Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
|
Time
Text
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, including Buckeye Broadband.
Buckeye Broadband supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll take your calls and comments live.
Then a look at new research on how much wealthy Americans pay in federal taxes with Tax Foundation senior economist Erica York and New York Democratic Congressman Paul Tonko on the looming federal spending deadline, the incoming Trump administration, and Democrats' priorities in the 119th Congress.
Also, Associated Press Pentagon correspondent Tara Kopp discusses potential changes in the Defense Department during the next Trump administration.
Washington Journal starts now.
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 Vivakaramaswami, to start the program.
You can share your opinion on defense spending on if and on if Washington should spend more or less on defense.
Here's how you can call and let us know.
For Republicans, it's 202-748-8001, Democrats 202748-8000, and Independents 202748-8002.
We've included a line for active and former military.
If you want to give us your thoughts on defense spending and if Washington should spend more or less, 202-748-8003 is how you call that number.
You can also use that number to text us, and you can post on Facebook and on X.
The National Defense Authorization Act is the bill that would give the government money, permission to spend the money for the Defense Department.
In the breakdown of it and breaking defense, it shows where some of that spending will go, saying that the defense bill includes a number of key provisions that were requested by the Defense Department.
That would include permission to ink multi-year contracts for submarines and certain missiles, $300 million to support Ukraine.
It also added funds to buy platforms not originally requested by the U.S. military.
That including a handful of support vehicles for the Navy and additional F-35 joint strike fighters, C-130J cargo planes, the P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, and CMV-202 OSPE tilter rotors.
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, 202748-8001.
Democrats, 202748-8000.
And Independents, 202748-8002.
For you former and former and active military, call us at 202-748-8003 and use that same line to text us as well.
There is a breakdown taking a look at facts about defense spending.
You can find it at the website PGPF.
When it comes to national defense, here's just some of the infographics that you can find there saying national defense is a vital priority and a fundamental responsibility of the federal government.
It's also significant to the part of the budget, defense spending accounting for 13% of all federal spending.
That was in 2023.
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.
I'm 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 and 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 need to have to spend more?
Well, 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, 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.
Yes.
Ed O'Donnell, 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?
Our first priority should be to negotiate with all countries in the world to do away with their militaries.
Absolute pacifism is the key.
Okay, Christine, in Berke, Virginia, Republican line on this idea of more or defense 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 just it's gotten kind of erroneous.
It's too much when we should be looking at other things like education.
Because I just, you cannot convince me that the amount of money that they're trying to get is worthwhile.
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 Day 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, and also adding more drone and anti-drone and also better cybersecurity there too.
And then from Alex Jaybrew, 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, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
X is at C-SPAN WJ.
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, 202748-8003.
And you can also use that same number if you want to text us your thoughts this morning, too.
Phil in Orange Park, Florida, Democrats line.
You're next up on this idea of spending more or less on military, on defense.
Yes, good morning.
We should spend more.
I think a lot of people, just a few people as I just heard, saying we're spending too much.
Look, look at the value of a car right now.
When we're talking 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, 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.
So 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 thinks are going to 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.
Thanks, Dave, Nicole.
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 pretty soon.
I mean, that war with Russia and Ukraine, so much money given to them, we need to build up our military.
That's really all I got to say.
Thank you.
When you say something's going to happen, what convinces you of that?
Well, they got drones on the air all the time.
They have spies spying on us.
Somebody's planning on doing something to us.
Okay.
That's Robert there 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 from military.com saying that junior enlisted service members will get a 14.5% pay raise next year under that compromise 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 is the story where you can find that story on the NDAA as it's known.
That's the authorization bill that gives the federal government permission to spend the money, almost $900 million slated.
And giving your thoughts overall when it comes to this idea of spending more or less when it comes to defense matters.
Buford in Alabama, Democrats line, go ahead.
Yeah, I think that we should keep it the way it is.
No more, no less.
And back to the end, a cost of living crazy.
And I think it's a good keeping it the way it is.
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 Durham, 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, especially when there's a surplus of equipment and things that just will not be of any use in a new war of technology, which is what it's all about.
So as far as the spending goes, it has to be carefully monitored and audited.
Thank you.
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, you have the large weapons, the tanks, not remote, like 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 these electronic surveillance, as well as knowing what the enemy is 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 there in New York, a former military.
Again, that line, if you are former or active, give us your perspective.
2027488003 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% to 10% of GDP, about three times higher than the current spending relative to the size of the economy.
More there.
And there's the chart that the site was referencing when it comes to the amount spent on military compared to the gross domestic product of the United States.
As you look at that, we'll continue on our calls on if we should spend more or less on defense.
This is Evan in Alexandria, Virginia.
Democrats line hi.
Hi, 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 and maybe spend more on things that are readily needed.
And we're luckily, well, not luckily, I mean, because of the wars going on in 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, 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, bomb indiscriminately because they will hide among civilian populations.
And so you actually have to sometimes get in there on the ground with troops.
And I don't know, maybe eventually you can do it all, you know, robots and UAB, but I don't know how the world is going to see that when you have, you know, robot warfare going in and killing humans.
But, you know, I think as America is the largest, obviously, 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 the balance of power of, say, Iranian, Chinese, or North Korean kind of influence when America's influence wanes.
Okay.
Evan there.
And 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 budgeted salaries and benefits for the 1.3 million active duty and 800,000 reserve uniform personnel for FY 2025 totals about $182 billion.
This reflects the costs of an all-volunteer armed forces as opposed to the cheaper alternative of conscription.
In addition, a significant share of the roughly $340 billion operations and maintenance budget will go to paying the 750,000 full-time civilian employees of the Department of Defense, as well as contractors, roughly $170 billion earmarked for procurement, about $143 billion for research, development, testing, and evaluation.
Gary, up next in Ohio, Republican line.
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.
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 just 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 highest spenders combined, including Russia and China.
So this kind of making a religion out of the military budget, a trillion dollars a year of every tax here, depends on demonizing other countries to scare the American people.
