to bring down the Trump administration, just like the liberal lying media.
You mentioned corrupt and lie.
You mentioned Ron DeSantis.
If you had your drothers, would you prefer Ron DeSantis over Pete Hegseth or Pete Hegseth over Ron DeSantis?
It really wouldn't matter.
Both of them are excellent men.
You know, both of them are excellent.
Pete's a good man.
Ron's a good man.
It's just the Democrats just upset and mad.
And the liberal media, just like they always did, they tried to do with Kavanaugh.
They just corrupt and lie.
Got your point, Jim.
Eddie is in Chesterfield, Virginia.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
Line for active and retired military.
Good morning.
I am a retired military after 32 years of service, and it takes more to leading the Defense Department than being shot at.
You need to have military leadership experience.
And your lifestyle should live up to military standards of dignity and respect for both male and female, all members of the military.
His own words have shown us that he does not live by the Army values of loyalty, dignity, respect, selfish service, honor, integrity, personal courage.
And number one to me is integrity, which listening to his words, he lacks.
So I would not sanction him being the next Defense Department.
Eddie, what level of leadership do you think a Defense Secretary should have in service in the military?
Does it have to be a four-star general to be Defense Secretary?
He does not have to be a four-star general, but I do think that he needs to have had been a general in the military because he has earned the respect and honor of all those that he served for and served above.
So I think at least a one-star general.
And, Eddie, just out of curiosity, do you think somebody has to have military service to be Defense Secretary?
Do you think that's required at some point in their lives?
I feel that it is a very strong gives them a they're better suited for the position.
I won't say that it's always been that way because it hasn't, but I do think that they're better suited if they have that experience.
Yes.
That's Eddie Chesterfield, Virginia.
Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times with a look back at a different era of nominations and confirmations.
A story from her time reporting at the New York Times.
The columnist writes, the nominee for defense secretary was in trouble for carousing, transgressing with women, and liquor.
President George H.W. Bush was trying to save his choice.
So he assigned a top White House official to have a private chat with two New York Times White House reporters.
Gerald Boyd and I went over to the White House one cold day in February of 1989 to hear what the official had to say about John Tower, a Texas senator and the chair of the Armed Services Committee, so diminutive, she writes, that he could barely peek over the top of some lecterns.
Could the president justify putting a man in charge of the Pentagon who was prone to drunkenness and chasing secretaries around desks?
What if the official asked us in a wheedling tone, Tower gave up hard liquor and drank only white wine?
Gerald and I just stared at the official.
This guy was trying to bargain with us over the type of alcohol that Tower could drink.
What if the official pressed on Tower had only two glasses of wine a night?
Gerald and I were nonplussed to find ourselves as the arbiters of lous behavior pulled into the negotiation session over inebriance.
What next?
She writes.
Tower would promise to chase only one secretary a week.
What if the official said in a last desperate bid, Tower had only one glass of wine a night?
In the end, she writes, the Senate rejected Tower's nomination the first time since 1959 that the chamber had refused to consent to a president's cabinet nominee.
It was shocking given how clubby the Senate was in those days and how freewheeling many senators were.
Some of the senators who went up to vote against Tower had alcohol on their breath.
Bush learned the hard way.
What Donald Trump will learn with Pete Hegseth, she writes, sometimes you have to cut your losses.
Maureen Dowd writing in the New York Times today.
This is Brandon in Florida, Republican.
Good morning.
So now we can't drink alcohol.
Is that what y'all are saying?
C-SPAN, if you drink alcohol, you're not, you can't be a defense secretary, secretary of defense.
But what gets me is everybody's forgetting Donald Trump won over half of America, got the votes to win the presidency.
He gets to pick who he wants.
The guy's got, he's been in the military.
He knows the chain of the command and all that stuff.
But everybody's giving him a hard time.
C-SPAN, y'all have been very tough on Trump and his picks.
And I just don't understand why now alcohol is a problem that chooses a person to be appointed deaf secretary or secretary of defense.
You're in Florida.
What do you think about a possible Ron DeSantis replacement?
I don't like it because he backstabbed President Trump by running for president, running for the presidency.
I think it's not a good President Trump needs to stay away from him, far away from him.
So I just don't trust Ron DeSantis being Secretary of Defense.
That's Brandon in Florida.
Jeff is on that line for active retired military out of Iowa.
Go ahead.
Yes.
What about Ulysses S. Grant?
He was a drunk, wasn't he?
I think he did a damn good job, didn't he?
Thanks, Spike.
John in California is next.
Independent.
Go ahead.
Yeah, Trump is the president, but Trump just doesn't wave his fingers and everybody is just instantly approved.
He didn't even want to deal with the Senate's advice and consent.
And that's exactly how our nation should not work.
We should have that vice and consent.
We should have presidents that want to pick the best person, not their friends, not their loyalists, not just a cadre of yes men.
He needs to pick people that are good for America.
And when you become a person in these great big, huge positions, your private life is open for examination.
You are the servant of America.
And so people that have bad private lives, they should be eliminated.
That's John in California.
This was the House floor yesterday.
Jim McCover, a veteran Democrat out of Massachusetts, talking about not just this pick, but Donald Trump's picks for his second administration.
This is about a minute and a half of what he had to say.
Look at who Donald Trump is empowering in his new administration.
This is not what people wanted.
I mean, it looks like the requirements to be in the Trump White House are that you either abuse women or you're an out-of-touch billionaire.
What's next?
Are they going to replace FBI background checks with a Fox News screen test?
I mean, forget about a White House cabinet.
Donald Trump is making it into a junk draw.
His commerce secretary, a billionaire, a billionaire.
Big surprise.
I don't think this guy is capable of understanding what average people in my district deal with.
His education secretary, yet another billionaire.
What's her qualification?
She ran WWE.
I guess some schools have wrestling programs.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
His new attorney general pick, an election denier.
The person he tapped to lead health and human services, he thinks tap water turns kids gay.
His defense secretary, I mean, this guy is probably dropping out momentarily.
Apparently, he drinks on the job and paid to cover up his sexual assault allegations.
Even his mom doesn't like him.
I mean, these people don't shop at grocery stores.
Do you think that they pump their own gas or cook their own food?
Of course not.
These are people who hop on helicopters to avoid traffic.
Post the children for the out-of-touch elites.
And the Republicans are bending over backwards for them.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
Jim McGovern on the House floor yesterday, this morning in the pages of the New York Times graphic breaking down themes in Donald Trump's picks for his cabinet positions and high-level posts in his second administration.
It includes at least five billionaires so far.
They write, eight have been major Trump donors, eight of his picks, 11 of his picks have been Fox hosts or contributors.
Nine are or have been registered lobbyists.
At least 12 hosted or co-hosted events at Mar-a-Lago.
The graphic in the New York Times today, if you want to see how they break it down.
This is Dennis in St. Louis, Missouri.
Democrat.
Good morning.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I have a couple of comments.
First of all, we don't talk enough about his lack of management experience.
He ran a couple of small veterans groups and apparently was let go.
So there's no success model here.
But even more important, this has its thinking about our country.
He talks in his books about the enemy within, very similar to the man who appointed him, that the enemy within is more of a threat to American values than overseas enemies.
He attacks the media, universities, any liberal, any Democrat.
And above all, he attacks all teachers and professors.
He calls them Marxists.
This is what he thinks.
I'm a former teacher, so that certainly doesn't resemble my experience.
And above all, you keep reading in his books, and I've read a couple of them.
He is a white Christian nationalist who does not believe in diversity of any kind.
Our military is diverse.
He thinks anybody in a high position who's a woman or who's an African-American is automatically unqualified.
They haven't met some kind of merit standard.
This is the irony of irony since he's unqualified.
So he shouldn't be anywhere near the Secretary of Defense.
It's just a Republican Democrat thing.
There are many qualified Republicans for this position.
So he should absolutely be repudiated.
I think he's going to be, and the country will be better off.
Thank you very much.
Dennis, what made you want to read some of Pete Hegset's books?
Well, mostly just reading about him in the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal.
I guess maybe because the way he attacked education, since that was my profession.
It was insulting, completely insulting.
So you've read these books since the nomination was announced?
Yes.
Which ones did you read?
You know, I read the one on the education where he focused on the Marxist thing.
I also should address that.
The battle for the American Mind?
Yeah.
And then there, and three prominent columnists, Carlos Lozada and Jane Mayer, her expose in the New Yorker.
There have been all kinds of things about him that just it's really remarkable that he is even considered a serious nominee.
And I'm not talking about the abuse of women.
That obviously has gotten all the attention and it deserves to get attention.
But really, there are many, many other factors.
This guy is unqualified on half a dozen accounts.
And I can't believe citizens are calling in thinking he's qualified because he's a veteran or he's a nice guy or he went to Harvard or whatever.
There are a lot of highly qualified people who have good credentials and experience in management, knowledge of the military.
Even DeSantis, who at least he's had the experience of running a state.
You know, he's got management experience.
This guy has none.
God, I shudder to think of what would happen.
So hopefully this nomination is going to go down before the weekend's up.
We will see.
Dennis, in St. Louis, the Jane Mayer piece that came out December 1st in the New Yorker got a lot of attention.
Pete Hegset's secret history, a whistleblower report, and other documents suggest that Trump's nominee to run the Pentagon was forced out of previous leadership positions for financial mismanagement, sexist behavior, and being repeatedly intoxicated.
This is Andy in Lewiston, California, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning, everyone.
Just another loyal loyalist to be appointed.
It seems to me we've it's really no surprise.
We lowered the bar to elect a president, and the bar we've lowered the bar again.
It's just amazing.
Just because you have a tattoo on your arm, we the people and a cross, that doesn't qualify you either.
And his own mother called him a rat.
So I think we need to keep the bar higher.
It's unfortunate we got a president in there.
And morality does matter.
You know, so we lowered the bar for president.
Let's not keep lowering the bar and appointing all of his loyalists.
We need to make America great again, remember?
Andy, is there any of Donald Trump's picks for his cabinet that you do like?
We really need to have loyalty to the Constitution.
And that's really where it lies.
Andy in California.
This is Slotrium in Connecticut.
Good morning.
Did I get that name right?
Good morning.
You did.
Slutorum.
Flutorum.
Go ahead.
I want to just say thank you to see thank you to you guys taking these calls.
The two callers before me, the second caller before me, was very educated in this candidate for Secretary of Defense.
Pete's the shiny coin.
Look at this coin.
He knows he's not going to get picked.
He knows he's going to go through the ringer.
But everybody's paying attention to that.
Well, he's going to get other people through.
The fact is, you got to go through an FBI interview and check.
My question is, did Donald Trump go through that?
Now, if our president went through that, you know, and you're putting this man through the ringer, and he kept coming.
Good or bad, the man for America.
He's for this country.
America.
We're worried about every other country in the world.
Start worrying about us at home.
Because you see, the traumatic people that voted for Trump, we had enough.
Enough.
Pete is not going to be, and if he is, so be it.
You got to figure there's guard lines in place to protect this country.
This man doesn't just run the whole entire country.
There's stages.
But the fact is, the gentleman before us, we lowered the bar.
America is that shiny man.
I see Amen Americans value this country for the Superman of the world.
What happened to our humanity?
You know, what people are missing is you're making it a show.
There's people dying in Ukraine.
There's people dying in all the, for what?
For rich to get richer?
For Trump to make more money?
You're not taking it with you, guys.
It's going to be left in this world.
You're not taking your money with you.
The fact is, you have to go through FBI interviews.
You have to go through FBI checkup.
If he passes, then he passes.
If Trump passes the FBI, then God bless you.
You deserve to be president.
The country voted for you.
And the Democrats to just have Biden drop out and say, okay, Kamala Harris is going to be president.
You kidding me, guys?
You're trying to shortcut the American people.
We're not that stupid.
We didn't vote for this woman to take over the Democratic Party.
She had to win the Democratic Party, but you just leapfrogged that.
Well, you get what you deserve now.
And I hope Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, our president, the country's backing you, sir.
With God first, us second.
