District Court nominations, including confirmation of Kelly Neary to be a U .S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
And on C -SPAN 3 at 10 a .m., U .S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testifies on postal service operations at a House Oversight Hearing.
These events also stream live on the free C -SPAN Now video app and online at c -span .org.
C -SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more.
We're good to go.
This is the Washington Journal for December 10th.
The House is set to vote this week on a bill that, if passed, would authorize...
Close to $900 billion for the Department of Defense.
Some legislators have already come out against the bill due to its size, with others saying the Defense Department is a prime example of the need for the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, headed up by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
To start the program, you can share your opinion on defense spending and on if Washington should spend more or less on defense.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
I think?
The bill also takes a look at procurement and research and development.
By $3 billion apiece, a noteworthy increase for development funds in particular.
And it also says the bill also increased funds to benefit defense technology startups, including $842 million for the Defense Innovation Unit and $200 million to begin the Replicator Attributable Drone Program.
That's some of the details when it comes to spending on this authorization act, which the House could take up this week and vote on.
It would give the government permission to spend up to $900 billion.
When it comes to defense -related matters, and if you think that's a good number, or perhaps you think overall the government should spend more or less when it comes to defense matters, here's how you can call and let us know.
Again, for Republicans in the audience, 202 -748 -8001.
Democrats, 202 -748 -8000.
And Independents, 202 -748 -8002.
For you former and active military, call us at 202 -748 -8003 and use that same line.
We're good to go.
I think?
And also adding that it's the single largest category of discretionary spending when it comes to the federal government.
It shows the bar of defense compared to others such as veterans benefits and transportation, health and education and other categories.
This also saying that the U .S. spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined.
Taking a look at 2023 defense spending, 916 by the federal government, the United States.
And then comparing it to $883 billion with the combined wealth of China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the like.
Again, so that's just some of the breakdown.
We'll show you more as we go on when it comes to this idea of defense spending.
More or less should be done on it, at least in your opinion.
Democrats' line in South Carolina.
This is Sharon.
What you're thinking on as far as more or less for defense -related matters?
I think more should be spent on the defense because we don't know when we may have to go to war.
So this is a very crucial issue as far as the federal funding for defense.
So I definitely think that more should be spent and they should not cut the budget in any way as far as the federal government and defense.
Thank you.
When you take a look at the number like $900 billion, why do you think we need more?
I know that you said we need to be prepared, but when we spend that kind of money anyway, why do you think we have to spend more?
As far as the funding of the military and all the basic funding that is needed, I just think right now, more could be done.
And like I said, we don't know what's going to happen in the future, especially with this new administration coming in.
We don't know what could happen, you know?
If war breaks out and we have to send our troops over to other countries, we don't know what's going to happen.
Okay.
Sharon there in South Carolina.
Let's hear from Ed.
Ed in New Jersey.
Independent Line, you're next up.
Costa Rica and 20 other nations have done away with their militaries completely, and their domestic problems have improved dramatically.
Absolute pacifism is the only solution.
And the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren have the right position.
And you look at all the violence internationally right now, most of it is because these nations have militaries.
So if we spend less on ours or adopt that kind of philosophy, what does that mean for other nations that keep on and continue on with developing their military aspects?
Okay, Christine, in Burke, Virginia, Republican line on this idea of more or less when it comes to defense spending.
Hello, Christine.
Hi, thank you.
Yeah, I think that we should definitely not approve this and definitely restrict government spending on...
The military.
It's gotten kind of erroneous.
It's too much when we should be looking at other things like education.
Because you cannot convince me that the amount of money that they're trying to get is worthwhile when we're spending more than nine other countries, the next nine countries combined.
That's insane.
Why do you think, do you think spending less would make us more vulnerable?
No, because we are in, you know, we have a ton of allies, and most of those allies are also within the next nine countries, and there's no reason that we should be spending more than the next nine combined.
Christine there in Virginia, you can continue on calling.
Some of you posting this morning on our Facebook page, if you want to make your comments there.
This is Peggy Miles saying more on our defense, less to other countries, such as Ukraine.
From Bob Prescorn saying that maybe the Pentagon should pass an audit before they get any more money.
A recent story in Days saying that the seventh audit of the Pentagon they failed to pass.
Christopher Storm saying, going to specifics, saying maybe for spending when it comes to one or two more carrier battle groups, he adds.
I'm probably saying that wrong, Alex.
I apologize.
But he says when it comes to defense spending, less on defense, more on science.
Again, you can add the thoughts on our social media sites.
The phone line's there for you.
Note that special phone line for active and former military.
If you want to give your thoughts on defense -related spending matters, 202 -748 -8003.
And you can also use that same number if you want to text us your thoughts this morning, too.
Phil, in Orange Park, Florida, Democrat's Line, you're next up on this idea of spending more or less on military, on defense.
Yes, good morning.
The few people I just heard saying we're spending too much.
Look, Look at the value of a car right now.
When we talk about technology, that's way, way, way more advanced than what a car looked like.
Things cost more as the years pass.
So we have a lot of instability in this country, in this world.
When we slack and don't protect what we have, eventually we might have to fight a war on this turf.
Spend enough money to keep us better than every other country in the world.
Never worry about what allies.
We have allies today.
They can be enemies tomorrow.
We must defend this country.
And we don't have to be crazy about it, but we have to spend it.
This here passive world that everybody is cool, we got crime happening every day.
Just in New York City, out of the blue, somebody gets shot.
How can we control what another person think or gonna do?
We have to be prepared.
And when you're not prepared, you're going to fail.
So spend enough money, as much money as possible, to keep this country safe and to keep the peoples that don't want us to spend it safe.
Phil there in Florida on our line for Democrats, another Floridian.
This is Robert, Republican line.
Hi.
Hi, thanks for taking the call.
I think we should spend more money on our military and build it up real big because something is going to happen to us.
They're going to want to attack us and stuff.
When you say something's going to happen, what convinces you of that?
Okay, that's Robert Thayer in Clearwater, Florida.
Part of that NDAA that the House will be voting on this week not only deals with military hardware matters, but also when it comes to money that's given to those in the military.
This is for Military .com saying that junior enlisted service members will get a 14 .5 % pay raise next year under that compromised defense bill that's expected to pass Congress this month.
Under a deal that was reached by the House and the Senate over the weekend, this year's National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA as it's known, will allow all service members to receive a 4 .5 % pay bump next year.
Additionally, troops in the ranks of E1 through E4 will get an extra 10 % on top of that.
That, for a total of 14 .5 % for the military's most junior troops, the across -the -board 4 .5 % raise for all service members will take effect.
At the beginning of the year as normal, the extra raise for the junior enlisted troops will begin in April, according to the bill's text and this story from Military .com, adding that while not as high as the House's initial proposal for a junior enlisted raise next year,
the compromise marks a major win for younger troops who have struggled for years to afford basic necessities such as food.
Military .com.
Yeah, I think that we keep it the way it is.
No less.
And back to the end, I'm still living.
I think it's good.
Okay.
Let's go to Frank.
Frank in New York.
Former military.
Hello.
Hello.
I agree that there should be spending on certain things more and other things less.
The troops especially.
I mean, I was in Vietnam and our salaries were ridiculous.
So I lived off base and we struggled.
But now we need the troops.
We need the manpower.
But there are other things that we should spend less on.
When you say that spending less has to be done on certain things, specifically, are you talking weaponry?
Are you talking other things?
What are you thinking of when you say there has to be less spending there?
Weaponry, especially because nowadays when you have the large weapons, the tanks, not remote like the rockets or targeted artillery,
tanks and the big equipment are kind of going by the wayside now.
Warfare is now becoming so automated that you can take out an enemy position far better than you could during World War II or even during Vietnam.
It's just you have drones, you have all the...
All these electronic surveillance, as well as knowing what the enemy's doing, where they are, and that's important, extremely important, and technology should always be upgraded in the military as it is in the civilian population.
Frank Theron, New York, a former military.
Again, that line, if you are former or active, give us your perspective.
202 -748 -8003 is how you do that.
The econofact .org website takes a look at military spending and compares it to...
The gross domestic product of the United States saying that current spending higher than any point in the Cold War for inflation -adjusted terms, but relatively low as a percentage of national income, saying that the graph that is on the website saying shows that defense spending is a share of GDP.
Military spending relative to GDP is arguably a more appropriate gauge of a country's defense burden than the inflation -adjusted dollar amount since a bigger economy can support greater spending.
The $850 billion earmarked for defense spending in 2025 represents about 3 % of the gross domestic product.
This is a relatively low percentage as compared to the experience of past three quarters of a century.
The United States economy has tended to grow faster than military spending, so defense spending as a share of GDP has been decreasing.
In the 1950s and through the Vietnam era, defense spending was typically at 8 -10 % of GDP.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
I think it's interesting the chart that you just brought up, because I think that is important to compare it, because if you just say we're spending a trillion dollars, it seems like a lot, and it is, but when you compare it to GDP, it shows that we're actually spending less compared to previous generations.
But I think we need to I mean not spend more or less we need to look at the threats that we have and spend accordingly.
I'm sure there's efficiencies that we can make within the department um, and and maybe spend more on on things that are readily needed.
And we're luckily well, not luckily, I mean because of the wars going on Ukraine and Israel and Gaza we're able to see the kind of warfare that's being used by our potential enemies and terrorists abroad, and so um, you know, one of the last callers said, you know we don't need tanks and stuff anymore, but unfortunately we do, because a lot of them will conduct urban warfare.
Where you can't, just you know We're good to go.
Obviously, I'm a military spender in the world.
We help to create that balance of power that balances it in the side of democracy versus autocracy or dictatorship.
And I think that is very important we keep that.
And if we lose our hegemony and decrease our spending because we think it's not that important and the power of balance changes, I think people will be regretting that we didn't spend a little bit more.
And when we're now living under, you know, the balance of power of, you know, say, Iranian, Chinese, or North Korean kind of influence, when America's influence wanes.
Okay.
Evan there in Alexandria, Virginia, giving his thoughts that Econofact .org, Evan had brought up personnel, has this to say when it comes to personnel costs, saying it accounts for nearly half of all defense spending, while most of the other half goes towards procurement, research development,
and testing.
Going on to say, Good
morning, America.
My thoughts are, we have 12 Trident submarines floating around.
They can destroy 2 ,000 targets in the world, which is pretty much the world.
We don't need anything.
We don't need tanks.
We don't need airplanes.
We need to bring all of our troops home.
We can...
Our country, we can subsist on our own.
And nobody will mess with us.
Somebody messes with us, we just tell them we're going to nuke you.
Just go up front and tell them that.
And let the other people just fend for themselves.
That's the way it's got to be.
Dave is next from Cleveland, Ohio, Independent Line.
Yes, well, in fact, the United States spends more combined than all other...
The next...
We're good to go.
I think?
I would recommend, I've come across another article called The Gladio Crimes of the U .S. Empire.
And it shows that the United States has been supporting terrorists, al -Qaeda, whatever their alias, the Mujahideen in the 80s under Reagan, the al -Qaeda,
al -Nusra, Daesh, and whatever their alias has been used to confuse the public.
To attack countries that have been trying to get their own independence, such as Libya and Syria, Syria especially.
That's clear, Dave, and Ohio.
Again, we'll continue on.
If you want to call and let us know about your thoughts on this idea of spending more or less on defense, 202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats and independents, 202.
748 -8002.
That was one of the topics, defense spending, that came up in a recent conversation that Vivek Ramaswamy had with the Aspen National Security Summit.
It was along the lines of what this newly created Department of Government Efficiency should do when it comes to defense -related matters.
Here's part of the exchange.
Let's just talk about broadly in the area of defense, right?
I mean, this is where the dollars add up big.
Obviously, the Pentagon has failed, what is it, its seventh consecutive audit in a row.
I think that that's unconscionable.
