Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
Stories.
StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
The world has changed.
Today, a fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
Wow.
WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, your calls and comments live.
And then Mark Caputo, the Bulwark national political reporter, talks about President-elect Trump's cabinet picks and their path to confirmation.
And Roger Zakheim, Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, on the 2024 Reagan National Defense Survey, and it's finding a record high number of Americans in favor of more U.S. engagement and leadership in international affairs.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Good morning.
It's Monday, December 9th, 2024.
The House returns at noon Eastern today.
The Senate's back at 3 p.m. and we're with you for the next three hours on the Washington Journal.
We begin this morning on birthright citizenship.
The idea that if you were born in America, you are automatically a citizen of this country.
Yesterday, in his Meet the Press interview, President-elect Trump vowed once again to end birthright citizenship.
This morning, we're asking if you'd agree with that move.
Phone lines split as usual this morning.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
Independents 202-748-8002.
And a special line this morning for immigrants of any status, 202-748-8003 is that number.
You can also send us a text.
If you do, please include your name and where you're from.
Otherwise, catch up with us on social media at X, it's at C-SPANWJ on Facebook.
It's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
And a very good Monday morning to you.
You can go ahead and start calling in now.
This was President-elect Donald Trump yesterday in his Meet the Press interview.
It was taped on Friday, aired on Sunday with Kristen Welker.
This is what he had to say about birthright citizenship.
You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one.
Is that still your plan?
Yeah, absolutely.
The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, all persons born in the United States are citizens.
Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?
Maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it.
We're the only country that has it.
Through an executive action.
You know, we're the only country that has it.
Do you know?
If somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don't need to on our land.
Congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.
Yes, we're going to end that because it's ridiculous.
Through executive action?
Well, if we can, through executive action.
I was going to do it through executive action, but then we had to fix COVID first, to be honest with you.
We have to end it.
It's ridiculous.
Do you know we're the only country in the world that has it?
Do you know that?
There's not one other country.
What about the legal challenge?
Inevitable legal changes that'll come.
We have thousands of judges.
Somebody walks onto our land and we have to now say, welcome to the United States.
They could be a criminal or not a criminal.
We release them into our country.
It's called catch and release.
We release them into our country.
Wait, just one second.
And now they get them lawyers.
And the lawyers are good lawyers.
And everybody has a lawyer.
And do you know how many judges we have?
Thousands.
Thousands.
Now, here's what other countries do: they come into the land and they say, I'm sorry, you have to go.
And they take them out.
That was Donald Trump on Meet the Press yesterday.
One note on what he had to say in that interview.
He talked about the United States being the only country.
There's about three dozen countries provide automatic citizenship for people born on their soil.
That includes Canada and Mexico.
There's a chart from the law library at the Library of Congress showing the countries in pink that have unconditional citizenship at birth.
They're mostly in the Western Hemisphere.
That's opposed to citizenship through parental status, including countries like Spain and Germany and Great Britain who apply their citizenship that way.
We're talking about birthright citizenship this morning.
It comes from the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment.
It was ratified after the Civil War.
This is section one of the 14th Amendment, which states: all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
That is the full first section of the 14th Amendment.
We're asking you your thoughts on ending birthright citizenship, President Trump bringing that issue up.
It was a wide-ranging interview on Meet the Press yesterday.
We'll talk more about some of the other issues that the president-elect brought up in that interview, but this morning, focusing in this first hour on birthright citizenship.
202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
And immigrants of any status want to especially hear from you in this segment.
202-748-8003.
This is Blake in Mississippi Up First, Independent.
Good morning.
First of all, I want to say as a veteran of this country and as an African American, I am thankful for my president that I voted for Mr. Donald Trump for addressing this issue.
Because not only have African Americans not given their proper due or their proper stake in this country, but we have denied them education.
We're expecting them to be the bedrock for all the other races to come here and build their societies off of.
It's been like that since day one.
I mean, come on now.
All the other races came to our community and exploited our community to build their nations back home and along with the other races that were already here.
So, Blake, bring me to birthright citizenship.
I think that it should be get rid of.
As the president says, no place in the world can you show up like you're doing in China.
I'm telling what they're doing in China.
They're sending their people over here.
They're having a baby in a hotel room, and that baby is a U.S. citizen.
And that baby is obligated to the same thing that you and I and everything.
Just because his mother came here off a plane or across the border or whatever and had a baby in a hotel road, they're equal to our vets.
They're equal to our soldiers, to our students, to our future.
Are you crazy?
I mean, immigrants can't even be with that.
A real immigrant really is not with them.
If you say, I'll talk to them, nobody in their right mind will go for them.
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
I love you.
That's Blake in Mississippi.
That line for immigrants.
It's Irapatap in PG County, Maryland.
Good morning.
Good morning, sir.
I'm privileged and glad to listen to this program.
And this is my stake.
Now, I listened to Donald Trump, who was electronically rigged into winning, and he is from Germany.
His mother is from Scotland.
So he's not even from this country.
Now, for him to be talking about the amendment, so that even if you are born here, by the way, let me tell you that I'm an African, proud African.
I don't want to be anything but African.
I have five children here, and I have over five grandchildren.
According to the argument of Donald Trump, who is a felony and he's not even supposed to be the president of the United States, this gentleman had three felonies, African American.
His right to vote was taken away.
This guy has 34, and yet we put him up there to be the president of the United States.
Isn't that ridiculous?
No.
The only person that can talk the way Donald Trump is talking is the Native Americans.
So we who are Africans do not belong here if Native Americans don't want us to be here.
Caucasians who came in and did the killings of the Native Americans to smash the land, they don't even have the mouth to say anything about who is supposed to be here.
When do we acquire this arrogance of the Caucasians to be questioning people who are born here?
Look at the people coming from the border.
Oh, they are not supposed to be coming here.
These are Native Americans flowing naturally through their own habitat.
That's Arapatop, the first Trump family member who came to the United States, according to the story in Newsweek, 1885, October of 1885.
Friedrich Trump, a then 16-year-old German barber, bought a one-way ticket to the United States, and the Trump family having been in the United States since then.
Olympia is in the Bronx.
So Republican, good morning.
Hi, good morning to you.
Thanks for having me on this morning.
The Mississippi gentleman who called, I don't know, I guess he doesn't understand that the amendment to allow people birthright was created because slaves were not considered citizens.
And so here we go to remove that amendment or to threaten to remove the amendment.
I don't know if it's just for publicity to get people up in arms about these things, but to try to remove birthright citizenship is absolutely insane.
Immigration is the bedrock of the formation of our society to try to take away that right of people.
What would happen to the people who are citizens and who have children overseas?
How do you not confound that situation as well?
Olympia tries to change it.
To amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote in the House, two-thirds vote in the Senate, and then it goes to the states and would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Do you think that is possible in as divided of an America as we've seen, as almost evenly divided in this country?
Do you think something like that is possible today?
I don't think that vote would pass in Congress.
If we look at the demography of Congress now, it's not 100% of anyone cultural demography.
It's a bit varied.
And even within that majority, there are some variations.
A lot of people's family weren't born in the United States.
Olympics.
And a lot of these people are.
To what one of the other callers brought up, and it's also something that the Trump administration has talked a lot about.
What about this idea of, as it's called, birth tourism, late pregnancy women coming to the United States in order to give birth in the United States so that the child can then have automatic citizenship in the United States?
Is that something that should be curbed?
I don't think you should try to cherry-pick situations where people are trying to come to this country to make a better living or better life for themselves.
What if the idea is simply to have the child in the United States and then go back to the country that they were living in?
Well, I don't know the circumstances by which people have babies in the United States, whether they return back to their country or if they stay here, but it's usually in order to make sure that the child has a better opportunity, whether it's for health reasons, whether it's for safety reasons, whether it's for economic reasons.
And, you know, it's not fair to say that if this person is going to be a great citizen of the United States and they return at any one point or another, that should be a problem.
And if the person doesn't return, then what's the problem with that?
That's Olympia in the Bronx.
This is the story from the Wall Street Journal today on President-elect Trump's comments saying that his transition team is drafting several versions of his long-promised executive order to curtail automatic citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
That's according to several people familiar with the matter.
Though an executive order needs the, through an executive order or perhaps through a rulemaking process by an agency, the story notes, President-elect Trump is also expected to take steps to deter that birth tourism.
And that also some of the reporting today.
So two different issues, one on birthright citizenship as a whole and one on birth tourism.
Ron is in Hunt Valley, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning.
All right.
Good morning.
Good morning, everyone.
And, you know, I think it's very important that we differentiate legal versus illegal, okay?
A lot of your callers are going to call in and say, oh, well, you know, immigration is the fabric of our country.
We're talking about legal immigration, okay?
And I challenge your callers and your listeners to travel to Europe, any country in Europe.
They want to know if you're pregnant, how long you're staying.
They have laws and they enforce their laws.
Why are we not enforcing our laws?
I mean, that's just what it boils down to.
When you look at the birth rate of our country, it's declining.
And I hate to say this, but game is over.
When you look at your illegal immigrants that are coming in, they're having three, four, five, six babies.
Most American, legal American women are not having as many children as they did in the past.
So game is over.
We're talking about legal immigration.
I challenge you all to travel to Europe, travel to those countries.
If you pull up that map again, travel to those countries in Europe and east of Europe.
And I guarantee you, they have laws, they enforce their laws, and they will not have what we have going on in this country.
Thanks.
That's Ron in Hunt Valley, Maryland, the map he's referring to.
This is from the Law Library at the Library of Congress, just taking a look at citizenship statuses by country around the world.
Birthright citizenship, where citizenship is unconditional at birth, is that magenta, that pink color.
It's mostly in the Western Hemisphere of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and several countries in South America.
With that, other countries have other ways to establish citizenship, including via the status of the parent.
That's how it is in Great Britain, in Germany, and Spain, and other countries as well.
And there's also the outright banning of birthright citizenship, that it's not available.
That's in the countries in orange on that map.
Charles is in Florida.
Good morning.
Charles, you're with us.
I can hear myself on the TV, Charles, so I assume you just put the phone down and walked away.
This is Volcker in Minnesota on that line for immigrants.
Good morning.
Morning.
Yeah, that's an interesting thought.
But I would connect it with the right to vote, meaning you have to go through whatever, like us immigrants have to go through a series of questions, civic and so on, and so on and so on, to achieve the citizenship.
And yeah, in connection with that, that might be a good idea.
So, Volcker, you think people shouldn't become citizens until they're old enough to take and pass a test on citizenship?
You have to pass a test before you can vote.
Doesn't matter where you were born, except the Native Americans.
I mean, that's a different story.
What do you mean that you have to pass a test to vote, Volcker?
To pass a test before you vote.
To get the right to vote, you have to pass a test like a driving test.
Where would you have to do that, Volcker?
Well, I did mine up here in Toulouse, you know, and you get asked civic questions.
And you go on.
Is this when you became a citizen, Volcker?
Yes.
So when you were becoming a United States citizen, you took a citizenship test.
Correct.
And that's what you think people should have to vote or to become a citizen in general?
In connection with the birthright, you know, because the reason I'm saying that, some people they are born and so they think they are better worth more than others.
And I mean, there is the Constitution and the idea of the United States, and that should be honored.
And I've seen that in Danger the last eight, ten years, whatever.
Yeah.
That's Volcker.
And Volcker, what country did you immigrate to the United States from?
Germany.
That's Volcker in Royalton, Minnesota.
Taking your phone calls.
As usual, phone lines split by political party: 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats.
Independence, it's 202-748-8002, and then that line for immigrants of any status, 202-748-8003.
Birthright citizenship is what we're talking about this morning.
Donald Trump, once again, saying that he would consider ending birthright citizenship.
It was an issue that he brought up in his first term as president, an issue that did not come to pass, obviously, promising to address that issue in his next term, starting in January.
Donald Trump sitting down for an interview with Meet the Press in which he talked about this.
That aired Sunday.
It was taped on Friday.
Joe is in Fort Wayne, Indiana, independent.
Your thoughts on birthright citizenship.
Children were born here, and they're citizens.
That's my comment.
And what was the beginning of your comment, Joe?
It was a little muffled then.
Oh.
I was practicing.
No, the reason they started birthright citizenship, because it wasn't because of slavery, it was because the children of free slaves were being denied their citizenship rights.
So they came up with the 14th Amendment.
And then the early 70s, pregnant women would start crossing the border, and then when their babies were born here, they became citizens.
So whoever said it was because of slavery was wrong.
But I would change it to if you came into the country illegally, then you couldn't have birthright citizenship.
If the mother was illegal, then her baby couldn't be American.
That's Joe in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The 14th Amendment passed in the wake of the Civil War and has been the law of this land since then.
After the war, the Reconstructionist Congress passed several civil rights laws, including the 14th Amendment, the most sweeping declaration of birthright citizenship in the U.S. history.
It defines citizenship as applying to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Notably, due to the jurisdiction requirement, most Native Americans were excluded from the amendment.
The History Channel, with their wrap-up of the 14th Amendment, goes on to note one of the most important legal challenges involving the 14th Amendment.
In 1898, the 14th Amendment's definition of birthright citizenship met a major challenge in the form of a Chinese-American cook named Wong Kim Ark.
Wong had been born on American soil to Chinese immigrants in 1873, well before the U.S. passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited most Chinese immigrants and by extension, their naturalization, the naturalization of Chinese citizens.
But since his parents were born, were not citizens and he was born in the United States, it was unclear whether he too could enjoy birthright citizenship.
The story from the History Channel goes on to note: when Wong was denied re-entry into the U.S. after visiting China, he was forced to wait in a ship in San Francisco Harbor for months as his attorney pursued his case for citizenship.
He was a test case that the Department of Justice selected in an attempt to prove that people of Chinese descent weren't citizens.
His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and then something unexpected happened.
They wrote, Wong won.
The 14th Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons or whatever race or color domiciled within the United States.
That was Associate Justice Horace Gray writing in the majority opinion that came from the Supreme Court.
James is next in Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
The part that I think that is being missed is the part that says under the jurisdiction thereof.
The way I understand it, and I guess this is one reason why we don't teach civics in our schools anymore.
We keep getting different scenarios.
It has to do with Indians, right?
They specifically did not want Indians who were born in this country to be full citizens.
That's why they had to be under our jurisdiction.
Indians were not completely under our jurisdiction.
But if people sneak into our country, they're not under our jurisdiction.
They just snuck in.
But now if we allow them in at the border and give them a court date, whether it's 10 years out or 10 days out, but we have legally allowed them in and they are now under our jurisdiction.
But James, illegal immigrants can be prosecuted.
Many times when they're prosecuted, they're deported.