I hope this brings us together.
Because first off, you know, patriotism should be for every country.
We live here.
You bring your children here.
You die.
You work.
You serve.
Well, love your country a little.
And I just want to say for the callers before me, God bless you guys.
The one caller was very informed for Pete.
Gave good comments.
But if you do go through the FBI check, I believe that, you know what?
You go through that wringer and these guys say, hey, he's good to go.
Then he has my vote.
But if they say no, then you know what?
I'm sorry, sir.
But my question is, and another thing is.
Well, Slutor, I got your point this morning.
I wanted to talk about background checks.
You bring that up, the Associated Press, with a story on the Donald Trump transition team and that topic.
President-elect Donald Trump's team on Tuesday signed an agreement to allow the Justice Department to conduct background checks on his nominees and his appointees.
After some weeks' delay, the step lets the Trump transition aides and future administration staffers obtain security clearances before Inauguration Day to access classified information about ongoing government programs, an essential step the Associated Press writes for a smooth transition to power.
It also allows those nominees who are up for Senate confirmation to face the background checks that lawmakers want before they then vote on them.
Teams of investigators have been standing by the right to process clearances for Donald Trump's aides and advisors.
This is Debbie out of Michigan Democrat.
Good morning.
You're next.
Debbie, you with us?
Go ahead.
I have a couple concerns.
First of all, your past does matter in a lot of different positions within the world, and it should be considered.
Second of all, if he has a drinking problem and is head of our national security, I believe that is a real problem.
Second, thirdly, his mother says he's got his act together now.
But NBC just had a documentary that his former co-workers, just as of last month, said that he showed up to work drunk and smelled of alcohol and such.
So either his mom's lying to cover for him or something's going on because that many of your co-workers is not going to lie about you.
And then one person, your mother, and him himself says, oh, I've got that under control.
Now that doesn't make any sense.
That's Debbie in Michigan.
This is Patricia in Ohio, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I do think he should be confirmed.
I think the media is out to get him.
We've seen the last four years how they've gone.
It was as if Trump never left office.
And we've lived through four years of a corrupt president protecting his son who benefited financially from our foreign adversaries.
And we said nothing about it.
The media supported him the whole time.
No laptop, nothing.
Everything was disinformation.
Now we have an individual who is appointed, well, nominated for the position of defense secretary.
And I would really ask everyone who's denigrating him, how much experience do you have about running the military?
He at least volunteered and served his country.
And who's to say that he cannot do the job?
That a lot of the people that are throwing stones would not be able to do the job any more than they think he can.
So I have a real problem with people that are throwing stones because people can change.
I do believe that he may have had kind of an interesting past.
However, people can change and change their behavior.
And I do think he's a patriot.
I think he will be good for the military, if nothing else, because he served.
And people who have served, they see it.
And both my son and my husband have served in the military.
And my son, particularly, talks about the things that need to be changed in the military.
So I think Mr. Hickseth will be an okay nominee, and I hope he is elected.
What's one thing your son thinks needs to be changed in the military, Patricia?
I don't feel like I'm at liberty to say that because he, I mean, it's a private conversation, and I do not want to in any way jeopardize his career.
So I don't think I'm at liberty to say anything about that.
It's Patricia in Ohio.
This is Larry in North Carolina, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir.
I'm not on the red team.
I'm not on the blue team.
I'm an independent.
And I'm watching this scenario play out, which is kind of unique.
First, it was the liberal folks against Matt Gates.
And that's okay.
Now it's Pete Hegseth is the worst person in the world and should not be confirmed.
Well, after you have five days of this on C-SPAN, and finally they've had enough, they can't take anymore, and he's gone, who's going to be next?
Will it be Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr.?
I'm just kind of curious because that's what it seems to be.
The liberal media is just out for anything other than Democrats.
So that's my say, and I thank you for letting me have it.
You have a great day.
To Texas, this is Teresa, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I am totally for the nomination of Pete Hegseth.
I think it's disgusting that the liberal media and the Democrats are using their boring typical strategy that they've used for years called the wrap-up smear.
Nancy Pelosi so eloquently stated exactly what the wrap-up smear is during one of her press conferences while she was drunk.
Yes, the Speaker of the House normally is drunk when she have her conferences.
But she did say that they find some gullible reporter and reports it in a corrupt newspaper about whatever falsehoods they want about whatever candidate that they do not want to be in office.
And they keep repeating it.
They bring it to a conference and they say, look, it's been reported.
And it's all crap.
Pete Headseth is more than qualified.
He's been on the ground.
He knows what our military needs.
He's a two-times bronze star recipient.
He would be perfect for the job.
Definitely more qualified than Austin.
Austin is not qualified.
He knew the rules.
He was having a major surgery and didn't notify anybody.
Teresa, do you think?
Do you think it's crap, the reporting that Donald Trump is considering Ron DeSantis?
I don't want Ron DeSantis in there.
No, he shouldn't be in there.
It should definitely be Pete Hegset, not Ron DeSantis.
Ron is doing an outstanding job as governor, and that's where he should stay.
He's doing a great job.
Pete is an outstanding person.
He was on the ground.
He knows what our military needs.
Ever since 2010, a lot of the military men and women left because of the transitioning of the military through Obama when all the transgender started coming in, all the surgeries started going on and things of that nature.
That's not what our military is for.
They've weakened our military.
We need a strong military.
We don't need somebody in there like Austin.
And look at our health secretary.
I mean, who's next?
They're already starting to go after RFK.
So what if they come in with their own money?
So what?
All of our senators and congressmen that are millionaires, and they've been in there for years, they shouldn't be millionaires.
Anybody who becomes a millionaire or a trillionaire, billionaire, whatever they want to be while in Congress or in the Senate, they're thieves.
That's Teresa in Texas.
This is Robert, Fayetteville, North Carolina, that line for active and retired military.
Go ahead.
Good morning, Mr. McCrowder.
Good morning, America, and good morning, my brothers and sisters in arms.
My name is Robert.
I'm a retired colonel.
Spent 34 years in the military from private all the way up.
And from what I understand, this person's qualifications to lead this warfighting industry to protect America.
He's unqualified.
There's a number of schools and things that I have went through from my boot camp training all the way up to command, general, and staff college.
The only school I did not get was the war college because it was time to go to general I've retired.
He's unqualified based because it sounds like he was just a platoon leader.
He didn't go to, from what I understand, he didn't go to the advanced course.
He didn't go to Cash Cube.
He didn't go to the other advanced training to give you a better perspective and viewpoint of our capabilities and leadership.
And the first person that called you and gave you the rundown on how the qualifications are for a bronze star or a CIB or IEB, I said, yes, I agree.
I saw.
This man is unqualified.
And they keep talking about, well, he put his uniform on and he served his country.
Well, I thank him for his service, but he's not qualified in terms of his military training.
If you're talking about Austin, Austin graduated from West Point, and he spent all his years all the way to the top of his ladder, which he understands this building.
He understands the soldiers and their mission.
This man understands his politics.
And on the other side, he understands his politics and what he wants.
I feel very uncomfortable with him leading soldiers that are vastly trained more than him in this area.
Robert, would you feel more or less comfortable with a Ron DeSantis?
No, I wouldn't because he's a Navy lawyer.
I mean, lawyers in the Navy, they're not warfighters, do not understand warfighting.
They are just lawyers in uniform.
And they're specialists, subject matter experts.
You know, they'll do that same job in civilian life that they did in uniform.
That's Robert in North Carolina, James, Dallas, Texas, Independent.
Good morning.
You're next.
James, you with us?
Yep.
Got to stick by your phone, James.
Joe, Signal Mountain, Tennessee, Republican.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
You know, all these people are going gaga over qualifications.
And I mean, like, they went over gates.
They found all out of him.
And he's working on Pete Hitchhiker.
Why does nobody say anything about qualifications of General Milley, the four-star general, who called China in 21 and told him, look, if we're going to attack you, I'm going to give you a call and let you know.
But guess what?
Nobody said anything about that.
He kept his job.
Nobody fired him.
He didn't catch her nuts.
Thank you for your take my call.
Have a good day.
Joe in Tennessee, Carl in the Bronx, Democrat.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Good morning, C-Span.
I would like to say this here.
And I learned this from Free Speech TV.
That guy that Trump put in there, he's a nationalist.
He got a Nazi tattoo on his chest and arms.
You can't see it.
He's a drunk bird.
You understand?
He don't know where he's at happen.
He got so drunk, they had to carry him out the place.
Everybody that that felon is going to put into office is a criminal just like him.
And if they ain't a criminal, they're so close to one that it don't make no difference.
It's Carl in New York.
Last call, Independent.
Gerald, Michigan.
Go ahead.
You know, Donald Trump has a right to pick who he wants for his cabinet.
If the Democrats don't like it, that's too bad.
They had their opportunity.
But this guy is going in for this job here.
You know, at least he does serve with honor.
And General Austin decided he was going to take a walk one day and didn't bother to tell his sports or anybody else where he's going.
You think that didn't put this country in jeopardy?
It did.
It didn't go only this.
But your commander-in-chief never was in the service at all.
The big baddest close to a job he ever come to was being a lifeguard.
Thank you guys very much.
It's Gerald in Michigan, last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
Stick around, though.
Plenty more to talk about this morning, including up next, a look at what happened in South Korea this week, that martial law declaration reaction it received worldwide.
And later, Nebraska Republican Don Bacon discusses the incoming Trump administration and what it means for the future of the armed forces.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2 p.m. Eastern, Book TV presents coverage of the 2024 Wisconsin Book Festival.
You'll hear from authors on the history of refrigeration, the foster care system, what it means to be Native American, and more.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, we'll feature a gala held by publisher Encounter Books to honor Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and Students for Fair Admissions President Edward Blum for their work advancing American ideals and academic freedom, respectively.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, journalist TJ English talks about the rise and fall of Los Muchachos, one of the most successful cocaine empires in U.S. history, in his book, The Last Kilo.
He's interviewed by author and Brookings Institution senior fellow Vondefellbaum Brown.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast?
This holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts C-SPAN has to offer.
On QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.
And on About Books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
A focus now on this week's political turmoil in South Korea.
To do that, we're joined by George Washington University Celeste Arrington.
She serves as director of the school's Institute for Korean Studies.
And Professor Arrington explained what we saw on Tuesday in South Korea leading up to that surprise and short-lived Declaration of Martial Law.
Good morning, John.
Thank you very much for having me today.
So, because of the time difference, we got to watch what unfolded in Korea in the middle of the night during the day here in Washington.
Basically, the president of South Korea, Yoon Song-yeo, called a surprise emergency press conference without notifying many of his members of cabinet or even his own ruling conservative party, the People's Power Party.
And at that press conference, he declared martial law.
This is the first time since 1980 that a South Korean leader has declared martial law, and certainly the first time since South Korea became a democracy in 1987.
Within just two and a half hours of that declaration of martial law, the 190 members of the National Assembly, which is the unicameral legislative body in South Korea, voted unanimously to ask the president to withdraw the declaration of martial law.
So, this is basically from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., the drama that we watched unfold live with lots of media coverage.
The military in South Korea surrounded the National Assembly, and officially, martial law prohibited political activity by lawmakers, but these 190 out of 300 lawmakers that made it to vote in the National Assembly got through the cordons of police and military to get into the building to vote.
The Speaker of the National Assembly even had to climb over a wall to get into the building.
And they resoundingly denounced this declaration of military law with a unanimous vote, including 18 members of the president's own conservative party voting against the motion.
And then we waited for the president to respond, which he did in Korea time at about 4 a.m.
And he, without any fight, withdrew the martial law.
So essentially, Korea was under martial law for about six hours on Tuesday night.
Was this a play for political power?
Was it a political stunt?
How do you interpret what happened?
To be honest, a lot of observers are kind of scratching their heads and trying to understand what the political objective was here because some observers have called it the nuclear option or this was political suicide for him.
It's hard to see exactly what political benefits he saw out of doing this.