And Arthur Vandenberg, a leading senator in the Senate in 1950, 49 or 50, told Harry Truman that he had to scare the hell out of it,
those are the exact words, the American people to justify thousands of bases around the world and Truman's plans for massive intervention around the world.
It's sick and it's twisted.
And 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 aliases, 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, in 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.
202748-8001 for Republicans, 2027, 8,000 for Democrats, and Independents, 2027, 8,000.2.
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 at a 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 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, oh, 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 type of investment and what type of spending is actually going to achieve the goal of the U.S. Defense Department, which is to protect the U.S. homeland, to stay out of wars, and, God forbid, if we are in wars, to win them.
That's not the question that's being asked today.
It's not the way it's been run.
Again, that Aspen Security Forum with Vivek Ramaswamy is still available at our website.
If you want to go to cspan.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 202-748-8,000.
Independents 202-748-8002.
The 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 autonomous platforms across multiple domains by August of 2025 to counter China's military buildup in a cost-efficient manner.
Defense SCOOP is where you find that story.
That's part of the technology aspects of this bill, the NDAA, as it's known, being voted on by the House this week.
The authorization bill for funding matters for the Defense Department, a price tag of close to $900 billion.
This is from Indiana Allen, Democrats line.
Hi.
Good morning, and thank you for taking my call.
Longtime listener, big time fan.
I definitely agree spending does need to be cut at least by half.
I'll say it's not how much you spend, but it's how you spend it.
It's ironic that Department says something for us.
Department of Defense has the biggest budget, and the Department of Education has the smallest budget.
I always thought if we invested more into 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 one and a half trillion dollars, 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 right now started doing trouble with the Dory Miller.
All the rest of the world, there are five aircraft carriers.
And I think even 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 and 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 off 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 Rabik Walmaswamy 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 I 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.
Well, 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 anymore, it was assumed it was 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 need to invest in it.
So if you really want to save lives, the purpose of defense, I suggest we spend it on public health and 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 war 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, figure out where we can cut.
I think that's good, where we find waste.
By all means, let's go for it.
But we also can't be a military that can only build one attack submarine a year.
That is unacceptable.
Attack submarines are one of the most important things we have to counter China.
And we're saying we're going to modernize to counter China.
One attack submarine is not going to do it.
We've got to have F-35s.
We're going to need the next generation of air dominance fighters.
The Air Force is looking at cutting the sixth-generation fighter before we even have it designed because they said there's not enough money to do it.
So I'm just, I'm not opposed to cutting wasteful programs where we find it, but you've got to have military equipment and 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 first, 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, and Independents, 202-748-8002 to participate in Open Forum.
And if you want to text us your thoughts to 202-748-8003.
One more call on the topic of defense spending.
Mike in Massachusetts, Democrats line.
Hi.
Hi.
It's 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.
Be pushed, 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 on 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.
But 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.
Defensure there is defense spending.
Mike in Michigan, hello.
Michael in Lexington, Michigan, Republican line.
Hi.
Hello, Jeff 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.
Independents 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 Zeintz, on Monday outlined the priorities for those final days in office.
In a memo to White House staff, Zeint 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, Israel, and others to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza with the hostages' release, and that President Biden plans to do more to deliver more aid to Ukraine.
And additionally, Mr. Zeint said to expect, as part of President Biden's investing in America agenda, more action on high-speed internet funds to states, Chips and Science Acts incentives fundings, and Inflation Reduction Act funding.
He also said the White House will continue to urge the Senate to confirm more judge nominees.
There's more there in 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.
I think everybody expected to see a much more stiff resistance from Assad's forces.
So the speed at which that unfolded was surprising, I think, to most everybody in the international community.
In terms of what has transpired, of course, as this unfolds, there's a potential that elements in the area, such as ISIS, 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 conducted, 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 research.
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.
And if he's going to pardon every one of them, I think he should probably throw a party with ice cream and cake and stuff at Mar-a-Largo and invite every one of them.
Don't you think?
That's John there in Minnesota.
Let's hear from Robert in Massachusetts, Democrats line.
Yes, first of all, Pedro, you're doing a wonderful job.
And you did not say it was crazy.
And I hope that guy listens to himself later on.
He'll be embarrassed.
Okay.
My first thing is here.
I believe on January the 20th, we're going to enter into a constitutional crisis to its highest levels.
When you have 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 not perfectly right.
The evangelical people have these senators and public men coming to their church, preaching from the pool pit.
That is unacceptable.
You allowing them to come and contaminate your church.
And then one other thing, Pedro.
It's like Groundhog Day again 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.
And he started to come out like a seven-year-old boy.
It was a shame.
Okay.
Robert there in Massachusetts.
Let's hear from Bob in Illinois, Republican line.
Morning, Pedro.
I love C-SPAN.
And to correct that gentleman who said you used the word crazy, you used the phrase newly created.
I went back at DVR to show everybody.
Anyhow, I wanted to talk about the Democrats and blue cities.
Instead of fighting against Trump, I think if they all got behind him and helped 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 take back concerning that crazy statement about Vicasquami.
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.
One of the problems also is that insurance agents get up to $700 in commissions through these plans.
And the federal government dishes out anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 a month for each senior that is enrolled in this private form of what they call Medicare Advantage.
Once you're enrolled in one of these plans to get back to the original Medicare, 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 that does not pay the claims for their patient.
And you have plan administrators that basically decide what goes and what doesn't go.
And some of these rural areas have now medical facilities that are shutting down because Medicare Advantage plans have not paid them for the claims that they had in regards to their patients needing medical care.
So the federal government.
Yep, we got it, Margaret.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Atlanta, Georgia, Democrats line.
Albert, you're next up on this open forum.
Go ahead.
Hey, this is Albert and Atlanta.
I'm going to speak on the defense ex-military.
Okay.
I think some of the money can be cut down from this defense because if we maintain our allegiance with America, it's not going overseas fighting all the time and then maintain with Star Wars with our space coming this way.
We cut down a lot of the budget and maintaining the defense in one area where we really need it.
We don't need it here.
Down here, we'll be fighting together.
Come from up there, we'll be fighting against a common enemy.
