CSPAN - Washington Journal 10/22/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 22, 2025 06:58-10:06 - CSPAN

03:07:55

Washington Journal 10/22/2025

Participants

Main

glenn grothman

rep/r 06:04

glenn ivey

rep/d 07:05

jeff merkley

sen/d 07:48

john mcardle

cspan 43:02

Appearances

chuck schumer

sen/d 01:49

donald j trump

admin 03:42

justice amy coney barrett

scotus 00:38

mike johnson

rep/r 02:39

russell means

00:33

Clips

david rubenstein

00:05

donald j trump [ai]

admin 00:01

jim marrs

00:19

justice neil gorsuch

scotus 00:03

rachel scott

abc 00:20

willie nelson

00:21

Callers

doc in indiana

callers 00:13

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Here's a look at some of our live coverage today on the C-SPAN Networks.
		On C-SPAN at 10 a.m. Eastern, House Democratic leaders will speak at a party committee hearing to address the effects of the shutdown.
		And at 3:30, a Senate Aging Committee hearing on modernizing the healthcare services industry with entrepreneur Mark Cuban.
		Over on C-SPAN 2 at 7 a.m., it's Prime Minister's Questions.
		Kier Starmer takes questions from members of the House of Commons on domestic and foreign policy issues.
		And later, the Senate's back in session.
		Lawmakers are set to vote again on a funding measure to end the ongoing government shutdown.
		On C-SPAN 3 at 10:15 a.m., the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear testimony from President Trump's nominees to serve in the Justice Department.
		And at 1:30 Eastern, legal experts discuss the current state of the rule of law and separation of powers in the U.S. government, hosted by the Society for the Rule of Law.
		You can also watch live coverage on the C-SPAN Now app or online at c-SPAN.org.
		C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
		We're funded by these television companies and more, including WOW.
		The world has changed.
		Today, the fast, reliable internet connection is something no one can live without.
		So WOW is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice.
		Now more than ever, it all starts with great internet.
		Wow.
		WOW supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
		Coming up on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, we'll talk about the Trump administration's trade and tariffs agenda, including recent trade tensions with China.
		The Wall Street Journal's Gavin Bade is our guest.
		Then Maryland Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey, a member of the Appropriations Committee, covers the government shutdown and the Democrats strategy.
		And Ryan Berg with the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the recent tensions between the U.S., Venezuela, and Colombia over allegations of drug trafficking.
		Also, Wisconsin Republican Congressman Glenn Grothman on the government shutdown and the Republican strategy.
		Washington Journal starts now.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025, day 22 of the government shutdown.
		And while much of the federal government remains closed, the U.S. Senate was in session last night as Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley has held the floor now for close to 13 hours to protest what he calls President Trump's threat to democracy.
		The marathon floor speech began at 6.23 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, and the third term sender is still going at this hour.
		We'll show you some of his remarks this morning as we hear from you about that speech and the ongoing government shutdown.
		Phone lines are split as usual for you to call in.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Independents 202-748-8002.
		Special line for federal workers, 202-748-8003.
		That's also the number you can send us a text on or catch up with us on social media.
		On X, it's at C-SPANWJ.
		On Facebook, it's facebook.com/slash C-SPAN.
		And a very good Wednesday morning to you.
		You can go ahead and start calling in now.
		It was yesterday evening, 6:23 p.m. Eastern time, that Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley sent this text out, this tweet out to his social media followers saying, I'm holding the Senate floor to protest Trump's grave threats to democracy.
		We cannot pretend that this is normal.
		And then he took the Senate floor, and this is how he began his marathon speech.
jeff merkley ▲ ● ▼		Mr. President, I've come to the Senate floor tonight to ring the alarm bells.
		We're in the most perilous moment, the biggest threat to our republic since the Civil War.
		President Trump is shredding our Constitution.
		Is it okay for mass federal agents to arrest people off the street because of their skin color or their accent?
		No way, not in a free America.
		Okay, for the government to cancel research grants to compel universities as to what they can teach.
		No way, not in a free America.
		Okay, to use power over broadcast licenses or power over mergers to compel television networks as to what they can put on the air.
		Not in a free America.
		Okay, to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after perceived political opponents.
		James Comey, Letitia James, Adam Schiff, a member of the Senate?
		Hell no.
		Absolutely not.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was nearly 13 hours ago.
		And at this hour, Senator Jeff Merkley is still speaking.
		He got one break around 10 p.m. Eastern last night.
		Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey giving him about a seven-minute break in the form of a question that he asked Jeff Merkley.
		But otherwise, Jeff Merkley has been going all night long and into this morning.
		He's been reading from the book How Democracies Die.
		It's a 2018 book by two Harvard professors.
		He's back talking about that book right now on the Senate floor.
		Let's dip in.
jeff merkley ▲ ● ▼		President Barack Obama nominated appellate Judge Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat.
		No one doubted Garland was a qualified candidate.
		By all accounts, he was an ideological moderate.
		But for the first time in American history, the U.S. Senate refused to even consider an elected president's nominee for president.
		As we have seen, the Senate has always used forbearance in exercising its advice and consent in the selection of Supreme Court justices.
		Since 1866, every time a president has moved to fill a Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election of his successor, he'd have been allowed to do so.
		So this was the first time.
		This is the first time a U.S. Supreme Court vacant seat has been stolen from one president and delivered to the next.
		The world had changed.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Senator Jeff Merkley continued to speak on the Senate floor.
		If you want to watch that live, you can watch over at C-SPAN2.
		Here's the schedule for the day in the Senate.
		The Senate is scheduled to come in at 10 a.m. Eastern, but if Jeff Merkley is still holding the floor at that point, he will still be allowed to speak for as long as he is standing there.
		There may be other Democratic senators to come into the Senate and give him a break in the form of another question.
		It's just been Senator Andy Kim so far.
		We'll continue to watch what happens as we continue to talk to you about the ongoing government shutdown and the latest from Capitol Hill.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats to call in this morning on the Washington Journal.
		Republicans, it's 202-748-8001.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Rosetta is up first out of New York.
		Line for Democrats.
		Rosetta, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would just like to make this scenario.
		I go to the hospital.
		I'm having a heart attack and I don't have any life insurance.
		And are the hospitals going to take care of me?
		Are they going to ask me for my birth certificate to where I was born?
		Are they going to ask me, am I Democrat so that they don't have to serve me because I'm not a Republican?
		I'm worried about the people who will not have health care because they can't afford it.
		And they go to the hospital for emergency.
		That's why they have the bats, but they're talking about the people who's not born in this country can use the hospital only in emergency, sir.
		But I'm worried about what they're going to ask me.
		Do I have to walk around with my birth certificate to prove to the cops in my neighborhood that I'm American?
		Do I have to do this because they're kicking up people of my color, of my race, because do I have to go around like this after living in this country free for 78 years?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Rosetta out of New York.
		This is Ralph out of Charlottesville, Virginia, Republican.
		Ralph, good morning.
unidentified		Yes.
		Thank you, C-SPAN, very much.
		I enjoy your program.
		I watch it every day.
		Thank you very much.
		And all I have to say is on this shutdown, the senators and congressmen have to get some skin in the game.
		If they can't balance the budget, reduce their salary 30%.
		And if they continue to do this, have them limited for raises for 10 years.
		And I would like to say that would probably create a situation.
		The people voted Donald Trump into office for one reason.
		We were going down the wrong path with Mr. Biden.
		And I love the people.
		I love, you know, America.
		And another thing, Donald Trump, God bless him.
		And he sheltered off all the things that they've tried to do and impeach him and everything else.
		I love his family, especially Eric Trump.
		He hired my son, grandson, Ryan, and his winery.
		And I appreciate that.
		I've taught my son to be honest and so forth.
		But anyway, that's all I have to say.
		If you have skin in the game, then our senators and congressmen will do the job.
		They have nothing in the game now, so they have nothing to worry about.
		So that's all really I have to say.
		And thank you, C-SPAN, for taking my call.
		I appreciate it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Ralph in Charlottesville, Virginia.
		You mentioned Eric Trump.
		He's out with a new book, Under Siege, My Family's Fight to Save Our Nation.
		He spoke about it at the Reagan Library.
		And C-SPAN's Book TV is set to air that talk this weekend, this Sunday on C-SPAN 2.
		Check your programming guides for times on that.
		But on President Trump, he hosted Senate Republicans at the White House yesterday in the Rose Garden for a lunch.
		He spoke about the state of the government shutdown.
		This is what he had to say.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		The pain that the Democrats have caused during this reckless and completely unnecessary affair, and you could call it the Schumer shutdown or the Democrat shutdown.
		You can call it whatever you want.
		And I will say this, that we have Darth Vader.
		You know Darth Vader, right?
		Darth Vader is a man who I think is sitting right.
		Is that Darth?
		Stand up, please, Darth Vader.
		Stand up.
		Does everybody know this is, they call him Darth Vader.
		I call him a fine man.
		But he's cutting Democrat priorities, and they're never going to get them back.
		And they've caused us, and they've really allowed us to do it.
		And by the way, thank you.
		You're doing a great job, I have to tell you.
		So really a great job.
		Because many of the things that they're cutting, like the New York project, $20 billion we're cutting it, they're not going to get it back.
		I mean, they're not going to get a lot of things back.
		They may not get it back.
		Maybe we'll talk to them about it.
		But they're losing the things that they wanted.
		But many of the things that they wanted are things that we don't want.
		Today I'm calling on every Senate Democrat to stop the madness to let our country get back.
		In the greatest moment in the history of our country in terms of wealth, in terms of job creation, and in terms of investment coming in, these guys go on strike.
donald j trump [ai] ▲ ● ▼		It's really a shame.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		So I'm asking them to be smart.
		It's not working.
		They're getting killed in the polls.
		The public understands what they're doing.
		They're doing the wrong thing.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		President Trump yesterday from that gathering at the White House with Senate Republicans, and it was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer who chided Republicans for gathering at the White House instead of negotiating on the government shutdown.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This was Chuck Schumer talking to reporters yesterday.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		While millions of Americans are feeling the squeeze, the House is on vacation.
		And Senate Republicans, well, they're at the White House today, not for negotiations or to work on any path out of the shutdown, but for a pep rally.
		And as I've understood it, when they made comments afterwards, they didn't even talk about health care once, as I understand it, because they just finished.
		That's right.
		Republicans today will join the president to celebrate staying strong, being unified.
		So as millions of Americans continue to endure the pain of one of the longest shutdowns in American history, Republicans will be celebrating keeping it going.
		Isn't that a disgrace?
		Apparently, Republicans don't have the time of day to fix people's health care to lower costs, but there's plenty of time for a photo op and celebrate their pain.
		Let me be clear.
		Americans don't have time for Republicans and Trump's parties.
		The pain for families is intensifying as notices continue to go out in the states.
		Every day this shutdown drags on, more families are getting letters from their insurers' warrant warning them that their premiums will skyrocket.
		For more than 20 million Americans, steep premium hikes, increase of 114%.
		Hundreds of millions could do more.
		Hundreds of millions more, hundreds of millions more could see their costs skyrocket next year because it's going to go up for everybody, not just those on federal insurance.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, that was yesterday this morning.
		Chuck Schumer's colleague, Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, continues to hold the Senate floor.
		He's been there all night long and is continued to talk this morning about this book, How Democracies Die.