Over the entirety of his term since May 2022, President Yoon Song-nyal has faced a National Assembly that's controlled by the opposition party, and they are increasingly at loggerheads with each other and building over the last few months are not just legislative presidential deadlock, but really mutual mudslinging and attacks.
And for example, the opposition party in the National Assembly has tried to impeach dozens of government officials in the Yoon administration.
They haven't tried yet until yesterday to impeach the president himself.
They've also tabled many special investigations of the First Lady and other members of the Yoon administration.
They have passed a variety of different laws that the president then vetoes, and he's used the presidential veto with unprecedented frequency.
So really we have this kind of mutual attack and an unwillingness to compromise.
So there's legislative deadlock.
Increasingly, the president seemed isolated and frustrated.
And it may have been that this week there were a couple of triggers that led him to take such extreme steps as declaring martial law.
But I think few people watching his increasing frustration would have expected such an extreme move as martial law.
And of course so important here because South Korea is such a key U.S. ally, tens of thousands of U.S. service members stationed in South Korea along the border with North Korea.
Reaction around the world, including Anthony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, he was speaking with a Filipino media company, ABS-CBN, about the martial law declaration.
This is about a minute and a half.
We were not aware.
We're obviously watching this very carefully.
Very good to see that the martial law edict was withdrawn by President Yoon after the parliament voted against it.
And for us, this is one of the most critical alliances that we have anywhere in the world.
South Korean democracy is one of the most powerful stories anywhere in the world.
It's very important that any disputes, differences, political differences be resolved peacefully and pursuant to the rule of law.
That's what we're seeing now.
That's what's so important to sustain.
You're saying you welcome the rescinding of the martial law.
Does that mean that you don't think there was justification for it?
Look, I'm not going to get into the decisions that were made, political decisions that were made in South Korea.
All I can say is, as Korea's staunch ally, as a country that also believes that Korea has such an important story to tell to the world because of the extraordinary emergence not only of a democracy, but a strong, resilient democracy, we want to see that sustained because it's in our interest and it's a partnership that's critical to us, but also because of what it says to the world.
So I think it's very important how our allies resolve any internal differences.
As I said, we're watching it closely, but it's good to see that the martial law declaration was rescinded and that the political process is moving pursuant to the rule of law.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken there in that interview.
Professor Arrington, what do you think what happened this week in South Korea?
What does it do to the U.S.-South Korea alliance?
Yeah, I think the election of former President Donald Trump has led to a lot of uncertainty among Korean officials about what's going to happen for the alliance starting in January when he takes office.
And this just throws that much more uncertainty into alliance management.
Under the first Trump administration, we sort of rocketed or rollercoaster from a year of fire and fury and coming close to war with North Korea in 2017 to then in 2018 lots of summit meetings between the leaders of the United States and South Korea and the leader of North Korea.
And so that level of uncertainty and volatility in the alliance, many officials in South Korea were already worried about with the new Trump administration coming in.
But now the political domestic South Korean political instability adds a whole new level of uncertainty.
The cabinet of President Yoon Song-myl offered to resign en masse yesterday.
And so we have leadership turnover in the foreign policy and military administration in South Korea, as well as the uncertain future of the president himself.
If you have questions about South Korea, what happened this week, now would be a good time to call in Professor Arrington with us for about the next 10 or 15 minutes.
Phone line split, as usual, 202748-8000 for Democrats, 202748-8001 for Republicans.
Independents, 202748-8002.
We'll also look for your texts and your tweets.
Here's one of them for you, Professor Arrington.
This is J.D. Redding asking, how does this incident of declaring martial law reflect on the health of South Korea's democratic institutions and what implications might it have for political polarization going forward?
Yeah, I think this is an extreme symptom of political polarization in South Korea.
And it's a deeply historically rooted polarization that tends to be sort of a manichean division of us versus them.
Rather than tolerating the opposition and trying to work together towards a compromise, which is essential in a democracy, it's really about destroying the other side.
And I think both the Conservative Party and the opposition party, which controls the National Assembly, bear some blame here in terms of escalating the level of vitriol and rhetoric and accusation against each other to a point where basic governance has grown really difficult in South Korea.
And that may be expressed in the frustration of Yoon Sung-yol declaring martial law, but declaring martial law is not a normal democratic procedure.
Under the Constitution, there are very specific conditions under which the president is allowed to declare martial law, and those conditions did not obtain this week in South Korea.
So this is kind of stepping beyond the bounds of normal democratic procedure because the normal democratic institutions are not working.
What I worry about for political polarization is that we are now seeing the second impeachment of a president within the last eight years in South Korea.
And just because you don't agree with the other side doesn't mean you should immediately leap to impeachment.
Like there needs to be a more civil discourse in the public sphere in South Korea and a willingness to not tar the other side as the president did as pro-North Korean anti-statist forces, and that's a quote, or as the opposition party is saying, that Yoon Sung-yol is an authoritarian dictator who abuses his power and illegally declares martial law.
This doesn't leave much room for compromise in the middle.
You talk about normal democratic procedure.
Can you speak to the history of martial law declarations in South Korea and democracy movements in response?
Yeah, the last time we had a martial law declaration in South Korea was in 1980, and this was to suppress a pro-democracy uprising in the southern city of Kwangju and that led to the violent deaths and injury of hundreds of South Korean civilians.
And that memory lives on very strongly in the minds of South Korean citizens as a moment in 1979, 1980 when South Korea could have become a democracy.
It was ruled by military dictators.
But the military and dictators suppressed democracy with martial law.
That was the key tool, plus the violence that ensued thereafter.
And so to hear that martial law is declared again immediately calls back up the moment of Kwangju, this violent episode of failure to bring about democracy.
And that through the 1980s, that spirit of Kwangju lived on and sustained pro-democracy activism, which gradually spread to more and more sectors of society to the point where in 1987 the regime capitulated and agreed to allow direct democratic elections.
And so it is central, it's core to the pro-democracy legacy, the movement's legacy in South Korea, that they fought, suffered martial law back in 1980.
And so for the first time since then, to have martial law declared is really a shock.
And we're starting to see polling coming out, but 74% of South Koreans, according to a RealMeter poll, opposed the use of martial law.
So there's pretty Koreans don't agree on a lot of things.
They are politically polarized, as your previous commenter mentioned.
But they seem to have quite a bit of unanimity against the use of martial law.
George is in Westminster, Maryland, Independent, waiting for Dr. Arrington.
Go ahead, George.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
My question, just to get a little bit more clarity on the topic, is the current government in Korea, does it lean more conservative or liberal?
Would you say?
The current government is conservative.
George, and does that.
I was just going to follow on.
Do you see that as something typical for a conservative government when compared to other governments across the world?
So Korean conservatism means a harsh line towards North Korea, pro-business policy, upholding the U.S.-Korea alliance, and maintaining a strong anti-communist stance.
And so for conservatives who ruled from 2008 to 2017 when the previous conservative president was impeached, maintain those policies in general.
On the liberal side, what characterizes South Korean liberals is the legacy of pro-democracy activism lives on in the liberal side primarily.
And they want to establish a more equal partnership with the United States in the alliance.
And they tend to favor engaging North Korea more.
And they have a little bit more attention to social minorities and rights issues.
But the current government, the current president is conservative, but the National Assembly is controlled by the Liberal Party, the Democratic Party of Korea.
And in April 2024 elections, they overwhelmingly won the majority in the National Assembly.
So for the entirety of this conservative president's term, he's had the opposition party in control of the National Assembly, which is part of why this frustration about being unable to get his policies done has built over the last two years.
If a goal of Korean liberalism is a more equal partnership with the United States, what do they envision that looks like?
Yeah, it takes a variety of different forms and depends a little bit on North Korean behavior and actions.
So in 2018, as I mentioned, the then president Moon Jae-in, who is a liberal, he proposed a lot of dialogue with North Korea.
They reached agreements.
He even visited Pyongyang in North Korea to give a speech in front of 200,000 North Korean citizens.
He advocated for more consultation, more equal partnership in the alliance management.
But both the conservatives and the liberals still value the U.S. alliance and the presence of 28,500 troops on the peninsula, in part because North Korea maintains this belligerent stance and is still at war technically with South Korea.
So this is a little bit of a tricky balance to hold while engaging North Korea, also maintaining the U.S.-Korea alliance.
Headline from the Wall Street Journal, South Korean president faces removal vote in parliament.
Walk us through what could happen here, the process, how long it would take, and how long it would be if he is removed for a new leader to emerge in South Korea.
Yeah, there are a variety of different scenarios.
The easiest one is that he decides to resign, but he's said he won't, and he continues to defend the martial law declaration.
The next is, as we'll see on Friday or Saturday, the vote in the National Assembly, which requires 200 votes to pass to impeach him.
Then his powers would be suspended if that vote succeeds.
But that vote requires eight of the ruling party, his own party, the conservatives, to vote against him for impeachment.
The faction, there are factions within the ruling party, but it's not clear yet how much discipline the party will exert over its members.
So we'll have to stay tuned for that.
If he is impeached, the prime minister becomes the acting president and the powers of the president are suspended.
And then the Constitutional Court has 180 days in which to rule to uphold the National Assembly's impeachment motion.
In 2017, the Constitutional Court did rule to uphold the impeachment of then President Pak Gun-hye.
But in 2004, the Constitutional Court overturned the National Assembly's impeachment motion against then President No Moo Hyun.
So how the Constitutional Court rules is still unclear.
There are also, they're missing one justice, it seems like, or one judge enough to rule again for, to uphold the impeachment motion.
If he is impeached by the National Assembly and then the Constitutional Court upholds that decision, South Korea is required to have an election for the president within 60 days.
Who are the people you're watching?
If there is an election, another election in South Korea, who are the names we should know about?
I think part of the challenge for the Conservative Party now and the factions within it trying to decide whether to vote for impeachment or not is that the likely Liberal Party candidate for president is currently undergoing four different trials and he's a very polarizing figure.
He's been convicted in one of those trials for abusing the election law and a variety of other corruption scandals.
So he's not a paragon of virtue and Democratic ideals, I guess.
So for the conservatives, they would see that he would be a likely candidate.
But within the Democratic Party, if that leader of the Democratic Party of Korea decides to step down, there are a variety of other figures who are trying to jockey to become the next candidate.
And they've already been doing so for the next 2027 election because South Korea has a one five-year term presidency currently.
There is a possible other scenario that is probably unlikely where there'd be constitutional revision to switch from a one five-year term to a two four-year term for the president, in which case, if Yoon survives the impeachment motion and the opposition party doesn't decide to keep impeaching him until it works, then his term would not last until 2027, but it would be over in 2026.
And just so we're clear on the terms, the Democratic Party of Korea that you're talking about is what we've been describing as the conservative party, correct?
No, the Democratic Party of Korea is the liberal opposition party, and the People's Power Party is the Conservative Party.
And we're likely to see some reconfiguration of those parties as we head towards a potential election.
There have been more than 40 different parties in Korea over the time.
They frequently reform and rename in part to distance themselves from disgraced leaders like it appears President Yoon is currently because of his rash decision to declare martial law.
Celestia Arrington, thanks for helping to sort it out for us.
Stay tuned down the road.
May bring you back as things develop in Korea.
Professor Arrington of George Washington University, thanks for the time.
Thank you very much.
Coming up, two members of Congress will join us this morning.
The first will be Congressman Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska.
After that, we'll be joined by Tom Suozzi, Democrat of New York, all this morning on The Washington Journal.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend at 12.30 p.m. Eastern, more than 80 years after his death, the recently identified remains of mess attendant third class David Walker of Virginia were buried with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
The 19-year-old African-American sailor was killed on the USS California during the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, the first of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
And then at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, eyewitnesses recount what unfolded inside the White House on December 7th, 1941, as President Franklin Roosevelt learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and then moved to assess the damage and America's response.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
Since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, C-SPAN has provided complete coverage of the halls of Congress.
From the House and Senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings, C-SPAN gives you a front-row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2 p.m. Eastern, Book TV presents coverage of the 2024 Wisconsin Book Festival.