But again, it's this historical lazy debate about whether or not does that mean more or less defense spending versus asking the question of actually are we deploying the right kind of federal spending.
And you look at actually if you want to make real improvements to the defense and security of the United States of America, we would be investing more in drones, we'd be investing more in hypersonic missiles rather than in a wide range of other expenditures for...
You know, new kinds of fighter jets or whatever that aren't the highest ROI use of the dollar to even protect the best interests of the United States or to protect the United States itself.
And so this broader discussion of if we spend less on defense, that means we're going to be less secure.
And if we spend more, that means we're going to be more secure.
That's a faulty premise.
The real question we ought to be asking is what...
Again, that Aspen Security Forum with Vivek Ramaswamy is still available on our website if you want to go to c -span .org for that whole conversation of not only the defense spending aspect of...
The future of Doge, as it's known, but also other things when it comes to spending overall.
Specifically, when it comes to spending on defense, more or less should be done by the government.
We're asking you.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans.
Democrats, 202 -748 -8000.
Independence 2027488002.
This story by Defense Scoop saying the Senate Appropriations Committee, this was a few months ago, saying they approved a defense spending bill for fiscal 2025 that would provide full funding for the Pentagon's high -profile autonomous systems initiatives known as Replicator.
Lawmakers raised the possibility that even more money could be allotted for the effort.
Pentagon officials have already secured roughly $500 million from Congress for fiscal 2024 to move forward with Trench 1, and they requested an additional $500 million.
Trench 1 includes kamikaze drones, unmanned surface vehicles, and counter drone systems.
Defense Department leaders are expected to decide on their selections for the Trench 2 capabilities.
A key goal of Replicator, according to this story, which is a signature initiative of Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, is to field thousands of attributable
This is from Indiana Allen, Democrats line.
Hi.
Good morning and thank you for taking my call.
Long time listener, big time fan.
I definitely agree spending does need to be cut, at least by half.
I would say it's not how much you spend, but it's on how you spend it.
It's ironic that the Department of Defense has the biggest budget and the Department of Education has the smallest budget.
I always thought if we invested more in the wingtops and pumps, you'd have to spend less on boots on the ground.
But a lot of that money I'm seeing in the military, I believe, is going through a military industrial complex.
The contractor.
Look at the F -35, which I think was a piece of crap.
Last I heard, that thing cost taxpayers $1 .5 trillion.
And it still doesn't work right.
But my understanding, the government never got rid of it because there's over a dozen states involved in making parts for it that puts people to work.
Corporate welfare.
We have 14 aircraft carriers.
14!
And we're building a 15 one.
I don't know, right now I'm starting to have trouble with the Dory Miller.
All the rest of the world, there are five aircraft carriers.
And I think England just launched their first one a couple years ago.
So the problem is we have over 800 military bases.
Somebody said close to 1 ,000.
All the other countries in the world have less than 100 combined.
Now, the military has a great opportunity for young men to go in, women to go in, to get a career.
But I feel most of this money is going just for corporate welfare, for the contractors and vendors who are making a killer.
All the money that's being wasted there.
Okay, Alan there in Indiana.
Let's hear from Harold in Kansas.
Hello, Republican line.
Good morning, Pedro.
Pedro, just a second ago, you introduced Ravik Bhanuswamy in a little segment there that he had.
Is it your personal opinion that the Doge department is crazy?
I won't offer an opinion otherwise, but in the context of what they want to do for spending, especially when it comes to defense, what do you think?
Well, no, I don't think it's crazy, but just back to your opinion.
You just said it was crazy before you announced it.
I wondered if that was your opinion?
I said nothing of the like.
Rewind your tape.
You just said it.
It came out of your mouth and you didn't even realize you said it.
This crazy department.
You watch it later.
I'm not going to argue with it, but you watch it later.
You will see that you did call it a crazy department.
Again, I don't believe I said that, but go ahead and offer your opinion as far as spending is concerned.
I don't really have an opinion.
I just want you to watch your tape later and realize that it accidentally slipped out of your mouth, Pedro.
Okay.
Let's hear from Jeff.
Jeff in New York, Independent Line.
Hello.
Hello, Pedro.
Thank you for taking my call.
I think that we should step back and look at what's the purpose of defense to figure out how much is reasonable to spend on it.
If I was to say to you that there was an enemy that recently killed a million people or more in the United States, And we were unprepared for it.
And without saying any more, it was assumed that with some nation state that launched an attack, we would be up in arms, literally, and building defenses for it.
But that's precisely what happened during the pandemic.
And we spend virtually nothing compared to what we spend on defense for public health.
Public health is an orphaned cause.
And it's not coordinated.
It's 50 states doing whatever they want.
And the federal government doesn't invest in it.
So if you really want to save lives, the purpose of defense, I suggest we spend it on public health and in preparing for the next pandemic, especially because pandemics like H5N1 are possible and under very strict scrutiny right now.
Not necessarily that it's going to happen any minute, but it could, just like COVID did.
Okay.
Jeff in New York, another person making the case for more spending for the Defense Department, Republican, Nebraska Republican Don Bacon.
On this program not too long ago, he serves on the Armed Services Committee, expressed concerns about possible cuts to defense spending going forward in the new administration.
Here's some of his thoughts from last week.
I'm not opposed to looking at programs in DOD for where we can cut.
I think that's good.
Where we find waste, by all means, let's go for it.
But we also can't be a military that can only build one attack submarine a year.
That is unacceptable.
Attack submarines are one of the most important things we have to counter China, and we're saying we're going to modernize to counter China.
One attack submarine's not going to do it.
We've got to have F -35s.
We're going to need the next generation of air dominance fighter.
The Air Force is looking at cutting the sixth generation fighter before we even have it designed because they said there's not enough money to do it.
So I'm not opposed to cutting wasteful programs where we find it, but you've got to have military equipment at a quantity and quality that can counter China, Russia, and Iran.
And we're not doing it right now.
That's Don Bacon on this program giving his thoughts on defense spending.
Thanks to those of you who did this first half hour.
We'll change topics and then widen it to open forum again.
When it comes to matters of public policy or politics, if you want to add your thoughts continuing on when it comes to defense spending, open forum is the chance to do that.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats.
Hi.
Been a long time.
I spent 33 years of my life working for a defense contractor.
And I got the education, and it comes down to one thing.
Never mind the patriotism that goes with defense spending and protecting us from war.
It's all about jobs.
Jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
And when you make major cuts in defense spending, you're putting how many people out of work in this country who are more or less well -paid with good fringe benefits?
And it's been that way since Pearl Harbor, when Roosevelt asked Congress for $50 billion for defense.
It pulled us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and by 1945, we were the world's number one economic and technological giant.
And ever since World War II, it seems like our economy has always been in a roll when we had Higher levels of defense spending.
But I would ask this one question.
What do you do if you did make major cuts in defense with all the people that would be thrown out of work?
And it's a shame we have to rely on weapons of death and destruction to have a booming economy.
But in a free market capitalist society, the most profitable venture there is is defense spending, and it's followed by insurance.
And this is...
So what a higher -up educated me on when I worked for a defense contractor.
Basically, that's what I wanted to say.
Mike in Massachusetts, thank you for the perspective.
One more, Mike.
This is Michael in Michigan, Republican line.
Mike in Michigan, hello.
Michael in Lexington, Michigan, Republican line, hi.
Yeah, Pedro, I don't believe you love your country at all.
You just sit there and just roll your eyes.
Okay.
Michael there, again, Open Forum 202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats, Independence 202 -748 -8002.
And if you want to participate in Open Forum and you want to text us, it's 202 -748 -8003.
The Hill outlines what the White House is outlining when it comes to the remaining days of the Biden administration, their priorities, so to speak, for the next 42 days.
You can find this website on The Hill saying...
That the White House Chief of Staff, Jeff Zients, on Monday outlined the priorities for those final days in office.
In a memo to White House staff, Zients said that Mr. Biden, President Biden, plans to announce in January more student debt cancellation for public service workers and other borrowers and that the $2 ,000 prescription drug cap will fully go into effect for all Medicare Part D beneficiaries.
He also said that the president, quote, is currently engaged in another push with Turkey, Egypt, Qatar.
There's more there.
And that story from the Hill in these last days of the Biden administration and the priorities for that administration, you can find that story at the Hill.
When it comes to topics of Syria and the days or the recent events there, the New York Times picks that up, saying when it comes to the changes that are happening in the country, the headline, President Biden showing caution,
saying Mr. Biden and his top advisors are debating the extent to which they should engage directly with the rebel groups going forward.
According to officials who described internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity, U .S. intelligence analysts and administration policymakers were trying to determine whether the groups had substantially changed or were prepared to change their ways to address the concerns of the United States and its allies and the region about terrorist affiliations.
It goes on to quote Mr. Biden saying, we're clear at eye about the fact that ISIS will try to take advantage of any vacuum to reestablish its capability to create a safe haven.
We will not let that happen.
That's the words of President Biden.
Here's the words of the Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in Japan on Monday, talking about the events going on with the regime change in Syria and the U .S. perspective.
Here's Secretary Austin.
I think the entire international community was surprised to see that the opposition forces moved as quickly as they did.
And everybody expected to see.
We're good to go.
We could try to take advantage of this opportunity and regain capability.
We've been tracking ISIS as a part of our Defeat ISIS campaign for some time, as you know.
And we've seen cells trying to strengthen and develop additional capability out in the Badaya Desert.
And those strikes were focused on those cells.
And as you know, we reported out that we attacked some 75 targets with a number of different platforms, and we're still evaluating the results,
but I think that we're going to find that we've been pretty successful.
But that's focused on ISIS, to keep the pressure on ISIS, and to deny them the ability to easily resurge.
Again, it's open forum and the numbers will be on your screen.
If you want to participate, pick the one that best represents you.
And if you've called in the last 30 days, if you would hold off from doing so today, we would appreciate it.
Let's start with John in Minnesota, Independent Line, on this open forum.
Go ahead.
Yeah, good morning, Pedro.
Yeah, I love your show.
It's very informative.
You know, Donald Trump keeps calling these so -called peacemakers and all that, you know, for January 6th.
That's John there in Minnesota.
Let's hear from Robert in Massachusetts, Democrat's line.
I believe on January the 20th, we're going to enter into a constitutional crisis to its highest level.
When you have this, this country was founded on the separation between church and the state.
When you have church involved into politics, and politics involved in church, that's, that's not personally right.
The evangelical people have these Senators and crowd listeners coming to their church, preaching from the pulpit, that is unacceptable.
You're allowing people to come and contaminate your church.
And then one other thing, Pedro.
It's like Groundhog Day on January 20th with Donald Trump.
When he went to Helsinki and he met there for two hours with Putin and Putin gave him a ball and gave him the ball.
Okay.
Robert Thayer in Massachusetts.
Let's hear from Bob in Illinois, Republican line.
And help get rid of the violent immigrants that are causing havoc in our big cities and usurping all our funds and making our businesses flee and citizens not willing to go into the cities anymore.
If they were to help Trump for the next three and a half years, I think then the callers would be calling and praising Trump like half the country does now.
Thanks, Pedro.
Bob there in Illinois.
Richard up next.
Richard in Ohio.
Independent line on this open forum.
You're next up.
Hi.
Good morning, Pedro.
I just wanted to let your audience know that I did roll the tape back concerning that crazy statement about Vic Esquami.
And you did not say that.
I just wanted to let people know that you did not say that.
Have a good day.
I appreciate it.
That's Richard there in Ohio.
And then this is Margaret in Hawaii, Independent Line.
Hi.
Yeah, good morning.
I would like to make a comment about Medicare Advantage plans.
I think it would be a good idea for the federal government and also Medicare to look at these plans because they have these medical insurance plans through Medicare Advantage have defrauded the federal government by hundreds of billions of dollars since they came into being in 2006.
And one of the issues that has come to light is that a lot of these private insurance companies are for profit.