So we cut back on the spent 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 needle's walls, by trying to obtain other folks' properties and lands and rights.
So if we cut that back and maintain Star Wars efforts, we can save some money for this for the public.
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 off a Facebook page saying if we're going to be serious about cutting the national debt, we either have to cut defense or 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.
202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8,000 for Democrats, and Independents, 2027488,000 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 they have no, while there's no concrete evidence that Tice is still alive, Special Envoy for Hostages Roger Carstens has been dispatched to Beirut to lead coordination in efforts to find Tice, according to senior U.S. officials.
Two of those officials speaking yesterday on the topic of Austin Tice was President Biden himself, also the State Department's Matthew Miller.
Here are those comments from yesterday.
What does the U.S. know about where Austin Tice might be and is he safe?
We believe he's alive.
We think we can get him back, but we have no direct evidence for that yet.
And Scott should be on the counter.
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, including in the past few days, we will not rest until he is returned home safely to his loved ones.
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 various topics when it comes to the mail being delivered and associated topics.
You can see that on C-SPAN 3 starting at 10 o'clock.
You can also follow along on our free video app, C-SPANNO, and then c-span.org available to you too if you want to see more of that hearing.
Let's hear from William.
William in Wilson, North Carolina, Democrats line on this open forum.
Go ahead, you're next.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Yeah, I want people to just be aware that this country is being taken over by billionaires.
And we got two foreign billionaires that gonna remake our country with this government efficiency program that they propose.
And the Republicans are open in with open arms.
People better beware of what's going on because these foreigners don't know nothing.
They don't care nothing about the medical people.
Thank you.
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?
Well, people that run businesses, they only in it for the money.
The government is here to take care of people.
And people that can run businesses good, they don't care about people.
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, you know, a lot of people are talking about Medicare.
I just really think that the elderly, especially, or the 60 and over, people that have worked 30, 40, 50 years of their life, they go to retire.
They spend tons of money in taxes.
They get Medicare, but then they turn around and have to pay for their Medicare and medicine.
And in my opinion, I think that the elderly or the retirees that have worked and gotten safe security, there should be some kind of a program established for those individuals that their health care is paid for.
I feel that they paid their debt to society by doing all this work for years and years.
And most of our seniors, a lot of them passing now, have built our country.
So I just think that it's way out of control.
And it's so sad to live paycheck to paycheck to paycheck.
And I just feel that there should be something established to where their Medicare or their insurance for health should be completely paid for by the government.
This is Lois that you just heard from Maryland.
Dan, also in Maryland, Democrats line.
Dan, hello.
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 Weddermeyer 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 had 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 combatants because they didn't have a spare tire.
You know, the cost of hammers and the large yeasts involved.
We need to have a complete and utter top-to-bout down audit of the military.
And then we need to cut out the abuse in the large yeasts.
That's my comment, and that's where it ought to go.
Dan and Marilyn, Democrats line.
Thanks.
Let's hear from Willie.
Willie and Mississippi, Independent line.
Hey, good morning.
Thank you, Pedro.
Thank you for taking my calls.
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 if you're going to, 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.
It's very, very sad.
And a lot of you are going to face it quickly.
You're going to face it more so than other people.
People of color already, we've been struggling ever since we've been brought over here in child slavery.
So we know how to adjust.
But the people that think they're doing it for a win, for some type of political win, you're going to see.
You're going to see it's going to hurt.
It's going to hurt you real bad.
Don't come my face or nobody else's face and looking for sympathy.
Thank you.
Willie there in Mississippi.
Let's hear from Bobby in Oklahoma Democrats line.
Bobby in Oklahoma.
Hello.
Yes.
I was calling about the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Just well, get the taste out of their mouth about going cut our Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, because that's not going to happen.
Our governor here, Governor Steed in Oklahoma, has Medicaid for the people in Oklahoma.
And we're not going to let them get their favorite rain because they think Trump had a mandate.
Well, Trump was not elected with a mandate.
The House barely was took over by the Republicans.
So we're not, we're going to like hell.
The poor people is not going to let the Ramaswamy and Elon Musk cut our damn stuff out.
That's not going to happen.
That's Bobby Ver 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 them.
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 picks personal history.
Going on to say, I appreciate Pete Hegseth's responsiveness and respect for the process.
I support 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's elect 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 faced fresh scrutiny Monday on Capitol Hill about her proximity to Russia ally Syria amid the sudden collapse of that country's hardline Assad rule.
She ignored shouted questions about her 2017 visit to the war-torn Syria as she ducked into one of several private meetings with senators who were being asked to confirm Mr. Trump's unusual nominees.
But the Democrat-turned Republican Army National Reserve Lieutenant Colonel delivered a statement in which she reiterated her support for Mr. Trump's America first approach to national security and a more limited U.S. military footprint overseas, saying, I want to address the issue that's in the headlines right now.
I stand in full support and wholeheartedly agree with the statements that President Trump has made over these last few days with regards to developments in Syria.
That is happening on Capitol Hill.
Keep watching.
Keep watching for it as these various nominees visit with senators as part of the confirmation process.
Stan in Michigan, Independent Line.
Go ahead.
You're next up.
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 heard about it early in the summer prior to the election.
Can you tell me whether the Russian warship and Russian suburbs are still off the coast of Florida, down in open waters and 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.
Majority of the states vote against their own interest.
And what I'm thinking is like, they think Elon Musk and Vivekua billionaires are going to represent their interests.
They're wrong.
Switching over to the government, the department that I think needs to be caught.
The federal contracting.
A soldier leaves the military, makes an E4, go works there for federal contracting, and makes twice the amount that we're making in the military.
I think they just need to pay soldiers, military personnel more, and they cut down on some of these federal contractors.
Thank you, Pedro.
We will hear from Tom in Florida Republican line.
Hi.
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 is 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' throat, making them transgenders.
And even James Carvell warned the Democrats what was going on.
And they see 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 they're not.
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 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 QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards, it brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.
And on About Books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Attention middle and high school students across America.
It's time to make your voice heard.
C-SPAN Student Cam Documentary Contest 2025 is here.