They go to deportation proceedings, but they can be prosecuted for crimes in the United States and that they're subject to due process laws.
Would that not make them under our jurisdiction?
Well, the point I'm saying is, yeah, if they come in, legally, if they come into our port of entry and we give them a court date, right, that means we let them in.
But if they come in through the desert, no, we didn't let them in.
They just snuck in.
Right, but if an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime, they are subject to due process laws in the United States.
So doesn't that make them under U.S. jurisdiction?
Not when it comes to citizenship.
They're under our jurisdiction because they're criminals and they broke our laws in our country.
But we're talking about citizenship rights, not legal rights for criminals.
Correct.
And I'm talking about the children, perhaps the children of illegal immigrants.
You're making the case that illegal immigrants aren't subject to due process laws.
So I assume you're saying that the children of illegal immigrants who may be born in the United States are not citizens.
But illegal immigrants are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
So wouldn't their children, if they're born in the United States, be citizens, or at least that's how the 14th Amendment reads?
I guess what we're talking about here specifically is what is an illegal immigrant.
I'm saying that if you come into our border, right, and even if you don't aren't really qualified for asylum rights, if you come into our border and you go through our system, right, and we say, yeah, you can come in, hang out for 10 years, and then we'll have a court date, we let them in.
So when we let them in, they're under our jurisdiction.
But if they go through the desert and we don't let them in, they're not under our jurisdiction.
So it's a little complicated, but the words are the words in the Constitution.
And that's what they say.
They have to be under our jurisdiction.
And it was specifically written, if you read the notes in the Library of Congress about what they were discussing at the time with Indians.
Got your point, James.
That's James.
This is Emma in Chicago, a Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I just want to let you know how it is in Germany.
Both parents have to be born in Germany, otherwise you'll never be a citizen.
And Emma, do you think that's a good system?
Yes, I think so.
Why?
I think that's those people have the right.
You know, you're born in Germany.
So I think it's the best way to go.
That's Emma in Chicago.
This is Stan out on Staten Island, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yeah, I'm calling in reference to the birthright tourism.
I spent the winter in Florida and witnessed it with my own two eyes that everyone in the building was a pregnant Russian woman walking with a stroller with two or three kids in it.
And there were flyers that were sitting on the front desk regarding tourism.
They hook you up with the doctor.
They hook you up with a limousine if you can afford it.
And once those kids were born here, they're full citizens with all the rights.
That's unfair.
There's very few things that I agree with Donald Trump on, but this happens to be one that he's absolutely 100% right.
This needs to stop.
Stan, how did you find a place like that?
Did you talk to anybody that was there?
It was a condo.
It was a condo.
And when I rented it for the winter, I didn't realize that this was the place that the Russians used as a birthing place, for instance.
They would come.
All the women were pregnant.
It was unbelievable.
It was a big eye-opener.
And I thought it needed to stop then.
Was the intention to stay in the United States or to go back to Russia with these people that you talked to?
95% of them did not speak any English.
My feeling was that they just wanted to grab that citizenship, whether or not what they were going to do with it, as far as whether they were going to stay.
I didn't believe so.
It was kind of expensive to stay there for, I'm not sure what they were going to do, but they were definitely doing it.
It was written in these flyers that they would hook you up with, depending on how much money you wanted to spend, you could have a limousine service take you to or from the doctor, or you could go on a budget type thing.
But it's definitely an industry.
It's a major industry in Florida, Sunnyside, Florida.
That's Stan in Staten Island.
This is William in Philpot, Kentucky.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I have one question and perhaps a comment also.
Number one, I don't think people really understand what it means to open up the Constitution for amendment.
And that's what it would take to add this into the 14th Amendment, if I understand everything correctly.
Also, he wants to deport non-citizens and birthright citizenship.
What about our Americans that are serving overseas and their spouse gives birth to a child there?
Is that going to apply?
I mean, this is opening up a whole ball of wax.
I don't know if we want to get into it.
William, do you think it's you talk about how hard it is to repeal the 14th Amendment or pass a new amendment?
Two-thirds vote in the House, two-thirds vote in the Senate.
That goes to the states for ratification, needs three-quarters ratification.
It being as hard as it is, do you think this is just a distraction?
I absolutely do.
I think he's doing this just to keep everything stirred up.
Now, that's just my opinion.
But this thing could open up a Pandora's box that we really don't know what's going to happen because they open up the Constitution for amendment.
This won't be the only one that's proposed.
Do you think there's ways to regulate what the caller before you was talking about, the birth tourism as it's referred to, coming to the United States in order to gain that citizenship for the child and then leaving?
I don't agree with that, but I do agree if you were born in this country, you have a right to citizenship in this country.
That's William in Philpot, Kentucky.
We're coming up on 7:30 on the East Coast, spending our first hour in the Washington Journal today talking about birthright citizenship.
It's because of that Meet the Press interview that aired yesterday, Donald Trump sitting down with Kristen Welker for that interview.
A lot of issues came up in that issue.
Other immigration topics came up in that issue.
The DREAMers, young children who were brought to the United States illegally and have lived in this country for most of their lives, also talked about separate from a citizenship, a birthright citizenship question.
But Donald Trump was asked about DREAMers in this country and what might happen to them in a second Trump administration.
Want to play that from yesterday?
You said once back in 2017, they, quote, shouldn't be very worried about being deported.
Should they be worried now?
The DREAMers are going to come later, and we have to do something about the DREAMers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age.
And many of these are middle-aged people now.
They don't even speak the language of their country.
And yes, we're going to do something about this.
What does that mean?
What are you going to do?
I will work with the Democrats on a plan.
And if we can come up with a plan, but the Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything.
Republicans are very open to the DREAMers.
The DREAMers, we're talking many years ago they were brought into this country.
Many years ago, some of them are no longer young people.
And in many cases, they become successful.
They have great jobs.
In some cases, they have small businesses.
Some cases, they might have large businesses.
And we're going to have to do something with them.
And you want them to be able to stay.
That's what you're saying.
I do.
I want to be able to work something out.
And it should have been able to be worked out over the last three or four years.
And it never got worked out.
President-elect Trump yesterday in that Meet the Press interview in today's Wall Street Journal.
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal focused in on that part of their conversation, calling it the most interesting note of that wide-ranging interview.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board writing that it's great to hear if Mr. Trump is willing to deal on the DREAMers.
Democrats should shift from their first-term opposition to any immigration deal, and the country would be better for it.
That's the editorial report of the Wall Street Journal.
This is Christian in Arizona, Republican.
Christian, good morning.
We've been talking about birthright citizenship.
Good morning.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
I just wanted to jump in because I'd heard a discussion between a caller about due process.
So while all persons are entitled to a Fifth Amendment and let's just say compulsory due process of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment,
you as an alien or someone as an alien does not have total, complete 14th Amendment rights because you are subject to the president of the United States.
And this is why we have elections because the president of the United States is the executive in Article 2.
Of course, we went over this many times during Trump's first term when all of the Democrats and all of the liberals and all of the rhinos were running into court, running into the Ninth Circuit, all these other federal circuits and district courts trying to stop Trump from implementing his policy on immigration on alien entry on the border.
And the courts upheld the power of the presidency.
So now when we get to this birthright citizenship issue, a lot of these issues are going to be dependent on what the executive says in terms of how that person entered the United States.
So it's going to come back to who is the president, who is the executive.
Talking about how their parents entered the United States, because obviously they were born in the United States.
Well, no, I mean, it's going to come back.
Again, it's going to come back to how they were granted entry.
Did they have the proper documentation at the time of the child?
All of that.
All that's going to come into play.
I'm just simply saying they do not have total, complete equal protection and due process like every U.S. citizen.
So, Christian.
There are limits to that when you talk about entry into the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court was very clear in that case of Hawaii v. Trump, where there was this huge dispute over whether Trump was allowed to stop alien entry right at the beginning of his presidency back in 2017.
So, Christian, do you think it's a different issue of alien entry or even legal entry in order to have a child in the United States versus birthright citizenship, just the concept of if you're born here, you're a citizen?
It's all on the table because, again, when people enter the country, many of them are entering the country because of, quote, asylum or for some other economic reason.
But those reasons are, you know, everybody, the whole world is not allowed to enter the United States.
We have laws, we have the Immigration Nationality Act, we have the President of the United States who is the decision maker and who have broad discretion on alien entry that was already settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So these things will be hashed out.
And yes, we do want to open up this Pandora box.
Yes, we do want to go into the U.S. Supreme Court and get all of this settled because it was supposed to be settled, but the Democrats were slowing it down.
Now we'll get to finally settle all these issues.
That's Christian out in the Grand Canyon state.
We will go to the Old Line State.
This is Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
There's Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Go ahead, Walter.
Hi there.
This is kind of an offshoot of the issue or kind of a, well, a little bit of a play on the issue in a sense.
My parent, my father, was born in Germany.
His parents and my father came to this country in the 30s.
They are survivors of the Holocaust.
And German law, and by the way, I'm the firstborn American.
My father became naturalized when he came over.
He actually fought in the U.S. Army.
He actually returned to Europe as part of the United States Army, landed in the third wave at D-Day.
But that's a different story.
But at any rate, I'm firstborn.
German law allows victims of the Holocaust who have immigrated to other countries and their descendants to acquire German citizenship.
The idea being these folks were kicked out of the country.
They were denied citizenship.
They were denied the benefits of German citizenship at the time and were persecuted.
And therefore, not only they, but their offspring, should have the right to citizenship, something that they would have been entitled to, but for the horrible events of the 30s and 40s.
So I actually have the choice of becoming a dual citizen.
I can acquire my German citizenship through this law.
And by the way, it's a process.
It's somewhat rigorous.
You have to apply.
You have to show through documentary evidence, birth certificates, various other evidence show that you are a direct descendant of somebody who was actually persecuted and were kicked out of the country.
So here I am.
And as an aside, my son has acquired the dual citizenship for various reasons.
And Walter, explain how dual citizenship works.
The United States doesn't recognize dual citizenship, but another country may recognize dual citizenship.
So Germany can say, yes, you're a citizen of the United States and Germany, but that's not recognized by the United States, right?
I'm not sure of the law, to be honest with you, but I do know that I am entitled in terms of the German citizenship.
I can acquire basically the rights that would have been enjoyed by my dad and would have been enjoyed by me had things not happened the way they did.
I'm firstborn American, by the way.
We have family members who actually, we actually, I have a cousin, I believe, who is actually born in Germany and brought here and is an American citizen.
Walter, thanks for telling us about your family immigration story.
Did your father ever make it back to Germany during the war?
Well, as part of D-Day, that's his.
Did he go all the way to the way to Germany?
Returned to France.
Yes, he did.
And he was in the Army for quite some time.
And he was actually stationed in Germany as part of the post-war efforts to weed out extremists.
He was part of that organization to see that extremism did not reemerge in Germany.
So he was, yes, he was in the American sector.
How long did he stay in Germany after the war?
I think for several years.
I think he came back after three, four years.
This was after being in the Army.
He landed, actually.
He fought in the Pacific after D-Day.
And like I say, he wound up in an organization.
I forget exactly what the name of it, but it was a precursor, must have been a precursor of, I wouldn't say the CIA, but one of these organizations that protects United States citizens from overseas.
He was stationed in the American sector.
I believe it was Bremenhaven and came back and then became, started his life here, went to law school, became an attorney.
And that's the story.
Walter, thanks for telling us about him.
What was his name?
Fritz.
Thanks for telling us about Fritz.
That's Walter in Gaithersburg, Maryland, this morning.
A little bit more on dual citizenship in the United States.
And Walter mentions the CIA, CIA, actually with a wrap-up, if you go to their website, of citizenship status in every country in the world to see how it works.
This is how the United States is listed.
The citizenship by birth, the birthright citizenship, obviously recognized on the idea of dual citizenship.
The United States does not recognize it, but the U.S. government acknowledges that such situations exist.
U.S. citizens are not encouraged to seek dual citizenship since it limits protections by the United States.
But that's how dual citizenship works.
In Germany, if you go to their entry on that CIA page, they note that Germany does recognize dual citizenship in their country.
And we can show you that entry when we eventually get to it.
But this is Pat in the meantime in Huntington, West Virginia, Independent.
Go ahead.
Hello.
I'd just like to say that minute by minute and week by week, the political ignorance and legal ignorance of Donald Trump will become more and more apparent to this country and to the world.
And I just hope to goodness that our country and our Constitution is able to survive what he has no idea about doing that is really legal and that really ensures the country's benefit.
It's pitiful the things this guy is saying he's going to try to do to this country.
Thank you.
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Robert, Republican.
Good morning.
You're next.
Your thoughts on birthright citizenship.
Yes, good morning.
There's many reasons for President Trump's action on ending birthright citizenship, but I'd like to comment on the baby tourism, which you seem skeptical about from the caller from Miami that this exists.
I'm a retired physician in Michigan, and I know from colleagues around the country in California, there's hotels that were housing Chinese nationals that were bringing in women nine months pregnant to have children.
They also witnessed babies, I mean, mothers coming across the border, nine months pregnant, waiting for the baby to crown in the parking lot of the hospital, and then delivering the child and getting citizenship.
But I would like to comment here in Michigan personally, a hospital I was on staff at, there was one physician of Middle Eastern descent, a female, who delivered more babies than all the other physicians put together.
And the nurses finally exposed what was a, I would call it obviously an illegal fraudulent scam.
Her husband was a travel agent and would bring in women from the Middle East pregnant and get a commission from doing that.
And his wife, who was the Obi Gen doctor, would deliver these patients at the local hospital and collect a fee for Medicaid because in Michigan, anybody without insurance automatically, the delivery would be covered by Medicaid.
The hospital enjoyed it.
The doctor enjoyed it.
She built a very large building and bought restaurants and was getting rich until the nurses turned her in.
And the FBI, I believe, investigated and fined her substantially, but it was more like a slap on the wrist.
In my opinion, she should have been deported for this illegal activity.
Robert, where was the hospital where that was happening?
It was in Dearborn, Michigan, which I'm sure you've heard of Dearborn.
Has a large Middle Eastern population, and these people would blend in pretty easily.
Is it a story that made the local news?
I was just trying to find a story about it.
I'm not sure if it made the local news, but I do know that based on what the nurses told me that she was reprimanded.
I'm not sure if she's still, if she lost her license or not.
But this was going on for a substantial amount of time.
And it's just wrong.
It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, that somebody can just step foot on our land and become a citizen.
It's just a flaw in our laws.
I think it should be changed.
I mean, I think reasonable people should agree on this.
I didn't find that story, but I did find this story from September.
A Southern California man and woman convicted of running a birth tourism scheme, a federal judge convicting a San Bernardino man and woman of that birth tourism scheme in which they took tens of thousands of dollars from Chinese clients to help travel to the United States under pretense to give birth.