So their bottom line is money on Wall Street because they have to make sure that they do well for the stockholders.
And the issue with that is that you have a number of increased denials with these plans that have left people in very, very bad situations because they're stuck in these Medicare Advantage plans.
Thank you.
For most states, you will have to go through medical underwriting to get a Medicare supplement policy.
And then this is my last comment.
You also have a lot of doctor offices that are now not taking Medicare Advantage plans because they are battling an insurance company.
Okay, okay.
Yep, we got it, Margaret.
Thank you, thank you.
Atlanta, Georgia, Democrats line.
Albert, you're next up on this open forum.
Go ahead.
This is Albert in Atlanta.
I'm going to speak on the defense, ex -military.
Okay.
I think some of the money can be cut down from the defense because if we maintain our allegiance with America and stop going overseas fighting all the time and then maintain with Star Wars without Spain coming this way,
we could cut down a lot of the budget.
And maintaining the defense in one area where we don't need it here.
Down here, we'll be fighting together.
But coming from up there, we'll be fighting against a common enemy.
So we cut back on the defense here some billions.
We can do some billions here.
But we're spending billions in too many places.
Too many places.
And too many walls.
Too many needless walls.
Okay.
That's Albert there in Georgia.
Some of you were adding thoughts on various social sites on the previous question that we asked.
This is from Mike of a Facebook page saying, if we're going to be serious about cutting the national debt, we either have to cut defense...
We'll cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
I say start by cutting defense programs the Pentagon doesn't want, is what he adds.
And then Keith Schneider also on Facebook saying it isn't about more or less.
It's about allocating money and resources wisely.
First, a complete audit must be done.
Again, you can continue making thoughts on this idea of defense spending during open forum if you wish, or you can talk about other matters of...
Politics or public policy, 202 -748 -8000.
One for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000.
For Democrats and independents, 202 -748 -8000.
To a couple other aspects when it comes to news out of Syria, this is from the Washington Post saying that the United States is sending an envoy there to search for Austin Tice.
He's an American freelance journalist abducted in Syria.
That was nearly a dozen years ago.
The story from the Post saying that while there's no concrete evidence, What does the U .S. know about where Austin Tice might be in a police safe?
We believe he's alive.
We think we can get him back, but we have no direct evidence of that yet.
And so it should be held accountable.
There are intensive efforts underway by the United States to find Austin Tice and bring him home to his family.
Our Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, is in Beirut and we are pressing all parties in the region to support this effort.
We encourage anyone who has information about Austin's whereabouts to contact the FBI immediately.
They have made clear that they will provide a reward to information that leads to being able to return him home.
As Secretary Blinken has said directly to Austin's family, Again, there's more there on the website or our C -SPAN now if you want to see those comments concerning events in Syria.
When it comes to things happening in Washington, D .C. today, one of the things to watch out for at 10 o 'clock is the oversight of the U .S. Postal Service.
Louis DeJoy, the U .S. Postmaster General, will appear before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee to talk about...
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Yeah, I want the people to just be aware that this country is being taken over by billionaires.
And we got two foreign billionaires that's going to remake our country with this government efficiency program that they've proposed.
And the Republicans are opening them with open arms.
People better be aware of what's going on.
Well, one of the reasons they were tapped is that because they've managed to perform efficiencies at their own companies, such as Elon Musk, why do you think he's the wrong person for the job?
From Lois.
Lois in Maryland, Republican Line.
Good morning.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
Just on my mind this morning is the elderly, and a lot of people are talking about Medicare.
I just really think that the elderly especially, or any 60 and over, people that have worked 30, 40, 50 years of their life, they go to retire, they spend...
We're good to go.
I think?
Hello.
I think the military needs to be audited.
I think the waste and abuse in contracting has been well known for years.
Evidence apparently has not been produced to prosecute some of this abuse.
General Wedemeyer and our president, General... Eisenhower, excuse me, and our president, after leaving the presidency, warned us of the military -industrial complex.
It has expanded greatly.
The waste and abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq have been revealed.
Convoys, you know, full of military equipment.
They would have a flat tire.
They would destroy the tractor -trailer full of equipment so that it would not fall into the hands of ISIS or other...
Dan in Maryland.
Democrats line.
Thanks.
Let's hear from Willie.
Willie in Mississippi.
Hey, good morning.
Thank you, Pedro.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's been several months since I spoke with you last.
I wanted to address something that the lady in Maryland, I think Lois...
Well, first of all, I want to address, I want to talk about what a lady had said about siding with Trump.
Well, a lot of people don't agree with his policies, especially Project 2025.
So...
How can someone side with a person who don't have anything in common or don't care anything about them?
So, you know, people need to stop with this foolishness.
This country voted in a person based on racial bigotry and misogyny.
Just like with Hillary Clinton.
But it was even worse this time because a lot of you people voted against your own well -means.
You cut off your nose to spite your face.
And that's very, very sad.
Willie there in Mississippi.
Let's hear from Bobby in Oklahoma, Democrat's line.
Bobby in Oklahoma, hello.
In Medicare and Medicaid.
Folks get the taste out of their mouth about going to cut our Social Security in Medicare and Medicaid because that's not going to happen.
Our governor here, Governor Stitt in Oklahoma, has Medicaid for the people in Oklahoma.
And we're not going to let them get their fingers ring because they think Trump had a mandate.
Well, Trump was not elected with a mandate.
That's Bobby there in Oklahoma.
Things to watch out for on Capitol Hill, including the president's nominee, the president -elect's nominee.
For the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth saying, this is from the New York Post this morning, that Joni Ernst, the Iowa Republican Senator, signaled Monday she's warming to Mr. Hegseth after days of being reticent over the accusations leveled against him.
The 54 -year -old Ernst, who is a rape survivor, revealed that she had encouraging discussions with the battled and former Fox News host after their second known meeting in a week.
It echoed his frustrations with anonymous sources attacking the cabinet pick's personal history.
Going on to say, I appreciate Pete Hegseth's responsiveness and respect for the process.
I support Pete through this process.
I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth and not anonymous sources.
That's from Joni Ernst, also happening on Capitol Hill this week when it comes to the president -elect's choices.
Tulsi Gabbard, the choice for the DNI, the Department of National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence, saying that the president -elect's intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, We're good to go.
That is happening on Capitol Hill.
Keep watching for it as these various nominees visit with senators.
Yeah, I just wondered if you could do a little checking for me in your recent news releases.
I haven't heard anything about this since the first I heard about it early in the summer prior to the election.
Can you tell me whether the Russian warship and Russian sub are still off the coast of Florida, down in open waters in the international waters down there around Cuba?
Are they still down there?
And wouldn't that be a military -oriented question for our talk today?
Okay, let's hear from Nelson.
He's in Maryland, independent line.
Hi.
Hi, good morning, Pedro.
I just want to talk about the issue with the voting.
So we have over nine out of the 11 states that voted for President Trump.
The minimum wage is $7 .25.
What I'm thinking is they think Elon Musk and Vivek, who are billionaires, are going to represent their interests.
They are wrong.
Switching over to the government, the department that I think needs to be cut, the federal contracting.
A soldier leaves the military, makes an E -4, go work for federal contracting.
Yes, I just don't understand where these people are coming from, these Democrats.
I don't get it.
I mean, you've got...
The majority of most of the Democrats voted for Trump.
You see, even James Carvell was telling these people that the Democrat message was garbage.
Their policies are garbage.
For four years, we suffered high taxes.
Four years, we suffered inflation, high gas prices.
They tried shoving pills down kids' throats, making them transgenders.
And even James Carvell warned the Democrats what was going on.
And these people still don't get it.
Trump is not a racist.
He's trying to help the country out.
He doesn't need this aggravation.
They tried jailing him.
They tried assassinating him.
Who knows who was behind this?
I would say Obama was behind it.
He never considered himself as an American.
He always considered himself as a victim, like most of these black liberal Democrats feel.
Okay, we will leave it there.
And that's the end of Open Forum.
We'll continue on with guests for a majority of our morning of this today.
First up, we're going to hear from the Tax Foundation's Erica York.
A new analysis from her.
About how much wealthy Americans pay in taxes in the United States.
That's coming up next.
And then later up in the program, we'll hear from Democratic Representative Paul Tonko.
He'll talk about the upcoming deadline for funding the federal government and how Democrats will navigate the 119th Congress next year.
Those conversations coming up on Washington Journal.
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.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C -SPAN's 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, Student Cam 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.
Be up to date in the latest in publishing with Book TV's podcast about books.
Our first guest of the morning is Erica York.
She's with the Tax Foundation.
She serves as Senior Economist and Research Director for Federal Tax Policy.
Joining us from Kansas, Ms. York, thanks for your time this morning.
Thanks, good morning.
A little bit about the organization and who funds it.
Can you tell our audience about that?
Yeah, Tax Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit.
We've been around since 1937, and our mission is to provide education about the tax system we have.
We believe that the tax system should be simple, it should be neutral, it should be transparent, and it should be stable.
We study taxes at the state and local level, at the federal level, and at the global level, and we're funded by a variety of donors from the business community, from the foundation community, and from...
From the study that you do, or some of the studies that you do when it comes to taxes, the most latest one, taking a look at federal taxes and who pays what, we're showing the audience your analysis.
Where do you get this data from?
This comes straight from the Internal Revenue Service.
So each year, the IRS Statistics of Income Division publishes data that comes straight from the tax returns that we all file during the tax season.
And they provide an analysis on who pays what, what average tax rates are.
And so we take that and we put it in a more digestible format than the huge tables that are available for download on the IRS website.
When it comes to the who pays what, you took a look at how much wealthy Americans pay.
Before we start in the details, what's the perception of what wealthy Americans pay and what is the reality?
I think there's a big perception about the tax system that we have now that it's unfair.
And a big part of that is that the tax system that we have is very complicated.
I don't think anyone really enjoys filing their taxes each year.
It can be a rot process and it's not always transparent.
We're good to go.
I think?
One of the things in your report is a breakdown from the data and it breaks it down from the top 1 % and going down from there.
But starting on the top 1%, just to show the audience some details, about 1 .5 million returns on that one.
Their average tax rate, about 26 % when it comes to their share of total adjusTedros income, 22%.
And then the share of total income tax is paid.
40 .4%.
That's a lot of numbers.
Put that into context as far as what they pay versus what others pay.
Yeah, so if you look at the average tax rate paid by the top 1%, that's about seven times larger than the average tax rate paid by the bottom half of Americans, of American taxpayers.
And if you look at the shares of taxes paid, zooming out from just the top 1%, if you look at the top half of taxpayers, they're responsible for paying about 97 % of the individual income tax, while the bottom half pays the remaining 3%.
So what this tells us is that the Erica York,
is there a difference in what the federal government establishes as a tax rate for the top 1 % and what the top 1 % actually pay?
Yes.
So for every taxpayer, there's a difference between your marginal income tax rate, that's the rate you face on your next dollar of income, say you're in the 10 % bracket, so each additional dollar of income you earn faces that 10 % rate, or say you're in the top bracket,
each additional dollar of income you earn faces the 37 % rate.
Because earlier dollars of income that you earned were taxed at lower rates, because there are tax credits like the child tax credit, because we provide Eric, is
there a way to establish a profile, so to speak, of who lives in this top 1 ?
Who are these people generally as far as how they make that money?
Yeah, if you look at a breakdown of sources of income by different income levels, you do see variation.
So for most taxpayers, their biggest source of income is wage and salary income.
But when you get to higher income levels, you see a different profile there.
There tends to be more business income.
So pass -through business income is reported on the Form 1040.
That's income from partnerships, LLCs, sole proprietorships.
That's taxed at the individual level.
So you see a greater share of business income.
You also see a greater share of investment income.
So dividends, interest income, capital gains also make up a greater share of income for those in the top 1%.
And so back to that share of total income taxes paid, 40%.
Put that in perspective of what the government takes in overall.