You'll hear from authors on the history of refrigeration, the foster care system, what it means to be Native American, and more.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, we'll feature a gala held by publisher Encounter Books to honor Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and students for Fair Admissions President Edward Blum for their work advancing American ideals and academic freedom, respectively.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, journalist T.J. English talks about the rise and fall of Los Muchachos, one of the most successful cocaine empires in U.S. history, in his book, The Last Kilo.
He's interviewed by author and Brookings Institution senior fellow Vondefellbaugh Brown.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Nebraska Republican Don Bacon is back with us, Congressman Bacon.
Before we get to this week on Capitol Hill, I just want to get you to reflect a bit on a month ago today, Election Day.
This is the lead from a recent piece in the Nebraska Examiner.
They write, Republican Congressman Don Bacon defied the blue dot for a second straight presidential election.
He won Nebraska's Omaha-based second congressional district in another year in which the district's voters backed a Democrat over former President Donald Trump.
National results show how unusual that is.
What do you credit for that victory and that unusual move among your colleagues?
I believe it's eight years of a record where I've worked across the aisle to get things done for our district and for our country.
I was rated the most effective Republican in the House by the Center of Effective Lawmaking.
I've passed more legislation than any Republican in the last three years.
And I was also rated the most bipartisan member of Congress by common ground.
So, you know, the Democrat side, at least the D.C. Democrats, were trying to say that I was a super MAGA radical.
And I was able just to counter it with, you know, University of Virginia data and people that are not, they're not partisan, but they're bipartisan in their ratings.
So I think I was able to show the voters, hey, I work for you.
And I think that was the biggest thing.
I also think there was a disheartening feeling throughout the country, and even in our district, the average American was 4% poorer today than they were four years ago because of inflation outpacing wage increases.
Further, the border was a disaster.
And I think Afghanistan was the beginning of the end for the Biden administration.
I don't think ever recovered from it.
That probably hurt the Democrat chances in the Senate and taking back the House when you put all that together.
Do you think Americans want bipartisanship?
Is that the lesson from election 2024?
Well, you have, you know, you've got some of the wings of both parties that they don't want you to compromise at all.
I don't think that works.
James Madison designed a government with a bicameral three branches of government, checks and balances where you have to work together.
But we have, you know, the wings of our parties don't like it.
However, the reality is the mass majority of Americans are fed up with Congress getting very little done and our government just sort of creeping along because we're yelling and screaming at each other.
So the people want us to work together to solve the border.
They want us to cut spending because that led to inflation, the hyperspending.
And I think they'd like us to work together to figure out how to handle, you know, Russia and China and Iran.
And it can't be party first.
It's got to be America over party.
And they don't see enough of that.
How do you get things done in a Congress in which Republicans will have one of the smallest majorities ever?
The headline from the New York Times talking about the 220 to 215 majority for Republicans, though with vacancies early in the 119th Congress, it may be as slim as 217 to 215.
We just got to realize that if we don't work across the aisle and try to find areas of consensus, you're not going to get much done.
And that's just a fact.
And we did that this last two years.
You know, we had a wing of our party that didn't want to cooperate on a lot of things.
So Speaker Johnson had to work in a bipartisan way.
We did that with FISA.
We did that with a lot of the appropriations bills.
We're going to do it with the defense bill.
In the end, because the way Madison designed our Constitution, you've got to find consensus on the other side of the aisle.
And so it'll just be a reality.
I do think when you look at the Republican Conference in the coming Congress, it is more collegial, more cohesive.
A lot of the folks who created the most arguments and the most division within our own ranks on the Republican side are gone this time.
And so I think we have a more, we've got 220 Republicans, but there's much more of a teamwork mindset.
So I think we're going to be in a better spot.
Who are those folks who created that division that are gone now?
Well, I don't like throwing people under the bus, but I would say the three biggest rabble-rousers on our side, the ones who went after McCarthy, went after Steve Scalise, tried to go after Mike Johnson, they're gone.
And I'll just leave it at that.
I don't like throwing people under the bus.
But the three worst guys when it comes to building a cohesive team on our side are not in this upcoming Congress.
Do you want to name them?
No, I would prefer not naming them.
Let's go to this week.
We've got to be polite.
Let's go to this week on Capitol Hill.
You don't get a vote on confirmation hearings in the Senate, but you are on the House Armed Services Committee.
Pete Hegseth, your thoughts on him being the next Secretary of Defense.
You know, I've liked what he's had to say on Fox when I listened in on Fox News.
So I want to give him that credit.
I know he's a smart man.
But I do think he has an uphill battle.
He's going to have to really work hard to convince to get the 50 senators to support him, I believe.
There's only two areas of contention.
One is he prepared to lead the Department of Defense with 2 million people in it.
And he's going to have to make that case, that he's ready for it.
And I think also for many senators and for many Americans, character still matters, right?
And there's these allegations.
I think they're more than allegations.
And he's going to have to show that that was his history, that he's changed, and that he's a different man.
The military still kicks people out of the military if you have affairs.
I know generals who I served with that were fired and removed from the military for having an affair.
So these topics are relevant when you talk about the military, because we still have the uniform code of military justice, and these standards still apply.
I had a three-star general when I was a colonel, when I was the wing commander at Ramstein, and he was a brand new three-star.
I was brand new coming in as the base commander at Ramstein.
He says, Don, I will fire you if you have a bottle problem, a zipper problem, or if you send somebody to combat that's not prepared.
And I never forgot those words of wisdom.
But that's the code that we live by in the military.
What's the biggest challenge facing the next Secretary of Defense, whoever it is?
I think the biggest challenge is we're not spending enough on defense.
Right now we're spending 3.3% GDP on defense, which is the lowest going back to before World War II.
The norm has been 4% in the Cold War, sometimes 6% under Ronald Reagan, for example.
It was 8% in the 1960s.
3% is not enough to modernize our ICBMs, our bombers, our submarines, to buy the F-35s that we need, the attack submarines, and also provide a quality of life for the men and women who serve.
You know, today we have many military members who are on SNAP.
They rely on food banks.
That's not right.
The greatest military in the world and the greatest country in the world, we shouldn't have military members relying on food banks to put food on the table.
We've had failing scores on our dormitories and barracks.
We've got to fix that.
Our military spouses are the largest demographic in the United States for unemployment.
That could go on and on.
So we've got to provide a quality, we've got to improve the quality of life for the military.
And I'm here to say that 3% GDP is not enough to do all that.
And so the Secretary of Defense, and I've talked to Secretary Austin, but also I've talked to the service secretaries, they're having to make decisions on how to modernize a military that could counter China, and they don't have a big enough top line.
That is the challenge.
Bernie Sanders this week tweeted about the Pentagon failing to pass another audit, its seventh audit.
How do you justify to the American people spending more money on the military when the Pentagon can't pass a simple audit?
Yeah, you know, in fact, most of the federal government cannot pass an audit.
So it's not just DOD.
People want to highlight the DOD, but it's the entire federal government that does a bad job of tracking the money and where it goes.
Now, I'm not opposed to looking at programs in DOD, figure out where we can cut.
I think that's good.
Where we find waste, by all means, let's go for it.
But we also can't be a military that can only build one attack submarine a year.
That is unacceptable.
Attack submarines are one of the most important things we have to counter China.
And we're saying we're going to modernize to counter China.
One attack submarine's not going to do it.
We've got to have F-35s.
We're going to need the next generation of air dominance fighters.
The Air Force is looking at cutting the sixth generation fighter before we even have it designed because they said there's not enough money to do it.
So I'm just, I'm not opposed to cutting wasteful programs where we find it, but you've got to have military equipment and at a quantity and quality that can counter China, Russia, and Iran.
And we're not doing it right now.
As usual, plenty of calls for you, Congressman Bacon.
Phone lines for viewers, as usual, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
We'll put them up on the screen.
But this is Stephen Upfirst out of Wyndham, Connecticut, Independent.
Go ahead.
Hey, good morning, Representative Bacon.
I know you don't have a vote, but a lot of your observations about Pete Hagseff, I agree with.
And, you know, not only it's a huge bureaucracy, you know, when you got a lot of young people and you are an alcoholic or a womanizer, it's not helping the team.
It's just not helping our team.
And I think we can do better.
And the budget problem goes across, like, we have an aging population.
That's cutting into the military budget.
I'm not the one to solve that problem.
But I would vote personally, no, if I was in the Senate against Pete Hegseph.
I think we can do better.
I have nothing against the guy.
Comes across like a good guy.
But you're dealing with a lot of young people.
And, you know, character does matter.
Thank you for letting me have my say.
Well, I appreciate the comments.
I'll give you an anecdote.
When I was a captain and then a major when President Clinton was the president, when that scandal came out on Monica Lewinsky, I would tell you the military, I'm not going to say for, I can't speak for everybody, but by the huge, vast majority is like, we would have got fired for that.
And I'm just saying, and I think this same scenario applies when we're talking about the nominee for the current Secretary of Defense.
The military has to live by a high standard, and we still have rules on the book.
You can't have affairs.
You can't fool around with subordinates.
If you do, you get fired.
If you're a commander, you're going to get kicked out of the Air Force.
And I think these are good standards.
We have a saying in the military, and I think it's viable, and I appreciate it.
If your wife can't trust you, neither can I.
And that's the code that we live by.
So I appreciate the comments.
I also want to talk about the budget crunch that is hurting the military.
So right now, we have about two workers for every retiree.
We're getting close to that.
In 1950, it was 15 workers for every retiree.
So what this has done, the shift to an aging population, is really grown the Social Security outlays and the Medicare outlays, the Medicaid outlays.
And so today, 72% of the budget is called mandatory spending, and only 28% is discretionary, of which half of that discretionary is defense.
And every year that number gets smaller, and it's putting huge pressure on trying to fund our military.
I support a debt commission where it's half Republicans, half Democrats.
Both sides will get wins and losses.
We've got to find a way to balance our budget, save Social Security, save Medicare, but it's going to hurt.
It's going to hurt, and both sides have got to have ownership of this.
But if we don't do this, it's going to get harder and harder to fund the things that we need to, and it's not going to get easier with each year to save Social Security.
We've got to make tough decisions now, and it's got to be a bipartisan solution.
If Republicans try to do this on their own, they're going to get destroyed in the next election.
If Democrats try to do it on their own, they're going to get destroyed.
It's got to be an American solution to this, and we've got to just face the facts.
Louisville, Kentucky, Bernie Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning, sirs.
The situation in South Korea, it seemed like it happened so quickly, and I've listened to the radio, and then six hours over, it's basically over.
What is our position with that?
Did anybody see that coming?
And one other quick question.
Sir, would you ever consider running for higher office?
Bernie, do you want to see him run for higher office?
I do.
We've talked before on the phone, and I actually had a person who could run with him, and I mentioned it.
But I think we need somebody from the House of Representatives.
I think we've had a lot of senators, governors, and the private businessmen run.
I think it's about time to get a new perspective from the House of Representatives.
And Don Bacon, you've got a great name.
Everybody loves Bacon.
Well, thank you so much.
What was the first?
It was about South Korea.
Oh, South Korea.
I got thrown off by the second part of the comments there, so I'll get to that.
But, you know, I don't think anyone saw it coming that I know of.
I didn't have the intel briefing, but from the folks I've talked to, it was a surprise.
And obviously our position is America's position would be we would be opposed to martial law.
But I'm a half-glass full guy when you look at South Korea.
I mean, look at the imagery at night with the infrared satellites.
South Korea shines bright.
It's one of the best economies in the world.
It is a democracy, though it had a hiccup with this martial law declaration.
Then you look at North Korea.
There's like one little speck of light at night in Pyongyang, and the rest of the country is dark.
The average North Korean is a couple inches shorter than the average South Korean because they don't eat as well.
And they're shut off from the rest of the world.
It's a dictatorship.
So I look at South Korea and I see a success story that America could feel so proud of our involvement in the Korean War and the sacrifice made by roughly 40,000 U.S. military who lost their lives there.
But look at what we have today, one of the greatest, most prosperous countries in the world.