The 10 counts of international money laundering in federal courts in Los Angeles was the charge.
The scheme involved helping Chinese women hide their pregnancies and coaching them on how to circumvent U.S. authorities to travel to Southern California to give birth.
That was the story out of California from September of this year.
This is Kathleen in the first state in Georgetown, Delaware.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning, John.
I have an incident here.
I far as I know for the longest time, Mexican women have been swimming across the rug with their belly up in the air, and as soon as their toes touch American soil, they got that baby and it's an automatic citizen.
And then what they do, their entire baby is entitled to social services.
They get WIC, they get Medicaid, they get everything, but that's what they're doing.
So, Kathleen, we're talking about birthright citizenship.
Do you think it should be ended?
Do you think that should not be the law of the land in the United States, that if you're born in this country, you're a citizen?
I don't think in the situation, if you're born, but just to be for the opportunity, that's what they're doing because they know that if they can get to America and have that baby, that baby is an automatic citizen entitled to all the rights of every citizen in America, which includes WIC and food stamps and Medicare, all of it.
But then, I had a situation.
I'm an American citizen.
I worked for a minimum wage, which at that time was $5 in change.
We thought it was a big deal when it went up to $6 and change.
But yeah, I was in my 40s.
I had cataracts.
And I had needed Medicaid.
I was working for Medicaid.
So I needed Medicaid to go to the eye specialist to have.
I could not afford one checkup without that Medicaid.
I sat in the social services office from 8 o'clock in the morning till noontime.
We vacated the building till 1.
I came back.
I sat and I sat.
Here came a Mexican woman, a baby in the stroller, a toddler hanging on to the stroller, and a baby in the belly coming to apply for social services.
She had to have another woman with her to translate for her.
So I don't think it's fair.
Do you notice she wasn't a citizen, Kathleen?
And here comes this woman while I'm sitting waiting, and they took her straight back and put her immediately on social services because of those kids and that baby.
So I know years and years ago, my grandfather told me immigrants came to Ellis Island unless they had a sponsor here that had a job or family waiting for them.
And they had to go to classes to learn the English language, learn the Constitution, and do everything.
And then they had a ceremony where they were inducted as American citizens and they were very proud of it.
It was just recently that I saw a group of about 25 people all dressed up, standing in line, smiling, getting indoctrinated as citizens and happy to do it.
But now today, you could come in with an assignment with anything, and you don't even have to learn English because you moved to a neighborhood that's primarily your national whatever.
And they don't even matter because they got people to translate for them.
Kathleen, got your point.
In Georgetown, Maryland, you mentioned those naturalization ceremonies.
They happen across the country all the time.
One that we had covered on C-SPAN just about a year ago.
It was December 15th of 2023.
A familiar face at that ceremony was Melania Trump, former First Lady, future First Lady, a naturalized citizen, spoke at a naturalization ceremony.
It took place in the National Archives surrounded by the founding documents of this country.
Here's some of what Melania Trump had to say about a year ago.
Even if every time consuming, my dream of becoming a citizen pushed me to meticulously gather every last piece of information required, ensuring that no detail was overlooked.
My personal experience of traversing the challenges of the immigration process opened my eyes to the harsh realities people face, including you, who to try to become your citizens.
And then, of course, there are nuances of understanding the United States immigration laws and the complex legal language contained therein.
I was very devoted, but I certainly was not an attorney.
And eventually, it provided critical for me to retain counsel.
I was fortunate to do so, as ultimately my journey was streamlined and brought me over the finish line as a naturalized citizen.
While challenges were numerous, there were rewards that were well worth effort.
I applaud you for every step you took, every obstacle you overcome, and every sacrifice you made.
That was Melania Trump last year at the National Archives.
If you want to watch that ceremony in its entirety, you can do so.
Just go to our website at c-span.org.
And if you type Melania Trump in the search bar at the top of the page, you'll see that ceremony, all the events that the former and future First Lady has appeared at over the years.
This is Iva in Edgewater, Maryland, Independent.
Good morning, you're next.
Talking about birthright citizenship.
Hi, good morning.
I guess I called the wrong number.
I'm actually an immigrant of this country.
And I'm just calling to say I totally agree with President Elected Trump to cut the birthright because I believe that every person or individual that comes to this country needs to learn English and they all need to go through the proper paperwork to be a legal citizen of this country.
Thank you.
Iva, what was your immigration story?
What country did you come from?
Philippines.
And what was that process like for you?
Oh, it was a lengthy process.
However, I did it, and I believe everybody else came the soul.
When did you come to this country?
And can you explain a little bit how long it was?
I like going up the centre.
Sorry.
I came here back in 1997, and I joined the military.
So I am now the legal citizen of this country.
Sorry, I'm a hard breath.
But yes, that is all.
And have a great day.
Thank you.
That's Iva in Maryland.
This is Lavona in Pennsylvania, Democrat.
I'm sorry, in South Carolina.
Lavona, go ahead.
How are you doing, Ms. Melana?
I'm doing well.
That's good.
I was wondering, what does it matter about the U.S. ending birthrights?
As long as everybody is peaceful and try to do the right thing.
But in reality, Donald Trump don't need to focus on birthrights.
He needs to focus on the corruption in the police department and in the Justice Department.
My son was murdered in Carnova, North Carolina.
I live in South Carolina.
They never notified me my son was murdered.
Then when we got to the jury trial, the judge never even acknowledged us.
He catered to the murderer.
It's a lot.
It's a lot.
But won't he focus on changing the justice system and getting people the proper justice and rights due to them?
This girl killed my son in front of my grandbabies.
CPS services swore up and down.
They didn't.
They gave the murderer's family my grandbabies.
They told them that I don't have a right to my grandchildren.
So what difference does it make if the U.S. end birthrights when black people and people of color not receiving the proper justice that they deserve in court?
I mean, it's bad.
I mean, it's bad.
I mean, it's bad, sir.
I'm worried about my life right now, my family's life, because the Attorney General and all of them cater to the murderer.
Very sorry for your loss.
Thanks for sharing your story.
This is Kim in Pennsylvania, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
The one question I have or comment, I guess, I understand that with regards to immigration, there's, you know, the vacation birthing and what have you.
My concern is with regards to being born in the U.S., could that extend to those of us who have been in the country for years?
Like if my children have children, we've been in the U.S. for however many years.
And are their children going to have to be concerned about being deported or not having citizenship?
Thank you.
That's Kim in Meadville, Pennsylvania.
One other story to point you to on this, on the exact issue that the caller just brought up.
It was from the Iowa University of Illinois, excuse me, News Bureau, an interview with one of their law professors, Michael Leroy, an expert on immigration law.
He talked about specifically this issue of whether citizenship can be repealed.
And let me scroll down a bit in this story in which he talks about that issue.
He talks about Donald Trump's call for denaturalizing some citizens and whether that can happen under some extremely limited conditions, he writes.
U.S. laws allow the denaturalization of a citizen, also called citizenship stripping.
These include situations in which somebody runs for political office in a foreign country or enters into military service in a foreign country, applying for citizenship in a foreign country with the intention of giving up their U.S. citizenship, committing an act of treason against the United States, or committing a very narrow set of crimes.
The conditions are set by laws enacted by Congress and not by unilateral actions of the president.
He notes, when a person is stripped of citizenship, they immediately become subject to deportation, even if they have no connection to some other country.
In a word, that person becomes stateless.
Some of the history and laws behind that practice.
This is Stephen in Schenectady, New York, Republican.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I don't agree with the liberal agenda, nor am I a Donald Trump fan.
But there are a lot of callers calling in, and they're telling you stories about things that they heard from someone else.
There are stories in the papers about Trump allowing Russia to use his Miami hotel for birthright citizenship centers.
And no one's calling and saying that.
How can he be against something when he profited off of it?
The Trump Miami Hotel has been used for birthright citizenship center.
I don't believe Donald Trump is talking about rescinding this from Mexico, the Europeans.
I believe it's all based on Haitians, dark-skinned, Mexicans.
But it's not going after Melania Trump's family is here through chain migration.
Is our Baron and her father being deported?
Thank you.
That's Stephen in New York.
This is Angela in Bakersfield, California, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
We're talking about birthright citizenship.
You got it.
I believe, yes, end the birthright citizenship.
If somebody is here and they are not a citizen, the automatic birthright should go to the birth, to the birthright of the mother citizenship.
So if she's here illegally, then she gives birth to a child.
That child's birth would go to whatever country she came from.
That's how you think it should work, Angela.
Yeah, because that would end it, it would end the illegal migration.
Because I guess they fly them in, I hate to say this, through China and they come through Mexico, then they go ahead, and they're paying to have their children here so they get the automatic birthright.
This would end that.
They would come, even if they're pregnant, just because the child's born here, they would still have the birthright of where the country that the mother came from.
That's Angela in California, our last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
Stick around, though.
Plenty more to talk about this morning, including up next.
We'll be joined by Mark Caputo, National Political Reporter for the Bulwark, to talk about his reporting on the Trump transition and later a discussion on American attitudes about U.S. military abroad and its role in the world.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
This week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate are in session.
The House will vote on the final versions of legislation authorizing water infrastructure projects to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to add new federal judgeships to U.S. district courts.
The Senate will continue voting on President Biden's U.S. District Court nominations.
On Tuesday, Louis DeJoy, United States Postmaster General, will testify before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on the finances, performance, and ongoing efforts to modernize operations of the U.S. Postal Service.
And then on Wednesday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken testifies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee reviewing the Biden administration's withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
Watch this week live on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app.
Also, head over to C-SPAN.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
C-SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
A book called The Wise Men was first published in 1986.
Cover copy says, quote, it was about six friends and the world they made, unquote.
The names Harriman, Lovett, Etcheson, McCoy, Kennan, and Bolan are only to be found in the history books today.
Co-authors Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson were in their mid-30s.
In the updated 2012 introduction to the paperback, they wrote, In their time, the wise men operated largely behind the scenes, little known by the public.
But they achieved great things.
According to Thomas and Isaacson, those great things included the shaping of the world order today, the creation of international institutions, the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time.
We ask Evan Thomas now in his 70s, who are the wise men of today?
Evan Thomas with his book, The Wise Men, Six Friends and the World They Made, on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
They focus now on the Trump transition effort.
C-SPAN viewers are familiar with Mark Caputo, former Politico, current bulwark, national political reporter.
And Mark Caputo, before we get to transition, first your takeaway from President-elect Trump's Meet the Press interview yesterday.
What stood out to you?
Not a lot of surprises.
I think what stands out to me is a lot of surprise from the news media that he and the commentariat that he's planning to be serious about mass deportations.
And that, as the callers seem surprised now, that that could include families of legal immigrants.
Now, I don't think the United States has the power to deport legal immigrants, but he is saying that there is going to be a family separation policy.
And what reaction has struck you outside of the political media?
Has there been reaction from Congress that you've seen so far from this interview?
I haven't really paid attention to that, to be honest.
You know, Congress right now is sort of, it has its own fiscal deadlines it has to meet, and it's tied up, at least on the Senate side, in what to do about Trump's nominations or his nominees to be in his cabinet.
And let's go to the nominees.
Pete Hegseth, what's the latest on his nomination?
The Trump team feels relatively good about his position, especially compared to how it was just a few days ago.
In their estimation, the last few days, last two or three days of the week, Hegseth closed strong.
No new allegations of wrongdoing, allegations, which, by the way, is denied.
And they believe that the longer that the Hegseth nomination proceeds and the longer Republican senators don't say no publicly, the higher the chances are that Pete Hegseth gets a favorable vote and becomes the next Secretary of Defense.
Who are the Republican senators who could still say no that you're watching?
Well, obviously, Joni Ernst is the one to really watch.
And then there's Lindsey Graham to a degree, but the possibility that, or the likelihood that Lindsey Graham winds up bucking President Trump on the Secretary of Defense nomination is pretty small.
Ernst is under incredible pressure from the grassroots, the MAGA roots, the right wing, whatever you want to call it.
That's a state, Iowa, that what he won by 13 points or something.
So she's up for reelection this coming cycle.
The likelihood of her saying no, politically speaking, is pretty low, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
She hasn't said no.
She also hasn't said yes.
And on Friday, she and Hegseth indicated they had a second and productive meeting.
If that sort of thaws, it's hard to see how he winds up with a majority without a majority of the Republican conference.
It's not impossible to see.
It's expected right now that Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the former leader, are no votes.
That's what's expected at least.
That is enough if it's just three no votes against Hegseth to get confirmed.
So again, they feel relatively good about it.
The Trump transition team does.
They believe that time is in their favor as long as they can sort of keep grinding clock.
On December 20th, the Republican senators leave town for winter break, holiday break, or whatever it's called.
And there's one thing that Republican senators hate, or senators of all stripes hate.
It's Republicans bird-dogging them outside of their offices, asking them about controversial nominations and whether they're going to confirm them.
That goes away starting December 20th, and then the sort of the new year starts.
In that span of time, again, if Hegseth is not polled, if he doesn't withdraw, and if there aren't four hell no votes in the Republican conference, then the chances, again, kind of increase and they increase closer and closer.
Just bottom line is that the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, the Trump base believes he has a mandate.
He won the popular vote for the first time for a Republican since 2004.
He obviously won a majority of the Electoral College vote.
There are Republican majorities in the Senate and in the House, and therefore they expect that his nominees get confirmed by the Republican Senate.
It's an understandable position.
If the Hegseth nomination falls apart for whatever reason, is Ron DeSantis the next man up?
It looks that way where we stand now, but one of the dangerous things is kind of predicting what Donald Trump is going to do.
It's what makes him a unique figure.
It is confirmed that Donald Trump did call Ron DeSantis when the peak or when the initial crush of bad headlines started to really tear away at Hegseth.
And in that conversation, Trump had mentioned to DeSantis the possibility of being Secretary of Defense.
Now, this is a discussion they actually started having in June.
And it wasn't sort of real in June.
Trump obviously had not even been elected yet.
And so in this most recent conversation, just a few days ago, Trump had dangled this possibility.
And DeSantis signaled that he was interested in it.
That doesn't mean that he's necessarily going to do it.
And it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be offered.
There's a lot of things that have to happen in between.
But the main thing that has to happen in between is that Hegseth needs to withdraw one way or another.
And right now, Hegseth is saying he's going to fight like hell.
Donald Trump has told other people he likes the fact that Pete Hegseth fights like hell.
He's starting to publicly push him more.
So things are looking as we stand now.
It's Monday morning, right?
Things are looking okay for Hegseth in the minds of the Trump transition team.
That can obviously change just on a dime.
As we stand now, about 20 minutes left with Mark Caputo.