This is your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact.
Your documentary should answer this year's question.
Your message to the president.
What issue is most important to you or your community?
Whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories, 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 BookTV's podcast About Books.
With current non-fiction book releases, plus bestseller lists, as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews.
You can find About Books on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
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 individual donors.
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.
So before we start in the details, what's the perception of what wealthy Americans pay and what is the reality?
Yeah, 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 who is paying what because of all of the different deductions and credits and exemptions available in the tax system.
So that gives a perception of unfairness.
We also tend to see lots of stories about individual taxpayers who maybe don't have a large tax bill in a given year.
And so it creates a perception that high-income taxpayers are getting a special break that low and middle income taxpayers don't have access to.
But of course, the data tell a different story and that data comes straight from the Internal Revenue Service.
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 total share of total income taxes 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 structure of the income tax overall is highly progressive.
And that's what we should expect given the graduated income tax rate structure that we have under the income tax system, where when you earn higher income, that higher income is subject to a higher rate within that rate threshold.
Erica York, is there a difference at 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 deductions, either the standard deduction or for higher income taxpayers, they often itemize.
So they take various deductions that are permitted for itemized deductions.
The average rate that you pay overall can be different from the rate that you are, the statutory tax rate that you're in.
Erica York, 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 like 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, the 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, 202748-8001 for Republicans, 202748-8000 for Democrats.
Independents, 202748, 8002.
And if you want to text us, it's 202748-8003.
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 see how tax rates have changed over the period.
And what you see is that there's not a lot of variation unless there is a tax reform law that Congress enacts that significantly changes things.
Otherwise, the tax system kind of just generally hums along without major changes in the average tax rates that people of different income levels face.
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 progressive tax system.
And I would characterize it as a highly progressive tax system when you see the differentials between what those in the top half pay on average and in terms of the share of taxes paid compared to those in the bottom half.
Eric Gurk, 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 below their 2017 level.
And so the takeaway is that if those tax rates expire, if the tax cuts expire and the system reverts back to what it was prior to the new law, that's scheduled to take place in 2026, we would expect tax burdens on taxpayers across the income spectrum to rise.
And we've estimated that at least 62% of taxpayers would see significant tax increases if that law is allowed to expire.
This is Erica 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 though, who defined 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 find debate amongst economists about what should count as income.
Do we count it on an annual cash flow type of basis?
Do we count it on an accrual basis?
But for the purposes here that the IRS uses, it's just that adjusTedros income number from the Form 1040.
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 operates on a tax year, and for a given year, we pay taxes on income earned within that year.
Assets are like the entire holdings.
If you own stock, if you own your home, it's the value of all of that.
And the tax system generally doesn't apply to someone's total wealth and it doesn't apply to their assets until you sell your asset and realize a gain.
At that point, then it would face the capital gains tax.
Here's Valerie.
Valerie in Michigan, Democrat slide.
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 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 10%, the top 10%, on average, taxpayers of all income levels saw a tax cut.
Now, if this tax law expires, which it's scheduled to do starting in 2026, those tax cuts would revert and people would pay higher taxes on their income.
Recall that the major changes of the tax law were lowering the rates and widening the brackets, increasing the standard deduction, increasing the child tax credit, zeroing out the personal exemption, the effect of which boosted the benefits of having children for lower and middle-income families by replacing an exemption with a credit.
Lots of other moving pieces, but altogether resulting in reduction in average tax liabilities.
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 edition 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 of a effect that's occurring here in CBO's model is called a crowdout effect.
And so they assume that when the federal deficit goes down, that provides more capital for businesses to be able to invest.
There's a question of to what extent does that effect really play out in the real economy because the U.S. 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 crowdout 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 for American incomes and for the potential economic effect of extension.
Here's Eric.
Eric is in Connecticut, Independent Line.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
My concern mainly is everything looks pretty on paper, but it's the 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 on a website to pay my taxes, within a week, they're emailing me and telling me, oh, listen, you made a mistake on line 2A.
So, you know, 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 end a lot of these deductions and exemptions and credits that are available that tend to be mostly utilized by high-income taxpayers.
And 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, Yerick, you probably remember how Speaker Paul Ryan, at one time, when he was outspeaker, 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 TCJA 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 clear 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, and so you grow the economy.
And what you find is that on a dynamic analysis, tax cuts aren't as expensive as they look on a conventional basis, but tax cuts rarely fully pay for themselves.
If you significantly cut tax rates, if you significantly boost tax credits, give people more of their money back, then the government is left with less revenue at the end of the day.
And I think that's what we've seen play out.
In that Congressional Budget Office report that we were just discussing, the CBO talks through 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.
And so I think it's a complicated question and a complicated analysis to sort out what is moving where, but I think it's still fair to say that tax cuts do reduce the revenue that the federal government brings in.
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, both through the form of lower corporate returns, if they're invested, if they have a pension, if they have a 401k, and through lower wages.
And so I think remembering that economic burden of the corporate tax is important when we call for higher corporate tax, because it's not just going to fall on some wealthy shareholders.
It's going to fall on workers at corporations too.
Jack is up next.
Jack in Atlanta, Democrats line.
Hi.
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 to 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% and the share of AGI, is that it fluctuates significantly with the business cycle.
So if there are years where the stock market really booms, capital gains realizations go up, then the share of income for the top 1% spikes upward.
And same when the business cycle is on a downward path, the stock market's going down, that share drops.
The Congressional Budget Office has a report called the Distribution of Household Income, and they produce this on a yearly basis, even on a greater lag than the IRS data.
So I believe the latest we have available is 2021.
But they go over shares of income 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've 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 of lower and middle income households.
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 that was back in September.
Go ahead.
Yeah, taxpayers should absolutely pay what they are legally obligated to pay.
And 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 possible.
A couple of efforts that are complementary to this would be further simplifying the tax system to, again, get rid of these opportunities that taxpayers have to not pay what they are legally obligated to pay.
And another element to think about with the IRS funding that the IRS itself has warned about is that some of the funding 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, which indicates that potentially too much has been allocated to enforcement at the expense of better IT services and better customer service.