		It's a 2018 book by Harvard professors Steve Levitsky and Daniel Ziblat.
		C-SPAN covered it on book TV back in 2018, if you want to get a better sense of the book that has sort of been the outline for Jeff Merkley's now close to 13-hour address on the Senate floor.
		He'll keep the floor for as long as he's talking.
		We'll see how far he goes this morning.
		We'll keep checking in and we'll hear from you about it as we also hear about day 22 of the government shutdown.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats to call in.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents, it's 202-748-8002.
		This is Mitchell in New Jersey.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		I wanted to talk about how this shutdown ends.
		First of all, just a preparatory comment.
		I do support the Democrats taking the shutdown.
		I don't think that they have much of a choice because of the impoundment of funds and the way things are being spent.
		I mean, programs that have been previously approved are getting cut by pocket rescissions, which I think are illegal, but they're working their way through the courts.
		I mean, the president has found a way to cancel things that he doesn't want and to pay for what he wants to pay and not what Congress has appropriated.
		Now, I want to specifically focus in on what Senator Federman was talking about yesterday in terms of eliminating the filibuster.
		I am not aligned philosophically with Senator Fetterman, as he seems to be acquiescing to the Republicans much more than I'm comfortable with.
		Working with them is one thing, but just giving them a pass is something else.
		However, I feel conflicted about the filibuster.
		I do kind of agree with him that we need to get rid of this.
		The Democrats are going to have to, if they're going to be an effective party in the future, make some very, very tough calls.
		And I think the filibuster is getting in the way of that.
		Eliminating the filibuster is something that neither side wants to do.
		Now, the Democrats are not, they normally wouldn't pull a thing like a government shutdown.
		That doesn't seem to be primarily in their wheelhouse unless they're forced into it.
		While the Republicans, I think, have been using that as a weapon in budget fights and also in the even more serious debt ceiling fights.
		And it's getting pretty dangerous because a debt ceiling shutdown would really cripple the international economy, let alone the U.S. economy.
		It would really, really put us in a very serious hull.
		Mitchell.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Can I ask you about eliminating the filibuster?
		You say it needs to happen because of some big things you want Democrats to do.
		The argument for keeping the filibuster is that if Democrats get rid of it or help get rid of it and eventually take power back and do big things, the other side, Republicans, can then use the lack of a filibuster, just a straight majority, to also do big things that Democrats might not agree with.
		Are you concerned about that, that it could be used by both sides to do some very big things?
unidentified		That's a good point.
		And I do see the conflict of what I'm saying here because how can I support a shutdown and also support the ending the filibuster, which would, of course, eliminate a country?
		It will force each party to own their agenda.
		They will be completely responsible for it.
		They can't finger point at the end of the day and say, well, the Democrats are this or the Republicans are this.
		They will own their agenda.
		And I think it's time that they do own their agenda.
		The filibuster is not allowing any long-term debate on anything.
		They're not debating.
		They're just calling a filibuster.
		I mean, they don't stay on the floor.
		They don't talk it out.
		They don't have to hold the floor anymore.
		They just call a filibuster if they don't have the number of votes.
		Then that's it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So Jeff Merkley has held the floor for now just about 13 hours.
		Have you watched any of his address?
		Did you catch that overnight or seen it this morning?
unidentified		No, I just heard about that, and I'm aware of like Corey Booker and other senators using floor time.
		I get that, but that generally is not, you know, and they're allowed to debate and discuss this, but that is not how the modern filibuster is working at all.
		I mean, what's happening is they call a filibuster, and once they have the, and that's pretty much it.
		Now, they can stand on the floor or not, but that generally, it generally is used to obstruct.
		And I think it's outlived its usefulness.
		I don't think it's adding anything.
		You know, Jeff Merkley is talking to an empty hall now.
		I mean, you know, and the government is shut down already.
		So, I mean, it's not something that they're using or have to use in order to exercise the filibuster.
		Jeff Merkley or any other Democrat or Republican doesn't have to stand there all day, you know, and keep talking and pull on the floor like Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		He will have to stand there and keep talking, or Republicans could adjourn the Senate and then start a new day's business.
		They're expected or at least scheduled to start it at 10 a.m.
		We'll see what happens.
		But Mitchell, we'll take your point from New Jersey.
		Speaking of New Jersey, the record for delivering the longest individual floor speech in U.S. Senate history, of course, was April of this year.
		Corey Booker, Democrat from New Jersey, his floor speech lasting 25 hours and five minutes.
		As Chad Pergram of Fox News notes, when it comes to Jeff Merkley, he had a marathon floor speech of 15 hours and 28 minutes back in April of 2017.
		He was then protesting the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in that speech.
		We'll see if he beats that number today.
		He's at 13 hours so far.
		He's been speaking all night long.
		Ed's next out of Troy, North Carolina.
		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		How are you doing this morning?
		I'm doing well, Ed.
		What I've been listening for the last several days and all those people calling in about everything being shut down and all.
		But last weekend, there was two stories out of one was out of Charlotte and the other one came out of Greensboro.
		The one out of Charlotte with this guy with had been caught with $14 million fraud for Medicare.
		And the one coming out of Greensboro was that during the Biden administration, the last few years of it, that Biden administration had paroled 2.8 million immigrants, which do receive all of the benefits of Medicare and all that.
		Yeah.
		For all these folks that don't believe that, you know, I wish C-SPAN would pull those two stories up and let the American people see what just one man did in Charlotte and the 2.8 that gets all of the benefits.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's ahead of North Carolina.
		Nick's next out of Michigan Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello.
		I haven't closed for six months, so bear with me.
		I have a lot to say.
		I'm a Democrat.
		I voted for Bill Clinton in 92, and I didn't regret my vote despite all I knew about Clinton's personal affairs.
		But today's Democrats have looked nothing like Bill Clinton and have nothing of his abilities and his competence and his ability to govern.
		I have the deepest contempt for these clowns that speak in the Senate for days and hours and so on, and you show them all the time.
		When you show the popularity ratings of President Trump, next thing you should do is you show how popular are these fools in Congress.
		Congress has the worst popularity than any group.
		Used car salesmen have higher popularity than Congress.
		Congress is corrupt.
		The Democrats especially, and people like Menendez of Jersey are doing time.
		So there's corruption that is legal and they get away with it, lobbying and all that.
		And there is illegal corruption like the one that Menendez was caught and sentenced for.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Nick, the old saying is that everybody hates Congress, but they like their congressperson, their individual.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you like yours?
unidentified		I don't.
		No, this is wrong.
		This is an old wives' tale.
		I don't like my congressman, especially in my district.
		I never liked her.
		Okay, let's go.
		Let's be serious now.
		You saw this alarmist government shutdown clock CISPAN does now on your screen, and you even have the minutes.
		I find this distasteful.
		It must say 21 days and not so prominently.
		But if you want to do that on your right side, then on the left side of the screen, please put, and you have that number easily available, and you showed it many times, please put the amount per taxpayer that is the national debt, per taxpayer, not per citizen, and per taxpayer, it is $250,000 and change.
		That's what should alarm Americans, not the clowns in Congress.
		Okay?
		Nick, the party.
		I'm really disappointed in my party.
		I'm still raised to the Democrat, and I hope sometime they will turn around and become like Bill Clinton again.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And, Nick, the numbers that you want, the U.S. national debt now close to $38 trillion.
unidentified		I don't want that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And the debt per taxpayer, which is the number that you asked, is $327,000 per taxpayer in this country.
		That's U.S.debtClock.org.
		That's Nick.
		This is Al out of Watertown, Tennessee, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, just a couple of things.
		One, on your call-in categories, you always do the same: Republican, Democrat, Independent, and then government employees or whatever.
		What would be more accurate if you had a category for net contributors to the Treasury?
		Because on something like this, the people that actually contribute more to the Treasury than they take out of the Treasury are going to have a completely different perspective.
		I'm in that category.
		I pay for other people's free stuff.
		Now, on why this is stuck is the Obamacare subsidy.
		Well, they're not keeping costs down for the people with the subsidy.
		It is called cost shifting.
		The cost is the same.
		The question is who pays for it?
		And the Democrats want to shift the cost of the people who get the free stuff to the people who pay for the free stuff.
		It is just that simple.
		It's cost shifting.
		So when you hear somebody say, well, we need to get the cost down for medicine and medical care, no, what they're saying is we need to shift the cost to the people who are paying for it, not the people who are receiving it.
		It's just that simple.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Al in Watertown, Tennessee.
		It is now 7.24 a.m. Eastern Time, meaning that Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, is going into his now 14th hour.
		He's spoken for over 13 hours on the Senate floor, and he's continued to do so this morning, holding it this morning to protest what he calls President Trump's overreach.
		He's gotten one break in the form of a question from New Jersey Senator Andy Kim, fellow Democrat.
		It was about a seven-minute long question to allow that seven-minute break.
		Andy Kim, around midnight, posted this video about Jeff Merkley on his social media page.
unidentified		It's late into the night here at the Capitol.
		Very few people here, but one person that is here is Senator Merkley from Oregon, someone who has now been speaking on the floor of the Senate for hours, raising the concerns about the overreach of power by Donald Trump, the authoritarianism that we're seeing rising up right now in his own home state in Oregon as we see the military National Guard being deployed,
		ICE agents being deployed, and people within his community under assault by those that are sworn to protect Americans.
		I'm proud of Senator Merkley for raising this and using this as a moment to focus the attention of the American people on the concerns and the threats that are out there.
		When Donald Trump calls other Americans the enemy from within, when he tells generals and admirals that they should use our cities as training grounds for our military, these are dangerous times, and it's important that we don't underestimate the fragility of our democracy.
		So I was proud to be able to join Senator Merkley in his efforts to continue to show the American people and explain the dangers that we're in.
		And I'm proud of him for standing up for our country this night.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was Senator Andy Kim just before midnight last night.
		Jeff Merkley at midnight last night, midnight Eastern time, also midnight Central time and West Coast time on the midnights across this country.
		He would revert to reading the poem, The Midnight Ride, of Paul Revere.
		He read it several times throughout the night and spoke about that poem's importance and resonance today.
		This was Jeff Merkley at midnight Eastern time last night.
jeff merkley ▲ ● ▼		Listen, my children, and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere on the 18th of April in 1975.
		Hardly a man is now alive who remembers that famous day and year.
		And lo, as he looks on the Belfry's height, a glimmer and then a gleam of light.
		He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns, but lingers and gazes till full on his sight, a second lamp in the Belfry burns.
		One lamp the British are attacking by land.
		Two lamps the British are attacking by sea.
		A hurry of hoofs in a village street, a shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark, and beneath from the pebbles in passing a spark struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet.
		That was all.
		And yet, through the gloom and the light, the fate of the nation was writing that night.
		And the spark struck out by that steed in his flight kindled the land into flame with its heat.
		So through the night rode Paul Revere.
		And so through the night went his cry of alarm to every Middlesex village and farm.
		A cry of defiance and not of fear.
		A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door, and a word that shall echo forevermore.
		For born on the night wind of the past, through all of our history to the last, in the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken and listen to hear the hurrying hoofbeats of that steed and the midnight message of Paul Revere.