If you want to join the conversation, easy to do.
Phone line split as usual.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
Independents 202-748-8002.
You can see his work at the Bulwark, thebulwark.com.
It's Magaville is the name of his substack.
One of the recent pieces, the two nominees for whom Donald Trump is prepared to go to war for.
That includes Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr.
Explain.
Those are the two, Gabbard and Kennedy, who were a feature of the Trump campaign.
They traveled the swing states, the two of them together.
They appeared in these joint events where they drew 1,000, 2,000 people in places like Dearborn, Michigan and Las Vegas, Nevada.
And Trump featured them as being part of his new coalition, his new political coalition, and now, implicitly in that, his new governing coalition.
They're both former Democratic candidates for president, both of them, and they've both left the Democratic Party.
And so they're sort of representing kind of the axis of the canceled, so to speak.
But more to the point, they are these anti-establishment figures whom Trump wants to burnish his record with, his legacy with.
And there's certainly a lot of controversy over both of them from the health establishment.
Kennedy would be the HHS secretary.
From the intelligence community, Tulsi Gabbard would be the director of national intelligence.
But in the Trump view, the more you have the establishment criticizing the picks, the more it indicates how valuable they are.
And so the oppositions to Hegseth largely are on personal matters, his behavior.
Same with Matt Gates, the now withdrawn Attorney General.
To a smaller degree, Kash Patel, the FBI pick that Donald Trump wants to lead the agency.
Whereas Gabbard and Kennedy are more on policy grounds.
And that is something that the Trump team tells me that Trump intends to fight for.
But again, it's Trump.
Let's see what happens.
You mentioned Kash Patel.
What's the latest on him as the head of FBI?
Not a lot.
I think CNN just did a piece about how he grew to loathe the DC establishment.
That makes the Republican hearts at Mar-a-Lago go pitter-patter.
So, you know, I haven't heard what his whip count is yet.
While there are opponents of him, certainly on the left and the media and among critics, and a few on the right, there's a feeling in Trump World that he's probably going to make it as well.
We're talking with Mark Caputo, taking your phone calls, and he's with us for about another 15 minutes.
So go ahead and get those calls in.
This is Bruce out of Lexington, Kentucky, up first, Independent.
Good morning.
Hello.
Go ahead, Bruce.
Bruce, you're with us.
We've lost Bruce.
I heard him for a second there.
This is Donald out of Hawaii this morning, up early, independent.
Donald, you're on with Mark Caputo.
Hey, good morning, sir.
I would just like to ask you: I hear all these politics on TV, and you hear first black president, you hear this person.
Why isn't Kelsey Gabbard with her record not being pushed like every other thing going on in our country?
Why is that?
Well, I can't answer for why the rest of the mainstream media is not talking about how she'd be a historic first, a woman from Hawaii, a woman of color.
But my guess is what the caller's getting at is the perception wisely held, and I'm not saying it's wrong, of media bias, where a lot of the mainstream media will spend time touting that someone is a historic first because of their race or gender, and they're not doing it with Tulsi Gabbard.
I think it's a fair criticism.
I'm not saying it's accurate.
I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but it's a good question for NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Associated Press, and the like.
Another media question for you.
This is from Aztech on X saying, Mark Caputo, are any of the nominees not qualified to fill their positions?
And why are so many in the media upset that the nominees are not members of the swamp?
It appears that most of the U.S. does not feel that the U.S. government is working well, so why not stop the insanity and have a new type of nominee?
Well, comments well made, comments taken.
An interesting thing happened over the weekend.
There was the Harvard Kennedy School, its Institute of Politics had the heads of the Trump campaign and the heads of the Biden-Harris campaign or the Harris-Biden campaigns, depending on how you look at it, talk about the election.
And there was a very interesting comment from Rob Flaherty, who was the deputy campaign manager for both Biden and Harris's presidential campaigns, who had said that for the left, for Democrats, their amplification systems are the mainstream media and Hollywood.
And kind of pivoting off of my comments from the last caller, that's a clarion call for the rest of us in the mainstream media to start analyzing how we cover Republicans and cover these issues going forward.
Because in the eyes of Democrats, the mainstream media is part of its megaphone.
And while it's our job to report the news, there is a lot of risk there if we are continuing to be perceived as favoring one side.
What's the megaphone?
What's the amplification system for the right?
In that conversation, they discussed that the right has a bigger wealth of alternative media.
Elon Musk owns Twitter, and there's all of these podcasts which are starting to eat up major amounts of market share from the mainstream media.
This is Samuel Next out of Colorado Independent.
You're on with Mark Caputo.
Go ahead.
Yes.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that, you know, most of the picks that Trump's picking are just these rich white guys.
There's maybe a woman or two, but people are going to have buyers' remorse when it comes to Donald Trump.
You just wait and see.
Also, I'd like to know if you voted for him.
Because a lot of you men get on now whining about Trump, but then a lot of most of the men voted for him.
Mark Caputo.
Well, I'm not whining about Trump, but I think you're accurate in saying that the voters might have buyers' remorse.
I think you see that frequently, regardless of who's in office.
We elect presidents and we elect Congresses, and then the American people, at least as of late, wind up not happy with them.
If you just look at the polling, happened to Biden, happened to Trump, thing happened to Obama before him.
And then once they leave office, everyone's like, oh, wow, weren't they great?
It's kind of odd.
Regardless of who's in office, another question that comes up is: what's the role of the vice president?
What is JD Vance's role looking like?
That's a great question.
Go ahead.
Yeah, that's a story I've wanted to write for a while, but I don't have enough color.
But from what I'm being told from folks around Trump, he plays an important advisory role, and he is being used currently as what they call the Sherpa in Congress for some of these more controversial nominees.
So he's Trump's eyes and ears in the Senate.
He's making the case because JD Vance, as vice president-elect, is still an Ohio senator.
He's talking to his fellow senators trying to get these nominees across the finish line.
In one case, with Matt Gates, obviously, there just weren't the votes.
But with these other three more controversial ones or four controversial ones, the question is still open.
The jury's still out, so to speak, and Vance is working that hard.
In the advisory role capacity, is it just the Senate and the Sherpa, or are there issue areas in which JD Vance is advising Donald Trump?
And if so, what are they?
I don't specifically know that, but the two have a very good relationship.
Trump, however, is well known for taking advice from everyone and soliciting every possible opinion.
Bob Woodward's book, War, which was just released.
Incidentally, I wouldn't recommend reading it.
It's kind of, well, anyway, there is a great anecdote in it in which he discusses how Trump was in a meeting with Keith Kellogg, one of his generals, while president, and he solicited opinions from all of the officials in the room.
You know, there's a general and these high-ranking officials, and there was a person there who was a note-taker, just kind of a low-level staffer taking notes to memorialize it.
And Trump asked that person their opinion and wanted to solicit it.
And the person was like, no, I'm just a note-taker.
He says, doesn't matter.
You're in the room.
You heard it.
What do you think?
It's just a good example of the way in which he sort of processes information and solicits it.
Why wouldn't you recommend it?
You're a political reporter.
He's a political reporter.
It's supposed, well, it just basically read as if it was co-authored by Anthony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.
It just seemed, it paid short shrift.
It went out of its way to kind of praise Biden's foreign policy.
I'm not saying Biden's foreign policy was bad, and it did a good job explaining why his foreign policy with Ukraine was a success, but it spent precious little time on the failures of the withdrawal in Afghanistan, and this is supposedly a book about war, and it didn't really delve enough into the total lack of vision by our intelligence services, and Jake Sullivan specifically on the Middle East and 10-7,
that is October 7th.
You know, eight days before October 7th, Jake Sullivan was boasting about how there was peace and quiet in the Middle East.
And eight days later, well, that wound up not being true.
That's something that probably deserves a little more exegesis in a book about that topic, and yet it was completely absent.
So it kind of read like a pretty biased account.
Nevertheless, there's some good nuggets in there, but Woodward's written better.
No shade to him overall.
I mean, the guy's a fabulous reporter, Nixon, et cetera.
So that's just not a book I would recommend.
I didn't mean to talk about this today.
What's the best political book that you've read this year coming to the end of December?
Well, I'm reading.
Well, I have it on my desk.
I'm reading, I just read The Demon of Unrest by Eric Larson, which was about the lead up to the Civil War.
And I'm reading another related Civil War book called Civil Wars, and it's the history of the United States from 1850 to 1878.
And what's interesting about that period of time for me relative to our current period is Donald Trump really sort of walks out of that period of history.
The kind of more of a frontiersman and the growing nation.
He seems to be sort of more of a throwback to that time than we've seen in the sort of more recent era, albeit he is a more modern iteration of it.
I probably could do a better job explaining this had I thought I was going to come on and talk about the books I was going to read, though.
That's all right.
If viewers want to watch their books rather than read them, C-SPAN's book TV covered the demon of unrest a couple times, including at the National Book Festival.
Eric Larson speaking about his book.
You can watch it at booktv.org.
Back to calls for you.
I know we only have a little bit of time.
This is David in Flemington, New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
Thank you and your guests for making my call.
I do have a larger question about human beings and change, but if I may, I'd like to reference a comment by my wife's cousin, Gavin DeBecker, a friend of RFK Jr., and probably the most renowned security analyst in the country.
And the week ago, Sunday New York Times, he talked about how people change.
And Gavin himself, I know through the family, had an excruciating life growing up and is now probably the top security analyst in the country, a major advocate and a security analyst for some of the most famous people.
Gavin commented about RFK Jr.'s troubled past and how he had changed and learned and become stronger.
And I think the meta question with selections like Hegset and others, who have done things that none of us would be proud of?
Can people change?
Can they become stronger through the arduousness of their life and through very bad choices?
I think that's the question I would like to know what your guest thinks.
And I thank you both again for considering my comments.
You know, that's a very thoughtful question.
My answer would be yes.
I think people can change and learn from them.
I would submit that I think I have.
I just don't know Pete Hegset's character and the degree to which he's learned from his past mistakes.
He says he has.
And ultimately, that's going to be a question to be answered by the United States Senate.
Sorry to kind of duck that, but that's the best I can do.
John, Florence, Massachusetts, Independent, good morning.
Hello, yes.
I was wondering if you can explain to me how when the Trump presidency was ending, all the legacy media speculated that Trump would pardon himself, his family, and all his cabinet members because they were criminals and how horrible that would be.
But now they're justifying it.
That's one.
Another question I have is: all the Democrats want to resist, resist, resist, resist.
And then at the end, they complain that nothing got done.
Shouldn't they be popping champagne and saying, yay, we did it.
We didn't get anything done.
We resisted everything Trump wanted to do that was good for the country.
And then another thing is, everybody says, well, you know, Biden's son shouldn't have never had that gun charge because there was no other crime committed with the gun.
Well, his brother's wife took the gun because she was scared because she was having sex with Hunter and they were both doing crap.
And she took the gun and threw it away in a trash can across the street from school.
So that was another crime that was committed with the gun.
And then the CIA came to get it.
Mark Caputo, I've gotten Hunter Biden pardons and resistance there.
Yeah, I can't answer all of those.
I don't think the mainstream media in and of itself is celebrating Joe Biden pardoning his son, but this is a recurring theme in this discussion.
I do think the caller represents a great frustration in the way in which the media covers and amplified those voices on the left saying, oh my God, Donald Trump is so bad, he's going to pardon himself when he leaves office.
That didn't happen.
And then there isn't as much coverage of just how norm-busting it was that Joe Biden did this pardon with his son.
So that gets back to us in the mainstream media.
We might want to listen a little more to some of those voices.
I'm not saying they're always correct about everything, but there's a lot of criticism and concern out there, and it would help to have ears to hear.
Just a couple minutes left.
We've talked about several of the nominations so far.
What's the most interesting one that we haven't talked about yet?
Oh, that's a great question.
I mean, I'm a Florida person.
I've covered Marco Rubio since 2003, so almost 20 years, or more than 20 years.
Rubio is going to occupy a really unique position here in that he is the first Cuban-American Secretary of State, bilingual.
He was basically the de facto Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere for this hemisphere under Trump, as I said, de facto when he was still in the Senate.
And how he executes the Trump policy regarding not only Latin America, but in the Middle East with the fall of Assad, it's just going to be a fascinating thing to watch for guys like me who have just covered Rubio for a while.
And his nomination, by the way, should probably sail right through the Senate.
Is this the position that Marco Rubio wanted?
How long do you think he's thought about this post?
Yeah, well, he definitely wanted to be president in 2016.
That's why he ran, right?
But out of all of the positions in the Trump White House that Rubio would leave the Senate for, Secretary of State was up there.
I think he might have done ODNI and CIA director.
He's on the intelligence committees, and that sort of cloak and dagger stuff, the intelligence world, deeply fascinates him.
And he has a very deep, thorough background and knowledge of.
Just about a minute and a half left, Mark Caputo.
What are you writing about this week at thebullwork.com if people go to Magaville?
That's a good question.
I'm sort of floating at the moment.
I think Hegseth, we might do another iteration of Hegseth, but with the situation in the Middle East, the question is, how is Trump going to handle this?
Syria poses just a very unique, complicated puzzle because of the roles of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
And I'd like to know more about that.
By the way, the book that I'm reading now, I just want to point out, which I would recommend everyone buy, is Alan Taylor's American Civil Wars, A Continental History 1850 to 1878.
So that was the title of the book I'm reading.
Always appreciate the recommendations and would recommend you go to thebulwark.com and sign up for Marca Puto's Substack Magaville is what it's called.
Thanks for the time, as always, on the Washington Journal.
Oh, it's great being here.
Thank you.
Several programs ahead this morning, and we'll get to more of it, including a look at U.S. foreign policy and military role around the world.
That's coming up later this morning.
But up next, it's our open forum.
Any public policy issue, any political issue that you want to talk about, phone lines of yours to do so.
The numbers are on your screen.
And go ahead and start calling in now, and we will get to those calls right after the break.
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 Q ⁇ A, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on BookNotes 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.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.
The deadline is January 20th, 2025.
C-SPAN shop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Here's where we are on Capitol Hill this morning.
The House is in at noon Eastern.
The Senate is in at 3 p.m. Eastern.
And a lot going on here in Washington that we're covering on the C-SPAN networks today, including at 9.30 today Eastern time, that's in just about an hour.
The American Enterprise Institute hosts a discussion on the benefits of protecting personal data by claiming it as private property.
You can watch that on C-SPAN2, C-SPAN.org, and the free C-SPAN Now mobile app.
And later today, a discussion on how Latin American and Caribbean cities can use new technologies to create equal access to services and sustainable development.
That's 11 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN2 and c-SPAN.org.