So I want to be the half-glass full guy on this.
And my future, I just, I'm a Christian.
I pray for God's will and wisdom on how to go forward.
You know, doors will shut, doors will open.
When I retired from the military in 2014, I never guessed I was going to run for Congress in 2016.
I was campaigning for the Republican there, and he ended up losing that election.
And suddenly I become on the short list for nominees.
And so I just pray that I'm ready and able to serve in whatever capacity when those doors open.
I love our country.
I love Abraham Lincoln, studying him.
I love Winston Church.
I love people who make a positive difference.
I like reading about people that have moral courage that do the right thing when it's not popular, but they end up doing the right thing.
And later their country sees just how, like, Abraham Lincoln's a case in point, he saved our country.
God put him there, I believe, but he was very unpopular at the time.
But when you look backwards, he had this moral courage, he had this wisdom to do the things that he did, and he saved our country.
And I want to make a positive impact on our country.
Esperanza out of Florida, Republican, is next.
You're on with Don Bacon.
Yes, we would like to make just an observation with regards to Peter Hedset, and that is that constitutionally he is protected and innocent until found otherwise.
So this whole thing that everything now, every time somebody gets nominated, it's just one allegation after another.
One end.
So I just wanted to be in complete support of Pete Hedsett's nomination for Defense Secretary.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate the caller's input on that.
I agree, especially when it comes to crimes, right?
And he's not being charged with a crime.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
But we also have a very high standard to be the Secretary of Defense.
And I think that standard is higher than versus charging somebody with a crime and going to a jury.
But Mr. Hegseth's going to have a chance to make his case in front of 100 senators.
He's going to have that chance in hearings.
And, you know, I wish him well.
I just think he has an uphill climb.
What do you think of reports that Donald Trump is possibly considering Ron DeSantis as a replacement nominee for Pete Hegseth?
I know it's just reports.
I don't know if it's true, but I think that the governor just hands to make a great Secretary of Defense.
And he has proven himself that he can lead at a very high level, that he can lead a 2 million person organization.
I mean, he's the governor of Florida, and he's been tremendously successful as the governor of Florida.
Plus, he has experience in the U.S. House.
I served with him in the 115th Congress.
So I know he'd be very good, and I think he would be easily confirmable.
Athens, Georgia, Jimmy's an independent.
You're next.
Good morning.
Thank you for being a centrist.
The one quote that stuck in my head that you said is, if your wife doesn't trust you, then neither do I.
And I guess that's the reason I did not vote for Donald Trump and I voted for Kamala instead, because I don't think even Melania is going to trust Donald Trump.
With that being said, I do appreciate your opinion.
And I think that Pete's wife doesn't trust him either.
And that's just coming from his mother.
It was Pete's mother.
The other thing that people have been calling in and complaining about, it's the liberal media who've been attacking Pete.
But I learned on Fox News, which is not the liberal media, that his mother wrote a letter saying that he had low character because he was cheating on his wife.
And so that right there, I think, should be enough to disqualify this man.
There are a lot of good people who deserve to be Secretary of Defense.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
I don't know if I have anything to add to that, John.
I would say about the presidential race in my district in Omaha, they call it the blue dot, but we like to call it the bacon dot.
Vice President Harris won our district by five points, and we won it just under two.
And so, and if we had these comments all the time, like, how can you vote for this person or how can you vote for that person?
I would just tell people we all have a right to our priorities.
You know, I think many of the Republicans put the border as the top priority, and I think that's a very valid concern.
We had 10 million people across here.
We've had innocent people murdered by criminals who come across the border.
Other people put the economy as the number one issue because the wages didn't keep up with inflation.
Other people put the character issue on January 6th.
And I would just tell people, no one has a right to tell you that you can't vote your priority and what's important to you.
Because what I saw during the election was a lot of shaming.
Shame on you for supporting this person or shame on you for supporting that person.
We live in the United States of America.
We have a right to support who we want without having someone point their finger at you and saying, shame on you.
And so I appreciate the caller's perspective.
And I know a lot of people shared that.
I just would also point the other side of it, the border and the economy.
We're the top two issues in this election.
And that's why we have Donald Trump as the nominee today.
Charlene, California Democrat.
Good morning.
Mr. Bacon, I wanted to compliment you on showing your spirit through your character.
You know, truth is a lie.
I think instead of all them expensive Bibles in the schools and everything, I think some great wallpaper with the Ten Commandments on it throughout the White House would be a great place to start.
A great investment and wouldn't cost this much.
You know, I don't care if you call it truth.
I don't care if you call it lies.
It doesn't matter.
There's a difference.
It's simple.
We try to complicate things.
But you know what?
The sulfur is caked.
We cannot allow it to unite.
Ignite.
Ignite.
We can't allow it.
And the only way to not allow it is to stay in truth.
Mr. Bacon.
Thank you.
You're a good man.
Keep sure.
I hope my wife's listening in and my dad right now.
So if I thank you so much for the kind words, I would maybe give you a couple anecdotes on this.
I mean, I was at a county party meeting, and I said I'm a Christian first, I'm an American second, then I'm a Republican.
And this man yells at me, he goes, That's why we don't like you.
And I go, which part?
The Christian part or the American part?
I feel like we're in this society today.
It's called the post-truth society, or some people call it the post-Christian society.
And it's more important in this culture, it's more important to win than to do the right thing.
But I don't think that's healthy.
I'd love to see our country go back where it's more important to do the right thing and try to stand for what's right.
And I get it, good people can disagree what that means at times.
And good people do disagree.
But if we're trying to pursue what's right and what's honest, then you can find consensus and you can come up with policies that are more bipartisan.
But if it's the most important thing to win, then it's very hard to govern our country and to have a successful culture and a successful society.
So I appreciate the kind lady's feedback.
Less than five minutes left with Congressman Don Bacon.
I know you're on the Ag Committee as well.
What's the status of the farm bill?
It looks to me like we're going to have to do an extension until next year, and I don't like it.
We had a good farm bill that came out of the House or came out of the House committee, but the Senate has not produced an Ag Bill out of committee.
And so they've been negotiating off of our bill, but it's not ready yet to pass.
They don't have an agreement yet on a Senate and a House Ag bill that both sides can agree on yet.
So we're going to do an extension, I believe, this month into next year, and hopefully we can get this done as soon as possible.
Our farmers need it.
You know, one of the worst egregious things in this current administration, in my view, they inherited an agriculture trade surplus.
Now we have about a $50 billion trade deficit in agriculture.
And we're the breadbasket of the world.
We need a president fighting for our trade and opening up doors for our agriculture products.
And I think it's just terrible that America has a trade agriculture deficit, the breadbasket of the world.
And so we need a farm bill that helps out our farmers and ranchers.
Hillsboro, New Jersey, John, Independent.
Thanks for waiting.
Yes.
My question is: you were talking earlier about the deficit and the military, how they need money.
Why can't the government do like they did at the end of World War II and tax the rich like 80% until we have enough funds to pay down the deficit and make everything reasonable again?
What I like.
I did after World War II.
I'm surely not a proponent for 80% tax rates myself.
I know we had one at one time at 90% even.
I guess I have the reverse view that Americans work and it's their money and it's not the government's money.
So I come from that philosophical background.
But I do think we need to do, we're going to have to make some hard decisions.
Our discretionary spending, our income taxes more than cover it, easily cover it.
So we pay for our discretionary spending relatively easy.
It's the mandatory spending, and we tax that by doing withholdings right through our paychecks.
And we have a Medicare withholding, we have a Social Security withholding.
And it worked when it was 15 workers to one retiree.
Now we're going to two to one.
And so we're going to have to sit down, Republicans and Democrats together, and there's going to have to be hard decisions.
And I do believe there will be more taxes involved.
There's going to be a combination of things that we're going to have to do to do it.
And it's going to be painful.
However, our country facing bankruptcy is even more painful.
And when we have a country that can't pay for its defense, that's more painful.
And we have real adversaries out there in China, Russia, Iran.
We still have ISIS.
We still have Al-Qaeda.
And it's more painful to lose to an adversary than to make the tough decisions now.
So we got to be grown-ups, be responsible, and make tough decisions.
Last call, 90 seconds left.
This is Tim in Gasville, Arkansas, Independent.
Go ahead.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Bacon.
Listen, for years I've been with you, and most of what you say I like.
But look, Pete Hegseth is a good man.
Matt Gates was a good man.
And every time Donald Trump, now that he got the votes, and listen, in your little district, you got a million votes, he got 74 million.
And he wants this person, and I want him to have who he wants.
Now, when Mike Pence refused to reject unconstitutional ballots, okay, he did what most Republicans do.
When they're in power, they shrink.
They mope.
They whine.
Okay, you got the power.
You got the reins.
Donald Trump got the votes.
We don't need to be second-guessing and spreading rumors about a good man.
Tim in Arkansas.
I'll give you the final word, Congressman Bacon.
I appreciate the callers' comments, but I think we would have had a constitutional crisis if Vice President Pence didn't do what he did.
Yeah, I, frankly, I studied the law.
He had no other recourse than to do what he actually did.
And I studied the law of 1879 that guides our Electoral College vote.
So I want to defend him on that.
And by the way, President Trump's going to get 90 to 95 percent of more of his nominees.
There's some great ones.
Collins for the VA, Stefanik going to United Nations, Bergenham going to the Interior Department.
Many of these are just outstanding nominations.
But we have a checks and balances system.
James Madison put in into the Constitution that the Senate has a constitutional duty to confirm and to give consent on these nominees.
And if someone can't get the 50 votes there, that's part of the checks and balances that we have.
And that's the role of this, one of the roles of the Senate.
And they should do their duty.
And they need to do due diligence.
And they should give Pete Hegseth a chance, give him a chance to defend his record and these allegations.
But in the end, they get to confirm and provide their consent, and we got to support that.
And we will end it there, Congressman.
There was a caller who was talking about you running for president earlier.
I would just note, political homeless Tony on Twitter opens up this campaign slogan for you if you want it.
Everything is better with Bacon.
Well, thank you.
And by the way, I want to say Tom Swasey is coming on.
He's a great friend of mine, and he's one of the best guys to work across the aisle with.
So I just want to compliment him before he comes on.
I appreciate that.
And that's our promo for our next segment.
Congressman Bacon, appreciate the time.
And we'll be right back with Tom Suozzi.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2 p.m. Eastern, Book TV presents coverage of the 2024 Wisconsin Book Festival.
You'll hear from authors on the history of refrigeration, the foster care system, what it means to be Native American, and more.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern, we'll feature a gala held by publisher Encounter Books to honor Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and students for Fair Admissions President Edward Blum for their work advancing American ideals and academic freedom, respectively.
Then at 10 p.m. Eastern on Afterwards, journalist TJ English talks about the rise and fall of Los Muchachos, one of the most successful cocaine empires in U.S. history, in his book, The Last Kilo.
He's interviewed by author and Brookings Institution senior fellow Vondefellbaugh Brown.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
This weekend at 1230 p.m. Eastern, more than 80 years after his death, the recently identified remains of mess attendant third class David Walker of Virginia were buried with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
The 19-year-old African-American sailor was killed on the USS California during the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
And at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures and History, the first of a two-part lecture by University of Maryland history professor Michael Ross on the 1893 trial of Lizzie Borden, who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother with an axe.
The murders and trial received widespread publicity at the time, and Lizzie Borden became a lasting figure in American popular culture.
And then at 9.30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, eyewitnesses recount what unfolded inside the White House on December 7th, 1941, as President Franklin Roosevelt learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and then moved to assess the damage and America's response.
Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org slash history.
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 in counting, powered by cable.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN Works and C-SPAN Radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org slash c-span now.
C-SPAN Now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
Washington Journal continues.
New York Democratic Congressman Tom Swazzi is back with us this morning, joining us from Capitol Hill.
Good morning, Congressman.
Hey, John, how are you?
Doing well, sir.
Two sentences from about your 2024 election victory from your column in the Long Island Herald.
You write that while most everyone who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in my district voted for me, another 20,000 people voted for both me and Donald Trump.