		My father was a mechanic.
		He grew up in a household that I believe early on did not have a radio, let alone, certainly didn't have television.
		And his mother would bring the family together and they would read poems.
		And my father learned just by hearing them any number of poems that he would recite as I was growing up.
		Something would trigger that.
		And I can imagine him now, my dad, the mechanic, hearing about the situation we are in with the threat to our republic and thinking back to how the colonies were threatened by the British.
		And when they were threatened, Paul Revere rode through the night to warn people and that that's what has to happen in a democracy when there are authoritarian impulses that gain hold.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That was Senator Jeff Merkley about seven and a half hours ago at midnight last night.
		He's still on the floor this morning, holding the floor now over 13 hours, taking your calls this morning about that speech, that marathon speech, and the ongoing government shutdown.
		We'll go to Oregon.
		This is John in Salem, Independent.
		John, go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
		I'm watching this speech, Jeff Merkley.
		He's my senator.
		And so is Ron Wyden.
		And this is all performative and it's hyperbole.
		When are the Democrats going to vote to open the government?
		That's my question.
		They hold the power.
		It's a continuing resolution.
		It's the same thing they all voted for when Biden was president, but now they won't vote for it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's John in Oregon.
		This is Suzanne in Ohio.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Okay, I agree with the fact that the Democrats need to work to open the government.
		I also think that there are Republicans who have been out of the Capitol now for weeks and they're not working to open the government either.
		And I'm appalled, and I'm a Republican, I'm appalled that our president, who has not supported programs like SNAP and Medicaid and Medicare,
		wants us taxpayers to pay him $230 million To pay him back for all of the cases that have been filed against him.
		I'm appalled by that when there are so many Americans who really need the help of programs like SNAP, like food banks, who are going to be inundated with requests for help from people who've never had to request help before and who don't have the money to provide that help.
		I'm appalled.
		And I think both sides are equally to blame.
		And I think we need to stop demonizing each other.
		I've heard some of my fellow Republicans call Democrats deranged.
		I've heard Democrats call Republicans all kinds of despicable names.
		And we need to stop the hate speech.
		And we need to realize that the other side is not the enemy.
		We are all Americans.
		And we need to begin working together.
		As my high school home ech teacher told us once, girls, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
		And we need to get back to that idea.
		But I don't believe we owe President Trump $230 million of taxpayer money.
		And I don't believe that he ought to have destroyed part of the White House and paved over the rose garden to build a ballroom.
		Let his private donors pay as they're paying for the ballroom.
		Let them pay him back for the money that he wants from the Justice Department.
		I don't believe I should have to pay that.
		So those are my points.
		Thank you very, very much for taking my call.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Suzanne in the Buckeye State.
		And here's those stories that Suzanne was referencing there from the New York Times.
		Trump said to demand the Justice Department pay him $230 million for past cases.
		Senior Department officials who were defense lawyers for the president and those in his orbit are now in jobs that typically must approve any such payment, underscoring, as the New York Times writes, the potential ethical conflicts.
		You can read more there in the New York Times.
		To the front page of the Washington Post, a new picture of the ongoing construction taking place at the White House.
		It's the east wing of the White House.
		So the picture on the front page of the Washington Post that you will see here in just a second is taken from the Treasury Department building looking from east to west towards the White House, the ongoing demolition of the East Wing there, making way for what is planned to be a 90,000 square foot ballroom.
		Cries of overreach as the East Wing is decimated further is the headline in the Washington Post.
		The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit created by Congress to help preserve historic buildings, sending a letter on Tuesday to the administration warning that the planned 90,000 square foot ballroom will overwhelm the White House itself, which is approximately about 55,000 square feet.
		Quoting from the letter, we respectfully urge the administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review process.
		That was the letter sent to the White House.
		White House officials dismissed the criticism as, quote, manufactured outrage, according to the Washington Post.
		Quote, for more than a century, U.S. presidents have been renovating, expanding, and modernizing the White House to meet the needs of the present day.
		The White House response team saying that the privately funded ballroom will be a quote bold, necessary addition to the presidential grounds.
		And some more pictures in today's papers.
		Tina Smith, Democrat from Minnesota, the senator, put this out on her social media page with a picture of the demolition saying, seeing the White House torn apart is really emblematic of the times that we are in.
		That's her social media post.
		Back to your phone calls.
		This is Steve, Freeland, Maryland, Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		I'm Steve from Freeland, Maryland.
		How are you doing this morning?
		Well, here we are again, John.
		Once again, we are a nation of talkers, unable to solve any problems.
		Let's start with, well, let's start with healthcare.
		Let's move to education.
		Pick a topic.
		And once again, where is the legislative branch?
		Well, the House was only in session this year.
		Are you ready?
		135 days.
		And once again, the legislative branch is going to abdicate all their responsibilities.
		We're going to go ahead and we're going to print lots of money.
		That's what we do in the United States.
		We are the great debtor nation and we're going to print, print, print.
		Now, when you are trying to take care of a nation's business, it's really important that we should be there at least 300 days a year, working diligently, because as you know, you've had plenty of guests on that said, can't pass a budget, haven't passed a budget, don't do this, can't do that.
		Well, that's what happens.
		The legislative branch has literally castrated itself and has become a useless limb on a body.
		That's what it is.
		It's a useless limb on a body.
		And if the American people, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, can't see the failure of our legislative branch, I wish we would focus more on the legislative branch and less on the individual.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Steve, what's the solution then?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		One of the earlier callers was talking about getting rid of the filibuster that it may allow the legislative branch to take bolder action, as he said.
unidentified		Steven, that's like you said, that's always called, I just call that the nuclear option.
		And both parties have wrestled with that to get what they want when they want it.
		At least they're trying to avoid that nuclear option because that's what it would be.
		And then that's just going to come haunt each and other party.
		Remember, it's about who can be in control and for how long.
		And so, right now, you know, Donald Trump's only going to be the president, and I voted for him twice, and I'm a Democrat.
		I live in Maryland.
		I've been under, I'm 61, I've been under Democratic rule for 61 years, and we're 3 billion in the hole in this state.
		My point being is maybe if we got rid of the legislative branch and we brought in Americans, just like we do with jury duty, you know, you have to come in and you have to listen to the trial and you have to come.
		So, maybe if we started saying, hey, you guys, we're all going to bring you to Washington.
		You're going to sit in the barracks type style.
		You've got to serve 30 days.
		And we go ahead, we, the American people, go ahead and we sit down and we try to figure out some of these things with, are you ready?
		Kind of like try to grab some experts and some people in this topic or this region and bring in some common sense individuals that aren't.
		Here's the most important thing, John, that aren't being bought and paid for by lobbyists.
		Because when we have lobbyists and we have special interest groups, we can go down the line with all the special interest groups that's irrelevant because everybody's trying to either keep it the way it is or to get it changed a little bit.
		I like the idea of us, the American people, being the legislative branch, coming down, serving 30 days, 30 days.
		Maybe instead of that being the ballroom, that big ballroom that they're building, maybe that could be the barracks where the American people come down.
		Democrats, Republicans, Independents, we sit down and we try to hash out, are you ready?
		Our nation's problems, because we are not solving any of our problems.
		And regardless of the party, we always come back to the same things every year.
		Guess what?
		Education's failing.
		Health care is expensive.
		Insurance is going up out of the roof.
		We talked about this.
		We beat it like a dead horse, but we never solve the problem.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Steve, got your point out of Freeland, Maryland.
		That's Steve's ideas for rewriting the Constitution.
		Certainly, it would take that to incorporate that idea.
		Happy to hear your ideas this morning and every morning on the Washington Journal.
		It's 202-748-8000 for Democrats to call in.
		202-748-8001 for Republicans.
		Independents 202-748-8002.
		About 15 minutes left in this segment of the Washington Journal.
		Go ahead and keep calling in as we show you the head of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, speaking with reporters yesterday.
		It was then day 21 of the government shutdown.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Today, I want to put a final point on some of the very real consequences we're seeing and what they mean for Americans around the country.
		And I'll zoom in on some of these key Democrat states where the senators continue to dig their heels in and vote against opening the government.
		Yesterday from NBC News, here's the headline, air traffic control staffing issues cause flight delays across the country.
		The Secretary of Transportation said 53% of flight delays are now due to staffing issues, and usually that number is 5%.
		From Colorado, food banks face growing crises as shutdown impacts become a reality.
		That's the headline from Sky High News.
		What are Colorado's two Democrat senators doing?
		You've got Hicken Looper and Bennett.
		They both now voted 11 times to keep the government closed.
		Virginia, here's the headline yesterday, KSL.
		Virginia employees fear shutdowns impact on veterans' medical care.
		And meanwhile, their two Democrat senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, have voted repeatedly to put their thumb in the eye of those veterans.
		And they won't end this pain.
		From Hawaii, Hawaii News Now says, headline, government shutdown impacts telehealth for seniors in Hawaii.
		Seniors in Hawaii rely upon telehealth.
		Guess who's shutting it down?
		Their two Democrat senators, Brian Schatz and Maisie Hirono, voted again and again to keep the government closed and disrupt the health services for seniors in their own state.
		They've got a lot to answer to.
		From California, here's a headline, ABC 7 News.
		Almeida food banks step in to help TSA workers, families impacted by government shutdown.
		That is disgusting.
		And both of California's senators, Padilla and Schiff, have voted 11 times to block the pay of those TSA agents and their families, the paychecks they rely upon.
		From Illinois, WIFR, yesterday, federal courts in northern Illinois reduce operations due to government shutdown.
		The courts are reducing operations, and you've got Illinois Democrats, Senators Duckworth and Durbin have voted to keep the government closed.
		We can do this all day long.
		That's a sample.
		Democrats used to care about the harm that shutdowns caused hardworking Americans, but now we can all see very clearly that was always based on politics and not principle.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Speaker Mike Johnson yesterday on headlines across the country, here's one more from today's Wall Street Journal, Farm Aid Funding Frozen by Shutdown to be released.
		The story noting that the Trump administration is planning to release more than $3 billion in aid to U.S. farmers that had been frozen as a result of the government shutdown as the agriculture sector grapples with the fallout from the president's tariffs.
		President Trump directed the Agriculture Department to distribute the money from a fund that was used to bail out distressed farmers during Trump's first term, according to administration officials the Wall Street Journal talked to because of furloughs and closed USADA offices, farmers have been unable to access some of the department's safety net programs.
		On Thursday, USDA plans to resume Farm Service Agency core operations, which have been closed for three weeks during the government shutdown, and that would allow farmers to access aid, including some of those safety net programs they're reporting today.
		Taking your phone calls, this is Kevin out of the Hoosier State Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		Good morning, C-Stan Joint audience.
		I'm going to get some quick points in.
		I know our time is limited.
		I agree with the previous caller.
		We have to come together as a country.
		The politicians need to do this.
		It needs to be bipartisan.
		There's people hurting out there.
		And I just want to-that's my most important point.