And so ensuring that the IRS is investing where it gets the most return on those dollars should be a big part of the conversation going forward, too.
Let's hear from Joe in Ohio, Independent Line.
Yeah, you say that the tax cuts went across the board, but didn't they disproportionately go to the wealthiest?
Didn't the wealthiest receive the most benefit while the lower incomes received the least benefit?
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 provide a couple pieces of context around that.
The starting point of the tax system we have now is highly progressive.
And so providing a tax cut that provides a larger tax cut to lower income households is quite difficult when if you look at the effective tax rates on like the bottom 20%, even the bottom 40%, for many taxpayers, they're already negative.
They're receiving more refundable tax credits back than they pay in taxes.
And so given the progressive structure of the income tax itself, 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 TCJA 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 how 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.
Videos of key hearings, debates, and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights.
These points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos.
This timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in Washington.
Scroll through and spend a few minutes on C-SPAN's points of interest.
C-SPANshop.org is C-SPAN's online store.
Browse through our latest collection of C-SPAN products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories.
There's something for every C-SPAN fan, and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations.
Shop now or anytime at cspanshop.org.
The C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast Feed makes it easy for you to listen to all of C-SPAN's podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas.
Each week, we're making it convenient for you to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biographies, current events, and culture from our signature programs about books, afterwards, booknotes plus, and a Q ⁇ A. Listen to C-SPAN's bookshelf podcast feed today.
You can find that C-SPAN Bookshelf Podcast feed and all of our podcasts on the free C-SPAN Now mobile video app or wherever you get your podcasts and on our website c-SPAN.org slash podcasts.
Washington Journal continues.
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, you know, 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 buyers' 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, for clothing, for utility bills, and the like.
One of the debates that, especially what we saw during the summer, when it comes to the topic of disaster relief, is whether that will be addressed in any way, shape, or form.
What's the status?
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 helping these communities is important, making certain that there's a federal relief piece to the price tags that these communities are facing.
You look at something like Western North Carolina, that was devastation, historically devastated, and we need to respond accordingly.
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.
Independents, 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,
if 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 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, with the semiconductor industry, with microelectronics, very important to keep that funding going.
Also, the infrastructure bill and making certain that the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided for historic dimensions of aid for addressing climate change, is an important outcome, as is the effort from the Inflation Reduction Act for improvements to Medicare.
So these are the investments that we made in the American public, for sharing with the American families to really nail down cost reductions.
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.
The President has tapped a CEO of Liberty Energy, Chris Wright.
If he does get confirmed to be the energy secretary, 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 hydro fracking 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 greed as it relates to the fossil fuel industry.
Our guest serves the 20th district of New York State.
Our first call is from Rick.
from Albany, New York.
I'm for Democrats.
You're on with Representative Paul Tonko.
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?
Well, I do not think 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 that 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 we'll advance.
In that recent NBC interview, that the president elects saying that he wouldn't touch Social Security.
How much do you agree?
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 Medicaid, and undo Social Security.
And I think that for some of the stabling influence that these programs provide and the ultimate need that is meeting many, many families, we have to make certain that we protect these efforts.
I think their track record is a weak one, and there's a lot of suspicion about what might happen with those vital programs.
This is Brian.
Brian joins us from Albuquerque, Independent Line.
You're on with Representative Paul Tonko.
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.
It's the entire system is a giant mess.
Let's remember, half the problem is visa overstays, that people that come in and never leave the country.
And I'm a working class guy.
I'm an IDEW 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 fields 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 we don't control it.
So let's talk about controlling all the visa overstays 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 to be funded adequately so that those looking for that pathway to citizenship, those looking to nail down their version of an American dream, have ample opportunity.
And I can tell you that immigration is a huge impact on many industries out there, including farming, certainly the hospitality industry, and a lot of the tech industries and health care.
So in my district, we need this reform.
We need it badly.
And I think the first step too, last year, when there was an agreed-upon bipartisan bill in the Senate, unfortunately, now President-elect Trump had asked that that measure not be taken up, that it be saved for political purposes on the campaign trail.
And I think that regrettably, we lost a great opportunity.
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 was strengthening our economy.
It has said that over the last 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 there are discrepancies where we're not using facts, where there's an impact unfavorably on the working middle-income community.
When we see that unfairness, we're going to highlight it and share it because there has been too much division or unfairness in the system.
We want to make certain that we continue to go along those lines of improving the progressivity of tax policy and tax liability.
And since there's a narrow gap when it comes to what Republicans have advantage-wise, is that an opportunity for Democrats in the 1990s?
I think it most certainly is.
We're already hearing some rumblings that they may have to come to the Democrats, which has been the usual pattern over the last couple of years.
You know, it's the Democrats in the House that have bailed out the process so that government would continue, that there would not be this impact on individuals who require certain programmatic efforts from Washington to stay well, stay alive, to keep their businesses functioning.
These are items that are very important to the American economy and to the American public.
And we have been there.
The pattern has been the Democrats in the House bailing out the process.
And it looks like that might happen again.
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 good.
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 in 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, there's 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'd 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 in our area, how about the St. Clair's hospital employees who have their pensions essentially stolen?
Nothing's been done about it.
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 Federal Pension Insurance Fund to make certain that we could assist those pensioners.
Unfortunately, they were exempted.
They moved themselves out of the program, so it was difficult to provide, impossible to provide, a federal assistance.
As it relates to the Social Security tax relief, while I indicated I didn't think it would get done, I didn't think it would be, there would be some competing priorities.
But of course, any tax relief that we can provide, especially for seniors in our area, that's a phenomenally good benefit.
So I'm hoping we can get all of these accomplished, but there will be, you know, bartering over which priorities to establish.
But it's one that obviously bears a benefit.
In terms of the semiconductor industry, look, when we did our version of the Chips and Science Act, we made certain 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 were, whether they were made by the U.S. government, were 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 bit of energy as we go forward.
But the emphasis also on transmission, making certain that permitting is expedited and not reducing any of the environmental benefits, along with investing in clean energy, renewable energy, I think are going to be goals for the Energy and Commerce Committee.