I'm grateful to every voter who supported me, but we need to learn some lessons from those 20,000 ticket splitters.
What lessons do we need to learn?
Well, in that same article, the first line was something along the lines of everybody's asking, you know, how could people vote for Donald Trump?
When instead they should be asking, why did they vote for Donald Trump?
And, you know, the people in my district that supported me while also supporting Donald Trump, I think not only do they know me, but they're sick and tired of the extremism, and they know that I reject the extremism.
They want us to embrace common sense, and they want us to work across party lines to actually get stuff done.
People are sick and tired of the finger-pointing and the attacking.
They want us to work together to actually solve problems to address the things they're concerned about, like the border, like the cost of living.
In my district, the state and local tax deduction is a very big issue.
They want public safety.
In New York, there's a big debate about public safety over the past several years.
I was one of the few Democrats endorsed by the police unions.
So I think we have to listen to what the people are saying.
They're sick of, as I said, the fighting all the time.
Let's work together to actually solve problems.
Enough with the culture wars and the identity politics.
What's bothering people?
How can we make their lives better?
Let's work together.
Let's solve the problems.
In the 119th Congress, the difference between Democrats and Republicans, just five seats.
Is that an opportunity for more working across the aisle, or is that a recipe for more partisanship?
Well, I think it's essential that we work across party lines.
And it's going to be a lot less than five seats because three people may join the Trump administration, or two of them, and one Matt Gates resigned.
So it's going to be a one-seat difference, 217 to 215.
So this is an opportunity for us to actually work together to get things done.
Let's see if we can stand up to the extremes on both sides, the far right, the far left, and work together somewhere in the middle to actually solve problems.
So how do you solve the problem of the border, a problem that has been going on for years in this country and Congress has attempted to address several times?
Well, it's 30 years and it's been growing.
I first was dealing with newcomers from Central and South America when I was the mayor of Glen Cove.
A lot of people from El Salvador especially gathering on street corners, many of whom were undocumented.
So this is not a new phenomenon.
And people took, oh, the Trump administration, it was so much better.
I don't know if everybody remembers the kids in cages.
And it wasn't until COVID that things, the numbers declined so precipitously.
And as we recovered from COVID, we started to see the numbers go up.
And that's not to say there's not blame in the Biden administration.
There is.
But there's blame in the Trump administration.
There's blame in the Obama administration.
There's blame in every administration before that as well.
So we have to recognize this is a thorny problem.
Number one, we have to secure the border.
We have to spend the money to build the wall and to hire more Border Patrol agents and more immigration judges and we'll work on technology and work with other folks in Mexico and other Central American countries to stop people from coming to the southern border in the first place.
That's first thing is we need to secure the border.
A lot of that was in the Senate bipartisan deal that was proposed back in February of 2024, earlier this year, a big topic of my special election campaign when I replaced George Santos.
Second thing we need to do is fix the broken asylum system.
In 1980, when we first started the asylum system, the law that was passed in 1980, people were excited about asylum.
When someone said I'm defecting from the Soviet Union, people in America were like, yes, great.
Wow, you're defecting.
Claim asylum.
America's great, you know, the beacon of hope throughout the world.
We love the idea of asylum in those days.
Now we're being overrun with people that are abusing the asylum system, mainly because the cartels and organized crime and the coyotes are making billions of dollars to bring people to our southern border, coaching them to claim asylum.
Most of these cases are bogus claims.
85% of them are ultimately rejected where people are denied asylum.
The problem is it takes six, seven, eight years because the system's so overwhelmed to actually adjudicate the cases.
So we need to fix the broken asylum system to update the law that was last updated in 1986 to fix the standards as to how do you get through the first checkpoint.
And we need to stop accepting, I believe, asylum applications at the southern border.
Instead, we should be having people apply for asylum in safe mobility offices throughout the world.
You know, the Republicans were talking about remain in Mexico.
Well, remain in Mexico is not really a great policy because people who hike all the way to the southern border and then we get them to stay in Mexico get abused while they're there and they get assaulted and they get raped and they get fleeced of their money.
Instead we should have people throughout the world.
We have three of them being set up now by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security where people can apply in safe locations throughout the world for asylum.
They can stay in these safe locations and if they're accepted for asylum, they can come to America.
If they're not accepted, they don't get to come to America.
But instead of people waiting in Mexico or waiting here in the United States of America while these cases are adjudicated, let's have them apply in places that are close to where they live in safe locations and have the cases adjudicated there.
So one, secure the border, two, fix the broken asylum system, and three, let's modernize the legal migration system and treat people like human beings.
People that came here as dreamers when they were little kids and they've been here for literally 30 years, 20 years, have otherwise followed the rules.
This is their country.
They graduated from high school.
They're now either in college or they're working full time or they're in the military.
Let's give them a path to legalization.
It doesn't have to be a path to citizenship.
Just make it so that they can travel freely and that they can live their lives.
They can pay their taxes and they can stop looking over their shoulder.
But let's legalize them, give them the work permits and the green cards and the authorization for them to live a productive life instead of living in the shadows.
Same thing with TPS recipients.
People have been here 20, 30 years that we invited to America because there was an earthquake or a civil war or something that happened in their country.
Let's give them a path to legalization.
Let's do something with the farm workers that we've been talking about forever.
There's so much bipartisan agreement on, we just can't get it over the finish line.
Let's work on the Afghan readjustment, all these people in Afghanistan that helped us during the Afghan war that want to come to the United States of America that we believe should come to America.
Let's fix that.
Let's help the health care workers.
Let's build a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of businesses, badges, and the Bible to work together to treat people like human beings, to make sure our communities are safe, and to make sure our businesses can succeed in our country and our economy can thrive, and people can pay their taxes and pay their Social Security taxes and live without having to live in the shadows.
It's all doable if we can just get over the politics and the extremism and the finger-pointing to work together to actually solve the problem.
I'll just get out of the way and let you chat with callers.
We'll start in Long Island, Glen Cove, New York.
Hey, it's my hometown.
There you go.
William, Democrat, go ahead.
Good morning to everybody.
Thank you, C-SPAN.
My question is going right where you just were with the moderator, representative, and that is concerning mass deportation in specific.
But before I get to it, I'm 62.
I'm born on the North Shore.
I've been in Glencove for a year after being over in Port Washington, living across the street from Tony Durso and his wife.
Beautiful people.
I'm also 62.
I'm 60.
I'm 26.
I'm a regular guy.
I'm 62 also.
And I'm a regular guy, too.
Okay, so I'm in the house of La Crosse player and you're a Glen Cove guy.
It's okay.
So I'm going to ask the question, and I'm not going to get into the Santos and Desposito self-immolations, that you can talk about with your caucus.
Let's get to the question.
And that would be, I've been thinking for quite a while, and you're the highest ranking person I can put this question to.
How would you approach in your caucus with your team from New York, with Hakeem team and everyone else, if Trump is playing chess?
And it's just a pawn move.
It's a pawn move regarding the mass deportations at 13 million.
But he turns around and says, let's legislate a worker program without any certainty or absolute path to permanency, but with a legal status that if you do not, if you do not register and you're undocumented today, you'll be subject to deportation.
If you do register, you're going to get a guest worker type of status unless you have a felonious background.
How do you think you guys should work across the aisle to make that happen?
Because I think that's where this is going.
Well, I think that would be great if we could give people a pathway to legalization so that they can work and they can productively contribute to our society and they can pay their taxes and stop living in the shadows.
So I love that idea.
I don't know that we're getting to that part.
As far as mass deportations, you know, they're talking now about deporting criminals.
Well, I support the idea of deporting criminals.
That's what we should do.
And we should let them and work with them to accomplish that objective.
We have to be careful, though, that government's not always good at doing things.
Sometimes they make some bad mistakes.
And when we start seeing parents pulled away from their kids or kids pulled away from their parents, or we start seeing people show up and knock down doors of people that a criminal used to live there, but now they've moved out and there's a family living there and the family's being intimidated by their door getting knocked down, there's going to be problems that are going to come.
This would be much better if we could work together and set up a reasonable system so that people's rights are protected, but also working together to deport criminals.
So I think that what you're talking about sounds like a very reasonable thing.
Let's work together to people, give people the authorization to work without being living in the shadows.
Portsmouth, Virginia, Susan, Republican, good morning.
You're on with Congressman Tom Swace.
Hi, good morning.
I just have two comments.
When the Democrats were in power, they're smash mouth.
When they're out of power, it's let's work together, if you ever notice that.
I'm sorry I had a cold.
The 320 missing children, maybe if we had put them in cages and determined who their parents are, we wouldn't be missing them.
So maybe cages were a good idea, sir.
Thank you.
Okay, well, I don't think cages are a good idea, but let me just say very clearly, you know, I was first elected to Congress in 2016, took office in 2017.
That's when President Trump was first elected, and the Republicans controlled the House and controlled the Senate.
And I was the vice chairman of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and I've been working across party lines, whether the Republicans are in power or whether the Democrats are in power.
Because you can't get anything done unless people work together across party lines.
This past Congress, the Congress we're sitting in right now, was one of the least productive Congresses in the history of the United States of America.
Harry Truman used to talk about the Do Nothing Congress.
This was the Do Nothing Est Congress.
I came back to Congress.
I was in Congress for six years.
I ran for governor of New York.
I got my butt kicked in a Democratic primary.
I didn't run for reelection.
The race took place, and this guy, George Santos, became the congressman.
And the people kicked him out of the members of Congress kicked him out, and I ran in a special election and came back in February.
But one of the biggest issues that we were facing in the country at the time was a bill to fund Israel, fund Ukraine, and fund Taiwan.
And the Speaker, Speaker Johnson, who I started with in 2017, was worried about putting the bill on the floor because Marjorie Taylor Greens and others were saying, if you put that bill on the floor, we're going to kick you out of Congress.
We're going to, like we did with Kevin McCarthy.
I was the first Democrat in the country to say, Mr. Speaker, if you put that bill on the floor, not only will it pass overwhelmingly bipartisan, but more importantly, if they try to kick you out, I will vote to keep you as the Speaker, even though you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat.
And that became exactly what happened.
We put the bill on the floor.
It passed overwhelmingly bipartisan.
It was one of the few things that got done that was productive in this past Congress.
It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.
And when they tried to kick him out, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others tried to kick him out, many, many Democrats joined in supporting to keep him as the Speaker.
So we've got to always work together.
I don't even know what smash mouth means.
We've got to try and work together regardless of who's in power.
Don Bacon was on before you and we were talking about the 119th Congress and he said that he was hopeful it would be more productive and believed it would be in part because three particular members are not coming back.
He did not choose to name those members.
But in terms of productivity, this 119th Congress versus the 118th, what are your thoughts?
Well, let me first say that everybody loves Bacon and he's a great guy, Don Bacon.
And I'm working together with him.
You know, there's a guy named Morgan Luttrell from Texas and Don Bacon and Dan Newhouse and others that were trying to work together to build this coalition of business, badges, and the Bible to figure out a way to do the things I was talking about earlier with the border, to secure the border, to fix the broken asylum system, and to modernize the legal immigration system.
I think there's tremendous hope for this Congress because if there's one thing that's clear is that people are sick and tired of the extremism and I think the election results and the tightness of the margin between Democrats and Republicans illustrates is that people really want us to work together.
Janet in Illinois Independent, good morning, you're next.
Yes, I think the immigration system needs to be handled in the first place.
Immigration problems are taking place all over the world.
North Africans want to get to Europe.
Central Americans want to get to the United States.
The question is, why are these people having to come here in the first place?
What has happened to them?
Have the cartels taken over their homes?
Have the cartels robbed them of their title to their land?
Have they kidnapped their children, left them penniless?
What is going on anyway?
We need to form a mini-United Nations of the Western Hemisphere and find out just what is happening in Central and South America that is causing these people to come.
We cannot house the whole of the world here in the United States.
And neither can England and Europe house the whole of Africa and Asia.
I'm Swazi.
Was that Janet?