		Second of all, as far as the renovations at the White House, even though I'm Republican, the optics aren't good.
		People are hurting out there.
		I don't.
		As far as the House being out of session, those optics aren't good.
		People are hurting.
		They need to be in there.
		Just not good optics.
		But I'm going to.
		My last point is: as far as deportations, I'd like, I know things they need to be doing it in a just way.
		But the last point I wanted to make was: President Barack Obama had 3.1 million deportations in eight years.
		Didn't get much media pushback, but I wanted to get that point in.
		Anyway, that's all I had to say.
		And thank you for taking my call.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Kevin in Indiana.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Ronald is in the Granite State Independent.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning, John.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		Yeah, with regard to the authoritarianism and all that, you know who we blame for that?
		We blame Congress.
		Blame Congress.
		Blame Congress.
		They're the ones who are responsible for this.
		How so, Ronald?
		I'm sorry?
		How so?
		They could stop this at any time.
		They could withdraw the AUMS so Trump doesn't get us into a war.
		They could stop the ICE agents.
		They could stop the tariffs.
		All of this.
		They could stop right now.
		And right now, they have the power to do that.
		Right now, while they're doing these negotiations, you know who I'm blaming?
		I'm blaming Gene Shaheen and Maggie Goodlander.
		You know why?
		Because those are the two Congresspeople who are up for vote next November.
		That's who I blame.
		And I don't care what they say.
		I don't care what they say.
		In fact, I don't care what their individual votes are.
		I care what gets done because they trade votes between each other.
		So it doesn't matter what they vote or what they say.
		It's what they get done.
		And if we still have a dictator in office come next election, if we have an election, then I'm going to blame Congress.
		Blame Congress.
		They're the ones who have the power.
		Blame Congress.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Ronald in New Hampshire.
		Don is in Michigan.
		Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Go ahead.
		Good morning, C-SFAN.
		Good morning to American people.
		That last caller hit it right on the spot.
		Mike Johnson could bring the House in session and solve this.
		Nobody on either side gets everything you want.
		It's called negotiation.
		And Trump says that the American, the Democrats projects are being cut.
		He doesn't realize those are American programs.
		Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
		This president is a threat to this country.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's down in Michigan?
		Debbie DeSoto, Texas, Independent.
		You're next.
unidentified		Hello, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Debbie.
unidentified		Yes.
		My first-time caller, so I do have some points I want to make.
		Also, I agree with the other two gentlemen that Congress, I believe, is responsible because they are like the guardrail to whatever is not being done for the people and can pull in some of the things that the president is saying and allowing.
		I believe that the temperature of this country will start from the head down to the people, and the head would be our president.
		Whatever temperature he is spewing out there, whether it be peace or hate or making fun of the people, some of the stuff that I've seen as a Christian is totally disgusting, like the flying of the plane and excretion coming down on the people.
		We are the people, the United States of America, not divided.
		We are one.
		A house divided cannot stand.
		And that's what the word of God says as well.
		And we cannot do this as a red state, blue state, because there are red people, blue people in each state.
		So when you're trying to hurt one people, you're hurting all the people.
		We need to come together.
		Congress is a guardrail.
		Do your job and then let's come together.
		Mike Johnson, you can call the people back and let's do why the Republicans and the Democrats can't agree on this health care plan because Republicans are not going to keep their word when it comes to, okay, we agree to the end of the year, but when the end of the year come, then all of a sudden you don't remember what you had promised that you were going to go with.
		So the people can't just live for one year and know that, okay, things may be okay, but the next year, the sky race of the insurance is going to go so high.
		We can't live.
		We won't have any insurance if we try to keep the insurance, let it go as high as the insurance companies want it to go.
		Tripling people insurance.
		Obamacare, as they call it, ACA, may not have been perfect, but it allowed people to keep their children that were maybe still in college or whatever up to, I think it was age 26.
		This allowed people that couldn't afford insurance, little small companies that couldn't give insurance, allowed the people to be able to buy on the market.
		So it may not have been perfect, but it did allow people to get insurance that could not afford insurance before.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point from DeSoto, Texas.
		On your point on coming together, this is the headline from Politico.
		Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies reach out to Donald Trump as the shutdown grinds on.
		The top Democrats in Treaty came ahead of the president's week-long Asia journey.
		This was President Trump's response to that effort to reach out.
		President Trump from the Oval Office yesterday.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		I would love to meet.
		I would like to meet with both of them, but I set one little caveat.
		I will only meet if they let the country open.
		That let the country open.
		The people want to go back to work.
		They want to be served.
		They need the services of some people.
		And a lot of people need the money, the payroll.
		So I'll do it as soon as they open up the country.
		I'd like to meet with them.
unidentified		So you won't meet with them, Dr. Mr. President.
		Just to be clear, you won't meet with them until the government's open.
		The government has to be open, yeah.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		You know how long it would take for them to do that?
		Just say, okay, government's open.
		That's it.
		There is nothing.
unidentified		How long?
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		They're not negotiating.
		What they're doing is saying they lost the negotiation when we got the Great Big Beautiful deal done.
		They lost that negotiation.
		Now they're saying, well, we want to get some of the things we lost.
		But the problem is the things they lost are very bad for our country.
		We don't want to have people come over from all over the world, from prisons and all, and have them have their health care paid for.
		We want to take care of people that are American citizens and all.
		So they want $1.5 trillion of money to be wasted and jeopardize the health care of other people.
		We're not going to do that.
		So we're going to, I would love to meet with them.
		We want the country open for us.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		President Trump yesterday from the Oval Office, taking your phone calls this morning, day 22 of the government shutdown on the Washington Journal.
		The phone lines, as usual, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Independents 202-748-8002.
		We head all the way out to the Pacific.
		Hawaii, this is Armando, Republican line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi, John.
		Good morning.
		I think it's time for the filibuster to end and the Senate to use the nuclear option.
		We've got to reopen this government already.
		But the other thing I'd like to point out is that, you know, my wife was on Obamacare.
		I'm Republican.
		And my wife, and I voted for Trump, and my wife was on Obamacare for three years.
		So I think, you know, use, I think the Senate should use the nuclear option.
		They've done it in the past many times.
		And I think they should open the government.
		And then I think they really need to discuss the, you know, the expiring subsidies, enhanced subsidies of Obamacare, because that's important.
		I believe in that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe they should be extended at the same rates?
unidentified		I think they should negotiate because, you know, medical costs in Hawaii here, I'm in Hawaii, and I've seen strike by Kapiolani Medical.
		I've seen strike by Kaiser.
		Medical costs are rising.
		So, I mean, where does it end?
		But, you know, I think they need to negotiate.
		They need to sit down and they need to talk, Democrats and Republicans, and negotiate and come up with something.
		Maybe not 100% of what the subsidies were, but closely, maybe 80%, maybe 50%.
		I don't know.
		But that's something they need to sit down and they need to talk about.
		Because I do, I'm in favor of the Obamacare, and I think it's a good thing because there's a lot of people affected by that, both in the red and blue states, and especially in Hawaii here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Armando.
unidentified		That's my belief.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for the call, being up either very late or very early in Hawaii.
		Time for just a couple more calls.
		This is Terry out in the centennial state of Colorado.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I have a couple of things I do want to talk about.
		I could the health care system.
		They're saying, due to Obamacare, well, we could solve it.
		Congress gets together and makes a new plan.
		One-payer health care.
		Why, it would work.
		You get free health care up to a certain point.
		If you want the luxury, then you pay for it.
		And deductibles of $9,000, $10,000, that would bankrupt people.
		These insurance companies are robbing us, the people.
		And Congress, it needs to change.
		And we just need to redo it and get rid of that president.
		He needs to be impeached.
		Stuff he's doing, such as tearing down the White House, that's not his place.
		It's ours.
		It's not his to be tearing down.
		He is renting it.
		For it just makes me angry.
		And fighting between the Democrats and Republicans for getting out of hand.
		Even just people in general.
		We have to agree to disagree, but we need to get rid of this man.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Terry in Colorado.
		This is Al in Boston Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm calling about Congress.
		I'm actually calling about the Senate.
russell means ▲ ● ▼		If you're confident in something, if you know it's going to work, change the rules, apply the nuclear option, and let's get on with business.
		I mean, if they're so confident that their bill will satisfy the American people, I would think that's the simplest way to accomplish that with the nuclear option and let the chips fall where they may.
		The Republicans don't want to do that because their bill cannot pass the Senate.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Al in Boston, our last caller in this first segment of the Washington Journal.
		Stick around, though.
		Plenty more to talk about.
		Later this morning, a conversation with Ryan Berg of the Center for Strategic and International Studies about the rising tensions between the United States and Venezuela.
		But first, after the break, a closer look at the Trump administration's trade and tariff policies, a preview as well of President Trump's planned meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
		Stick around for that conversation with Gavin Bade right after the break.
unidentified		Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold new original series.
		Sunday, with our guest, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
		Only the fifth woman to serve on the high court and author of the book, Listening to the Law.
		She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader, David Rubinstein.
david rubenstein ▲ ● ▼		And what do you hope most people will take away from your book?
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		I think what I want them to take away from the book is that they should be proud of the court.
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		And I want them to be able, I want them to understand the way the court grapples with the legal questions that matter to the country.
unidentified		Watch America's Book Club with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Friday on C-SPAN's Ceasefire, in a time of sharp political divides, two senators from opposite sides of the aisle come together for a candid conversation.
		Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons and Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford discuss cooperation on key foreign policy and the government shutdown.
		They join host Dasha Burns to talk about what really matters.
		Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment.
		From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future, we bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments.
		Only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Wall Street Journal reporter Gavin Bade is back with us this morning for a focus on U.S.-China trade talks.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning to you.
unidentified		Hey, John, how are you?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All I'm good.
		All eyes are on when it comes to the trade topic.
		President Trump's expected meeting with Xi Jinping in Korea, expected to take place sometime mid to late next week.
		Although it may not take place if we take President Trump's comments from yesterday, literally.
unidentified		Here's what he had to say.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And again, I have a great relationship with President Xi.
		I expect to be able to make a good deal with him.
		And I want him to make a good deal for China.
		But it's got to be fair.
		For years, they were making $50, $60, $700 billion, $700 billion, and we'd be making nothing.
		It was a one-sided, honestly, we built their military.
		We built China's military with the money that we lost for so many years getting ripped off.
		So now we're going to have a fair deal.
		I think we're going to have a very successful meeting.