And also today, 1 p.m. Eastern, the American Enterprise Institute hosts a discussion on reducing addiction among children in the welfare system.
Also on C-SPAN2, C-SPAN.org and the free C-SPAN Now video app.
And now it's our open forum.
Any public policy issue that you want to talk about, now's the time to call in.
We turn this program over to you.
Phone lines, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, as usual, will throw the numbers up on the screen for you, and we will start in Durango, Colorado.
This is Todd, Independent.
Go ahead.
Yeah, hi.
I was calling regarding a lot of the issues regarding building a border wall.
It seems like most of the focus when we discuss immigration, et cetera, doesn't focus on the impacts of a border wall on major wildlife corridors along some very wild places on the U.S.-Mexico border.
And it's kind of frightening to think about what drill baby drill means also from an environmental perspective and deregulating the energy industry.
It's a very scary thought.
And just wanted to see what people thought about that.
I mean, the mainstream media doesn't cover this issue very well at all.
And they never really bring up the aspects of the impacts on wildlife.
That's Todd in Colorado.
This is James in Bad Axe, Michigan.
Democrat, good morning.
There are two things that I'm interested in.
A president who's been indicted and convicted.
His interest in law enforcement.
And the second thing that I'm interested in is his dragging Krishner relatives into this country without following normal immigrant procedures.
Thank you.
John is in California Republican.
It's our open forum.
What's on your mind, John?
Hey, good morning.
Yeah, a couple things.
There was one of the callers that was worried about the environmental impacts.
Well, I work in the Port of Los Angeles, and when you deal with environmentalists, they claim that their interest is the environment and regulating certain machinery that puts off certain emissions.
But all that's really doing is taking away American jobs.
We have a port that is being built in Los Angeles where it's basically autonomous.
It's manless, and they're taking the jobs.
And what I think the Republicans need to do is regulate foreign companies from coming over and taking American union jobs.
The blue jean working class, middle American, working class man is now more leaning to the right, not to the left.
So the rank and file and all the unions across the nation that are listening to this, the upper brass, need to pull your heads out of your ass and start voting with the rank and file and not your own self-interest.
Thank you very much.
That's John.
This is Yvette in Florida, Line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Good morning.
One of your previous callers mentioned chain migration and that's how Melania Trump's parents became citizens.
Well, her father was a card-carrying communist, apparently.
And I wondered, well, how does a card-carrying communist become an American citizen?
And when I looked that up, it said that if you have not been a card-carrying communist for 10 years, then it's okay.
You can become an American citizen.
So I thought that was kind of interesting.
Yvette, where did you look that up?
Where do you go for immigration information and citizenship information?
I Googled it.
I Googled it.
I just, you know, I wanted to know about her parents, I guess, is what I was doing.
And I found out that he was a card-carrying communist.
And, you know, and then I looked a little further and found out what the situation is there.
So I have never heard anybody talk about that before.
So I thought I'd call in and throw that out there.
That's Yvette in Florida.
Here's a story from back in 2018 when Melania Trump citizens became Melania Trump's parents became citizens of this country.
The NPR story on it from August the 10th, 2018, First Lady's parents become U.S. citizens thanks to chain migration is the headline if you want to read it.
That's the date, NPR.org.
This is Peter in New York, Republican.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning, John.
I wanted to address your birthright citizenship.
They're not going to change the Constitution.
There are not enough people in this country who want to change it.
And I do agree with President Trump that if you're a dreamer and you basically spent the majority of your life here, you should be given preference as far as citizenship is concerned.
But the only thing that they possibly can do are change the laws regarding chain migration because I'm not sure of the exact figure, but I believe it is that every immigrant who comes in and becomes a citizen brings in about approximately 30 more people into the country through chain migration.
So that's one way they could change it.
And also regarding children who are born here from illegal parents, they can change the law saying that if a child is under the age of maturity, they don't lose their citizenship.
But if their parents leave the country and they have to go with their parents, Tom Holman said that.
When they reach the age of maturity, if they want to come back and live in the United States, they can do that.
So there's a few ways that they can get around the citizenship law in the Constitution, but the Congress has to have the will to do it.
Peter, another one that there's at least some effort, executive order, perhaps, perhaps another route, is to tighten rules about women coming to this country to have children, the birth tourism issue that several callers have brought up, that while not changing birthright citizenship, there's ways to prevent that from happening perhaps as much as it's happening now.
Yes, I agree, John.
If you are coming to the United States on a visa, a tourist visa, and you are pregnant, then they could say, no, you cannot come into the country under those circumstances until you give birth.
Now, I granted the left in this country will fight it in court, and they may win and they may not win, but that is another area where you can put restrictions.
Ambassadors, ambassadors who live in the United States, who have their families here, if their children are born in the United States, they are not automatically American citizens.
So there are ways of getting around this.
But as far as changing the Constitution, that's not going to happen, John.
They're not going to change the 14th Amendment.
Thank you, John.
Here, thanks for the call.
This is Amy down in Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
I know this might be a little bit off topic, but I'm concerned about the large amounts of foreign buy-up in the United States because of like the steel mill in Pittsburgh.
Also, China is buying large swaths of land around military bases.
I'm very concerned about that as well.
You know, what is their strategic, why are they doing it type thing?
Also, you have Russia buying large swaths of property in coal mines and infrastructure in Kentucky.
Those are the things that I'm concerned about because when we go to conflict with these countries, they could cut us off from buying steel in Pennsylvania.
They're looking on our military bases to see what we're doing because now they own that property right next door.
You know, you start buying into where, you know, Russia owns large-scale corporate operations.
So, Amy, you know, those are the things I'm concerned about.
On that topic, and you mentioned steel specifically, this story getting a lot of attention recently.
Japan's Nippon Steel is committed to a $15 billion acquisition of U.S. steel, and according to Reuters, is confident of completing that deal by the end of the year, despite strong U.S. opposition, including from President-elect Donald Trump.
We will not give up on the deal.
There is no global strategy without the U.S., said Nippon Steel's vice chairman to Reuters after returning from an eighth visit to the United States.
The U.S. steel with U.S. Steel, Nippon Steel, aims to raise its global steel production capacity to 85 million metric tons per year from 65 million tons now.
And the assets is core to its goal of lifting production capacity to more than 100 million tons long term.
Nippon Steel might be one of the stories you've been hearing about in the news.
This is Michael in Pensacola.
Democrat, good morning.
Yes, I'm talking in reference to the media events that President-elect Trump creates.
This is the latest thing, verified citizenship.
Crystal Walker said, are you going to do this through executive order?
He said, yes, I'm going to try it through executive order.
Of course, he knows that's not possible.
You cited a circumstance in terms of the Constitution being reformed.
It has had two-thirds of the Congress, House, and Senate, as well as the congressional buy-in in reference to that.
He creates media events that really have no substance.
And that's similar to the circumstance in reference to the Dog people eating our dogs and cats, him dressing with the in the McDonald's uniform, the sanitation uniform.
Again, this is also easy.
There's very little substance to his whereabouts.
Thank you.
It's Michael in Florida.
About 30 minutes left in our open forum.
Any public policy issue that you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours to do so.
We can also talk foreign policy.
This is the lead story of USA Today and pretty much every major newspaper.
Assad flees to Russia, chemical weapons in Syria, a top-tier priority for the United States and the United Nations.
The rebel forces seizing the capital of Damascus in Syria.
And it was President Biden yesterday from the White House pledging support to Syria and its neighbors after the collapse of the Assad regime.
This is about a minute and a half of President Biden yesterday.
We now see new opportunities opening up for the people of Syria and for the entire region.
Looking ahead, the United States will do the following.
First, we'll support Syria's neighbors, including Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel, should any threat arise from Syria during this period of transition.
I will speak with leaders of the region in the coming days.
I have long discussions with all of our people earlier this morning.
And I'll send senior officials from my administration to the region as well.
Second, we will help stability, ensure stability in eastern Syria, protecting any personnel, our personnel, against any threats.
And remain our mission against ISIS will be maintained, including the security of detention facilities where ISIS fighters are being held as prisoners.
We're cleared-eyed about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its capabilities and to create a safe haven.
We will not let that happen.
In fact, just today, U.S. forces conducted a dozen of precision strikes, airstrikes, within Syria, targeting ISIS camps and ISIS operatives.
Third, we will engage with all Syrian groups, including within the process led by the United Nations, to establish a transition away from the Assad regime toward independent, sovereign, an independent, and independent, I might say it again, sovereign Syria with a new constitution, a new government that serves all Syrians.
This process will be determined by the Syrian people themselves.
The United States will do whatever we can to support them, including through humanitarian relief to help restore Syria after more than a decade of war.
That was President Biden from the White House yesterday.
On Saturday, it was President-elect Trump who put out his thoughts on Syria in a long post on Truth Social.
It ends by saying this: there was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia other than to make Obama look really stupid.
In any event, Syria is a mess, the president-elect writes, but is not our friend, and the United States should have nothing to do with it in all caps.
This is not our fight.
Let it play out.
Do not get involved.
This is Howard out of Ohio Republican.
Good morning.
You're next.
Good morning.
Are you there?
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
If people want their government, a true American government, you have to stop all the donations, all the lobbying.
The elites are running this country.
You should make it to where you take away all lobbying.
Take away all that crap.
And what you do is you make them go out and you make them beat the roads and get votes that way.
If you want to donate, make it to where you can donate $500 per household.
That way the corporates can't give all their employees money to donate to their candidate so they can run the country.
Get all the corporate crap out of the country and let the American people run the country.
Enough is enough.
A billion dollars Harris Bilt spent on her campaign and she still owes a couple of million.
How ridiculous is this?
And what does all that money go for?
Just ads?
It's stupid.
It's crazy.
And half the ads are lies.
You don't know what side to believe.
And that's the other thing.
The news needs to quit putting their opinion in and put the news, not their opinions, the news.
Howard, on the lobbying aspect, Howard, when folks who work in the lobbying industry have come on this program and talk about what they do, they will say that what they do is protected by the First Amendment, that it's in the First Amendment, that you have a right to petition your government for a redress of grievances, and that that's what lobbyists do.
They're petitioning members of the government for a redress of grievances.
What do you think of that, that lobbying is a First Amendment right?
Petitioning something is different than buying them off.
Come on, if we was all rich, we could buy off a lot of things.
It's crazy.
They are running the country.
And until us American citizens figure it out and stop it, they're going to keep on running this country.
Howard, one more question.
Reports on just how much money Elon Musk spent on campaign 2020 and efforts to support Donald Trump at over $250 million is the number that's being cited now?
I'm a Trumper.
I don't care.
It needs to stop all the way around.
It needs to stop it.
And as far as like your congressman and all them, they vote their own selves in a raise.
Come on, where have you ever worked at a job where you can vote your own raise in?
They haven't done that in a while, Howard.
Voting themselves a raise.
Oh, so how do they get the raises?
They haven't gotten the raise.
They haven't gotten a raise in a while.
Oh, well, at $170 something thousand dollars a year plus all these expenses, what do they need one for?
What do they do?
Here, when Congress and them go into session, half the time they walk in, they do their little stance with the little poll thingy, and then they say something, and then they have a prayer, then they dismiss it, then they dismiss it for the day.
It's Howard in Ohio.
You can watch the House when it comes in today.
It's noon Eastern.
The Senate comes in at 3 p.m. Eastern.
That's over on C-SPAN 2, of course.
Nat is in Decatur, Georgia, Independent.
Good morning.
Gee, the Congress won't be here until noon.
I wonder why C-SPAN is not going to stay on Ontario.
But that's not why I called.
I called to ask you to please, the way you do it sometimes is so impressive, instantaneously get on the screen the view of Congresswoman from North Carolina telling the representative of the free press to shut up.
I want to introduce my topic by sharing with the audience that aren't we all, don't we all listen to C-SPAN because we care deeply about important stuff?
Don't we agree that C-SPAN offers an opportunity for people to hear some really important stuff if you can get through on the line?
I didn't call to be a part of a discussion.
I call to make a statement.
If you callers would please follow the instructions of the screener and mute your television, then we have callers who have something worth hearing to say will not be denied an opportunity because their time was used up by the host begging the caller to mute their television.
So, oh, and do you have a Virginia Fox on the screen telling the journalists to shut up?
Have you not noticed, people, that's what's going in around the world?
But the Washington Journal's answer to that situation is to let's tie up the line saying good morning to each other.
That's insanely improper.
What do you call it?
Unacceptable, C-SPAN.
Now, let's hurry up and go say good morning to the next caller and then interview somebody that knows nothing about anything and ask them a bunch of 20-word questions that don't make sense.
I gotta go.
I don't want to die on the phone over this.
I just want you to start doing right.
Pretty please.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
That's Nat in Georgia.
This is the Hill newspaper on that incident that Nat refers to.
House Republican tells reporter to shut up for asking Speaker Johnson about overturning the 2020 election, that happening back towards the end of the election cycle back in October.
You can watch it on c-span.org.
That's a headline on it.
This is David in Idaho.
Democrat, good morning.
Morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to touch on the 14th Amendment section.
More of a question.
I'd love to get a legal scholar's opinion on it.
But it reads, all persons born are naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
And my question is this: if someone comes from a different country into the U.S., are they not still under the jurisdiction of their original country?
And we could just deport them if they do something wrong.
So I think there might be some legal play to make a change there.
Just throwing it out there.
Thanks.
That's David in Idaho.
This is Kelly in Denison, Ohio.
Republican, good morning.
Hey, John.
Hey, I'd like to bring up a couple of things.
One is we can't forget our hostages over in Israel or with Hamas.
We got to get those guys back.
And I want to go to the caller who was talking about China buying our farmland and putting it in places.
John, I don't know if you know about Jing Jongping, but the man, his person that he looks up to is Chairman Mao.
This man is totally dangerous, and he plays the long game.
Now, President Biden is not the smartest or the sharpest tool in the shed, John.
I'm telling you what, Xi Jongping knows how to play Biden.
I am totally worried about whenever Clinton was being charged with her, with his Monica Lewinsky, we let Osama bin Laden go.
I'm worried about the Chinese.
They play a good game, and Biden is in their pocket.
I'm really worried about this, John.
You got anything to say about that?
I was going to point you to a segment on the Washington Journal in which we discussed with the director of a new frontline documentary about Xi Jinping, the rise of Xi Jinping in China.
You can find that at c-span.org.
It was just, it was last week or the week before on the Washington Journal, but the director speaking about making that documentary about trying to dig into the life of Xi Jinping.
And there it is.
There it is there.
Martin Smith is his name.
He was on this program.
This is Dave in New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
Yeah, I was wondering if anybody's really curious about the drones flying over in the Chinese subs off our coast.
And don't forget the aliens, right?
They're coming too.