So in 2022, the year that this report is for, Taxpayers paid a little over $2 trillion of individual income taxes.
And so it's 40 % of that $2 trillion number.
So quite a large share.
And it's also important to remember that the individual income tax is the largest source of revenue for the federal government.
So even though there are other types of taxes, this is the largest one.
And the largest share of it is paid by the top 1%.
This is Erica York joining us for this conversation.
If you want to ask her about this breakdown of who pays what in taxes in the United States, 202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats, Independence, 202 -748 -8002.
And if you want to text us, it's 202 -748 -8003.
This data from 2002, Erica York, has much changed in the two years that we live in today.
Not much has changed and this is the latest information we have available.
The IRS releases these data sets with quite a bit of a lag because they have to clean and analyze all of the data and get it into a usable format.
But nothing major has changed from 2022 to 2024 in the income tax system.
We also provide in the analysis these trends over time, going back a couple of decades, so that you can.
You talked about that top 1.
Let's go down one tier to the top 5%.
What changes from what we know about that top 1 %?
You're capturing a greater share of taxpayers who on average have a little bit lower income level.
So you see a slightly lower average tax rate overall.
But generally, as you step down from the different percentiles, you see a pattern that emerges that as income grows, so does the average tax rate.
And so overall, the structure that emerges is one of a Eric,
you've used the term progressive tax system.
There's also the term regressive tax system.
What's the difference between the two?
Yeah, a progressive tax system is where as your income increases, your average tax rate increases.
A regressive tax system would be the opposite.
It would place a higher percentage burden on lower income taxpayers than it did on higher income taxpayers.
We'll talk a little bit more as we get through the morning, but I suppose all of this comes as there's set to be a debate on the future of taxes in the United States.
How does this information inform that debate?
So what you see in this report, and we've got a chart in the report that compares tax rates from 2018 onward to pre -2018, 2018 being, of course,
the first year that the tax cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 took effect.
And what you see is that that law lowered average tax rates for taxpayers of all income levels.
And since that law went into place, tax rates at all of those income levels have remained We're good.
Would see significant tax increases if that law is allowed to expire.
This is Eric York joining us from the Tax Foundation.
Your first call comes from Jeffrey.
He's in Florida, Republican line.
You're on with our guest.
Good morning.
Hey, good morning.
I was wondering to know who defines what qualifies as income and how that definition has changed since the income tax was initiated in 1913.
So the definition of income for this report here is adjusTedros income.
So that's the number you calculate on your form 1040.
And that's what the IRS uses in this data set, whatever the definition for adjusTedros income was in that given year.
Since the inception of the income tax, it has changed significantly in scope, as well as in the types of deductions and credits and exemptions that are permitted.
You can also We have a follow -up viewer who texts us from Florida saying explain the difference between income and assets and the tax liability of each.
So income tends to be your wages and salaries.
It's realized capital gains, interest income, dividends, business income, like I mentioned, and it's captured in a year.
So the IRS I think.
Here's Valerie.
Valerie in Michigan.
Democrats line.
I'd just like to know, are we still under the Trump tax cut?
I think you just said that.
So if it expired, would poor and working class and middle class people have a lower tax base to pay?
Or will their taxes go up?
Until he passes his new taxes and will, do you know if he has plans for the working middle class poor to pay more taxes of their earned money?
The 2017 tax law is still in effect.
It cut taxes beginning in 2018, and those individual tax cuts last through the end of 2025.
And as I mentioned, what you can see from the IRS data is that this tax law has lowered average tax rates for people across all income levels.
So the bottom Thank you.
Thank you.
Now, Trump campaigned on extending those tax cuts.
There's a desire in Congress to extend those tax cuts.
What exactly that looks like will play out in 2025 as Congress and the White House work together to legislate on taxes.
What do you think are the questions that have to be asked by Congress as they consider what comes next?
A big question is what do you do about the deficit impact?
Continuing all of the tax cuts would reduce revenue by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, would add even more when you consider interest costs.
So we would be on a path with much higher deficits, higher interest payments, higher debt.
So the big question is what do you do to offset the cost?
Do you look at other base broadeners and build on the reforms that the first tax law, the first Addition of TCGA made.
Do you look at reforms on the spending side?
I don't think there is an answer in Congress to that question yet, but the fiscal pressure of extension is going to be one of the big questions weighing on lawmakers' minds.
Erica York, the Congressional Budget Office recently put out a report taking a look at the possibility of the expiration of tax cuts and what would happen if that did happen.
They found amongst things three big points saying that the expiration would modestly reduce labor supply by raising tax rates on individual income.
The tax revenue increases from the expiration reduces federal deficits and borrowing, but on net, those two effects largely offset each other, resulting in very small changes to gross domestic product.
What do you think about those results?
Yeah, I think it's absolutely right that when the taxes go up, that will reduce people's incentives to work, whether that's to enter the labor force or to change their hours worked.
So it makes sense we'd see a negative labor supply effect.
The expiration of the tax cuts will also increase federal tax revenue.
I think we can question how big the effect that's occurring here in CBO's model is called a crowd -out effect.
There's a question of To what extent does that effect really play out in the real economy?
Because the US is an open economy.
So if our deficit goes up and we have to sell more treasuries, there are also foreign buyers, not just domestic buyers for those treasuries.
And so I would discount a little bit the crowd out effect that's assumed there.
But it's a useful analysis to see that, yes, deficits and how we offset an increase in the deficit really matters.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
My concern mainly is everything looks pretty on paper, but every time we hear in the news about loopholes in lawyers, that's my main question.
The lawyer aspect of it and the corruption.
You know, if I was to go and fill out my taxes, So that's the whole thing that my question is about.
Thank you.
Yeah, one of the things I mentioned earlier is that we do have a very complicated tax system and it's not transparent.
So I do think lawmakers absolutely have an opportunity to reform the tax system, make it simpler, and a lot of these deductions and exemptions and credits that are available that tend to be mostly utilized by high -income taxpayers.
Really, that type of base broadening is one of the best ways to raise revenue because it doesn't require you to significantly increase marginal tax rates.
Instead, you can broaden the tax base, get rid of some of these exemptions and credits, and raise revenue that way, which also aids in making the tax system simpler and more transparent.
Erica, you probably remember House Speaker Paul Ryan at one time, when he was House Speaker, wanted to reduce the taxing system to a small one sheet of paper.
Whatever happened to that effort?
Did anything come out of that?
The TCJ made some strides in doing that.
For instance, it placed limitations on itemized deductions.
It significantly reduced the bite of the alternative minimum tax.
It's a good aspiration to want to have such a simple tax code that it's not a hassle for people to file it.
But that often means trading off provisions that taxpayers enjoy, that taxpayers like having in the tax system.
And so it creates this political obstacle to totally cleaning up the tax code because doing so means getting rid of Preferences that benefit different constituencies, which can be a tough lift.
We've done some simulations at the Tax Foundation looking at the tax system in the country of Estonia, which ranks number one in our International Tax Competitiveness Index and has for about a decade now.
And on average, it takes tax filers there about three minutes to complete their tax returns.
And we found that adopting a system like what Estonia uses would significantly cut compliance cost time in the U .S., would boost economic growth, and would raise sufficient revenue.
But again, it's that political challenge of can we really clean up the tax code?
This is Erica York of the Tax Foundation joining us.
John in Virginia, Republican Line.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, I would like to see if you could play up something for me, ma 'am.
So since Donald Trump's tax cuts, Democrats have been saying that they add to the debt.
But on television, when I see people talk about the tax, we're getting the United States Treasury is getting record high revenue, receiving record high revenue.
How does record high revenue equate to adding to the debt?
I don't understand.
Yeah, the idea there is that revenue would be even higher if we didn't have the lower tax rates in place.
And I think there's some truth to that.
When we score tax plans, we can do a conventional analysis, and that says we're going to hold the size of the economy constant.
We're going to assume that incentives don't change, and we're just going to look at how this would cut revenues.
And then you can do a dynamic analysis that says, we know that when you change the tax system, you change people's incentives for working and for investing.
I think?
Congressional Budget Office report that we were just discussing, the CBO talks through, you know, why are revenues higher?
Some of its economic growth, some of its inflation, some of it is unexpected sources of revenue, like the higher tariffs that Trump imposed during his first term that have brought in more customs revenue collection.
We have a viewer in Michigan who directs his comments to corporations.
This is Jeff saying corporations are not people, regardless of what Republicans say, and they aren't paying their, quote, fair share.
Yeah, a corporation is a legal entity.
The legal entity cuts the check to pay corporate taxes, but the burden economically of that falls on various people.
It can fall on corporate shareholders in the form of lower returns, and it can fall on workers in the form of lower wages.
And this is what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation find in their analysis, that when you raise corporate taxes, the burden of that even falls on low and middle income households.
Jack is up next.
Jack in Atlanta, Democrats line high.
Hello, how are you?
I'd like to ask what share of total AGI income generated in the country is controlled or received by that top 20 % and has the share been growing before tax and after tax over the past 10,
20 years, 30 years?
Thank you.
And just know, Erica, we're showing the viewers at home this top 25 % category, which is closest to the 20 % he mentioned, but go ahead, please.
Great, thanks.
Yeah, I don't have all the numbers memorized off the top of my head, but in our report, we do have the full data tables available for download where it breaks out in even more detail than our summary table, the different percentiles, the shares of AGI, the shares of taxes.
What you tend to see, especially with the top 1 % in the share of AGI, is that it fluctuates significantly with the business cycle.
So if there are years where the stock market really booms,
Thank you.
Before tax and transfers, after taxes, after tax and transfer.
And what you see from that report, especially on the tax side, is that they found since 1985, which is generally where the data begins for this report, the tax system that we have has become ever more progressive every decade.
And so even though you may see some growing disparities pre -tax, pre -transfer, the tax and transfer system we have has significantly boosted incomes.
Erica York, the Biden administration made a big effort to go after wealthy Americans who weren't paying their taxes.
Recently, Janet Yellen talked about what has become of that result.
I want to play some of her comments and then get your response.
And I'm glad to now share the first results of an initiative we launched to pursue 125 ,000 wealthy taxpayers who had not filed taxes for years.
The IRS had not had the resources to pursue these wealthy non -filers.
Well, now it does.
And we're making significant progress.
Today, I'm announcing that in only six months, nearly 21 ,000 of these taxpayers have already filed.
That has led to $172 million recovered.
And this is just a first milestone.
We look forward to more progress ahead.
The IRS has also made substantial progress to collect tax debt from wealthy filers.
And I'm glad to share today that nearly 80 % of 1 ,600 millionaires with delinquent tax debt have now paid, leading to over $1 .1 billion recovered.
And Erica, I should note that that was back in September.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Taxpayers should absolutely pay what they are legally obligated to pay.
And, you know, reducing the tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid, especially in areas that can be characterized as low -hanging fruit.
If the IRS knows that taxpayers aren't paying and knows what they need to be paying, then it absolutely makes sense to concentrate efforts there and get the most return for taxpayer or IRS investment dollars as We're good to go.
That Congress provided was to go to IT upgrades, IT infrastructure, customer service and the burn rate on that money at the IRS is very fast.
Yeah, you say that the tax cuts went across the board, but didn't they disproportionately go to the wealthiest?
Yeah, so if you look at the percentage change in after -tax income across the different income groups, the percent, the top quintile, received a slightly larger tax cut than other income groups.
But I think it's important to...
We're good to go.
For many taxpayers, they're already negative.
They're receiving more refundable tax credits back than they pay in in taxes.
And so given the progressive structure of the income tax itself, it...
It lends itself to that type of distribution for a tax cut.
And often the rhetoric we hear is that lower and middle income households didn't see any benefit.
And the data very clearly state that yes, they did.
The TCGA cut taxes for people across all income levels.
Erica York is with the Tax Foundation.
Taxfoundation .org if you want to see her work, including this new analysis.