		Certainly, there are a lot of people that are waiting for it.
		Maybe it won't happen.
		Maybe it won't happen.
		Things can happen where, for instance, maybe somebody will say, I don't want to meet.
		It's too nasty.
		But it's really not nasty.
		It's just business.
		And we're going to do a good job representing you people and representing the people of our country.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Babe, what's your read on those comments yesterday?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How likely is it that this meeting will actually happen?
unidentified		I do expect that it will happen, John.
		I mean, Trump and Xi Jinping have been back and forth on this.
		They both like to preserve their leverage over a meeting like this.
		And part of that leverage is whether they will or will not meet at all.
		But Treasury Secretary Scott Besson is meeting his Chinese counterpart this week in Malaysia.
		They're hammering out the details for this.
		Both sides really want to meet and take the temperature down in this relationship.
		We've seen a flare-up in U.S.-China trade tensions in the last few weeks.
		And so I do expect the two leaders to meet sooner rather than later.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is the deal that President Trump wants coming out of this meeting?
unidentified		There's a number of things he wants.
		I think first and foremost, he wants the Chinese to relax what are called export controls.
		The Chinese have really put some onerous controls on the ability of U.S. companies to buy what are called rare earth magnets.
		These are components that go in everything from electric vehicles to advanced fighter jets.
		China has really cornered the market on processing these materials, and they've really been putting the squeeze on U.S. companies.
		Trump wants them to stop that.
		And then he wants a number of trade items as well.
		For instance, he wants China to start buying U.S. soybeans.
		China has shifted from buying U.S. soybeans to Brazil and Argentina in response to Trump's tariffs.
		So we're really in a tit-for-tat retaliation cycle in this trade conflict.
		And I think he wants to bring down the temperature a little bit here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is the deal that Xi Jinping is looking for in this meeting?
unidentified		In a word, tariffs, right?
		Tariff reductions, in two words, I suppose.
		You know, U.S. average tariffs on China right now are of 55 to 57 percent, depending on the good you're talking about.
		And that's really historically high.
		It's not a full trade embargo on the U.S.-China trade relationship, but it's very onerous on Chinese companies.
		So they're going to be looking for ways to get that number down.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		These trade deals are all about pressure points and where you can push.
		This was the lead of your story from last week.
		In its standoff with Washington, Beijing thinks that it has found America's Achilles heel, President Trump's fixation on the stock market.
		Explain.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		Well, President Trump, when the Chinese put on these export controls, he once again threatened a 100% additional tariff on China.
		If you think back to earlier this year, tariffs did actually go that high.
		We had 145% tariffs on China for a short time.
		And what happened is the stock market went into a tailspin.
		We saw disruptions in the bond market as well.
		And ultimately, the president had to back down.
		The Chinese saw this.
		They observed this.
		They know that the U.S. economy cannot withstand triple-digit tariffs for long.
		And so if push does come to shove and Trump puts those in place, they think they can outlast the U.S. in any trade war because the president likes to see stocks go up.
		He does not like to see disruptions in other markets.
		And they think that they can hold on for longer.
		So that's the card that they're playing in these talks.
		Whether or not it will work, I think remains to be seen.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So what are the pressure points that President Trump's advisors are telling him that he can push on here?
unidentified		Well, as China has certain products that we're reliant on them for, we have a lot of products that they rely on us for.
		And when they've put in place export controls, we've also come back and enhanced our export controls, our sanctions on Chinese companies.
		We can inflict a lot of pain on the Chinese economy if we want to with tariffs or with these other trade controls.
		That just comes at a cost for our economy as well.
		So each side has pressure points that they can kind of poke at here as we move forward.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		As we look ahead to that meeting, it would take place, expected to take place in South Korea at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit that's taking place.
		Do we know anything about who would be in that meeting?
		Would it be a one-on-one meeting, a two-on-two, three-on-three?
		If so, who would join President Trump?
		Who would join Xi Jinping?
unidentified		I think that a lot of the details are still being worked out.
		Oftentimes, Trump really likes these to be mono-amano, right?
		Like he likes to deal with other leaders on a personal basis.
		And I think that's especially true with Xi Jinping, who he sees as his near-peer rival here.
		China's really the only country that has challenged U.S. trade actions this year.
		They're the only one to really have retaliated in a lasting way.
		And so I think he sees this as a test of his personal mettle, as well as, you know, a big, high-stakes economic encounter as well.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Bay joining us from the Wall Street Journal, Trade and Economic Policy Reporter.
		If you have questions on that front, give us a call.
		Phone lines, as usual.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		As folks are calling in, switch gears for me.
		Take us to the tariff case before the Supreme Court.
		November 5th is when we're expecting that case to be heard.
		President Trump has said he may attend that case personally.
		What is this case about?
		What are the justices being asked to decide?
unidentified		Basically, this case focuses on Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs.
		These are the ones that he unveiled back in April on Liberation Day.
		It's not all of the tariffs they've put in place, but think about it as like 70% of Trump's second term tariffs.
		To put these tariffs in place, Trump used a novel interpretation of a 1970s emergency economic law and said that that law justifies him putting these broad tariffs on virtually every U.S. trading partner.
		The only problem is that law does not mention tariffs specifically.
		And so affected industries in the U.S. have filed and actually won two lower court cases saying that this law actually does not allow him to use these use tariffs in such a sweeping way.
		And so the Supreme Court will be looking at that emergency law and trying to decide what is the scope of the president's emergency powers under this act when it comes to when it comes to economic warfare, basically, and when it comes to setting tariffs on on virtually the entire world.
		So it's going to be a very, very high-stakes case for the U.S. here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Are there any tea leaves to be read in how the justices have spoken about trade before?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Other questions they've asked on that front in previous cases?
unidentified		This one, everyone I talk to says this one's really 50-50.
		I mean, courts are usually quite deferential to the executive branch when they are exerting emergency powers, right?
		And it's especially like saying the president in an emergency, in times of crisis, can use his broad powers to regulate commerce.
		That's the argument of the administration.
		The wording of this law is maybe a stretch when it comes to that.
		As I said, it does not mention tariffs specifically.
		It allows him to impose economic sanctions.
		And so they're going to test whether the president's executive authority allows him to stretch the meaning of this text a little bit.
		And I'm not a lawyer, and I think the smart lawyers I talk to say this one is really 50-50 going into November 5th.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And then one other story, this from today's Wall Street Journal.
		If you can just dig a little bit deeper on it, farm aid funding frozen by shutdown is now set to be released.
		Explain some of the background here.
		We mentioned this in our previous segment.
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
		I think farmers are really feeling the squeeze right now.
		They need loans ahead of, you know, it's harvesting season right now, the time when a lot of them get their finances in order for next planting season.
		They need the farm loans to kind of get over the hump into next year, right?
		At the same time, you've seen U.S. farmers really be buffeted in foreign markets right now.
		We mentioned Brazil not buying U.S. farm commodities.
		Beef prices are very, very high.
		Trump came in and said, maybe we'll buy beef from Argentina.
		That sparked the ire of many cattle ranchers and senators from those states.
		So I think there's a lot of moving parts in the agriculture industry right now as we go through this shutdown and the continuation of these global trade tensions.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And a lot of moving parts for a trade and economic policy reporter to cover these days.
		Good time for you to call in and ask your questions on any of these stories.
		Cy is up first out of Plainview, New York, Republican.
		Cy, you are on with Gavin Bing.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'd like to know from Gavin what the rationale is for allowing China to buy farmland in this country, particularly near military sites.
		I think it's sheer matency.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're going in and out, but I think we got the same thing.
unidentified		Yes, Chinese purchases of farmland, a very hot topic among many in Congress these days.
		You know, generally, the U.S. is a relatively open market.
		We let companies from around the world come in and invest in U.S., like the agricultural sector, the industrial sector.
		There are rising concerns in Congress and among some in the administration that Chinese companies may be coming in and not just buying farmland, but buying farmland, as LaCaller said, adjacent to U.S. military sites, near strategic U.S. military bases, that maybe we wouldn't want a foreign adversary's company being right next door to that.
		So there are a couple options on the table here.
		One is strengthening investment reviews.
		We have something called the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States.
		There have been bills and proposals.
		Indeed, indeed.
		There have been proposals to expand its jurisdiction to look into these sorts of cases.
		And then also some legislative proposals to tighten up in just the farm sector as well, some of the reviews here.
		So I think this is something that certainly people in Washington are talking about.
		We haven't seen any concrete movement yet, but it's something we can see on the horizon.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The location next to military bases, if it's not for nefarious purposes.
		What kind of farmland are they buying up?
		I mean, is China trying to buy soybean farms so they can then protect themselves against tariffs on soybeans?
		Do we know the type of farmland they're looking for here?
unidentified		I think it's been a mixed bag so far, and I should emphasize, like, it's not like the Chinese have a majority of U.S. farmland.
		The ultimate amount of farmland they have is very small, but they also have investments in the meatpacking industry elsewhere.
		Again, U.S., traditionally a quite open market.
		We allow other companies, other countries' companies to come in and invest here.
		That's something that President Trump likes and something that Xi Jinping has put on the table through his team and former in previous talks.
		You know, maybe we can come in and invest and build new factories in the U.S.
		The question here is: where does it cross the line to a defense issue, to a national security issue?
		Can we vet these companies?
		Can we see if they're connected to the Chinese Communist Party?
		And if so, do we block them?
		Do we put some mitigation into effect?
		It gets very technical very quickly, but certainly there are people thinking about this.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And that's the job of that CIFIUS group.
		Just for folks who've never heard of that, what do they do?
		Who's it made up of?
		Who gets to make these decisions?
unidentified		Yeah, it's an interagency group.
		Again, it's the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
		You may have heard it called CFIUS.
		These are representatives from the Defense Department, Treasury, Ag Department, Commerce, an interagency group that comes together.
		And when a company wants to make a big strategic investment in the U.S., they will review that company, make sure there aren't ties to foreign military adversaries, other nefarious actors, and then make a determination whether that investment should be allowed to go through, whether there maybe need to be some regulations put into place.
		This is something we saw, for instance, with the TikTok deal.
		There was a CIFIA review ongoing through the Biden administration on that.
		And there's been a lot more of these cases for the committee to review.
		It's been strengthened in past years, in recent years by Congress.
		And it's really, you know, in a very technical sense, there is a spotlight on this committee going forward because, you know, we are blurring the line, some would say, between, you know, economic security, national security, and just normal economic functioning in this country.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		In terms of normal economic functioning in this country, a question from America Inc. following along and watching from X saying which branch of government should determine which countries and goods to tariff?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Should it be the president or Congress?