You know how to fight them?
Telepathically.
All right.
This is David in Illinois.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
I'm trying not to get emotional.
We are really, really heading towards a civil war.
This is what Donald Trump's going to do, and people need to listen, especially African Americans and people of color.
Donald Trump is going to, one, part of the January 6th committee.
First thing, this is all legal.
January 6th, people get part two.
He's going to deputize them to make them his deputies.
So now they can do become deputized.
So they can go into minority and also people of color communities and say they're deputized to do whatever they need to do because then Trump is going to get police immunity, which he said everything he's getting ready to do within the first 100 days, he's going to do.
And January 6th committee, people pardon, the complete police community immunity, going to attack the minority community.
And the people of Springfield, Ohio needs to get out of Springfield, Ohio, because the January 6th is just, this is part of history.
All right.
That's David in Illinois.
You mentioned January 6th.
This is the headline from the Washington Post about the January 6th committee, Donald Trump's comments about the members of that congressional committee in that NBC News Meet the Press interview yesterday, saying in part, everybody on that committee for what they did, honestly, yeah, they should go to jail, Trump said.
The committee, which shuddered when Republicans took back the House in January 2023, consisted of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.
This is Edward in Jersey City, New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you so much.
Mr. John, happy holidays to you.
The last time I called was before the presidential election.
I was telling you all that, you know, I'm assigned as a poll worker where I live.
I'm excited.
You know, I just want to do the best that I can do, you know, serving the people there and everything.
And then, like, it all happened.
And, you know, obviously I was shocked.
You know, and now where we are just after your last segment with the birthright citizenship question, you just never know when to call in because you only have one chance every 30 days.
But I'm like, I'll call in during an open forum.
So it doesn't matter, like, any like I disagree with Trump, right, and his whole vision for our country and usually like the Republican Party.
But even if this, like, if something is horrible, it's like they take away certain people's birthright citizenship.
If it passes through Congress and if the Supreme Court reaffirms it, it still doesn't make it just.
It still doesn't make it just.
I just, I just, there's so much that I disagree with him on.
Edward, it would likely have to be a constitutional amendment, the birthright citizenship stemming from the 14th Amendment, which says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
And a constitutional amendment, which takes three-fourths of both houses, right?
Like in order for that to pass.
Two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and then ratified by three-quarters of the state assemblies.
State legislative bodies.
It doesn't matter.
Our history is proven to us that we failed.
Like, you know, generations have failed us in the past.
You know, like this, this pendulum that swings in my view, like back and forth in our country.
You have in the 18th century, Black Lives Don't Matter.
19th century, you know, it's the in this, this is ridiculous.
Like, I just, we need to enshrine like our rights and, you know, into our Constitution once and for all.
And Aqua called in and said that.
Like, I feel like our system, in a sense, is outdated, too.
You know, like it's not, it's not getting to, it's, it's just, we, we can definitely update our system.
And I just, I had to call in and just share that.
Edward, are you going to be a are you going to be a poll worker again in two years, four years?
Oh, heck yeah.
I'm in New Jersey.
And although this was the presidential election this year, just next year, we have our primary in June for our state governor's race.
And then my local city, my township, we have our mayor's race as well.
So next year is important on the local level.
And although I'm independent, I caucus more with Democrats because Democrats are, in a sense, more progressive in a policy view.
But I'm telling you, like the National Democrat Party, they failed us.
They are not progressive enough.
People are not responding.
And I'll stop.
I'll stop here.
Thank you so much.
That's Edward in New Jersey to the Show Me State.
This is Homer, Democrat.
Good morning.
Well, John, good morning, and good luck hurting the cats.
Here's what I have to say to the last color.
He's part of the problem.
I'm a blue dog, a blue dog.
I'm a Jimmy Carville Democrat.
And our hope is with Fetterman, I believe.
But I will say.
What does a blue dog believe for folks who may not be familiar?
Well, we're working class Democrats.
You know, we're not elitists.
We're union people.
You know, we got dirt under our fingernails.
And sadly, we've been diminished to campaign.
Can be just like it's a litmus test.
She finished 20 out of 20.
And I still believe that Biden, I mean, Biden did a good job.
I mean, they're building bridges around here, too.
Though Sam Graves takes credit for it, he did not vote for it.
But the thing is, it was just too much, too much rainbow.
We got to get back to our roots.
What does too much rainbow mean, Homer?
Well, it's, you know, men in girls' bathrooms, men competing in women's sports, you know, that kind of thing.
They just didn't fly here, man.
It just does not work.
And we got to get back to the basics, man.
And it'll be a guy like Fetterman who has to bring it back.
And you know what, John?
I wish I had a dollar for every Republican that called in on the independent line.
And you have a great day, John.
It's Homer in Missouri.
About 10 minutes left in open forum.
202-748-8001 for Republicans.
202-748-8000 for Democrats.
And Independents, it's 202-748-8002.
This is Brock in New Jersey, Independent.
Good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
I just want to say protect our troops home and abroad.
Thank them for their service and whatnot.
We're coming to the end of a tumultuous year.
I've lost a lot.
I've learned a lot.
I've been blessed a lot.
I guess my biggest points is, you know, we all have a lot to say and a lot to add.
And I think that is very important that, again, we keep C-STAN and productions like this to make sure all our voices are continuously heard.
What I feel like is that with the money interest, and, you know, we're all on a time scale.
Like, you never know where you're going to go.
So the best thing you want to do is, you know, depending on how you're brought up, you know, whether you care about more other people or it can have like a based on a life experience where you just start caring more about yourself, and that starts to be your concern.
But we have too many soft targets in this country, I believe.
And I mean, I think that that should be something that we all agree on and work on as Americans safeguarding.
The fact that the border wasn't as secure as it should have been, and the fact that our immigration system has been abused over the years.
The fact that, you know, again, I just heard about in Hoboken, there was a cyber attack.
You know, I heard in my city of Newark, there was a cyber attack one back a couple years or whatever, and we had to pay the ransom.
And again, these are things that normal citizens don't know about what's going on in their communities, and it has an effect on the community, but it's almost like it doesn't get talked about.
So people really don't get to address those issues.
You have people in places of power that don't know when to relinquish power or when to get new ideas.
And because, for instance, like I understand that we had to deal with the crime issue, and so that precipitated why businesses didn't spend.
But, you know, knowing that things are going to change and have that forward thinking, that forward view, having that insight from other points of view, you know, have people think forward.
And so, you know, we can't be caught dropping the ball.
I think with Biden, what happened was the Afghanistan thing.
So even if he knew that he was going to have to get out, he should have had a plan to do it as soundly and securely.
But, you know, I hope Trump, I feel like Trump is under the gun right now, you know, metaphorically speaking.
And so he definitely, I feel like if we just make sure that he does the best job, make sure we have the best health care, make sure we have the best food, you know, the greatest type of jobs.
And I think that we should also let AI do what AI needs to do to that.
Brock, we'll take the points.
This is Bob Logan, Utah, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What I'm calling about, I'm a little concerned about this drill baby drill.
They talk about drilling, you know, on public lands, federal lands.
And the easiest way to do that is to let the oil companies buy the land for the billionaires.
And, you know, Trump's pretty easy to read.
And I just have a feeling that might be what's going on.
I guess that's all I needed to say.
Bob, you're saying buy the land as opposed to lease the land out?
You think the idea is to give away federal land?
Or to sell off federal land, I should say?
I have a feeling that's what they're talking about because right now, right now, they're talking about they have all the oil we need that they're drilling.
So I'm just concerned.
That's what makes the West great.
And yeah, we own this property, all of us, from New York to Los Angeles.
All this public land.
And I'd hate to lose it.
America, please keep your eye on what you want.
And if something like this happens, call your senators.
It may not do any good.
I'm a guy that does this all the time.
I guess that's no, Bob, I'll take your point.
I was just looking up the numbers, Bob, from Utah, in a state where roughly 68% of the land is federally managed, some 37.4 million acres of federal land in the state of Utah, one of those states with a whole lot of federal land, mostly by the Bureau of Land Management, but other, including the National Park Service, other branches of the federal government controlling land out there as well.
This is David, Crab Orchard, West Virginia, an independent.
Good morning.
Yeah, so there's exceptions to the 14th Amendment about born citizenship.
Diplomats, foreign soldiers serving in the United States family, they are not citizens if they have birth in America.
Military and diplomats overseas are citizens, even though they wasn't born in America.
I didn't hear anybody discuss that.
And remember, John McCain was born in Cuba, I believe.
And he was an American citizen because his father was...
I think it was Panama, David, right?
Wasn't it the...
The Panama Zone?
Yeah, Panama.
Yeah, Panama, yes.
So nobody covered that, but there's exceptions.
So why can't they do other exceptions?
Like they were talking about the people being brought here for birth and then take off and get citizenship.
So they can be more exceptions.
Have a nice day.
It's David in West Virginia.
This is Janet in Ohio, Portsmouth, Ohio, Democrat.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What I'm worried about is Elon Musk and other man take $2 trillion out of the budget.
Now, is he going to cut our Medicare?
Is he going to cut our Social Security?
Is he going to do with that?
If he does, what am I to live on?
You're talking about the Department of Government Efficiency, Janet?
I guess.
Whatever they have a dodge.
That's what it stands for.
Elon Musk was whatever his name is.
Vivek Ramaswamy, Doge, Department of Government Efficiency is what that stands for.
This is David in Spring Hill, Florida, Independent.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I'm a frequent watcher.
I'm sitting here watching now like I do most mornings.
My comment is not that specific about an issue.
It's about the callers.
And it's easy for people to find a problem and have something to say.
I would really like to have the callers come in with suggestions that are workable.
They need to understand our government system and how our politics operates.
And my question is, are they involved in any of the government or any of the politics?
It's easy to criticize.
Let's have something positive from it.
Thank you.
Susan, Florida, Republican.
Good morning.
You're next.
Yes, this is Susan from Florida.
And yes, I do have anything to say.
I just want the people that are calling in, they need to know what they're talking about before they call.
Okay, this is John in Germantown, Maryland, Democrat.
Good morning.
Yes, hi.
Well, I think the Democrat Party really did a disservice when we ran Joe Biden to begin with, quite frankly.
And then, you know, I think he was corrupt from the beginning.
I think he had Alzheimer's.
And I think by picking the vice presidential candidate to be the president, which was a DEI hire, to me, was a disservice to the whole party.
And it's going to haunt us forever.
And then some, especially if we continue down this woke path of allowing the loudest, most obnoxious, smallest part of the Democrat Party have a loud voice.
John, what makes you a Democrat?
What are the ideals of Democrats in your mind?
Well, I grew up in a Democrat household.
I was a union worker for 42 years.
I was a shop steward.
I ran for office.
I grew up in a political family who formed basically the Democrat machine in Maryland.
And John, are you going to stay a Democrat?
Absolutely.
So we need to rebuild from within.
That's John in Germantown, Maryland.
Our last caller in this open forum, but stick around.
About 45 minutes left this morning.
In that time, a conversation with Roger Zakheim of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
We'll talk about the results of the group's recent survey on American attitudes about the U.S. military and its role in the world.
Stick around.
We'll be right back.
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 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 the 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.
The house will be in order.
This year, C-SPAN celebrates 45 years of covering Congress like no other.
Since 1979, we've been your primary source for Capitol Hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of America's cable companies.
C-SPAN, 45 years and counting.
Powered by cable.
A book called The Wise Men was first published in 1986.
Cover copy says, quote, it was about six friends and the world they made, unquote.
The names Harriman, Lovett, Etcheson, McCloy, Kennan, and Bolan are only to be found in the history books today.
Co-authors Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson were in their mid-30s.
In the updated 2012 introduction to the paperback, they wrote, in their time, the wise men operated largely behind the scenes, little known by the public.
But they achieved great things.
According to Thomas and Isaacson, those great things included the shaping of the world order today, the creation of international institutions, the forging of lasting peace in a perilous time.
We ask Evan Thomas now in his 70s, who are the wise men of today?
Evan Thomas with his book, The Wise Men, Six Friends and the World They Made, on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb.
BookNotes Plus is available on the C-SPAN Now free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
A focus now on a new survey on Americans' views on military spending and international engagement.
Roger Zachheim is our guest.
He's the Washington director of the Ronald Reagan Foundation, Presidential Foundation and Institute, a group whose mission is what?
To advance President Reagan's legacy, broadly speaking, in Washington, D.C., I have the honor of being director of the Reagan Institute, as you mentioned, and here we work on taking Reagan ideas, principles, and values and making sure that those engaged in public policy, be it in the Congress, the executive branch, thought leaders here in town, are really looking at Reagan ideas and principles as they advance the U.S. public policy.
How long has the foundation been around?
How are you funded?
Well, the foundation, it's a 501c3 since they started the library back in 1991.
The Institute in D.C. has been around for about six or seven years.
We have our presence right next to A. Adams Hotel across the street from the White House on 16th Street.
And when and why did you decide to start surveying Americans about their views on international engagement and these defense issues that we're going to talk about?
Well, President Reagan had a strong legacy in terms of advancing American leadership in the world, and particularly on advancing peace through strength.
And we for some time have been engaging with America's thought leaders and elected officials on these issues.
We found that it really was a gap in the discussion in terms of where the views are of the American people.
Oftentimes you hear elected officials talk about the American believe X, the American people believe why, but it's not backed up by a lot of evidence.
And so what we sought to do with our survey is to make sure that when it comes to foreign policy, national security, and defense issues, there was actually an annual survey that was a pretty deep dive into the issue set and make sure that our elected officials and policymakers understood where the American people actually were on those very questions.
So how many people did you survey when were you in the field on this?
So we're in the field just after the election.
So in early November, about 2,500 people were reached out to by our polling services.
Some questions were just over 1,500, but overall it was 2,500 respondents.
Some top line numbers from that survey, this year's survey that we're talking about.
50% overall, including 61% of Trump voters, prefer a, quote, engaged internationalist American leadership approach on the international stage.
79% strongly or somewhat support an increase in defense spending.
That's the highest level ever recorded on one of these surveys.
And 71% supported more defense spending in the Institute's summer 2023 polling.
And so what stuck out from you from those numbers?
Well, the first one you mentioned was really the one that got our attention.
As you mentioned, 57% of American people believe that America should be leading in the world.
And I think surprising to many of those who have looked at our survey, 61% of Trump voters.
There's a big, broad coalition that put President Trump back into office.
There's certainly a pocket of those voters, a slice of those voters, who actually would look to reduce America's role in the world.
But as the survey bears out, the majority of them actually are in line with a very Reagan-esque worldview.
61%, that is up significantly, not just where we were, as you mentioned in our last survey, as we saw where Trump voters were, but there's some demographics here that really stand out.