I think her name was Janet.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, that's such an excellent point, Janet, that not enough people talk about.
It's about the root causes of why are so many people fleeing to try to come to the United States of America, paying all this money to the cartels and the organized crime and the coyotes to try and make that awful trek to come to the southern border, as well as, as you said, into Europe and other places throughout the world where they feel there's a safe haven.
There are more refugees in the world today than there were after World War II.
I mean, just think about that.
Tens of millions of people who've been displaced from their homeland because of war, because of famine, because of climate change, because of persecution, because of economic circumstances, people that have just lost a place to live or where they feel safe to live.
And that's the root causes of the problems that exist.
And every problem we face in our country, every problem we face in our world, quite frankly, but here in America, every problem we face is complicated.
Nothing is simple.
Anybody who says, why don't you just, doesn't know what they're talking about.
We need people to stop trying to solve problems in an environment of fear and anger where everybody's just yelling at each other.
That doesn't work in your family, that doesn't work in your business, and it certainly doesn't work in the halls of Congress.
If you want to solve problems, you need people of goodwill to sit down across the table from each other and say, well, I think this.
And they say, oh, I think that.
And they may disagree with each other.
But let's work together to find common ground so we can move forward to actually solve the problems that people face.
You need people to have goodwill, to have some trust, and to talk to each other.
And stop the yelling and screaming.
It'll never solve anything.
Back to your home state, West Babylon, New York.
This is John, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Mr. Swazi.
Yes.
I was raised in Glen Cove.
I went to Glencove High School, and I think I was probably your, was it your father or your brother was my mayor?
Well, in the 50s, my father was the mayor.
In the 70s and 80s, my uncle was the mayor.
I was the mayor in the 90s, and then my cousin was the mayor after that, and we never got along with each other.
Well, that's politics for you.
There's always been a Swazi in Glen Cove, so I know the name quite well.
And, you know, I graduated from Glencove High School in 1965, so I figured it was your father that was my mayor.
Yeah, when you were a young boy, in 65, so in the 50s, my father was the mayor.
My father was born in Italy, came to the United States as a little boy, first kid to go to college, fought in World War II, was a navigator on a B-24, got the Distinguished Flying Cross, and came home and went to law school on the GI Bill.
And he couldn't get a job at a law firm because nobody liked the Italians, because the Italians had teamed up with the Germans during World War II.
So he had to start a law firm with another Italian guy in Glen Cove.
And at 28 years old, he ran for city court judge.
He was the youngest judge in the history of New York State.
What a country America is.
So a lot of what I do is always about trying to live up to my father's legacy.
Yeah, what a country is right.
I love that.
Now, let me ask you a question with this illegal alien.
How are you going to find them?
And then if you have a Gavin Newsom to have to deal with, how are you going to find the bad ones to deport them?
So that's a tough question.
You say, how do you find the bad ones?
That's a really important part of figuring out the right way to do this.
But I think that Democrats would make a big mistake if they try and resist or fight the idea of deporting criminals.
And that should be something that we should be working together on.
I don't think any reasonable person thinks that you can immigrate to the United States of America illegally, commit a crime, and then you should get to stay here.
Everybody thinks we should be deporting criminals.
Now, defining what a criminal is is not easy, but being guilty of a crime is a pretty good definition.
So we should be working together to deport criminals, and we shouldn't be resisting that effort.
And I can pretty much safely guarantee, as I said earlier, there's going to be problems that are going to arise from that.
There are going to be mistakes made by government, as government often makes mistakes.
It's a big giant bureaucracy in that process.
So we have to be reasonable.
We have to be smart about how we go about doing that.
And to do that, we need to work together to identify who the criminals are, especially convicted criminals, and work together to deport them.
The next problem you're going to face is, you know, when you want to deport people, you have to have a place to deport them to.
But we don't have an agreement with many countries from which undocumented persons came from to send them back to those countries.
We're going to have to get agreement from other countries for us to deport these folks back to those countries.
So it's really going to be a tough situation.
The only way to actually solve it is by getting people to work together.
Just a couple minutes left with Congressman Tom Swazi, Democrat of New York.
This is Sean Independence of Baltimore.
Good morning.
Good day.
My question to Mr. Swazi is, what is the Democrat Party going to do to get the voters back they used to have, like myself?
I voted Democrat all my life until this election.
I had to vote for Trump because your party, now I know Mr. Swazi, you're different.
I heard some of the things you're saying, you talking about the border.
So you're different from a lot of Democrats, but let's be real.
The party as a whole, they don't think like you.
And like that, I voted Democrat all my life until this past election.
I had to vote for Trump because all the Democrats were offering me were just transgenderism, illegal immigration, abortion.
They weren't worried about the economy.
They were lying.
And like that last caller brought up, you have to deal with people in your party like Gavin Newsome, the extremist.
They want to act like they want to protect illegal aliens who commit crimes.
And this is not Gavin Newsom.
You have the guy, the mayor in Denver, the non-thinking mayor in Chicago, and then the mayor in New York City, he catching flat for doing the right thing.
So pretty much my question is, how do you think, how can you convince your party to kind of think like you?
And, you know, what are you all doing to get some voters back?
Because I tell you, it'll be a long time before I vote Democrat again.
Thank you.
Well, Sean, you know, we want you back.
And the bottom line is, is this what I've been saying, as I said in the beginning of the show, we have to stop saying, how could they vote for Donald Trump?
You have to say, why did they vote for Donald Trump?
And I think you said it better than anybody.
I mean, people are just sick of the extremism.
And most Democrats, I know this for a fact, most Democrats, especially elected officials, reject extremism.
The problem is, is that not enough people are speaking out against the extremism because they're afraid they're going to get beaten up for expressing their viewpoints, like the viewpoints that you just articulated.
People have got to show some courage.
You know, one of the ways to get that courage is to actually spend time listening to your voters, listening to people like you, Sean, and people who live in my district and coming on shows like this and doing town halls and just talking to people.
Then you'll have the confidence as an elected official to stand up and say what the people are saying instead of listening to just the pollsters and the consultants and everybody's trying to tell you what the party line is.
The party line is not working.
Now listen, Republicans have tons of extremists as well.
You've heard of Matt Gates and Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
They've got their extremists and they won't talk about gun violence because they're afraid of their base and they won't talk about when President Trump does suddenly say some extraordinarily unusual things.
They've got the same problem, but I'm a Democrat, so I'll worry about the Democrats right now and I'll worry about America, which is even more important.
Politicians on both sides need to reject extremism.
Stop being bullied by the base.
Stop being pushed around and listen to what reasonable people like you are saying, which is, you know what, I just want to pay my bills and take care of my family and raise my family in safety.
I want to make enough money so I can buy a house, so I can educate my kids, so I can have health insurance, and I can retire one day without being scared.
Let's get back to the basic issues of what we need to do to make people's lives better.
You know, in America, in 22 states, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.
If you make $10 an hour and you work 40 hours a week and you work 50 weeks a year, you only make 20 grand a year.
If you make $15 an hour and you work 40 hours a week and you work 50 weeks a year, you get two weeks vacation, that's only 30 grand a year.
You're not going to be able to buy a house, educate your kids, pay for health insurance, and retire one day without being scared.
Let's, as elected officials, get back to the basics.
How can we improve people's wages and their benefits and their quality of life when it comes to public safety and to the environment?
And let's stop talking about all these fringe topics and all this attacking of each other and focus on the basic things that are affecting everybody in their everyday lives.
So I think that was a great question and something we've got to work on.
And a place for us to end this morning.
Congressman Tom Squazzi, Democrat of New York.
Always appreciate you chatting with the callers on the Washington Journal.
Thanks, John.
Coming up this morning, the House is in at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Until that time, we will be in open forum.
Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so.
The numbers, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
Republicans, 202-748-8001.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
Start calling in.
We'll get to your calls right after the break.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV networks and C-SPAN radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org slash c-span now.
C-SPAN now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
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 in counting, powered by cable.
The C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of C-SPAN's podcasts that feature non-fiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas.
Each week, we're making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture from our signature programs about books, afterwards, booknotes plus, and QA.
Listen to C-SPAN's bookshelf podcast feed today.
You can find that C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free C-SPAN Now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-span.org/slash podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
Here's where we are on a busy morning on Capitol Hill.
The House and Senate come in at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Just getting underway on the House side is a hearing by the task force on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
It is their final hearing of that task force.
That's happening over on C-SPAN 3.
If you want to pop over there to watch for a little bit, also on C-SPAN.org and the free C-SPAN Now app.
If you stay here on the Washington Journal on C-SPAN for the next 26 minutes until the House comes in, it's open forum.
Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about, now is your time to call in and we will get right to calls.
Kathleen is in Mississippi, line for Democrats.
Kathleen, good morning.
Good morning.
I think it's sad that we got out, we voted, we did everything we were supposed to.
I still don't understand how Trump won 44th state plus he won the good state.
But that is the Mississippi Delta.
No matter how much money gets sent to Mississippi, that people never get.
Only the rich get.
And like I said, the back water pumps, that was back way back then.
I'm six, eight years old, and the only thing I get is $93 a month.
I was $600, some dollars in the hole.
But who am I?
Two-thirds of a person.
So that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
What if Project 2025?
Everybody needs to know this because the United States is going down.
Thank you.
And thank you for listening to my call.
Last time I called Eight Month, I was listening.
I'm getting confused.
Thank you.
That's Kathleen in Mississippi.
This is Paul, Shreveport, Louisiana Independent.
Good morning.
Morning, John.
I called in to speak with Representative Swazi.
The first thing, one of the first things he said when he introduced himself was he talked about kids in cages.
Now, you probably know this is a concept that was introduced to the American imagination by the media using images and videos that were captured during the Obama administration.
And he seemed to suggest that Trump had something to do with that during his administration.
And maybe he did, but the procedures that were being used were started during the Obama administration.
Representative Swazi also ended his comments talking about the minimum wage saying, well, you can't live on $10 or $15 an hour.
He may be right about you probably can't buy a home and raise a family on that amount, but the minimum wage is supposed to be an entry level to the economy.
The concept is that's a starting wage, and you should be able to work your way up to a better wage, either by staying with the same company or moving to a company that provides a better offer for your talents.
So I just wanted to make those comments.
Oh, what's a fair minimum wage?
A fair minimum wage is what I will agree to work for.
What I think my time is worth.
Concept of fairness is, it gets a little slippery.
You can't enforce fairness.
You can use fairness as an argument to sway people in your direction, but there is no such thing as fair.
Sherman Oaks, California, this is Linda, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I wanted to talk to the representative as well.
My question is, how do you figure who is the criminal?
You're talking about deporting criminals, because if you come across the border illegally, you're all a criminal.
You committed a crime.
So it doesn't matter if you've been here for 20 years and never done anything as far as against the law.
You committed a crime to come over.
And I think that we should stop trying to say, well, we're going to deport criminals because they all committed a crime.
The other thing is the gentleman was just talking about the minimum wage and the minimum wage is what you feel you're worth.
I feel my time is worth $100 an hour.
I don't know if I'm not an educated person, which I do have a master's degree.
But if I'm not, if I don't have the education, then I don't think I can walk in and just tell somebody I'm worth $100 an hour.
But my point was just, oh, I am, I'm a consultant.
I'm a marketing consultant in the entertainment industry here.
What's the going rate for a marketing consultant in the entertainment industry in California?
Actually, it's about $150 to $200 an hour.
How long have you been doing that, Linda?
I've been doing it now for about five years because I was in the industry for a while and then I went to a consulting company.
What did you do before?
I was in marketing.
I was in marketing.
So basically, I worked with all the studios here.
Linda, thanks for the call from California.
This is Larry in New York City, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I have a challenge for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
They know, along with a number of politicians, that the election has been tainted and completely manipulated.
They have definitive proof, and we are waiting.
Those of us who are politicians who are in the know, and I'm not a politician in the know, I am an independent.
They have to move on this.
They have definitive proof, and their legacies will be completely tainted, as was this election, if they don't move on their facts and let this be known and do what is absolutely needed for the higher calling of their lives, their souls in this country.