unidentified		This is an interesting issue.
		The Constitution originally said Congress, right?
		Trade tariffs, that is an Article I congressional prerogative.
		Now, over decades, Congress has ceded authority on trade to the president through a number of laws dating back through the mid-20th century.
		And originally that was to give the president more authority to go out and make trade deals.
		And kind of part and parcel with that is enhanced tariff authority.
		And so now that President Trump is really flexing that muscle and really going out and tariffing other countries, you've seen some legislative proposals really from both parties in Congress to take some of that authority back.
		I don't think we'll see anything move in the short term here, but we have seen some interesting votes in Congress, some interesting alliances between Republicans and Democrats.
		I think it's going to be something to watch, especially as we see more of these price increases related to tariffs kind of filter through the economy in months to come.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's been the most interesting alliance in your mind?
unidentified		I think we've seen a couple of Republicans, for instance, Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader in the Senate, he has voted for Senate resolutions that would take back some of this authority, that would cancel some of President Trump's emergency authority over these so-called reciprocal tariffs.
		These are the same tariffs that will come up before the Supreme Court.
		So Mitch McConnell has done that.
		Rand Paul, more of a libertarian streak from Kentucky, he's voted for that.
		And then we've seen a bill from Chuck Grassley.
		He's from Iowa.
		He's a Republican.
		He used to be chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
		He teamed up with Maria Cantwell for a bill that would actually, probably the most robust bill on tap in Congress right now that would take some of that authority back on trade from the executive.
		Now, Senate leadership, Senate Republican leadership is not going to let a lot of these bills go forward, but I do think you could see clamoring from some vulnerable Republicans next year as we go into election season and as price increases related to these tariffs, again, continue to filter through the economy.
		Because I don't think economists think that we've seen all of that happen yet.
		There's still kind of more ripple effects from these tariffs to come.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Bade of the Wall Street Journal taking your phone calls.
		Again, phone lines, Democrats 202-748-8000.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Independents 202-748-8002.
		Joyce, Las Vegas, line for Democrats.
		You're up.
unidentified		John, thank you for taking my call, C-Spin.
		I would like to ask Mr. Bad, Gavin Bad, what would happen if China would call in all the debt, call in our debt that we owe them?
		We used to borrow a lot of money from them.
		When I was a young girl, I remember riding on the freeway, highway, talking.
		They would say, we would say, oh, this is China's freeway because America has always borrowed.
		Wouldn't that mess up?
		What would that do to the country?
		And they do.
		Can they do that?
		What would happen?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Bade.
unidentified		I must admit, Joyce, that's a very good question.
		Not necessarily my area of expertise here, but I do think that these sovereign debt issues, I mean, China does buy a lot of U.S. Treasuries.
		We also sell a lot to other countries.
		And I don't think that that's been something that's been on the table in these trade talks.
		We haven't seen China calling in their debt, so to speak, right?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that the equivalent of a nuclear option in this trade dispute war?
unidentified		I would think so, but and again, I'm a little fuzzy on the details here, but I do think that that would also have impacts on the Chinese economy.
		And they are trying desperately to keep the value of their currency up.
		And so I think these international financial markets are a little bit too fragile to kind of do a nuclear option, so to speak, in that way.
		But again, it's something maybe I should look into more.
		So she brings up a good issue.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A U.S.-China trade deal certainly would be the biggest trade deal to watch.
		But what other trade deals are we working on right now?
		What else are you covering?
unidentified		Yeah, there's been a number of trade frameworks that we've signed with other nations.
		Now, these are not bona fide, you know, legal trade deals, as you would see, like the U.S.-Mexico-Canada deal from Trump's first term that replaced NAFTA.
		These are executive agreements that Trump has signed with countries like Japan, economies like the European Union.
		They're working on finalizing the terms of it with South Korea.
		We've seen a number of them in Southeast Asian nations, Vietnam, Indonesia.
		There are a lot of details to be worked out.
		Usually what has happened in these deals is that the U.S. has agreed to decrease their tariffs from Trump's very high threatened levels in exchange for reductions in tariff and trade barriers in other nations.
		And in return, they get a break on some of their tariffs.
		For instance, in the European Union and Japan, they got their automotive tariffs down from 25% to 15%, so they can still sell into the U.S. market and make a profit.
		In exchange, we got a number of concessions from them.
		But again, these things are still being worked through.
		The details are still very much up in the air in a lot of these.
		So I think it's kind of a rolling ball when it comes to these trade negotiations.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that the focus of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Or what goes on at the summit where we're expecting President Trump and Xi Jinping to meet?
unidentified		It's a broad-based economic summit.
		So you will see countries talking about trade deals with the U.S. You'll see them talking about regional economic cooperation amongst their nations as well.
		They'll talk about currency.
		They'll talk about any range of economic issues.
		So I do think while the Trump G Summit may overshadow some of those proceedings for a U.S. audience, it's also very important for these other nations to meet with each other, enhance regional economic cooperation.
		It's usually a big conference for that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is it always South Korea that hosts it?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Have we ever hosted one of those?
unidentified		We hosted it on the final year of the Biden administration.
		That was out in San Francisco, and it rotates throughout Asia-Pacific nations.
		So this is a regular confab that the leaders come to talk about economic issues.
		It just so happens that we're going to have a big sideshow with this summit between the world's two biggest economies.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Russell Next out of Dallas, Georgia, Republican.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Russell.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're on with Gavin Babe.
unidentified		Yes.
		My question is about these tariffs.
		These tariffs seem to be, to me, just I know that it's a type of money that's taken in, but there seems to be no accurate posting of where these tariffs go, what are they being used for, and just inform the public more what they're being used for and accountability.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		It seems to be a very, I don't know, it's not exposed like it should be.
unidentified		I mean, the general public does not understand what's going on with these tariffs, and I'd like to know where the money's going.
		Yeah, that's a great question.
		I think it's a really important one because President Trump loves to talk about how much revenue the U.S. is bringing in from these tariffs.
		Broadly speaking, it goes straight into the Treasury Department's coffers.
		And it's become kind of a, I won't say a slush fund, but a fund that the Trump administration has used for a number of purposes, right?
		We've seen them try to roll out.
		He said we were going to roll out aid to farmers affected by this trade war.
		Again, soybean farmers, other farmers that are not selling to China, not selling to other markets.
		He said, well, we're going to roll out an aid package using this tariff revenue to some of the farmers.
		We've seen him try to fund some government programs that maybe wouldn't have got funding during the shutdown.
		He's talked about using tariff revenue for that.
		He's talked about doing rebate checks to the American public for it.
		And then he's also just talked about keeping it at the Treasury Department to pay down the debt.
		So I think they see a lot of optionality.
		They've got a lot of options with what they can use this revenue for.
		And Trump really likes to see it coming into the country.
		I would say that economists would say this is a, you know, mostly a tax on U.S. consumers, right?
		This is people, you know, this is U.S., you know, you pay a tariff when a product comes into the country as an importer.
		So this is U.S. companies getting a tax and paying it to the Treasury Department and then them deciding what they're going to do with it after.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Jay Sanders wants you to dig down, as it were, on soybeans.
		If China can switch from buying its soybeans in the U.S. to making all its soybean purchases from South America, what does that say about the overall supply of soybeans?
		Is the world supply greater than the world demand?
unidentified		I'm not sure about the global supply and demand.
		I do think we've certainly got, it seems like we've got enough soybeans to go around.
		I think more the question here is a question of price, right?
		When President Trump put his tariffs on China, they retaliated.
		They have 30% tariffs on the U.S. around about.
		And so that makes U.S. soybeans more expensive.
		It's better for them to buy from a Brazilian company, an Argentinian company.
		China has spent a lot of money developing farmland in those countries, getting farms of every type off the ground.
		And soybeans are also a durable good.
		So the Chinese can keep them, you know, keep them offshore in big tankers or transport vessels.
		They can keep them throughout the year.
		It's something that doesn't decay very, very quickly.
		So it's an easily substituted good.
		And so when you have a price increase from a tariff on U.S. soybeans, the market's going to react.
		They're going to go elsewhere.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is rare earth minerals an easily substituted good?
unidentified		No, and that's a problem for us, right?
		We have, I mean, the president this week signed a critical minerals deal with Australia.
		The whole idea is to get some of these minerals from Australia, invest in more of the processing capabilities.
		And so, without going into much detail on this, the point is that China really has the vast majority of these processing facilities.
		We used to do it in the U.S., it's costly, it's polluting.
		We let a lot of that slide to China over decades under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and now they really corner the market.
		So, we have these, you know, these rare earth magnets that go into everything from, like I said, cars to guided missiles and things like that.
		They've really got us, you know, they've got us in a corner on these things.
		And while so, I think it's going to take a number of years for us to build up the capabilities, the processing capabilities, to be able to counter China's dominance in this sector.
		Likewise, the U.S. has dominance in a lot of sectors as well, and we've seen us flex our muscles on export controls too.
		And that's why I think you see the sides meeting and saying, hey, we both need things from one another.
		Maybe we can take the temperature down a little bit.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Remind viewers who Jamison Greer is.
unidentified		Yes, the U.S. trade representative.
		He was chief of staff to Bob Lighthizer, who was USTR in Trump's first term.
		A bona fide trade lawyer, very well respected by both parties in Washington.
		He's been dealing with a lot of the details in these trade negotiations.
		So he's really their technical guy on a lot of these things.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And my producer, Leslie Collins, tells me he's on the grounds of the White House right now, and he may come to the stakeout camera in the next five minutes or so.
		So we'll take that if he does.
		We'll continue to watch the White House grounds and continue to take your phone calls with Gavin Bade.
		Rachel is in Silver Spring, Maryland.
		Democrat.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Rachel.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Good morning.
		Thank you, C-SPEN.
		I have a comment and a question.
		My comment is: I remember during President Trump's first term when China addressed him as a child.
		And China is an ancient country.
		They invented paper and paper money.
		They were the wealthiest country during the Roman times with their silk road, during the Silk Road days with their very expensive export of silk.
		And my question is: how will President Trump negotiate anything with such a country as China when they called him a child in his first term?
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Gavin Bain.
unidentified		Well, I think the big card the U.S. has to play here, and Trump talks about it all the time, is the size of our consumer market.
		I mean, we are the biggest consumer market in the world.
		Chinese companies want to sell here.
		We are responsible for a lot of their exports that go out of their country still coming to the United States.
		And so they certainly want access to our market, access to our consumers.
		They want to sell us more stuff.
		And so that is really the biggest Trump card, so to speak, that the U.S. holds in these negotiations is access to the U.S. market.
		And so I think that's why you'll see you'll see them come to some sort of agreement.
		I don't think it'll be a full trade deal or anything quite as extensive as we saw in Trump's first term.