In addition to the Trump voters, young voters want to see America leading the world.
Significant jump there, I'd say by about 30% since our last survey.
That 61% who want an engaged internationalist American leadership approach.
Is that at odds in your mind with a campaign slogan, a campaign platform that's America First?
Well, I think it's a question of how you have American First.
What is America First?
I think what this survey really bears out, both in terms of what American leadership is and then what President Trump often campaigned on, peace through strength, you can kind of stitch together how the American people are interpreting that.
So American leadership in the world needs to first and foremost be about America's national interests.
I think you will not hear the Trump kind of supporters, folks who are going into the Trump administration talking about America supporting the rules-based international order.
That's not part of their lexicon.
What they want to see in the world is that America is leading.
America's interests are being advanced.
And that I think is what 61% of those Trump voters were probably getting behind.
There's a recognition that for American interests, the American security, American prosperity to be preserved, it can't be done simply by Fortress America.
That to preserve those equities really requires America to lead in the world.
And I think that's the contribution of the survey, certainly on this question.
We're going to dive more into this survey.
Roger Zach Heim is our guest of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
Go ahead and start calling in.
Phone numbers are split this way.
Republicans 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
Independents 202-748-8002.
And then a special line for active and retired military, 202748-8003.
Especially want to hear from you, especially in topics related to the second part of the survey.
Confidence in the U.S. military was one of the subjects that was polled on.
51% of respondents have a great deal of confidence in the military, with another 31% stating that they have at least some confidence.
That's up, as you've pointed out in the results, from a historic low of 45% who had a great deal, high confidence in the military after the withdrawal from Afghanistan late 2021.
Yeah, this is actually one of the more important discoveries we've had since we've done our survey.
We've had it as far back as 2018.
And when we started the survey in 2018, 70% of those surveyed had trust and confidence in the military.
And we divide that up between somewhat or a great deal, but total count was 70%.
And we saw this precipitous decline.
And as you noted, that decline really bottomed out in 2021.
This year's survey, the one that we're talking about that was carried out in November of this year, we saw that number going up a bit to just north of 50%.
Now, institutions as a whole have taken ahead.
We've seen that in our survey over the years, but I think it's a positive indication that the American people, certainly as expressed to the respondents in this survey, have now increased their confidence in the U.S. military.
So what do you do with these numbers, confidence in the military, U.S. role in the world?
You take these to members of Congress, policymakers, and you say what?
Well, first we make them aware.
And we make sure that those who have a point of view, and they're doing it in the name of the American people, actually they're informed as to how their point of view aligns with our survey.
We just came out of our Reagan National Defense Forum, which takes place every year in the first weekend, December out in Simi Valley, California, where the Reagan Library resides.
There we have the Secretary of Defense, the leaders of Congress who focus on national security, the Armed Services Committees, the Appropriations Committees, industry leaders, they all gather about 700 people annually at the Reagan National Defense Forum, and the survey is a big part of that conversation.
It drives the discussion because again, we want to make sure that those who are advocating for an increased U.S. role in the world, who are pushing for U.S. presence in some of those critical regions such as the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East, they understand where the American people stand with those issue sets and it gives a richer conversation.
And importantly, this is where the legacy of President Reagan comes in.
He was always quite focused on the views of the American people, the voice of the American people penetrating the Beltway into the halls of public policy in D.C.
And we see ourselves doing that through this survey.
So this confidence in U.S. military, do you see it as a measure of that Americans, 51% of Americans have a great deal of confidence that the U.S. can fight and win the wars of the future?
Or is it 51% have a great deal of confidence in the decision makers leading us in fights that we can win?
Well, it's a great question, and it's hard to parse the survey.
We've used other questions subsequent to the confidence question to try to get at that.
I think generally it's about the focus in terms of the leadership.
We have other questions to talk about, the U.S. military's confidence in the U.S. military's ability to prevail in armed conflict, one of which, importantly, is a view of the American people in terms of whether the U.S. could prevail in a conflict with the People's Republic of China, with the People's Liberation Army.
Obviously, that is the focus of national defense policymakers, the peer competitor in the competition with the PRC.
There, just over half believe the U.S. could actually prevail in a conflict.
In that respect, it does kind of parallel the trust and confidence numbers that we were just talking about in terms of 51% have trust and confidence in the U.S. military.
There's more numbers in the survey.
I want to get to them over the course of this segment.
Roger Zachheim with us until the end of our program at 10 a.m. Eastern today, but want to get to your calls.
Howard's waiting in Chicago first.
Republican.
Howard, good morning.
Yeah, good morning.
Everyone's talking about the Finn's budget, but why is it they can't pass an audit?
Haven't done it in seven years, and most importantly, no one is held accountable for failing their audits.
How do we address that?
Great question on the audit.
And I think there's two ways to think about the audit.
First is what you bring up, that, hey, this is an enterprise that is appropriated on an annual basis just about $900 billion, and it should be able to have a clean audit.
We have certain pockets of the Department of Defense that actually do have that audit.
The Marine Corps stands out in terms of military services that can carry out an audit.
But overall, the Department of Defense has struggled to have a comprehensive audit.
The process of realizing an audit, and this does not bare out in our survey, it does actually connect, though, of course, to the support for increased defense spending.
The process of carrying out an audit, as I mentioned, does actually reveal a lot of information that helps the Department of Defense execute its responsibilities more efficiently.
So, the process, the pursuit of an audit, is going on.
It's done with renewed purpose and focus, really, since the last Trump administration.
And I think that will continue in the coming Trump administration.
As to when, though, the Department will have a clean audit comprehensively.
I think we're years out for that.
And that's a problem, and Caller is right to highlight it.
Howard knows, obviously, because he brought it up that the Pentagon failed to pass the seventh audit.
How big of a deal is this to the policymakers that you talk to?
How much do they care?
Yeah, policymakers care deeply about it.
There's, of course, a variety of players here.
So, certain members in Congress who have prioritized this over the years.
Senator Grassley comes to mind in the U.S. Senate.
But it makes the Department more efficient as they pursue this audit.
And I think I know in the previous session we were taking calls, a lot of focus and attention on Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency.
And I think the audit will be a big part of that.
You have to know what you have and where you have it.
I heard one story just the other day that because of the Marine Corps audit, for example, they found some spare parts that were necessary for the F-35, our fifth-generation fighter that's critical for our Navy, Marine Corps, and of course our Air Force, because of the audit.
And the result was that about 50-plus F-35s that were grounded were able actually to be put in use.
That was a result of the process of the audit.
So it does have a material impact on the operations and the warfighting of the military.
Correct.
Views of U.S. weapons to allies from, again, this survey.
43% support giving weapons to allies.
That's down 5% from last year.
Within that group, 54% support sending weapons to Israel.
55% support sending weapons to Ukraine.
What do you want to note on that?
Well, the big story on military support to Israel and military support to Ukraine is the deep partisan divides.
And notably, when it comes to Ukraine, Harris voters support that by 74%, whereas Trump voters support by 42%.
So the overall average is the majority of the American people, as I just noted.
But the partisan divide really bears out.
And you almost have the flip side when it comes to support for Israel in terms of military assistance.
That's critical, of course, because Ukraine is at war right now trying to defend against Russian aggression and restore its sovereignty over all its territory.
Israel, the same, of course, the war in Gaza continues.
Stories today are focusing on what's happening in Syria, but the threat from Hamas and stability in Gaza continues to be Israel's focus.
One thing I note, and you have to kind of delineate, not just in terms of the views of the American people in terms of their willingness to have U.S. security assistance to those countries, Israel and Ukraine, but overall, the United States, through this survey, we see the American people have strong support for Israel and Ukraine.
75% of those survey view Ukraine as an ally, as a partner.
74% view Israel as a partner, as an ally.
And just to contextualize that, 73% view Japan as a partner and ally.
So there's really strong support for those countries, the specific policies in terms of security assistance, is where you see these partisan divides.
But the majority not supporting the idea of sending weapons to allies, right?
43% support, 57% don't, or there's some that didn't answer.
So for that majority, what is the reason not to do arms transfers?
Is it weakening the United States' weapon supply?
We're not ready to fight our own battles if we're giving these weapons away.
Is it spending monies overseas?
What do they say?
Well, in terms of the overall point of view, we don't have the follow-up questions on that.
But we know a little bit about this in terms of the follow-up questions we have as it relates to Ukraine.
There's definite concern that just the mere cost.
You know, this idea that, hey, we have our priorities, our needs, our fiscal situation here, it costs too much.
There's also concern beyond that in terms of whether or not the U.S. stockpiles are sufficiently supplied that we're able to deliver munitions and security assistance to other countries.
We need it for the U.S. military.
So I think that is contributing to concerns about security assistance, military assistance to Ukraine.
I'd say that if that's their concerns about Ukraine, that's for sure going to be their concerns with other countries.
But as you know, the majority of the American people, as it relates to those particular conflicts, want to see it continue.
More calls for you.
Jeff is in Port Angeles, Washington, Independent.
Jeff, good morning.
Hey, good morning, guys.
I really believe that we are wildly overspending on defense, and we always have.
Who is going to fight a war these days?
There's no economic benefit for anybody.
China is, what, are they going to shut down the Molucca Straits and cut their own throats on trade?
Or Russia, how are they going to project for us?
They can't even beat Ukraine.
So I would like to see 10% slashes in defense spending.
And let's get it down to a reasonable level.
I think the threats to the United States are wildly overgrown.
And obviously, we could use that money much better at home.
Thanks, guys.
Roger Sakhan.
Well, caller has a point of view that we are wildly overspending on defense.
I think if you take a historical look, that's simply not the case.
Right now, we are hovering about 3% of GDP dedicated to defense.
It's actually going to go lower to about 2.5% if you look out in the defense program out to about 2030 or so.
And by historical standards, during the height of the Cold War, when President Reagan was in office, we were at 6% during Korea.
It was about 12%.
World War II is about a third of what we were spending.
So what we have today in terms of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, gross domestic product, is actually what we were spending roughly at the end of the Cold War.
It's surprising a lot of people.
That was a moment when truly there was no competitor.
We had defeated the Soviet Union.
We were taking a peace dividend, and we're roughly about the same level of defense spending.
And my view, and this is where I disagree with the caller, I don't look at the world today and see the United States as safer.
I see a competitor that we have not seen in generations in China.
That means militarily, China is engaged in the largest military buildup in generations.
You have to go back to what the Soviet Union did after the Cuban Missile Crisis to see a military buildup that we're witnessing out of Beijing.
And you have to ask yourselves.
We all have to ask ourselves, what are they building up towards?
What are they seeking to do?
If you look at what our defense leaders and national security leaders are, and this is bipartisan.
This was the view of the Trump administration, and it was a view of the Biden administration.
What they're doing is actually attacking our interests, not just Indo-Pacific, which, of course, as the caller notes, we have significant trade interests, but globally, more and more in the Western Hemisphere, actually even in the continental United States, as we saw with the Bloomgate not too long ago.
And then you add to that what Russia is doing, and certainly they have been bogged down in Ukraine, but that's a result of U.S. security support.
So the Ukrainians have fought nobly in Ukraine, fending off Russian aggression.
But at the same time, they would not have been able to do that without the security assistance of the United States.
That's important not just for Ukraine's sovereignty and the plight of freedom on the part of Ukrainians, that's important for U.S. national security interests.
Vladimir Putin, as we know, is an aggressor.
If he would been able to capture Ukraine, he would likely have gone on to weaker NATO allies, and that would have put the United States in a far more costly position.
We know his conduct, 2008, he invaded Georgia and South Oseptia and Abkhazia in 2014.
He annexed Crimea.
So I think the caller is perhaps too optimistic about the security situation globally.
And I think it's U.S. defense spending, in my view, and the view of the American people, frankly, is underfunded.
Did Ronald Reagan ever face a defense funding cut from Congress?
President Reagan, when he was in office, ran on a platform, actually, going into office of peace through strength and rebuilding our national defenses that had gotten so bad during the tenure of President Jimmy Carter that he actually had an election mandate to build up, and there was bipartisan support in the Congress to do so.
And he did that from the time he entered office in January of 1981, pretty much throughout his time in office when he left in 1989.
By 1986, 87, members of Congress started pulling back a bit, but overall, it was a net increase year over year, as I mentioned, the height of which is just over 6% of GDP with 7 to 10% real growth annually, 81, 82, 83.
That was a strength which really allowed for the peace that resulted by the time he left office in 1989.
Floyd is in Iowa line for Republicans.
Good morning.
Yeah, guess this talk about the military and the confidence in the military.
We had a sec deaf, I think we still have a secretary of defense, Austin.
He took some time off for surgery and didn't tell anybody about it.
And as far as I know, he never appointed a second in command.
That's one of the first things you learn in the military.
If you're not going to be there, you get your second in command to get up to speed and get on the mission.
But as I understand it, this Austin, he's still there.
He didn't get fired.
Is that true?
Floyd, Secretary of Defense Austin, is still there.
In fact, he was speaking on Saturday.
He announced at a defense forum a new Ukraine security package.
Let me show you a minute and a half from Saturday.
And I'm proud to announce today the commitment of a new Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative package, worth nearly $1 billion.
Now that package will provide Ukraine with more drones, more rockets for our time-mar systems, and more support for crucial maintenance and sustainment.
And that brings the total of U.S. security assistance committed to Ukraine since February 2022 to more than $62 billion.
The engine of our efforts has been the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which first met in April 2022 at Ramstein Base, Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
Now the contact group has helped ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and to forge a future force to deter more Russian aggression.
And I have convened the contact group 24 times now.
Its other members have committed more than $57 billion in direct security support, a security assistance to Ukraine.
And as a percentage of DDP, more than a dozen contact group members now provide more security assistance to Ukraine than the United States does.
And together we have helped Ukraine survive an all-out assault by the largest military in Europe.
Austin, at a defense forum over the weekend, in fact, your defense forum.
Not just any defense forum.
That is the Reagan National Defense Forum I referenced earlier.
We hold annually the first weekend in December.
And Secretary Austin has been with us each year.
He served as Secretary of Defense.
And of course, this was the fourth time he visited and made some news, as you note, in terms of what the Department of Defense is doing to support Ukraine in the final weeks of the Biden administration.
Did he talk about the results of this survey?
Or did you get a chance to go through it with him?
Absolutely.
Secretary Austin referenced the survey in his speech, and my recollection is it was about national defense and military spending and noted that the American people support increasing the defense budget.
He made some arguments as to how the Biden administration has contributed to that.
My own view is that that has not been sufficient, as I referenced in the conversation with the call earlier.
What are your conversations like with the incoming Trump administration?
Are you having those?
Yeah, absolutely.