Erica York, thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Coming up, we're going to hear from Democratic Representative Paul Tomko on the looming federal spending deadline that's coming up, plus the incoming Trump administration later on in the program.
Associated Press Tara Kopp on the Defense Department and how they're preparing for the incoming Trump administration.
Those conversations coming up on Washington Journal.
Since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, C -SPAN has provided complete coverage of the halls of Congress.
From the House and Senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings, C -SPAN gives you a front -row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered.
C -SPAN, your unfiltered view of government.
If you ever miss any of C -SPAN's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c -span .org.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
books home decor and accessories there's something for every c -span fan and every purchase helps support our non -profit operations shop now or anytime at c -spanshop .org
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, Book Notes Plus, and Q &A.
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.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Representative Paul Tonko, Democrat from New York.
He serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
And joining us on Washington Journal, good morning, sir.
Good morning, Pedro.
Great to join you and your viewers.
Thank you for giving us your time.
There is a deadline coming up when it comes to funding the federal government.
When's the deadline and what are the options on the table so far?
Well, we're looking at the 20th, and there doesn't seem to be a total agreement.
I would not be surprised if there was a reach to the Democrats to support an effort, but that will have to truly involve a bipartisan bit of input.
So, we look forward to getting this done, but, you know, the pattern of the recent past has been to not get it done and have to come to the Democrats to keep the lights on and keep government functioning.
Would the agreement involve resolving the issue totally or just pushing it forward?
Well, I think at this point most people are considering going to March, but...
Let's hope we could get a budget done.
I think that gives us more opportunity to perhaps fine tune what we're hearing in our districts and including additional items that would be helpful.
You saw this back in September with the Republicans reaching out to Democrats for that support.
In return, are there things Democrats would want to look for if that support is needed?
Well, I think, you know, there's an important bit of...
Putting an emphasis on items like a benefit for working families, making certain that truly there's a tax relief for the working families.
We have seen the permanent cut for the corporations.
We probably will have them requesting a permanent cut for the wealthy.
But I think we really need to bring the fairness here to working families.
And, you know, I think they spoke forcefully in this election.
While they did elect President Trump, I don't know if they liked all of their policies.
I hear a lot of buyer's remorse already in my district where people say, well, I voted for some of the border issues, but I didn't really like the tariff approach.
So I think we're going to have to nail down some of these issues that don't add costs to the working families, costs for food.
One of the debates that, especially what we saw during the summer when it comes to the topic of disaster relief of Yeah, look, having represented a district for several years that has been impacted by Mother Nature and some very difficult storms,
I think that we need to incorporate that into a final package.
We have seen, we know that it's very tough to come back from these storms.
You don't always, you don't come back totally, but...
This is Representative Paul Tonko joining us for this conversation.
If you want to ask him questions, 202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats, Independence 202.
748 -8002 and you can text us at 202 -748 -8003.
Sir, you serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
What does a new Trump administration mean to you serving on that committee, particularly when it comes to energy -related matters?
Well, I think our big effort here is to make certain that there's not a clawback of the progress of the 117th session of Congress, making certain that the progress we made, the relief that was provided by the American Rescue Plan,
You think about the outcome of that, a much benefited outcome that enabled us to do that post -COVID recovery better than any industrialized nation in the world and to, you know,
move forward with local discretion being the theme with the dollars that were shared from Washington, allowing the locals to determine what best would provide for their regional economic comeback.
And then items like chips and science, which is a huge investment in my district with semiconductor.
We're good to go.
We still have more work to do, but let's not take back the investments that we made or the public policy that was woven into those historic measures that are now law.
What does his possible appointment to that position mean to you?
Well, you know, I know there was a great emphasis on his involvement with the hydrofracking industry, but look, we're going to work as best we can in a bipartisan fashion.
There are many, many innovative concepts that we're incorporating into Energy and Commerce's energy approach, and making certain that clean energy is given a sound investment, that transmission, permitting reform is part of the outcome,
making certain that all clean forms of energy are advanced and putting together I think a package that is futuristic that enables us to really meet demand which will grow as our nation economy continues to grow because of the measures of the Biden administration that are now bringing back this economy.
When it comes to your approach to energy, are you an all of the above kind of person when it comes to energy resources?
Yes, I am.
I think that a clean energy agenda is where we're at, but I think we also need to make certain that some of the startups with renewables are given those benefits so as to make certain that we're in control of our destiny and not relying on foreign imports to respond to the need or to what has been some very strong corporate...
Yes, Mr. Tonko?
Good morning, Rick.
Yes, I'm an economist and I remember that our current new president said that he would like to exempt Social Security income from income tax.
What do you think the likelihood of Congress to do that?
Some of those measures are going to be able to be addressed by Congress.
I think that what we're going to be looking at is an approach to taxes that really puts a benefit onto working families and that will enable those who are most in need to go forward with that addressing.
And I think also, I would think the Democrats will be advancing a child tax credit opportunity.
When we did that a couple of years ago for a calendar year, we saw one half of children living in poverty lifted from that poverty.
And I think that those will be priorities that will advance.
In that recent NBC interview that the president elects saying that he wouldn't touch Social Security, how much do you agree or how much do you believe him on that?
Well, you know, I think the track record has been there where they want to privatize Medicare, make cuts to
Good morning, Brian.
I'd like to drill down on the illegal immigration issue, and I'd like to emphasize to all the Democrats in Congress, you need to change your language.
You're shorthanding it by talking about the border.
The entire system is a giant mess.
Let's remember, half the problem is visa overstays, the people that come in and never leave the country.
And I'm a working class guy.
I'm an IBEW retired electrician.
And I know what goes on.
Businesses are putting illegal immigrants anywhere they can in their businesses.
It's not just out in the field picking crops, they're working everywhere in our economy.
So we need to control immigration because of supply and demand and it drives down wages if you don't control it.
So let's talk about controlling uh, all the visa oversays as well as the border, And I think we do need to reinterpret the 14th Amendment and re -look at birthright citizenship.
You know, not everybody gets to come to the United States.
It has to be controlled.
It has to be limited.
And Democrats need to start using the language of control and limits.
Okay, that's Brian there in Albuquerque.
Yeah, thank you, Brian.
I think that, look...
I think it was in 2013 when I was serving here in the House that we had a major effort to do immigration reform.
It's long overdue and I think a sound pathway to citizenship should be our goal.
We need to provide for certainty in the process.
We need to have the appropriate people, the resources, the human infrastructure associated with immigration.
Thank you very much.
We're good to go.
I think?
Representative, when it comes to the 119th Congress last year, what has leadership said to you and the other fellow Democrats about the strategy moving forward?
Well, with immigration reform?
Well, overall, when it comes to how they'll respond to Republican efforts in the House.
Oh, I think that, you know, we are going to work in a bipartisan way to make certain that immigration reform, which is much needed, is provided.
It's needed for worker positions that are not filled.
It's needed for the sake of dignity and fairness for those who are entering, want to enter legally and provide for a pathway to citizenship.
And it would strengthen our economy.
It is said that...
Over the next decade, the impact of immigration could be as high as $7 billion.
We cannot afford to not get this done correctly.
It will enable everyone.
It's an across the board win situation.
And when it comes to the larger issues of generally how Democrats will function in the 119th Congress, what is your expectation considering now the Senate will be in Republican hands as far as what the House tries to approve on their side?
Hey, look, my approach has always been science -based, evidence -based discussion, making certain that we deal with facts to develop policy.
You know, we will point out wherever...
We're good to go.
I think?
You know, it's the Democrats in the House that have.
Doug is from Clifton Park, New York.
Independent Line.
Good morning.
Good morning, Doug.
How are you today, Congressman?
I'm doing well, thanks, and hope you are.
I'm glad to hear that, and I am.
Okay, I have probably three very brief comments.
They won't take but 30 seconds, and then one very important question.
First thing is that I've been in the 20th District since 1976, and it's been my observation that the last 20 years or so, More government assistance goes to international corporations.
You mentioned tech yourself up there in Malta.
The new chip fab plants, of course, is a great benefit.
But that's private industry.
It's being financed with public dollars to a very large extent.
Secondly, you said you support clean energy.
Well, I hope you'll address fracking.
Fracking is a very important source in natural gas, and natural gas is a relatively clean energy.
As is nuclear.
Finally, two things.
The torpedo tax on social security.
I don't know why you would be reluctant to champion a elimination of the tax on seniors that's been proposed.
Because as non -social security income grows very, very modestly, the tax on social security skyrockets.
And my last thing would be, if we really want to do something for a very hurting group, I'll stop you there,
caller.
Thank you for the call.
Put a lot out there for the representative, but Mr. Tonko, go ahead.
Yeah, let me start with the last question.
Look, the first thing we did was reach out to the We're good to go.
I think?
We're good.
The Democrats in the House of Representatives had their form of a chips and science bill.
It was negotiated as most bills are with both houses, both parties negotiating.
We as Democrats in the House wanted to make certain that investments made in these international companies Whether they were made by the U .S. government, we're going to be enjoyed in that sphere, in the U .S. economy.
And we put up guardrails to make certain that we protected some of those efforts.
And I think that, you know, in regard to clean energy, I agree natural gas is a clean energy.
It will most certainly serve as a bridge, a bit of energy as we go forward.
But the emphasis also on transmission, making certain that permitting is...
Right.
And as I said, natural gas as a...
Hello, Representative Tonto.
Good morning, Ryan.
The HR 7410 has a chance to pass in the next Congress if it's reintroduced.
The Fair Maps Act.
Pardon me, which one?
Caller, what's that act again?
The HR 7410, the Fair Maps Act.
You know, it's...
With the new session being started, it will be the determination of the various committees to establish their priorities for this given session.
I am not certain where that would rank, but obviously there are new opportunities with a new session of Congress as we start the 119th.
Mr. Tonko, I don't know if they visited with Democrats last week, but when Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy were on Capitol Hill to talk about government efficiency, what do you think about that effort overall?
Well, you know, it's all on how it's defined.
I think, you know, some of the comments that they're making with Pall Mall reductions in programs, you know, you need to take, I think, a scalpel to some of these programs and not a cleaver.
I think that it's important for us to make certain that we look at...
Debbie in Maine, Republican Line.
You're on with our guest.
Good morning.
Hi.
Good morning, Debbie.
Yeah, I'm calling to make a comment about Paul.
Tonko?
I think that's his name.
You're on with him right now, Debbie.
Go ahead and ask your question or comment.
Yes, I was wondering why he said Donald Trump killed the order bill.
Because he didn't.
Six Democrats voted against it.
No, no, this was...
HF2 was passed in the House in May of 22, and Adam Schiff never brought it up.
Okay.
We'll let our guest respond.
Right.
Pedro, I think we're talking about the legislation that was introduced and agreed upon in the Senate in mid -year last year.
And everyone was raring to go to have those first steps of improvements in immigration reform, which would have been, I think, a vitally encouraging process that would allow for the beginnings of reform that are grossly needed.
Yes, good morning.
In regard to Obamacare, people need to stop voting against their own interests.
Trump is talking about a concept of a health care program.
Your comments, Representative?
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Look, when we did the Medicaid expansion, I noticed that a lot of states that exempted out were states that had the largest numbers of uninsured or underinsured children.
And I think it's important for us to put politics aside and really allow policy to speak, to make it, again, science -based, evidence -based.
The improvements that have come for tens of millions of individuals and families out there with the improvements of the Affordable Care Act that allowed for All sorts of improvements for families has been very pronounced in its success rate,
making certain that people that were exempted heretofore from insurance coverage, that we were denied coverage because of pre -existing conditions, were all benefited by the Obamacare, as you called it, the Affordable Care Act.
And I think the successes of all sorts of people who came onto the insurance rolls, allowing children to stay with their parents' coverage until the age of 26.
Sure.
Well, um...
Look, we worked very hard to make certain that there was local input, as I see it, that would improve the opportunity for communities with the Word of Bill.