And he specifically mentioned fracking as a means of gaining that natural gas.
Right.
And as I said, natural gas as a clean form is important.
We will look at that hydrofracking issue for certain this session, but making certain that as a bridge therapy, natural gas will probably be probably one of the more relied upon sources.
Here's Ryan on our independent line.
He's from North Carolina.
Hello, Representative Tonto.
Good morning, Ryan.
I have one question.
I'm really interested in your view if H.R. 7410 has a chance to pass in the next Congress if it's reintroduced, the Fair Maths Act.
Pardon me, which one?
Caller, what's that act again?
The H.R. 7410, the Fair Maths Act.
You know, it's with a 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, we will make certain that we review as the Energy and Commerce Committee and Science, Space and Tech Committee, where I serve, that we have a progressive agenda going forward.
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 Pell Mell 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 all the benefit that these programs provide, where efficiencies can be rendered.
But some of the approach, I think, is kind of pell-mell rush to across-the-board cuts, which obviously would not be the most productive or effective way to get business done.
Debbie in Maine, Republican line, you're on with our guests.
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 auto 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 guests 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 improvement 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.
So, yeah, the track record was pretty clear on that one.
Zame in Maryland, Democrats line, you are up next.
Good morning.
Go ahead.
Good morning, Zame.
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 and getting rid of Obamacare or reducing funding for it.
But the following states have trigger laws that would end Medicaid expansions if the federal funding is reduced.
Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
People need to stop voting against their own interests.
Your comments, Representative?
Thank you.
Oh, 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.
These improvements that have come for tens of millions of individuals and families out there with the improvements of the Affordable Care Act that allow 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.
So many improvements that were part and parcel to that legislation that really made an impact and has grown respect as a program over the years since it's passed.
So we're going to make certain that we do everything to preserve that program and to enhance it.
Representative Tonko, the House is expected to take up a bill this week taking a look at water, the Water Resources Development Act.
Tell us about that bill.
Tell us about your role in it.
Sure.
Well, 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 WordA package 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 help in making certain that water quality is improved, that water programs, infrastructure programs are indeed made all the more available.
Before we let you, 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 in CNN.
Good morning, Leonard.
Do you think 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.
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.
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, Dar.
Sorry.
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.
And Tara Kopp from the Associated Press joins us for that conversation when Washington Journal continues.
Are you a nonfiction book lover looking for a new podcast?
This holiday season, try listening to one of the many podcasts C-SPAN has to offer.
On QA, you'll listen to interesting interviews with people and authors writing books on history and subjects that matter.
Learn something new on Book Notes Plus through conversations with nonfiction authors and historians.
Afterwards, brings together best-selling nonfiction authors with influential interviewers for wide-ranging hour-long conversations.
And on About Books, we talk about the business of books with news and interviews about the publishing industry and nonfiction authors.
Find all of our podcasts by downloading the free C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Listening to programs on C-SPAN through C-SPAN Radio is easy.
Tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio, and listen to Washington Journal daily at 7 a.m. Eastern.
Important public affairs events throughout the day.
And weekdays, catch Washington today.
Listen to C-SPAN anytime.
Just tell your smart speaker, play C-SPAN Radio.
C-SPAN, powered by cable.
C-SPAN Now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in Washington, live and on demand.
Keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the U.S. Congress, White House events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips.
You can also stay current with the latest episodes of Washington Journal and find scheduling information for C-SPAN's TV networks and C-SPAN radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.
C-SPAN Now is available at the Apple Store and Google Play.
Scan the QR code to download it for free today or visit our website, c-span.org/slash c-SPAN now.
C-SPAN Now, your front row seat to Washington, anytime, anywhere.
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 is the right for transgender troops to serve.
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 minority troops that have had a hard time climbing up the ranks for one reason or another, that could get them fired.
Depending on where you are in the ranks, you can be fired summarily because you serve at the pleasure of the president, depending on certain posts, et cetera.
But if you are still climbing up those ranks and really thinking, do you want to put yourself through this?
Do you want to put your family through this?
That's a serious question for people that have already asked their families to do so much so they could be in this career.
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 promoting diversity, equity, inclusion.
Some of them are targeted because they themselves are female and are talking about the struggles that sometimes females have faced, you know, breaking through glass ceilings, including breaking through the military ranks.
So it just, you know, if you want a military that's going to be reflective of the American population, 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, 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.
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've 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.
Those are legitimate questions for the Senate committee and for his confirmation hearing to see if he can really lead an organization that itself struggles with its own financial staying within the books and passing in audits and all of that.
But 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.
It was yesterday that Joni Ernst put out this statement saying, I appreciate Pete Hegzev's responsiveness and response for the process.
Following our encouraging conversations, he committed to completing a full audit of the Pentagon and selecting a senior official who will uphold the roles and values of our servicemen and women based on the quality and standards, not quotas, and who 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 an 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 just, 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 costs 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, which 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 members, male members of Congress, who want to see this solved.
You know the 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.
Tara Cup of the Associated Press joining us for this conversation.
Let's hear from Matthew.
He's in Sacramento California, on our line for those who formerly were in the military, talking about the future of the DOD under the Trump administration.
Matthew hello 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.
They're the part of the military-industrial complex.
They want to stay in Syria.
They want to stay everywhere else they can.
So whoever wants to stay in Syria are the part of the still the deep state.
So that should be the litmus test for Donald Trump.
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.
You know, there are a lot of questions as to how long those troops need to be there, whether they are completely there for ISIS.
You know, there are lucrative oil fields in the northeastern part of Syria.
And you have seen U.S. presence there, but you also have a massive prison that has thousands of former either ISIS-affiliated or ISIS fighters.
And do you really want that to spill out of control in an area that's already seen so much upheaval?
Steve.
Steve Ols is in Maryland, Republican line.
You're next up.
Hi.
Hi, Pedro.
I'm just calling in support of Pete Hegseth.
You know, watch him off the box 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, where 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.
Certainly 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 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 change maker 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 of 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.