There are officials, as you know, are being named and announced.
Of course, those who require Senate confirmation, they're just designated, so they're not speaking for the Trump administration.
There are others like Mike Waltz, who has been announced to be a national security advisor.
Alex Wong is a deputy national security advisor.
President Trump, as it relates to this issue and this survey, ran on peace-through strength, as I noted earlier.
He's the first president to run on a platform of peace-through strength since Ronald Reagan ran on that back in 1980.
And I think we are pushing forward the survey to show how they could stitch together a peace-through strength platform that's reflective of the viewpoints and the hopes and aspirations of the American people that goes from defense spending all the way to Israel policy and Ukraine policy.
And I think one of the things that came out in the survey, and it relates to the clip you just showed of Secretary Austin, is what the Trump administration policy will be as it relates to Ukraine.
President Trump announced that retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg will be the special envoy for Ukraine.
Our survey shows that 59% of Americans support peace negotiations, even if Ukraine was required to give up or concede territory.
And as far as Trump voters, 63% support that, and Harris voters is 55% as well.
So you see, there's pretty much consensus around doing that.
How they go about that is quite important.
It brings in another element of the survey, and I'll wrap up with this, that, as I mentioned before, 75% of those surveyed believe that Ukraine is an ally.
80% believe that Russia is an adversary or enemy.
And so, however, President Trump is going to pursue those negotiations, he's famously said that he wanted the conflict to come to an end.
That'll end by the time he is inaugurated.
The survey shows that the American people clearly know, whatever that negotiated outcome looks like, who the friend is and who the adversary is.
Greg's next in Wilmington, Connecticut.
Democrat, you're on with Roger Zachheim.
Greg, you're with us.
Good morning.
Good morning, John.
Go ahead, sir.
Good morning, yes.
Hi, hi, good morning.
I don't see a defense spending.
I see an offensive spending.
We have had so many conflicts, starting, let's start with Vietnam, going to Afghanistan in the 80s, the late 80s, early 90s, and then now, and then to Iraq and Syria and Afghanistan and Palestine.
The slaughter has been non-stop, John.
Non-stop.
Now, I don't see any defense in slaughtering innocent Palestinian children and women.
Okay?
That's not defensive spending.
Now, you know, my criticism is mostly of C-SPAN and of the mainstream media, because the American public is poorly informed about what its government does.
Most Americans wouldn't know that we're in Syria right now, basically camping out, stealing oil from Syria to give it to other countries.
I mean, it's insane our military is spending.
Insane.
We spend more money than the next 10 nations that spend money on military.
Who has all the aircraft carriers?
We do.
So it is not defensive.
It's offensive.
And C-SPAN has to do a better job.
That's all I'm saying.
Thank you.
That's Greg in Connecticut.
Roger, Zach.
What do you think?
Well, I respectfully disagree with Greg's characterization.
You mentioned Syria, Bashar al-Assad, whose regime came to an end and wasn't soon enough, is responsible for slaughtering 600,000 of his people.
U.S. forces there have been engaged to protect U.S. interests and doing what they can to help with the humanitarian crisis caused by that butcher, Bashar al-Assad, who again, just as today, this news bear out, is no longer in power.
I think the point the caller makes about the U.S. outspending the rest of 10 nations combined is actually overstated.
I'd encourage the caller to look at work by Mackenzie Eagland of the American Enterprise Institute, who actually done a deeper dive into what the PRC spends on defense, and it actually is increasingly coming closer to what the U.S. spends.
They're just approaching $800 billion, that is China.
And of course, the way that they spend their funding, it's a command and control economy.
Civilian resources go to support the military.
The U.S. fund has interest globally, not because it's looking to fight wars or it's offensive.
It's because it's protecting U.S. interests, our freedom, our security, and ultimately it leads to our prosperity.
That's why you see in this survey, for example, big support.
62% year-over-year support having U.S. forces deployed overseas, not because they're engaged in some sort of offensive attack, offensive posture, because they know that that U.S. presence globally is what we rely upon to provide for this peace and prosperity I referenced a moment ago.
In the absence of that, you would see far more conflict in this world and would probably draw us in to a war that would cost us a lot more than we spend on an annual basis on our national defense.
The caller brings up aircraft carriers.
This question always comes up.
The United States has 11 carriers in service right now.
China has three.
Why do we need eight more aircraft carriers than China?
Well, China would like to have 11 aircraft carriers, and they're on their way to build up the carrier.
I mean, there is a critique out there that the aircraft carrier is not the most relevant fighting platform for deploying power overseas that it was in the past because of missiles and other technologies that, for example, the PLA, the People's Liberation Army, has.
And so perhaps it's not as effective.
That's a military argument why perhaps aircraft carriers are less relevant in the Indo-Pacific.
But overall, this is the primary vehicle the U.S. has used for decades now to project power overseas.
And for those places where we can't go and have forward presence, the Navy, and particularly aircraft carrier, is the best vehicle to get there.
And that's what ensures the trade routes to operate freely.
We see what happens when they're under attack, even by a JV terrorist organizations like the Houthis in Yemen that could shut down trade in the Red Sea.
As a result, those trade patterns have to change and the cost of goods go up.
That's what the aircraft carriers give you.
But it's, I think, a mistake to think that because China only has three and the U.S. has 11, we have more than we need.
China very much would like to displace us as a naval power, as a blue sea power, and they would love to have those carriers.
They've been a great down payment for the peace and prosperity that we enjoy, and they have absolutely been a benefit not just for security, but for economic prosperity.
About 10 minutes left with Roger Zachheim this morning of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.
It's ReaganFoundation.org.
If you want to find them online, is this survey also available on that?
Absolutely, yeah.
You go on, put in the Reagan National Defense Survey in your search tab, and it will come up on the Reagan Institute page.
Take you to the Buckeye State.
This is Catherine in Cleves.
Democrat, good morning.
Good morning.
You're asking for a 100% increase in the budget for military spending.
My question is, where would that money come from?
Are you willing to take it from people like myself who are on Social Security?
I worked my entire life.
I did not take my husband's Social Security.
Mine was better, so I took mine.
So are you willing to put people like myself on the street, or would you be willing to maybe stop supporting the vets and their needs that they have?
Roger Zachheim.
Well, certainly Reagan Institute and the survey itself is not advocating for 100% increase in defense spending.
I think what I was giving historical context, that the level we're spending on national defense actually is the level we went to in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War when President Bill Clinton was seeking a peace dividend.
So I think the view that we're spending more than we have historically is actually not the case.
We're underspending, underinvesting our national defense.
I think as a general matter, Secretary of Defense of both parties, general officers, flag officers, to sustain our defense investments, you need to have real growth.
You need to fund the Department of Defense beyond inflation.
My own view, that should be between 3 and 5% annually above inflation.
That's what we came out to.
And a Defense Strategy Commission I had a chance to participate in we released this summer.
I think when you look at overall federal spending, I think this is where the caller was getting to in terms of where it's going to come out of.
It shouldn't impact anybody who is benefiting from Social Security.
People who have worked their whole lives and are now taking from Social Security, they've worked for it, they paid for it, they should receive it.
I don't think anybody's advocating that.
There is a need for Social Security reform, and there's a need for reform on overall mandatory spending.
I think people forget that when you look at overall defense spending as a share of federal spending, it's roughly about 13%.
We actually are spending more to service our national debt than we are on spending our national defense, 14% on servicing the national debt, 13% on national defense.
The issue, of course, is mandatory spending.
Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs, those need to be addressed.
They're on kind of an automatic increase year over year.
I believe such the Doge effect, the Department of Government Efficiency, will have to look there because that is what is consuming the overwhelming majority of our spending.
It isn't discretionary spending.
It isn't the defense spending.
It's the spending that's mandatory.
That's an autopilot that Washington does really little about year over year and it needs to be addressed.
So when you say 3% to 5% increase, so U.S. Deck Clock has us spending $951, $337,000,000 this year on defense spending.
So you're saying an increase of somewhere around like $45 billion?
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, $45 billion to $55 billion.
The idea is where do we get $45 to $55 billion?
Congress has done that over the past two years.
Actually, President Biden underfunded national defense, as I was referencing before.
But the Congress recognized that these programs to continue to take care of the men and women in uniform, to modernize the force, to make investments in the industrial base, required an increase in defense spending.
We've spent trillions of dollars over the past few years in programs that are far less bound to what the Constitution calls for.
I mean, you come down to what governments should be spending on, it's quite clear.
You know, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress responsibility to build the Army, to build the Navy.
That has been underfunded.
And given the global reach of our interests, the need for the economic security that ultimately all Americans prosper for, it requires robust investment in national defense.
My point is it's actually historically low and it's an increasingly smaller slice of what we spend on in terms of the total federal budget picture.
Tom in Maryland Independent, good morning.
You are next.
Hey, good morning, John.
And as always, you do a great job as a host here.
And for Mr. Zakheim, I guess it's a little disappointing just hearing the questions that you're getting, looking at the results of the last election, and then seeing this survey, Chevron, up here saying Americans favor more military spending in international engagement.
And all we're getting are the talking points such as, you know, Russia the aggressor, et cetera, et cetera, and that we're not spending somehow enough.
And the real question here is: with the bloat that we've seen in admirals and generals and all this wasted spending and so many of these failures in foreign policy, how are we to believe this question in the survey and the results?
Because those results, of course, naturally favor quite dramatically everything that this organization stands for.
So can you tell us a little bit about the survey and was it really objective?
Absolutely.
Thanks for the question.
As I mentioned before, there were 22,510 respondents to the survey.
Estimated margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points.
Many of the questions went to about half the respondents, so just over 1,200.
There, the margin of error is about 2.8 percent plus or minus.
So if you look at other surveys, this one is actually has more respondents than the ones you read about in your favorite paper or feed you get when they're talking about a survey.
You know, what we do, and we've done it year over year since we began the survey in 2018, is ask the questions of the American people about national security, defense, and foreign policy, and we'll see where the numbers go.
The reality is that year over year, the American people understand and support having U.S. force presence overseas, not because they're looking to engage the U.S. military in armed conflict.
I certainly don't read the survey that way, but they know that is the best guarantor of peace.
And I think that's what bears out in the survey.
Certainly, if there was something in the survey that didn't compliment my own point of view, that's fine.
It's disappointing to me that only 52 percent of Americans have trust and confidence in the military.
I pointed that out to our service chiefs and said, hey, this is a problem.
When we started, it was 70 percent.
And that is a policy area that I believe the Department of Defense and the military needs to work on that comes out of the survey.
So we get the numbers, numbers don't lie, and we report them out, and that's why we like engaging with you on it.
Yesterday from the White House, President Biden talked about steps the U.S. was taking in Syria after the fall of Assad, U.S. efforts there to support allies in the region.
And he laid that out.
It was a clip we played for viewers earlier.
It was Saturday that President-elect Trump said the United States needs to stay out of Syria.
So it leads to this question from Mark in New York.
Can the guest explain what U.S. interests are in Syria?
Well, I think from a Syria standpoint, we don't want it to be an ungoverned space that we have the emergence of ISIS.
And I think that is something that President Biden wants, but it's also something that President Trump wants.
I mean, he was responsible in his first administration for ensuring that ISIS was taken out.
So we have experience since 9-11 that we know which terrorist organizations threaten our national security interests that would look to develop a capability in ungoverned space to attack the homeland.
ISIS fits that category.
That is the biggest risk profile for the United States coming out of an ungoverned Syria.
Beyond that, you don't want to have the RGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, attack U.S. interests in the region.
That could also happen in an ungoverned space, although I believe out of this development, Iran is weaker.
Certainly, that's because of Israel and its policies as it's been applied against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Lebanon, Hezbollah interests in Iran, as well as Iranian interests in Syria.
Just a couple minutes left this morning.
What didn't we get to from the survey that you wanted to talk about?
Well, there was one element that stands out as it relates to Israel, and that is while there are strong partisan divides over U.S. security assistance to Israel as it defends itself post-October 7th, Hamas's massacre in Israel.
Republicans are generally supportive of giving Israel security assistance.
Increasing number of Democratic voters, Harris voters, are opposed.
As it relates to U.S. hostages and support for policies that bring U.S. hostages out of Gaza, it's over 60%.
So that is an area of bipartisan support.
It's been a priority for the Biden administration, as we saw from President-elect Trump, who tweeted out on social media about a week or so ago that he expects that U.S. hostages to be freed out of captivity in Gaza, and there will be hell to pay.
I'm not sure that's a direct quote, but that was certainly the effect if that does not happen by the time he comes to office on January 20th.
I think it's about seven Americans still held hostage by Hamas.
A number of them, unfortunately, are believed not to be alive, and we think about three of those are, but the bodies of those Americans who have perished in captivity by Hamas certainly still are in Gaza.
Did you get into support for sending the U.S. military to release those final three?
And the difference between supporting, bringing them home and putting U.S. troops on the ground, special forces, and getting them out today are two different things, right?
That's absolutely the case.
And the question did not go there in terms of direct action on the part of U.S. forces.
My sense is certainly I think the impression that President Trump put out with his social media post was that anybody who is not doing their all to bring out those hostages, and Turkey could be doing more, and Qatar could be doing more in particular because they have communication with Hamas, will be held accountable by the Trump administration.
It's the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
Roger Zach Heim is the Washington director there.
ReaganFoundation.org is where you can go if you want to sift through this survey for yourself.
And we appreciate your time this morning on the Washington Journal.
Thanks for having me on.
That's going to do it for us this morning.
A reminder that the House comes in at noon Eastern here on C-SPAN.
The Senate is in at 3 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN too.
You can watch it all today, and we'll see you back here tomorrow morning.
It's 7 a.m. Eastern, 4 a.m. Pacific.
The U.S. House returns later today at noon Eastern.
Members will debate the final version of legislation authorizing water infrastructure projects to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Also, a bill requiring Amtrak to notify Congress when it plans to offer their executives bonuses and publicly disclose when they're awarded.
The U.S. Senate, also back today at 3 p.m. Eastern, Democratic Senators-elect Andy Kim of New Jersey and Adam Schiff from California will both be sworn into the Senate following their resignations from the House.
Senators will continue to vote throughout the week on President Biden's remaining judicial nominations for U.S. district courts.
The first vote is today at 5:30 p.m. Eastern for the confirmation of Tiffany Johnson to be a judge for Northern Georgia.
Watch live coverage of the House on C-SPAN.
See the Senate on C-SPAN too.
Also, watch all of our congressional coverage with our free video app, C-SPAN Now, or our website, c-span.org.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question: your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, StudentCam is your platform to share your message with the world.
With $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard work.
Enter your submissions today.
Scan the code or visit studentcam.org for all the details on how to enter.