And I think there are significant investments that go toward water quality, water infrastructure, which falls under the tutelage of the Environment and Climate Subcommittee that I've been the leading Democrat on,
on the subcommittee that reports to the Standing Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Recently, we got the news that in the Word of Package...
It is a $100 million benefit for communities along the Mohawk River in upstate New York that is the largest tributary into the Hudson River.
And there were struggles made by a number of communities to be in compliance and this will be a big...
I do want to ask you about the NDAA.
The House is expected to vote on it this week.
Where are you on that?
Look, I love to support our NDAA.
I've been communicating with the caucus.
Adam Smith has been keeping us up to date.
I think there's some great opportunities in that bill, and we'll see as we get to the finish line just what the final package looks like, and it would be nice to have that approved.
What do you think of the $900 billion price tag?
Well, you know, it's making certain that there are investments that are essential in some of the forces that serve for our national security and our safety.
Again, we'll look at that final package this week and hopefully a good outcome for those who are serving in the military.
Let's squeeze in Leonard real quick in Massachusetts, independent line.
We're short on time, Leonard, so jump right in.
Yes, sir.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate you all on CNN.
Good morning, Leonard.
That there is a desire in the House and among your constituents for some advancement in data protection.
And cybersecurity in particular, when thinking about defense spending.
Appreciate your time.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think there's a lot of interest, a number of hearings by several key subcommittees and committees that are looking at that order of investment.
I think, you know, in this modern day of technology, we need to look at consumer protection.
We need to look at security, national security.
And I think those will be the thematics that drive these hearings.
Representative Paul Tonko, Democrat from New York, serves the 20th District, also serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Joining us from Capitol Hill, thank you for your time today, sir.
Pedro, it's been my pleasure.
Thank you so much.
Up next, we're going to take a look at how the Defense Department is preparing for the incoming Trump administration.
Tara Kopp from the Associated Press joins us for that conversation when Washington Journal continues.
We're good to go.
See you next time.
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.
Washington Journal continues.
This is Tara Kopp joining us at the Associated Press.
She covers the Pentagon here to talk about the incoming Trump administration, what the Defense Department might face.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Before we start, quick about Syria as far as where the Defense Department lies going forward of what's happening in the country.
Well, you know, the country is in a state of upheaval and there's a lot of questions as to what a final state of Syria will look like, whether it will be sectioned into different quadrants with a different interest.
But there's 900 U .S. forces there.
A lot of them are in the south.
There's some in the north near the oil fields.
They're not on the west, you know, the northern western area that's seen so much evil.
But there's really a question of will that mission be able to continue?
The Defense Department has said, you know, troops need to stay there because of the counter -ISIS mission, particularly in that southeastern quadrant.
That's where a lot of munitions seem to move from Iran -backed militias to Israel, for example.
And so if you lose control of that territory, you really kind of open up a can of worms.
Okay.
While we ask you about the Trump administration coming in, if I'm an average person inside the Defense Department, what am I expecting with the new administration?
I think you're going to see almost immediately a lot of policies revert back to where President -elect Trump had put them in 2017 and 2018 as he was in office.
One good example that...
A lot of people have talked about the right for transgender troops to serve.
You know, Trump changed that policy literally through a tweet back in his first term in office, and then that led to about three years of legal battles.
Then those troops were reinstated for their right to serve under the Biden administration.
I think that pendulum is probably going to swing back and we're going to get back into an area where those troops find themselves in legal limbo and this has to be processed again through the courts.
And when it comes to the actual staffing, if I'm a mid -level general, I know that the president -elect has said things, his secretary nominee has said specifically about so -called woke generals.
What does that mean as far as what the administration or the incoming administration thinks it means?
And what does it mean inside the Defense Department?
It's really concerning.
It's had a chilling effect.
I've spoken to a number of officers about this.
You know, you have people that are dedicating their lives to serve, that are climbing up the ranks, that have finally made Brigadier General.
They're looking at maybe completing out a full career of service.
And now if they said something that could be construed as quote -unquote "woke" because they're promoting diversity or they're protecting, you know, minority troops that have had a hard time climbing up the ranks for one reason or another, that could get them fired.
Is there a sense of people at that level perhaps looking at the exit doors in preparation of the Trump administration coming in?
I haven't gotten that sense, but what has happened is you see a chilling effect in what things people are willing to say publicly.
There's a lot of discussion behind the scenes of, you know, why would a certain person be targeted?
We wrote last week about the list that this foundation has presented to the nominee, Hegseth, to say here's 20 officers that you should just fire right away on day one.
Some of these officers are targeted because they spoke at an event.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
There has to be room for those types of conversations without it threatening the career of someone who's dedicated themselves to military service.
That was the American Accountability Foundation that I suppose that forwarded that list to Mr. Hegseth.
Yes.
We'll talk about him in a second, but I want to invite folks into the conversation.
202 -748 -8001 for Republicans.
Democrats, 202 -748 -8000.
And Independents, 202 -748 -8002.
Active and former military, you want to give your thoughts?
202 -748 -8003.
How...
Does the Pentagon, those inside of it, what do they think of Pete Hegseth?
I've heard a lot of mixed views.
Nobody is discrediting that he served the country and served in combat.
There are some questions as to whether or not he has the qualifications to lead a 2 million member military plus the almost 900 ,000 defense civilians that make it basically a 3 million member organization.
You know, the ability for him to be a changemaker, the ability for him to be disruptive, those are all things that the president -elect wants.
And I was at the Reagan National Defense Forum this weekend, you know, hundreds of conservatively -minded lawmakers and defense contractors and people who have been in the arena for a long time.
And one of the consensus ideas there was that there's plenty of people that could also be disruptors that might also have that additional experience that they'd like to see in the role.
As far as then, when it comes to the leadership ability, how does he compare to say to others when it comes to leading large operations like the Pentagon?
Well, he has been a Fox News commentator and he's been at two different veterans organizations, both of which have raised some questions about his behavior at those organizations and whether or not he left them as financially sound as he found them.
You know, those are legitimate questions for the Senate committee and for his confirmation hearing to see if he can really lead an organization that, you know, itself struggles with its own financial staying within the books and passing in audits and all of that.
But, you know, the Pentagon is a place where there's complicated problems every single day.
And he may be the person to lead it, but there are definitely questions of whether he has the management experience to be able to navigate this really, really complex bureaucracy.
And will prioritize and strengthen my work to prevent sexual assault within the ranks.
As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources.
She mentioned a full audit of the Pentagon.
Why is that important?
Well, because the Pentagon has failed in audit year after year after year.
You know, I was at a conversation this weekend where the Marine Corps got to say that they passed their audit.
And that's a big deal because we've had systems, you know, the Pentagon's budgeting process is a mess.
It is knotted in programs being re -baselined, which basically means a program gets too expensive over time, and so they reset the cost and what that baseline number is.
And so it's been literally impossible to get a good sense of where the Pentagon is at financially.
And that has been not only Senator Ernst's priority, but a lot of senators have said, you know, it's time to get the Pentagon back on financial responsibility.
And that second part where she says the senior official who will uphold the roles and values of our servicemen, she highlighting her past work in preventing sexual assault.
Can you elaborate on that?
What's going on in the Pentagon on those fronts?
So the Pentagon has made a lot of strides in the last decade or so to really tackle sexual assault in the ranks.
Improving reporting, trying to create a system where victims feel like they can come forward.
When often the person that assaulted them or allegedly assaulted them is either within their unit and then they have to go to their commander and report up to their direct commander what has happened.
And that itself is an intimidating process and you've seen both through a lot of legislation that has moved through in the last couple years and inside the Pentagon there's been an effort to get that prosecution to get that justice kind of outside of the unit and outside of the ranks.
That's been important to Ernst.
That's been important to a number of female members and male members of Congress who want to see this solved.
The military is 17 % female.
Not all victims of sexual assault are female, but a vast majority of them are.
And this is a big issue for them.
Yes, I would like to add that the deep state who wants to stay in Syria,
like last time they broke Donald Trump's order to leave Syria, they still want to stay there.
Sure.
Well, the Pentagon's reasons for staying in Syria for the last few years is because whenever you have a vacuum, A power vacuum.
That tends to become the perfect nesting ground for terror and terrorism.
And you saw that in 2014 with the rise of ISIS.
Started in Iraq, spread across into Syria so they had this wide swath of territory.
And that's literally why the U .S. troops moved back into Syria and have stayed there to protect that.
There are a lot of questions as to how long those troops need to be there, whether they are completely there for ISIS.
Steve.
Steve Aulce is in Maryland.
Republican Line.
You're next up.
Hi.
Hi, Pedro.
I'm just calling in support of the exit.
You know, watch him on Fox on the weekends.
And I just think he's an exemplary guy.
He's got two bronze stars.
He's an actual war hero, which many of the people who have been in the military can't say they have one bronze star yet, too.
And I think he's a good Catholic with seven kids.
And, you know, what we believe in the Catholic faith, we sin, we can go to confession, and we're all good.
So, you know, I mean...
I give the man credit for what he's done as a military man.
I think the military troops would embrace a military person who's been there and walked that walk.
And I go to the VFW and American Legion where there's a lot of military folks there.
Most of them will have a drink once in a while.
I don't know why they think he's an alcoholic.
I don't think he's had a DWI.
They would have brought that up.
I think he's an exemplary guy, and I'm hoping that he gets in there.
I think he's going to do a good job and get our Army back up to stuff.
Okay.
These are all things that will need to come out in a confirmation hearing.
You've seen over the past few weeks as Pete Hegseth has been kind of vetted publicly in the media, reports of serious drinking about his questions about his drinking at Fox News.
Whether or not he's been able to successfully manage these two veterans groups he's worked for, but probably one of the most pointed is this 2017 police report out of Monterey, California, where an alleged sexual assault took place between him and a female who had been attending a Republican conference out there.
He paid a cash settlement to that woman, who has not been named yet, who may be part of the confirmation hearing.
That story may come out.
This has been one of the big points of contention for Senator Ernst and for others.
How do you deal with, if you're going to have a changemaker who might question whether we need all this education about preventing sexual assault in the military, but there's this alleged event that has taken place, that really needs to be vetted out thoroughly.
And you saw Senator Ernst kind of get at that.
She spoke to it most directly this weekend, where she told a group of Men and women at the Reagan Forum, I am a sexual assault survivor.
She had to sit across from Pete Hegseth, who is charged with one, and really understand the gravity of that situation.
Those victims need to be heard.
If this happened, it needs to be vetted.
And for women who are serving in the military, there needs to be a fair and private and just way for them to be able to seek help.
Again, it's Republicans 202 -748 -8001, Democrats 202 -748 -8000, Independents 202 -748 -8002, and if you are a former or active military, 202 -748 -8003.
We're focusing on the top position, but what other positions should people pay attention to, particularly as the President -elect makes these choices when it comes to the overall operation of the Defense Department?
Sure.
Well, his number two pick...
is basically like the mayor of the Pentagon, and you know that person will be looking at, where does the Pentagon need to invest in weapon systems?
What kind of big policy changes does it need to make?
And so you've seen someone come from the tech sector who is highly experienced in hypersonics, which is great, because the Pentagon needs to move in that direction.
Depending on where we go with the service secretaries, I think we have two of the three nominated so far.
When it comes then to the overall philosophy with the incoming administration, is it more interventionist, less or more isolationist, and how does that depend on how the DOD operates?
You know, I would think that during the campaign there was more of an isolationist bent that, you know, it's time to get the U .S. out of these wars, it's time not to jump into them.
But we have a very critical date coming up during the Trump administration, 2027, and that is China's stated deadline for when it sees itself to be ready and able to invade Taiwan.
That will be a big test for this administration.
How do you respond?
Do you continue to arm Taiwan to the point where it can be a deterrence?
Will the U .S. really stand up to its commitments and assist in the defense of Taiwan if that comes up?