And if you are 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 that person will be looking at where does the Pentagon need to invest in weapons 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.
Both have, you know, have military exposure, or one did serve, the other one did not.
But you just kind of have to watch where these people are going.
You know, what were their industry ties?
And looking forward in the Senate confirmation process, what do we not know about them?
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?
That's really the question.
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.
You know, 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 provide for the 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 kind of 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 NDAA, 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.
There was a plus-up.
There was 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 budgets 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, Vivek, Graham Maswami, 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 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 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 elements of national defense are your personnel because of the lifelong benefits that you can have.
And then for weapon systems and the training and the maintenance for that.
But so much has been taken out of those two areas that you're kind of, there's no more fat.
You're kind of at the bone.
So that's going to mean a lot of tougher choices, possibly in retirement.
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 guests.
Good morning.
Yes, good morning.
Yeah, I'm just calling about this nominee, Pete Hagsek, 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 turn 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 become officers in the armed forces.
And it is my, you know, greatest courage or hope that they can be treated fairly as women.
So allowing a guy like Pete Hedsek who has a record of abusing women, I don't think he's fit to be the next Secretary of Defense.
It's just my opinion and belief.
We've had this fight for so long on treating women fairly.
This is not time for us to dive back into our efforts.
Duffy, 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 Hagseth 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 highest, the fastest growing area for recruitment is females.
So you can't really have an organization that makes so hostile to women that they don't want to serve because they're finding that that's, they're finding their next generation of leaders in women.
What did you make or what was, I guess, inside the DOD, how did it resonate from those comments that the nominee made about women in combat specifically versus women who serve overall, but women in combat specifically?
So that's really wrangled people too.
You know, 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 like the sexual assault, 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 hoopwa in regards to Pete Hedsett.
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.
So 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 keel 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 got into those complications and was hospitalized and still didn't tell anyone, that's when it really got bad.
That also exposed a lot of different ways that the military informs, you know, down there, not the military, but the Pentagon civilian leadership informs, hey, I'm going to be out.
So we found that that line of communication was a little bit broken between Secretary Austin and his deputy, Kathleen Hooks.
That has been addressed, you know, obviously now anytime any of the secretaries are having anything done now, everyone's kind of leaning far the other way, letting everybody know.
You know, even if it's for like a minor procedure.
It's operationally a sea change as far as communication is concerned.
Yes.
Let's hear from Tennessee Democrats line.
Dee, hello.
Hello.
Hi, you're on.
Yes, I have a problem with Pete Hedsett.
He have an alcohol problem.
My husband was in the military for 18 years, went through the gate, drinking, driving, went to detox.
And we spoke of Pete Hedsett saying he gonna stop drinking, but has she been to rehab?
Has she 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 gonna stop drinking to help him with his alcohol problem.
Okay, Dee, thanks.
That was one of the more surprising things that came 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.
And 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 Andrew really pushing toward a different type of warfare that doesn't depend so much on these manned fighter jets, ships, and really instead on these swarming, smaller, cheaper drones that could perhaps make, you know, instead of taking 30 years to build a trillion-dollar warplane, take a year and put out thousands of them.
From Bob.
Bob is in Kansas, former military.
Bob, hello, you're on.
Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, I served in the Marine Corps from 1966 to 1987.
I had 22 months in NOM 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, Hedge Smith, he might have two bronze stars, but he does not have the combat V 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, and two great-granddaughters.
I wouldn't support him.
My one daughter, she could outlead him in a minute.
He has no leadership.
As the lady stated, the Marine Corps is the only one that their audit came in the way it should have.
We need a Marine Corps leader in there.
Marines know how to lead, and they know how to lead forward, not backwards.
And with Hedge Smith, we're going to get just the opposite.
We're going to get Trump leadership, and we don't need that in America.
That's all I got to say.
Bob in Kansas.
So you can see that there's a pretty divided, I guess, population on Hag Seth, 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 overcost.
But does he have what it takes to actually address that?
And one of the things that, as I've been talking to officers and contractors, et cetera, you kind of have to have that inside the building experience at least a little bit to know what levers to push in order to bring that change.
What did you make of the caller's characterization of the Bronze Star?
So that's, you know, that's something that we should get into.
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 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 just thinking that this diversity and wolf business is, we've been putting up with it for the last four years.
Let's try something else.
Hag Seth 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, Hanksteth, this, Hanks, that's 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 that he probably wouldn't have liked to have happened to.
But I think he'd be a great guy for it.
And now it's just like the Democrats to go ahead and want to fight everybody that Trump puts in there and wants to put in there.
And I think people are wearing thin on that.
Okay, got your point, Caller.
Thanks, Tara Cop.
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 HEGSEF 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, you know, turns a few heads, hegs this way.
But ultimately, you know, we've had women serving honorably in combat for years now.
Our guest rights for the Associated Press, you can find her work at AP.org, Tara Cop.
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, 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 of a bit of an obituary.
And the truth is, 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 would be an understatement.
However, I know that a majority of people that serve in this U.S. Senate today are real legislators who want to do real legislating.
To those senators, you need to make sure your voices are a majority of this body.
If not, this country will change in a way that our children will not thank us for.
God bless you all, and tally-ho.
Washington Journal continues.
And that was Democratic Senator John 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-SPANNO.
But you can check those things for video and things that we've taken in in Washington around.
This is open forum.
And again, if you want to participate, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents, 202-748-8002.
You can always text at 202-748-8003 and post on our social media sites at facebook.com slash C-SPAN and on X at C-SPANWJ.
The New York Times reports that Laura Trump's stepping down from her leadership at the Republican National Committee.
This is by Simon Livian 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, Ms. Trump said that she would strongly consider taking up Mr. Rubio's position.
Quote, it is something I would seriously consider, she said in the interview.
If I'm being completely transparent, I don't know exactly what that would look like.
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, and putting the national security interests and the safety, security, and freedom of the American people first and foremost.
So look for that to play out in the weeks ahead as the confirmation process begins with the incoming Trump administration.
Democrats line, this is Rick in Washington, D.C. on this open forum.