		But I do think we'll see something happen and a little relaxation of tensions here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Your story from earlier this week, the U.S. is tiptoeing away from many of Trump's signature tariffs.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Explain which ones you dug in on.
unidentified		Sure thing.
		So this is regarding the so-called reciprocal tariffs.
		These are the subject of that Supreme Court case next month.
		So to think about this, think about Trump's second term tariffs in two buckets.
		One of them is the reciprocal tariffs.
		The other is the so-called Section 232 tariffs.
		These are other national security-related tariffs on steel and aluminum, automotive, other sectors.
		These are sector by sector, industry-by-industry tariffs.
		What we've seen over the past few weeks and months is the administration is slowly taking the emphasis off of the reciprocal tariffs, these ones that are really at legal risk.
		They're putting more exemptions, more carve-outs in place.
		They're offering to carve out more goods from those tariffs.
		And they're actually at the same time that they're stepping away from those tariffs slightly.
		The other bucket, the Section 232s, they're expanding them greatly.
		They're rolling out tariffs on new sectors.
		They're expanding the scope of tariffs that they have on certain industries.
		Industries, like the automotive industry, like steel and aluminum, and so what we see is kind of a shift in emphasis from reciprocal tariffs to these so-called section 232s, in part because there's such a legal risk to the reciprocal tariffs right now and, by contrast, section 232 has been used, all it's been used numerous times by, you know, by administrations of both parties.
		It's on much firmer legal ground.
		So I think you see them kind of building a plan b in case those other tariffs get thrown out by the Supreme Court.
		They'll still have a lot of the economy covered by this separate set of so-called section 232 tariffs, and so it's a complicated issue.
		But you think you know one set of tariffs, another set of tariffs.
		They're de-emphasizing one, they're emphasizing the one that's on shorter legal footing here, and I think you'll kind of see that play out as this uh, Supreme Court case moves forward.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		We'll give Jameson Greer another minute or two to see if he comes to the microphones at the White House.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		In the meantime, to South Jersey, it's Vineland, New Jersey, Mickey Independent, you're on with Gavin, Babe.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you this morning doing?
		Well Mickey okay, i'd like to say tariffs are not enough.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		Since World War Ii, American taxpayers have rebuilt the world, now we need to rebuild America.
unidentified		We need free and fair trade.
doc in indiana ▲ ● ▼		So make foreign businesses pay the same taxes fines fees licenses surcharges permits, health costs, minimum wage, environmental standards, safety costs, etc.
jim marrs ▲ ● ▼		And follow, and make them follow, the same rules that American businesses have to pay.
unidentified		And that's my comment, what Mickey describes not exactly what is usually considered free trade certainly, but I think there is a big push to, you know, equalize some of these terms of trade and equalize regulations across a number of countries.
		This is something the president has actually prioritized say, in um negotiations with the European Union.
		He has push the, pushed the Europeans to uh, decrease a lot of their regulations on things like the automotive sector, other sectors, to kind of more more reflect what you would see in the United States.
		He's pushed for this in Japan as well.
		Obviously, this is a very contentious issue.
		These other countries have regulations in place for good reasons, as that that's how they feel and so it's.
		It's always a give and take.
		If you, president Trump, has said, if you want access to our markets, you need to treat U.s firms more like we treat them in our country, now I would say for the caller, you know, if a.
		If a foreign company is coming here, you know they're going to be subject to the same laws and regulations as U.s firms.
		Now, whether or not you know, companies find ways to skirt around them.
		I think both domestic and foreign firms in the?
		U.s are always trying to find ways around regulations.
		But I think getting down to the brass tax of what He's talking about, that has been a priority for the administration, to bring down regulations on U.S. Firms in other Countries.
		And we've seen them, you know, have some preliminary success with that.
		As I'm saying, you know, we have to see how these trade deals work out.
		They're not classic legal trade deals.
		But he has been extracting some concessions on that.
		So I think that that's something that, to the caller's point, the President Trump has prioritized.
		Final minute, what are you working on this week?
		Looking ahead to the Trump Xi meeting and the reciprocal tariffs case at the Supreme Court as well.
		There's also a tariff case on Italian pasta that has been a more technocratic case, kind of out of the headlines.
		But it's an administrative review on these duties on Italian pasta.
		There's been a big that's gotten messed up for some reason or another.
		Now the Italians are facing 100% tariffs on pasta if they don't in this very technocratic administrative review find a way to get those tariffs down.
		So look out for that article in a few days here.
		I think we'll have it at least early next week.
		We're going to see if we, you know, the Italians would really, really like to avoid that.
		I'm sure a lot of pasta eating consumers in the U.S. would too.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Probably very anxious for that story.
		Gavin Bate with Wall Street Journal Trade and Economic Policy Reporter.
		Do always appreciate your time.
unidentified		Thank you so much, John.
unidentified		Happy to be here.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Coming up in about 30 minutes, a conversation with Ryan Berg of the Center for Strategic and International Studies about the rising tensions between the United States and Venezuela.
		But after the break, it's more of your phone calls.
		It is open forum.
		Go ahead and start calling in now on phone lines for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
		And we will get to your calls right after the break.
unidentified		Friday on C-SPAN's Ceasefire.
		In a time of sharp political divides, two senators from opposite sides of the aisle come together for a candid conversation.
		Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons and Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford discuss cooperation on key foreign policy and the government shutdown.
		They join host Dasha Burns to talk about what really matters.
		Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
		Here's a look of what's coming up this weekend.
		At 1 p.m. Eastern, we visit Chicago for the Printers Row Litfest, where authors gather to discuss parenting, Harriet Tubman, the future of democracy, and more.
		Then at 7 p.m. Eastern, it's America's Book Club.
		From the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, Master of the Legal Thriller John Grisham joins host David Rubinstein to discuss the author's early life, writing process, latest novel, and his work with wrongfully convicted prisoners.
		At 8:30 p.m. Eastern, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kevin Sack, with his book Mother Emmanuel, talks about the long history of the African Methodist Episcopal Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina, including the 2015 shooting that killed the church's then pastor and eight parishioners.
		And at 9:15 p.m. Eastern, Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, Eric Trump, with his book Under Siege, talks about growing up as a Trump and his family's involvement in business and politics.
		Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Some time now for our open forum, any public policy, any political issue you want to talk about, phone lines are yours to do so.
		Republicans can call in at 202-748-8001.
		Democrats 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		And here's the schedule on Capitol Hill today.
		We were expecting the Senate to come in at 10 a.m. Eastern.
		Though the Senate has been in all night long, that's because Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley has held the floor now for more than 14 hours.
		A speech he began at 6:23 p.m. Eastern Time yesterday, warning about what he calls the authoritarianism of Donald Trump.
		He has been on the floor all night.
		He was given a break right around 10:30 p.m. Eastern yesterday by New Jersey Senator Andy Kim.
		And that was it until this morning, just in the past few minutes.
		It's Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar who have been engaging in a bit of back and forth with Jeff Merkley on the Senate floor.
		So those have been the first breaks he's gotten from fellow Democrats since late last night.
		Again, it's more than 14 hours speaking.
		The last time Jeff Merkley spoke all night on the Senate floor, it was 2017 in opposition to Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch.
		That speech lasted 15 hours and 27 minutes.
		The longest speech on the Senate floor, of course, Corey Booker, dating back to April of this year.
		Corey Booker's speech lasted a full 25 hours and five minutes.
		And Corey Booker, among those who have been tweeting throughout the night about the Senator Jeff Merkley's speech on the Senate floor, Corey Booker saying, Jeff Merkley has always stood up for our country.
		Last night at 10:20 p.m. Eastern, he said, I'll be watching his speech late into the night.
		And I hope all Americans listen to what he says about the use of authoritarian tactics in our democracy.
		That speech is getting a lot of attention, and we will dip into it for a few minutes here so you can hear from Jeff Merkley.
jeff merkley ▲ ● ▼		For sure, the truth.
unidentified		Thank my colleague.
chuck schumer ▲ ● ▼		I do.
		And I thank my colleague from Minnesota for her excellent back and forth with the Senator from Oregon.
		Thank you for doing this.
		I yield the floor.
jeff merkley ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much to my colleague from New York for those two questions.
		And one of the questions that my colleague from Minnesota asked about was mentioning a $230 million in compensation that Trump is trying to get out of the government.
		And so I found the story about that and wanted to fill folks in on what that is.
		President Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million.
		That's a lot out of money.
		Folks in my neighborhood, a million dollars seems like an unfathomable sum.
		And here we're talking about $230 million, a quarter billion dollars in compensation for the federal investigation into him, according to people familiar with the matter.
		This is an article by Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager on October 21st, 2025.
		So hot off the press, if you will.
		The people familiar with the matter who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.
		So you have the president suing his own government.
		And he has the Justice Department in which there are people who were on his defense team now working who would be the ones to ultimately approve a settlement.
		This situation, this article goes on to say, situation has no parallel in American history.
		As Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims.
		It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president's former lawyers atop the Justice Department.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Senator Jeff Merkley on the Senate floor right now.
		If you want to watch it live, you can watch over on C-SPAN 2 or stick with us here on C-SPAN on the Washington Journal.
		It's our open forum phone lines for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, as usual.
		We will begin with Sandra out of Louisiana Independent.
		Sandra, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, two things.
		About the government shutdown, the Senate Republicans are saying that they don't want to break the filibuster.
		But in fact, they have been breaking the filibuster all along to rush in all of Trump's judges that he wants affirmed.
		So they already have breaking the filibuster for that.
		They are getting 40, 50 judges affirmed at a time by breaking the said filibuster.
		So why want to filibuster to open up the government?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		The filibuster rule has been lifted on confirmations and Supreme Court confirmations as well.
		There's no longer the 60-vote margin for that.
		It's been a few years since there was a filibuster rule in place when it came to confirmations.
		But there is still a legislative filibuster.
		It still requires 60 votes to move forward on legislative issues.
unidentified		But aren't they doing that to affirm the judges that Trump wants?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Sure, those are confirmation, and there's no longer a filibuster, 60-vote rule when it comes to confirmations in the Senate.
unidentified		Exactly right.
		That's what I'm saying.
		There's no longer the 60-vote rule.
		So if they can break it for the affirm these judges, then surely they can break it to open up the government.
		Second thing that I wanted to say is it's really a disgrace that this man, as they say he's not taking a paycheck, this president is stealing from the United States all kinds of ways.
		Now he wants a $230 million judgment.
		For what?
		He would have been convicted if he was not the president of the United States.
		He would have been convicted, but you could not, with the Russia thing, you could not convict a sitting president.
		He is robbing us blind.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Sandra in Louisiana.
		This is David out of Peabody Mass Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Nice to talk with you, John.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's on your mind, David?
unidentified		I'd be crazy, but I'm dumbfounded that the solution to this problem is not more apparent.
		Both houses of Congress are not going to solve the situation.