And I suppose Ukraine still becomes part of the conversation, even though a new administration comes in.
Ukraine is definitely part of the conversation, and you've seen these ideas float that maybe it's time to get to a negotiated settlement, maybe under the Trump administration.
There won't be these massive weapons packages, these billions of dollars worth of ammunition and air defense missiles that will go forward to Ukraine, and maybe that pushes Ukraine to say, okay, we have to negotiate now.
We see this week the House takes up the NDA, that policy bill that takes a look at spending at the Pentagon.
What was the Trump administration's general approach to spending for the Pentagon in its first term?
It was an increase in spending.
An argument that they made the biggest pay increase for service members.
That got debated right and left as to whether or not that really was the biggest.
But the general idea was that it was time to raise pay and it was time to increase the budget so that the Pentagon can modernize like it needs to.
There's a debate going on, even as all this is going on, about efficiency within the government.
With the two men tapped to do that, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
Is the DOD concerned about these efforts, particularly if it gets pointed at them?
I'm sure it will get pointed at them too.
The Pentagon is getting close to having almost a trillion dollar annual budget.
It's all over, it's about 850 right now and if you count in the DOE spending for like our nuclear weapons programs, we're already over a trillion.
So that's, you know, that's a big number in people's heads and somewhere in there there's got to be some fat, right?
But in previous years they have taken it out of N -Strength because some of your most expensive We're good.
You've seen this incoming administration kind of float the idea of maybe benefits need to be scaled back.
What do you do with these big procurement programs like the F -35 that Elon Musk definitely has in his target?
Let's hear from Duffy.
Duffy in Tennessee, active military.
You're on with our guest.
Good morning.
Yes, good morning.
Yeah, I'm just calling about this nominee, Pete Hexett, or how you call him?
Well, I've been in the military for over 23 years.
And one of the biggest problems we've had is the Army SHOP issue, which is the Army Sexual Harassment Assault and Response Program.
I think it's going to tarnish the whole, you know, the whole effort of that program if we have somebody who has been accused of sexual, you know, harassment or assault on women.
I'm a father right now of two daughters.
I'm training to, you know, become officers in the Armed Forces.
And it is my, you know...
Tuffy, thank you.
That's why I was mentioning this is a big deal both to Senator Ernst and to many of the senators who will be hearing from Peg Seth in that confirmation hearing if we get to that point.
How the military handles sexual assault is important for not only just the culture of the military, but the military's future.
The fastest growing area for recruitment is females.
So you can't really have an organization that makes it so hostile to women.
So that's really wrangled people, too.
It's been about 20 years since the first areas where women were able to kind of break through, such as like when women were able to fly combat missions starting in 1994.
And then in 2015, finally getting through that kind of last hurdle, which was your infantry, your combat positions, so that all positions were open to women to be able to serve.
Since then, we've had about 150 women finish the Army Ranger course.
You've got two serving in Naval Special Warfare.
You've got more than almost 5 ,000 serving in artillery, armor, and infantry positions in the Army.
And so putting that genie back in the bottle would be incredibly difficult and would be on top of the sexual assault, the sexual harassment.
What are you telling these women who have raised their hand to serve?
This is Tara Kopp joining us for this conversation.
Covers the Pentagon for the Associated Press.
Let's hear from Gary.
Former military.
He's in Cleveland.
Go ahead, Gary.
You're on.
Hey, good morning.
Hey, I just wanted to check in regards to all the hoopla in regards to Pete.
That's it.
You know, he's been accused, but he was never prosecuted.
I don't believe that they have anything on this guy.
You're still on, Gary.
Go ahead.
Yeah, he's ex -military and I think he would do an excellent job.
I'm looking at the current administration and Lloyd Austin and the way he's conducted himself and awfully disappointed in that man.
How so?
How so?
He took a week off and never notified nobody when he was in the hospital.
Okay.
That's one week in a 41 -year career for Lloyd Austin who You know, served 41 years, retired as a four -star general, has come back to be Secretary of Defense, has multiple combat tours,
has led men in combat, so the combat experience is pretty even -keeled there.
That was probably one of his biggest mistakes during his tenure, to not inform not only the public, but the president, the press, that he had been diagnosed with cancer and he was seeking treatment, and then when he...
Mm -hmm.
Everyone's kind of leaning far the other way and letting everybody know.
You know, even if it's for like a minor procedure.
So operationally, a sea change as far as communication is concerned.
Yes.
Let's hear from Tennessee Democrat's line.
Dee, hello.
Hi, you're on.
Yes, I have a problem with Pete.
He has an alcohol problem.
My husband was in the military for 18 years, went through the gate.
Drinking, driving, went to detox.
And we spoke over on Pete's headset saying he's going to stop drinking.
But has he been to rehab?
Has he done anything to help him with his alcohol problem to be over this administration dealing with all our active duty soldiers and others?
And knowing that he has a problem and just to take his word to say he's going to stop drinking.
Okay, Dee, thanks.
That was one of the more surprising things to come out in the last week or so is that you have a nominee for the Secretary of Defense saying that if you get picked and if you go through confirmation process, you won't have a drop of alcohol on the job.
That seems like a lot of pressure to add to yourself right as you're becoming Secretary of Defense and maybe that's something that needs to be considered beforehand.
But again, this is something for the Senators to weigh and to really dig into and for the background check.
The FBI is starting a deep background check on the nominee, and if there are deeper issues, they'll probably come out.
If I'm a defense contractor, how am I looking at the incoming administration?
You're looking at it that you're likely going to see a big shift to drones.
You've seen Elon Musk, who definitely has the president's ear, and some of kind of the top defense firms like Andral, really pushing toward a different...
From Bob.
Bob is in Kansas, former military.
Bob, hello, you're on.
Yeah, thank you.
I served in the Marine Corps from 1966 to 1987.
I had 22 months in NAMM from December of 66 through August of 68 up north in the I Corps.
And as far as these bronze stars go, I hate to say this, but the Army gives them out like they're candy.
Okay?
The main thing is, Hedgesmith, he might have two bronze stars.
But he does not have the combat Vs on those Bronze Stars.
So that does not.
That means he didn't get those in combat.
He got those just probably for trying to be a good old boy or writing himself up for one.
And I would never support him because of the way he treats women.
And I have two daughters, two granddaughters, two great -granddaughters.
I wouldn't support him.
My one daughter, she could have...
Okay.
Bob in Kansas.
So you can see that there's a pretty divided, I guess, population on Hegseth.
Whether or not you're just gung -ho about the change agent that he could possibly be, there is some argument to be made to bring in a completely fresh set of eyes.
You know, you can argue that the way that has happened for the last 20 years, you still don't have a Pentagon that passes an audit.
You still have weapons programs that are running way behind schedule and vastly over cost.
What did you make of the caller's characterization of the Bronze Star?
A lot of bronze stars are given out.
A lot of medals are given out because you served during that campaign.
You were there during that, you know, the V device that he's talking about for Valor, if that's in a combat situation.
There are different medals and different awards that are given out for, you know, service in combat versus you were there, it was a dangerous place, you got the job done, here's the medal.
One more call.
We will hear from David.
David in Wisconsin, Republican line.
Hi there.
Good morning, C -SPAN.
I was and Hank Steff is a good -looking guy, apparently,
and women seem to flock themselves around good -looking men, rather than, you know, a lot of these guys that are sitting there saying, Hank Steff this, Hank Steff that, well, they probably aren't as good -looking as him.
And the truth is, women flock around good -looking men, and it's probably not all his fault if something might have happened.
He probably wouldn't have liked to have happened, too.
But I think he'd be a great guy for it.
And I'd like the Democrats to go ahead and fight everybody that Trump puts in there, wants to put in there.
And I think people are wearing thin on that.
Okay, got your point, Collin.
Thanks, Tarkop.
What should viewers watch out for in the days and weeks ahead when it comes to the Defense Department under the Trump administration?
So a lot of probably quick changes.
One in particular, Space Command.
So Senator Tuberville of Alabama has been pushing for Space Command to be in Alabama under the Biden administration.
It was awarded to Colorado Springs.
Tuberville has been championing HEGSETH throughout this entire process.
I think that's probably one of the quick decisions you'll see that they will revert and send it back to Alabama.
I think that the transgender decision will probably also be reversed fairly quickly.
I think that the Defense Department, under whoever is picked for the Secretary of Defense and under Trump, will quickly undo Secretary Austin's Reproductive Care Act, where after Dobbs,
he decided that women who are assigned to states where there's no choice in reproductive care can get their travel and their expenses for the travel.
Reimbursed so that they can have the time off and they can go get the care that they need.
I think those are three very quick ones that will happen.
You will probably see a deployment of troops along the border if they're in Title 10 federal status and what does that mean for the country and whether or not they might be used to round up migrants.
I mean, that's going to be a big one because it will really challenge how federal troops are used on U .S. soil.
The women in combat decision I think actually may...
Stay, because I think there's a lot of pushback on that one.
That seems to be a cultural issue that energized a lot of people, maybe turned a few heads, hexed us away.
But ultimately, we've had women serving honorably in combat for years now.
Our guest writes for the Associated Press.
You can find her work at ap .org.
Tara Kopp, thanks for giving us your time.
Thank you for having me.
We finish off the program with Open Forum.
Again, if you want to call 202 -748 -8001 for Republicans, 202 -748 -8000 for Democrats, Independents, 202 -748 -8002.
We'll take those calls when Washington Journal continues.
And one of the things I did yesterday was play basketball due to the influence of my bald -headed chief of staff, Dylan Lazovich, and my legislative director, Justin Folsom.
Who I have no comments for.
And quite frankly, so if I shed a tear while I'm up here today, it won't be because I'm emotional, it's because my back is killing me right now.
Look, I've seen a number of these exit speeches.
To be honest with you, they remind me a bit of an obituary.
And the truth is, this is the end of this moment in time.
And the press!
My God, the press.
Look, your job is to hold us accountable.
Do it.
And if any of these folks don't like it, and occasionally they won't, just remember that democracy and accountability go hand in hand.
You need to be able to do your job.
And thank you for doing the job you're doing.
As I close, I would say this.
This democracy has resulted in the greatest country that's ever existed.
It is because of our forefathers' ability to compromise and think clearly about the challenges ahead and set the rules that would address these challenges.
The USA exists as the greatest country ever to exist because of previous generations and senators and public officials exhibiting the ability to make sound decisions based on facts and reality.
Not decisions promoting political power, but realistic decisions promoting a strong future for our country and for future generations.
To say that I'm worried about this country's ability to maintain the strongest economy and the most powerful military in the world Washington Journal continues.
And that was Democratic Senator Jon Tester on his farewell speech.
He's serving the state of Montana, a portion of that from the Senate floor yesterday.
You can see more of that on our website at c -span .org.
Also, when it comes to events that happen in and around Washington, another way you can see it is our free video app at c -span now.
But you can check those things for video and things that we've taken in.
We're good to go.
We're good to go.
This is by Simon Levien saying that Ms. Trump, who is President -elect Donald J. Trump's daughter -in -law, made the announcement Sunday in a post on X.
She gave no indication of the next move, but many Republican allies have lobbied for her to be appointed as the next senator from Florida should Senator Marco Rubio's seat become open.
It goes on to say this story, saying several Republicans, including Senator Rick Scott of Florida, have publicly supported Ms. Trump in an interview with the Associated Press.
Again, that's the New York Times taking a look at the future of the Senate.
When it comes to Capitol Hill, we showed you this before, but Tulsi Gabbard on the halls of Capitol Hill now making the rounds in her bid to become part of the Trump administration and pass that confirmation process.
The Washington Post picks up with after meeting with Senator James Lankford, Ms. Gabbard told reporters that she fully supported the comments the president made over the weekend when it comes to Syria.
She goes on to say this, my own views and experiences have been shaped by my multiple deployments and seeing firsthand the cost of war and the threat of Islamic terrorism.