Go ahead.
Yes, I wanted to give back, 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 plates 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, there's just yes, boys.
And that's all I've got to say.
Yes, boys, incompetent.
And like the Republican politician in Texas said a couple of weeks ago, if Trump says jump three feet and scratch your head three times, that's what we're going to do.
Thank you.
Also from Washington, D.C. on our independent line, this is Alex.
Hello.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
So I guess the question I'd like to ask is, it seems like this was an election where a lot of people voted for change.
And I would hope that C-SPAN 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 Department of Defense.
I saw a million-dollar projects 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 of the budget budget is a problem.
Alex, so Alex, 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 doesn't correlate with America being safer.
And it's going to wreck the country because of the debt, for instance.
Okay, that's Alex there in Washington.
Let's hear from Sandra in Mississippi, Democrats line.
Yes, I'm calling because I get so sick and tired of the news media and all of y'all say.
Caller, 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 of 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.
Witnessed Mr. Trump's meeting in Paris over the weekend with the French President Emmanuel Macron and the Ukrainian President Volmiel Zelensky and consider negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv 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 announced arrival to discuss, amongst other things, Mr. Trump's fresh threat to impose 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.
That's the front page of USA Today.
You can find it online if you're interested in reading more.
Let's hear from Troy in New Jersey, Republican line.
Hi, how are 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 Hagsap being potential head of DOD.
Like, we're not getting any answers now.
And then if we end up having a drunk womanizer at the head of the DOD, are we even going to get more answers there?
Like, no one's even said anything to us.
We've been calling and nobody knows what's going on.
And I just kind of wanted to get the message out there a little bit from New Jersey.
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 it'll harm those cities.
They're going to lose workers.
It's going to lose citizens.
Population, it will absolutely harm those cities.
And I think the cities that Trump does not like will be targeted.
Okay.
That was my comment.
Darolyn 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, Chicago to be ground zero for mass deportations.
Trump Borders R tells Illinois Republicans.
If you're interested in reading more, chicago.suntimes.com, the website if you want to see that story.
Linda in Iowa, Republican line.
Yes, good morning.
I want to talk about the subway incident.
He should have never 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.
That's Linda in Iowa.
Here's the story from USA Today saying a jury on Monday finding former Marine Daniel Penny not guilty of criminally negligent homicide and the death of Jordan Neely, a homeless man who Penny placed in a chokehold on board a New York City subway car last year.
Around 1130 a.m. Monday, the jury told the judge they reached a unanimous verdict on the second count in the case, according to court officials.
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 Crowning 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, at least believe the moral code that the Bible gives, and particularly in the New Testament.
We are far, far, far away from the kind of people we could be simply because we do not know what the Bible says.
Okay, Lawrence in New York State, Democrats line.
Hello.
Lawrence in New York.
Hello.
Yes, I have a few comments.
And one of them is all these illegal immigrants supposedly coming in.
And, 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 don't even, 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 a Democrat anymore because my mind reading ability has stopped.
All these people that call in, they've got to be beautiful mind readers because I can't read all these politicians' minds and what they say and what they actually do because all these people make comments about all these politicians, how they read their minds.
And nobody, as far as I know, can read their minds.
So I guess I'm turning from a Democrat to a Republican.
That's Lawrence there in New York State.
Axios reporting this morning that the start of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Yet Jahan'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.
And he was indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust in November of 2019.
He has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.
In case 4,000, he was charged with bribery for allegedly giving hundreds of millions of dollars in regulatory benefits to an Israeli telecommunications tycoon in return for favorable coverage.
In case 2,000, he was indicted for fraud and breach of trust over an alleged deal with a newspaper publisher in another effort to secure favorable coverage.
And in case 1,000, in which Netanyahu allegedly taking $200,000 worth of cigars, champagne, and jewelry from businessmen in return for promoting their interest, he was indicted for fraud and breed of trust.
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 of things.
I was a senior lieutenant colonel in the Army.
He's also a social work officer, so I'm pretty familiar with Army sexual assault.
I'm aggrieved by hearing Hagstaff simply described as that, either womanized or alcoholic.
I'm kind of surprised that my Marine buddies, Semper Phi, 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, you know, 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 structural injuries carrying weight, mostly ammunition, water, and combat.
I don't think anybody doubts that they can do the job from Israelis to Russian females during World War II.
The question is, some specific combat jobs may or may not be overly stressful.
There is different research on both sides.
That's not the main issue.
Thank you.
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.
The White House has frequently highlighted economic data to argue that Biden is leaving office with a much stronger economy than he inherited in January of 2020 when the country was in the midst of a pandemic.
A White House official pointed to 16 million jobs created, 20 million new business applications, record stock market highs, and more than a trillion dollars in private sector investments in clean energy and manufacturing.
Mary Rose in Alexandria, Virginia, Democrats line.
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 afraid 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 D.C. for many years.
He would reach into your backpack and you'd give him 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 it's overall it's a tragedy.
This man should have gotten his court.
And the woman who called in had 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.
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's 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 Gates 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 American 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 to 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 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 felt, you know, nobody really knows about that.
Trenton in Uh, 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 dollars uh for border security as part of an initial bill for budget reconciliation the process that enables the chamber to get around the 60 volt 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 ROLL CALL rolls, Rollcall.com.
If you want to see part of those immigration plans for the incoming Trump administration.
Irwin in Los Angeles.
Republican LINE, yes, i'd like to suggest, uh that they should use AI to go through the budget of uh, the UH Pentagram.
That would help.
And also i'd like to give a shout out to Luigi Marangioni for all the procedures that Have been denied by the United Healthcare Insurance.
Okay, that's Irwin 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.
On C-SPAN 3 is our main network there starting at 10 o'clock.
You can also follow along at C-SPANNOW and cspan.org if you wish as you follow along and see what the Postal Service is doing part of the oversight process of government as we know.
Again, if you go to our website at c-span.org, there's a variety of ways to follow along what goes on Capitol Hill and Washington.
We keep archives and stories there and of this program and other things that we take in during the week and days as far as the coverage of Washington.