What proof are you talking about, Larry?
That's my plea.
What proof are you referring to, Larry?
I don't have the proof, but I can tell you now there are people at the highest levels of government of the United States of America who have that proof, and I know it's true.
And in time, if they don't do it in a timely manner, it's still going to come out anyway.
So they better move on it because our democracy depends on their integrity, and they're taking the highest course of action.
How do you know?
It's true, Larry.
I can't tell you those words, but I am giving a warning to America from my heart, to everybody's heart and soul, that this is now in the hands of people who can't prove it.
We're waiting for them to come forth and make the statements.
That's what I'm trying to make a plea to the country.
Please ask me any of the questions you want to ask.
I'll give you my best answers.
That's Larry in New York.
This is Gary in Illinois, Republican.
Good morning.
Hello, my name's Gary Baker, and I'm calling about Medicare enrollment, the constant calling 25 times a day on the average.
And I keep calling Medicare, and they said that was somebody else's job.
It's like five layers deep on the phone, three layers deep on the TV, but it's constant up and down.
I got an autistic son up in north of Chicago, and I have to keep the phones available.
I have to get up and answer.
And I told them, you're wearing me out.
I can't get my sleep.
You got to do something.
Well, it's not fraud.
It's not this.
It's not that.
I think have you tried working with your member of Congress?
Congressional offices all have constituent services staffers who work with folks in their district.
Is that an avenue you've tried?
No, they never offered nothing like that to me.
It might be worth figuring out who your congressperson is and then reaching out to that local office.
How many people get constant calls on Medicare?
So get a hold of Trump, sit down with the efficiency guys and figure something out, like a one-page, send it out to every Medicare, every Social Security person.
You sign up if you want to change.
Here's a list.
Check what it is.
We'll get a hold of you.
That'll save all the money on the calls and on the TV.
You created a problem.
Somehow you can fix it.
I go, they can't do it.
They can't do it.
You know, as other people doing it, I go they call up Sedna for Medicare.
Well, Gary, on the issue of efficiency, a story in the Washington Times today on that new Department of Government Efficiency to focus on low-hanging fruit is the headline from the Washington Times.
Vivek Ramaswamy saying yesterday that the new Department of Government Efficiency's initial focus will be weeding out the low-hanging fruit of waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government, not recommending ways to overhaul entitlement programs, which, of course, the biggest driver of federal spending and national debt.
If you want to read more on that story from the Times, this is Shirley in Connecticut.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I appreciate that.
I just want to make two points.
From the former segment you had with the congressman, I wanted to let the call, the last caller, the guy that I guess his name was John, he said that he was tired of the extremism.
You know, that word has been thrown around a lot about nothing.
Everyone in America is an individual, and those that we spoke about, the women, the transgender people, the others, are all individuals that live here in America and have the right to have their say as well as each and every one of us here.
And I just wanted to let him know, you don't vote for a candidate because the other candidates spoke about another segment of the population because they're there to work for all segments of the population.
Trump spoke about one thing too, and it didn't make it feel that he should be voted for because he spoke on only one issue.
And the second point I wanted to make is also about these people who call in about Hunter Biden's pardon.
You know, the young man didn't do anything that I guess the people in Congress were doing.
But the fact of the matter is that we did not hire Hunter Biden to run our country, and he did something that was wrong.
We have people who are hired, like our president-elect, and all the other ones that he's trying to get confirmation on that have done something illegal, and they are not being held accountable for it.
And when they are, people are saying, oh, people are just going after them because they are in office.
No, if you did something wrong here in America, like you and I, we will automatically have to pay the penalty for it.
And that's what law-abiding citizens are about, or law and order is about, to do something when someone does something wrong.
Now, these people are getting away with murder, saying they're being targeted.
No, they're not.
If you don't do nothing wrong, if you don't do the crime, you won't have to pay the tithe.
That's Shirley in Connecticut, Don, Madison, Ohio.
Good morning.
You're next.
Good morning, John.
Good morning, C-SPAN viewers.
Hey, the reason I'm calling is I hope somebody can back check me on this.
But did not the court in Colorado find that Trump was an insurrectionist?
And the Supreme Court of Colorado said, yes, that was true.
So then it was thrown to the Supreme Court, and they said they couldn't take him off the ballot.
But nobody said that he was not guilty of insurrection.
My question is, is the guy who gives him the oath of office, probably John Roberts, committing treason when he gives Trump the oath of office?
That's my question, sir.
Could you please have somebody back check me on that?
It's Don in Ohio.
Justin in South Dakota.
Republican, good morning.
Yes, sir.
Say, I'm a Vietnam veteran.
I'm currently taking chemo, and I've been real sick.
But I was wondering, I heard that our governor might be placed in the defense, and I was wondering what you think of this.
I think she'd do a good job.
You're talking Homeland Security, Governor Noam?
Yes.
Why do you think she'd do a good job?
Well, she's done a wonderful job here in South Dakota.
The other day I was down in Sturgis.
I've seen a lot of people that were waiting for food baskets down there.
And she cares about the workforce here and about us disabled veterans.
I did two years in Vietnam.
And she's been fighting for our cost of living raise, too.
So I'm 100%.
But I do appreciate her, and I appreciate C-SPAN.
And thank you for everything.
Justin, South Dakota.
Adrias is next out of Pittsburgh.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, I just want to make a couple of comments, and I would like to ask some of the listeners, what is it about Donald Trump that appeals to them?
Because if you're a common man, a working man, then you've got to know that the Republicans are for the rich.
Now, if the Democrat Party has problems are broken, do it like you do a bridge.
A bridge takes you from one side to the other.
Unions and the Democratic Party has lifted many people from poverty to a decent standard of living.
I just don't understand why people are leaving the Democratic Party because the Republicans are not for the common man.
That's all I have to say.
Adrias in Pittsburgh, about 10 minutes left before the House comes in.
The Senate is also going to come in at 10 a.m. Eastern this morning.
You can watch that on C-SPAN too in the Senate.
It's that time of the congressional cycle in which outgoing senators give their farewell addresses.
Yesterday, it was Senator Mitt Romney's farewell speech on the Senate floor.
Here's a portion: There are some today who would tear at our unity, who would replace love with hate, who deride our foundation of virtue, or who debase the values upon which the blessings of heaven depend.
Now, I've been in public service for 25 years.
I have learned that politics alone cannot measure up to the challenges we face.
A country's character is a reflection not just of its elected officials, but also of its people.
I leave Washington to return to be one among them and hope to be a voice of unity and virtue.
For it is only if the American people merit his benevolence that God will continue to bless America.
May he do so is my prayer.
If you want to watch his full remarks, you can do so on our website at c-span.org.
Back to your phone calls in Open Forum.
This is Don in Pennsylvania.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning, John.
Always enjoy calling in when you're the host of the show.
I'm just calling in with a point of interest.
Earlier in the program, there was Representative Baking on, and one of the callers to him was about we need a president from the House of Representatives.
So I was calling in to let your viewers know that has happened one time that I'm aware of, and that was when James Garfield became president.
He came directly from the House to the presidency.
And I do believe that's the only time that's happened in American presidential history.
What do you know about James Garfield?
What's your thoughts on him as a president?
Well, he wasn't in that long.
And in 1880, he happened to run for the Senate, but he chose not to take that seat because he was nominated and eventually elected for the presidency.
But he served, I think, like 17 years in Congress.
He was a general in the Civil War.
I understand he could write with both hands, left and right.
And I think he also was very well educated in the Italian language.
Who's your favorite president, Don?
I have several that I appreciate very much, but one that's always up on the talk for me is Lyndon Johnson.
Why Johnson?
Well, Johnson was instrumental in a lot of big changes in the country, and he came in under difficult circumstances, you know, involving the assassination of President Kennedy.
And I just think he tried to do very well for the country with a lot of the programs that he initiated.
And I think also, if I remember correctly, he created two different departments of government during his term.
Don, thanks for the call from Pennsylvania.
You might be interested in C-SPAN's historian's survey of presidents, the presidential rankings, the historians that we engage in that survey, ranking presidents on various aspects of leadership.
You mentioned James Garfield, and it ranked right dead in the middle, towards the latter middle, I guess I should say, ranked 27th in the latest survey.
The first time that survey was done back in 2001, he was ranked as 29th.
So he's moved up since then.
But you can look through that survey of presidential leadership, 10 different aspects of leadership, scores compared.
Historians from across the board asked to participate in that survey each time that we do it, available on our website at c-span.org.
This is Pat in Sun City, Arizona, Republican.
Good morning.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
I wanted first to pray for all the people in North Carolina that are still living in tents.
God bless them and God bless this country.
I've never seen this country in my 72 years.
The corruption, the hatred, and we've got to all come together and work together.
And whoever's the president, all of us work together with our new president.
God bless America.
Crime, the homelessness, I've never seen it so bad.
The seniors on fixed income suffering, people suffering at the gas station, grocery stores.
God bless America.
People in North Carolina.
Paducah, Kentucky is next.
This is Mike, Republican from the Bluegrass State.
Go ahead.
Oh, yes.
I'd just like to make two comments.
I'd like to comment on the guy that called a little while ago about Tolorado calling Trump an insurrectionist.
I didn't know it was Colorado's job to figure out who we could vote for president or not.
And the second thing is, all we hear, we're hearing a lot about deportation, what Trump's going to do.
How many people did Obama deport?
3 million, 5 million?
I don't ever remember hearing anybody having any kind of complaints when he was deporting people.
So I just figured maybe people would chill out when he starts doing what needs to be done.
That's all I got to say.
Thanks.
Mike, what needs to be done?
We need to deport the illegal people in this country.
What needs to be done?
We can't take every, you know, everybody comes to this country.
We can't take the whole world into this country.
You know, they say the illegal, you know, we're not going to be able to eat because our food won't be picked.
Well, I'll tell you what, I was a bricklayer for 30 years.
And the last 10 years, you know, they say illegal is doing a job that white people don't want to do.
Well, I'll tell you what, you'd be hard to find a white bricklayer now.
And I know a lot of guys that got roped out like that, just like I did, because I wanted a fair wage and I wanted good conditions.
And that all went away.
That's Mike in Paducah, Kentucky.
This is Susan Woodstock, Georgia, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I have really nothing bad to say about anybody, but I just would like to put this out there because if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gets in, I want him to please work on getting generic drugs made in the USA because the seniors really take, they all get generic drugs.
If you're on Medicare, that's what you're going to get, and you're going to get some pretty crappy ones.
And we don't need them to come from India or China.
We need that made in the USA.
And I don't know who to call or tell, but this needs to be done.
It will help the seniors greatly, and we'll get better medication.
Susan in the Peach State, this is Bill in the Yellowhammer State, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
About the only time we've had total open border for immigration was in the 16 and 1700s.
And just ask the Native Americans how well that worked out.
We can't be an open border and not be ruined as a country.
The immigration is another word for it, is invasion.
And that is what is occurring, has occurred, and has been endorsed by people saying, oh, we'll create a lot of jobs.
Well, it did create a lot of jobs, and it also created a lot of other problems.
Thank you.
Back to Georgia.
This is Rudy, Democrat.
Good morning.
You know, I'm 73 years old, and we're celebrating the University of Florida's first black quarterback, Don Gaffney.
He graduated from my high school, William and Moraine Senior High School, in 1970.
But I used to sell drinks at the Gator Bowl, and I used to watch the University of Florida play the University of Georgia when I was 12 years old, and there was not one black player on the field, and the only black fans, there were no black fans in the stand.
This whole issue of inclusion is what the country is struggling with.
The days of segregation, separate but equal, we're not going back to that.
You know, NFL, Doug Weems, the first black quarterback, we need to just come together as a country and recognize the whole idea of fairness.
That's what Dr. King talked about.
Thank you.
From FloridaGators.com, a column from a year ago, Florida's first black quarterback, Don Gaffney, reflecting 50 years later on his experience in college football.
Taking your phone calls here in open form as we wait for the House to come in for the day.