It's one of the many reasons why I appreciate President Trump's leadership and his election where he's fully committed as he has said over and over to bringing about an end to wars, demonstrating peace through strength.
Yes, I wanted to give back a follow -up on that Marine that called in earlier.
No disrespect to the Army.
But it's about as tough as...
It's tougher to get your license plate renewed at DMV than it is to get a Bronze Star in the Army.
That's number one.
Number two, I'd like somebody to question him thoroughly on why he was asked to stand down when he was deployed and the unit turned him down and told him to go home.
And thirdly, if you look at Pete Hegseth like any other person that Trump has nominated, they're just yes boys.
And that's all I've got to say.
Yes boys.
Also from Washington, D .C. on our independent line, this is Alex.
Hello.
Could do a job of bringing on guests that talk about the need for change and the problems, as opposed to people who are just interested in basically digging dirt on the nominees.
Because the truth is that there are big problems.
I actually used to work in the 500 defense.
I saw a million -dollar project stall for years.
And a lot of people who work in that area and a lot of people in the country understand that the system is badly broken.
And when you bring on people like the last AP reporter, who really just talk about, you know, Digging dirt and then saying, well, Lloyd Austin did a great job and all of this stuff.
It comes off as highly, highly partisan.
And I hope that you all understand that and understand that as the press, your job is not to carry water for one side.
And it's not to just do what the AP does.
It's to help the American people get what they want out of the government.
And in this case, it is change.
And if you don't talk about the problems that are underlying the reason that these nominees are being made.
You're really missing the vast majority of the story and the problems will just continue.
The defense budget will grow.
So Alex, problems such as what?
What?
Problems such as what?
Give me an example.
Well, the defense department, the trillion dollars that were headed towards the defense budget, which will be the largest spending item, and the fact that that hasn't correlated with winning any wars, it's correlated with the rise of China, it hasn't correlated with America being safer.
Yes, I'm calling because I get so sick and tired of the news media and all of y 'all...
You're going to have to watch the language if you're going to call in the program.
So a couple of rules when you call in, ladies and gentlemen.
If you pick the line that best represents you, that's the starting place.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, that's how we've divided it.
If you've called in the last 30 days, if you can hold off from doing so, we appreciate that.
And as always, watch the language.
This is the front page of USA Today this morning.
And their analysis is Susan Page writing, Trump already front and center.
Influence on the world stage is stark contrast.
To 2016, she writes, saying, the world isn't waiting for Donald Trump's inauguration.
Joe Biden is still president, but the focus of other world leaders and the responsibility for the world's problems is fast shifting to the man who is set to move into the Oval Office in six weeks.
Witness Mr. Trump's meeting in Paris over the weekend with the French President Emmanuel Macron and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and consider negotiations between Moscow and Kiev to end their three -year -old war.
And the president -elect's declaration on social media Saturday of his determination to stay out of the stunning upheaval unfolding in Syria.
This is not our fight, he wrote in all caps for emphasis.
And at Mar -a -Lago in Florida just last week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau unannounced a rival to discuss, amongst other things, Mr. Trump's fresh threat to impose 25 % tariffs on goods.
Hi, how you doing?
I was just calling because in New Jersey for the past two weeks, we've had unidentified drones flying all over our neighborhoods, flying all over the place.
Phil Murphy says the FBI doesn't know what they are, the FAA doesn't know what they are.
And I guess this kind of ties into Pete Hegseth being...
Okay.
Carolyn up next.
She's in Ohio.
Democrats line.
Well, hello.
I thought it was interesting.
I watched the Chicago news this morning, even though I'm in Ohio.
And one of the first things I heard talked about was that the secretary who's in charge, the incoming secretary who will be in charge of the border, the man who's supposed to do the deporting of immigrants,
he's going to start in Chicago.
And do the mass deportations starting in Chicago.
And I just had to smile to myself because I figured that the incoming President Trump would target states and cities who did not vote for him.
So it seems to me like he's going to target Democratic cities for the mass deportation.
And he'll harm those cities.
Okay.
Carolyn in Ohio talking about that story.
She heard about Chicago.
This is the front page or the online version of the Chicago Sun -Times this morning.
This is the headline.
If you're interested in reading more, chicago .suntimes .com, the website if you want to see that story.
Linda in Iowa, Republican Line.
Good morning.
I want to talk about what's ever been charged and where was Neely's family when he was going through all that crisis.
You need to care about people when they're alive, not when they're dead.
You have to show that love to the people.
When they're alive, so that they know that they're cared for.
You can't keep kicking them down the road and calling it mental health.
He was very involved with drugs, he had a very troubled life, and his family wasn't there for him.
The family has to take responsibility.
You can't expect to sue that man for money when it was your fault you didn't love him when he was alive.
Put your brains in your head and start caring for each other.
The more serious charge of second -degree manslaughter was dismissed Friday after the jury was unable to reach a verdict.
Here is David, David in Baltimore, Independent Line.
Good morning.
Thanks for taking my call.
Someone earlier in the show mentioned the founding fathers, and they are largely responsible for the nation that we have today.
I need to look back and examine how they got their education.
And their main textbook was the Holy Bible.
America has really, really a need to give credit where credit is due.
And if anyone cannot give credit to God for his own life, he is not the judge of any other life.
We need to read the Bible and believe, if not the person who the Bible speaks of,
Okay, Lawrence in New York State, Democrats line, hello.
Lawrence in New York, hello.
You know, our family came to the United States after World War II.
In other words, we were war refugees.
And it still took us four years to get permission to come to this great country.
Today, everybody just walks right in and does nothing.
They're so ignorant of this country, they don't even want to speak the language.
That's one thing.
And so I think all these people should be deported tomorrow.
And another thing is, you know, I'm a Democrat.
Been a Democrat all my life, basically.
But you know what?
Lately, I think I've been losing the fact that I'm not Democrat anymore.
Because my mind -reading ability has stopped.
All these people that call in, they gotta be beautiful mind -readers because I can't read all these politicians' minds and what they say.
That's Lawrence there in New York State.
Axios reporting this morning that the start of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long -awaited testimony in his corruption trial on Tuesday.
Brings more uncertainty to the chaos and conflict in the Middle East.
His testimony, which he repeatedly tried to postpone and is expected to go on for months, will be a pivotal moment in the Prime Minister's fight for political survival and his personal freedom.
He was indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in November of 2019.
He is pleaded not guilty to all of the charges in Case 4000.
He was charged with a bribery for allegedly giving hundreds of millions of dollars in regulatory benefits to an Israeli telecommunications tycoon.
So that's taking place internationally.
Let's hear from Alan.
Alan joins us from Tennessee, Republican Line.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
Just a couple things.
I was a senior lieutenant colonel in the Army.
I was also a social work officer, so I'm pretty familiar with Army sexual assault.
I am aggrieved by hearing Hegstaff simply described as that, either womanizer or alcoholic.
I'm kind of surprised that my Marine buddies, Semper Fi, by the way, would make a statement that the Army hands out Bronze Stars.
I agree, some people get Bronze Stars for being in theater at the right time, and everybody knows the difference between a V -device.
But Hegseth has a combat infantryman's badge, which I'm sure any Marine can appreciate, having worked with them many times.
The other thing is, if Hegseth was such a loose cannon, as suggested, how is it that he didn't have a history of sexual assault in the Army that has much better monitoring than civilians do?
And then finally, just let the process work.
Let's stop character assassinating.
He went through a divorce, and at the time...
I would expect any self -respecting Christian mother to chastise him regarding having ended probably what you might call is a perfectly good marriage.
For whatever reason, I don't think acrimony or whatever the story...
I actually wonder what the source of the letter was, to be honest with you, though everybody does not doubt its authenticity.
Just give the system a chance, please.
Oh, final point, please, if I could have it.
There are studies at places like Public Health Command and other places that will show you that they did find that women would have more lower...
That's Alan there in Tennessee.
President Biden expected to make remarks this afternoon touting his economic agenda.
And also making the case that it has been more effective than the kind of tax cuts likely to be implemented by the incoming Trump administration.
He will deliver what the White House official described as a major address on his economic legacy at the Brookings Institution here in D .C.
He's expected to boast about legislative investments in infrastructure, manufacturing and local communities, as well as job creation during his four years in office.
Hi, I'd like to talk about the subway murder.
First of all, I'm a woman, and I've been in the New York City subway back when it was really bad in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
And you just have to learn how to have some self -control.
If I killed somebody every time I was approached for my life, there'd be dozens of dead people.
This man said he was hungry, he was thirsty.
That's not threatening.
If you're used to being on the city streets, Now, I lived in DC for many years.
You'd reach into your backpack and you'd give them a water or a couple of bucks.
The social services are not adequate.
They need to provide better services.
I was in the Navy.
This guy was a Marine.
He was not from New York City.
He was not familiar with the environment.
He got frightened.
He was scared.
And he took his training, his deadly lethal training from being a Marine, and I worked with Marines because I was in the Navy, and he murdered this man.
And people were afraid.
And I think overall it's a tragedy.
This man should have gotten his court.
And the woman who called in and said his family should have been helping him.
When you're a family member of somebody with substance abuse, I'm calling out the medical industry here.
They tell you to abandon that person.
They tell you.
Let them hit rock bottom.
Do nothing for them.
And so everybody's responsible for this man's death.
It's a tragedy overall.
And this man who murdered that man on the subway does not belong in New York City.
He thought he was going to be a big man, come down and be a bartender in New York City.
Okay.
That's Mary Rose there in Alexandria, Virginia.
Former Representative Matt Gaetz has a new job.
This reporting by Politico.
He's found an outlet for his sharp tongue and yearning for the limelight, far -right broadcaster One America News Network.
The former lawmaker from Florida's panhandle and MAGA provocateur will soon host his own hour -long political talk show on OAN, which heavily supports President -elect Donald Trump.
OAN promoted the show in a series of graphics Tuesday called Gates a Powerhouse in the release and describing the hire as, quote, mega MAGA investment that will air weeknights at 9 p .m. Trenton, in Georgia, Democrats line on this open forum.
Go ahead.
Yes, I'm a first -time caller, and I'm just calling about the mass deportations and the spending of money that people are talking about, say, for immigrants.
I wonder, do people know that if you come from Cuba and you step foot on the United States soil, you receive benefits for it?
Eight months and then, once you're here for one year and one day, you become a citizen and you automatically qualify for social security and all benefits.
So if you're a 65 year old woman and you come here and you're here for a year, you get full social security and Medicare and you have only been here one year.
And I just don't you know, nobody really knows about that Trenton in Georgia there.
This is from Roll Call this morning, saying Republican lawmakers who backed the tougher immigration policies touted by President -elect Donald Trump and top leaders on his transition team have started plotting how to use unified control of government next year to best address funding and policy goals for the next administration.
Senate Republicans are planning as much as $85 billion for border security as part of an initial bill for budget reconciliation.
The process that enables the chamber to get around the 60 -vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster on legislation.
The GOP is set to have a 53 -47 majority next year in the Senate.
Much of what Republicans plan to do with immigration legislation and spending bills depends on what could be included in that reconciliation process and what moves the Trump administration makes with executive actions and immigration enforcement.
That's rollcall .com.
If you want to see part of those immigration plans for the incoming Trump administration, Yes, I'd like to suggest that they should use AI to go through the budget of the Pentagon.
That would help.
And also, I'd like to give a shout out to Luigi Mangioli for all the procedures that have been denied.
Okay.
That's Erwin there.
When it comes to activity on Capitol Hill and oversight by the federal government, particularly Congress, the United States Postal Service is under the view of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee today.
It will feature a hearing with Louis DeJoy, the Postmaster General, talking about the service of the Postal Service.
And you can see that hearing on a variety of ways if you wish.
We're good to go.
I think?
We keep archives and stories there of this program and other things that we take in during the week and days as far as the coverage of Washington.
And if you're interested in searching those things specifically, there's a search box at the top that you can use to find out.