		They don't have the stomach for it.
		I'll tell you who will solve the situation is the American populace.
		And I'm calling on them to storm the White House.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So we're not going to even go there, David, and we're not going to advocate violence.
		And you're not going to call in again if you do that.
		This is Maxine in Maryland.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, John.
		How are you?
		I like to say around why in the world Trump need all this money to can you hear me, John?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		I can hear you, Maxine.
unidentified		Why Trump needs to build, what is this thing he's dealing on the White House for gas and whatnot?
		What is it?
		A hall or something.
		And I feel bad because they tearing down that building.
		That building's been there for years.
		Why in the world would he want to tear it down for something like that?
		Plus, that's a lot of money he's spending.
		The money that we really need to be saved and whatnot for different things that we need in the U.S.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Maxine, the president said it will be funded by private donations.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		He's looking to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom where the east wing of the White House is.
unidentified		For what?
		Everybody partied and whatnot was satisfied the way things was.
		But my thing is, we don't really need all this stuff.
		He's always doing stuff that we don't really need.
		But right now, he needs to take care of a lot of stuff, health care, food costs, and stuff.
		He's doing the stuff that I don't want to hear about.
		I want to hear about stuff that he really needs to do.
		And furthermore, where is this money going from the shutdown?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean by that, Maxine?
unidentified		What I'm saying is it's a shutdown, right?
		Okay, they're saving money.
		So what's the need of the shutdown?
		Where is the money going that they're supposed to be, I guess, saving?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Maxine in Maryland.
		The picture you're seeing on your screen is the front page above the fold of the Washington Post today.
		This is a picture looking from where the Treasury Department building is from east to west at what was the facade of the east wing of the White House, the demolition continuing there, and that demolition project getting some pushback, including from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Nonprofit created by Congress to help preserve historic buildings,
		sending a letter to administration officials warning that the planned 90,000 square foot ballroom will, quote, overwhelm the White House itself, which is about just 55,000 square feet.
		The letter from the trust saying we respectfully urge the administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review process.
		The White House pushing back on those arguments, saying that the expansion is necessary.
		It's being privately funded.
		And it will be, quote, a bold addition to the presidential ground.
		For more than centuries, U.S. presidents have been renovating, expanding, and modernizing the White House to meet the needs of the present day is the statement that came from the White House.
		That's the latest from the White House.
		We're going to come back to this end of Pennsylvania Avenue now.
		We continue to check in with members of Congress throughout the government shutdown.
		Now, 22 days into this shutdown, we turn to Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey of Maryland.
		His fourth congressional district borders Washington, D.C. to the east.
		It's home to nearly 50,000 federal employees.
		Congressman Ivey, what are your constituents telling you as this shutdown stretches into a fourth week?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is clearly difficult times for them.
		I mean, I think they're hurting.
		Some of them are having to dip into retirement savings and the like to pay for groceries and rent and the mortgage.
		But to a person so far, all of them have said, stay strong.
		And I mean, and some have said it in stronger terms than I can use on this program.
		So I think they understand the magnitude of the moment.
		They understand the importance of the fight to preserve health care for people across the country, whether it's the ACA tax credit extensions.
		It'll affect millions of Americans.
		Also, the Medicaid cuts.
		The $1 trillion cut is going to be devastating across the nation as well.
		So I think they understand the importance of that.
		And so far, they've all been supportive of the position Democrats have taken.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How long can this go on?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		My guess is that the end game for this will come when Americans across the country all start getting these notices about their health care premiums going up $1,000, $2,000 a month, and that sort of thing, which has already started to happen.
		But open enrollment, I think is November 1st for the kickoff.
		But some of those notices have started going out.
		And I think they've already started contacting their representatives, Republicans and Democrats, to complain about it.
		Many of them don't understand for good reason why it's happening because it shouldn't be happening.
		There's no reason the Republicans should not have extended these tax credits.
		They certainly extended the tax cuts for the wealthy, and they did that permanently.
		They ought to be able to extend these ACA tax credits for working Americans so they can have health care.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Right now, some of the polling on who the American public blames for the shutdown, it's fairly even between Democrats and Republicans.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're saying that come November, come that open enrollment period, that that will shift dramatically to Republicans and then they will cave on this issue?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if the American people think so much about it in terms of whether they're blaming Republicans or Democrats.
		I think they're going to see these notices and say, how do we fix this?
		This is crazy.
		I cannot afford it.
		I'll have to drop my health care coverage.
		Who's going to take care of this?
		And if at that point the Republicans don't move forward with fixing it, because right now they aren't.
		They're doing, you know, every excuse to not do it.
		The House Republicans have only been in session here in Washington for 12 days since July 25th.
		They passed this bill, I think it was on September 19th, sent it over to the Senate, even though they knew it was DOA, left town and have not been back.
		And we're over a month now that they've been gone instead of being here and negotiating.
		So I think ultimately, it could end up being a pox on both of your houses.
		But the bottom line, from my perspective, let's reopen the government and let's get the health care extended so working class Americans can have health care coverage.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Come back to those 46,000 or so federal workers that live in your district, the 4th District, right on the border, the eastern border of Washington, D.C. There is new legislation from John Thune, Senator Thune, the majority leader, the Shutdown Fairness Act.
		It would allow government funding to provide back pay and ongoing wages to military service members and essential federal workers who have been required to work during the shutdown.
		Is that a piece of legislation you support?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Well, I support people getting paid for the work that they're doing.
		And nobody should be on furlough.
		It's unfortunate that people have been caught in the crosshairs of this.
		But at the end of the day, the only people who should not be getting paid right now is House Republicans.
		House Democrats have been here, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans.
		We've all been in town ready to work something out.
		And the federal government workers are ready to work too, or are working even without pay.
		House Republicans have been absent without leave.
		They need to come back to Washington and get back to work.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me switch gears while I have you for a few more minutes to the recent Supreme Court arguments.
		You joined members of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke out after the arguments last week in that case involving gerrymandering in Louisiana.
		Explain what's at stake in that Supreme Court case.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Well, the way it looks is that they could end up striking down the last effective part of the Voting Rights Act, which has allowed African Americans and other minority groups to get elected to office and the numbers that we are.
		So before the act was passed, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, and the like in the mid-60s all passed together that helped African Americans become part of the American democracy fully.
		But the rollbacks have been undermining that.
		There was a case, I think it was about 10 years ago or so, that cut back on what's called pre-clearance that would have allowed the Department of Justice to make sure that laws that the states passed that might impact on voting rights negatively, especially against minority groups, would have to be cleared by the Department of Justice.
		Supreme Court struck this down.
		The last piece that's left is this provision that requires essentially opportunities for African Americans to have a chance to vote in districts where they can win.
		So it's, I think, an important piece of legislation.
		I think there's some estimates that depending on what they do, if they strike Section 2 down entirely, we could lose about 18 or 19 African American members of the House of Representatives.
		And I think that would be devastating.
		It's also sort of coupled with the redistricting effort that Donald Trump has pressed Texas and other states into doing to try and move seats away from Democrats to Republicans.
		I think they're obviously worried and rightly so that they're in danger of losing majority control of the House.
		And I think that the two of those efforts together are going to make it more uphill for us.
		But if they stay where they are in this health care piece and continue to allow the extensions to expire and the $1 trillion cuts to Medicaid, we might be able to win it anyway.
		Last time we had a big fight about health care, I think it was the midterm for Trump in this first term.
		Democrats picked up 41 seats in the House.
		So we want to fight for fairness.
		We're hoping the Supreme Court gives a fair ruling here.
		But if they don't, we're still going to fight to gain majority control of the House.
		And I think we'll get it.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		On those redistricting efforts, there's been push by some Democrats in response to efforts in Texas and Missouri to respond in places like Illinois and your state of Maryland.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Would you support a redistricting effort in Maryland?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think you've got to fight fire with fire.
		This isn't the way I would have gone about it normally, but I think it's important to make sure that there's no unilateral disarmament here.
		If the Republicans are going to gerrymander major states like Texas, I think we have to make sure we try and do things to keep up with that.
		And keep in mind, the Democrats would be in the majority in the House right now if the Republicans had not gerrymandered North Carolina and moved three seats from Democrats who were sitting already.
		Move those seats to the Republican column.
		That's the margin that has kept them in power in the House of Representatives.
		We can't let that happen again.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Congressman Glenn Ivey, I know you've got to run day 22 of the government shutdown.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's on your agenda for the rest of the day?
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're doing a lot of meetings, you know, continue with the things that we would normally be working on.
		I'm meeting with, for example, college officials to help them figure out how to respond to and navigate the cuts that have come from the Trump administration.
		Government employees are really struggling.
		We're trying to find ways to help them with assistance, working with the faith community so that they can get basic necessities that they may need.
		And also there's issues with respect to funding that's going to impact research in our district, University of Maryland, NIH, and the other research institutions that are doing major work.
		NASA is another one that have been hit very hard, and we're trying to help them figure out how to navigate that too.
		It's going to be tough to get through it.
		I think what the Trump administration has done is enormously damaging, especially to research and technology in the United States in competition with China.
		But we're going to have to find a way to navigate that and rebuild after the ashes are cleared here.
		We're going to have to rebuild from there.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Well, we'll let you get to it this morning.
		Congressman Glenn Ivey, Democrat from Maryland, member of the Appropriations Committee.
		Appreciate your time.
glenn ivey ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Back to your phone calls here.
		Some time left in open forum.
		Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about?
		Laura's waiting in Cedar Creek, Texas, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, thank you for taking my call and good morning.
		And I want to send a shout out to all the federal employees who are being victimized by this clown in the Oval Office.
		Just hang in there.
		We'll get this fixed.
		And the things that I want to address is we're not talking about certain fundamental issues, such as preventing an elected president from trying to overthrow the American government and systems of American governance.
		The Republicans, who I call a Republican cartel, not a party, are solely responsible for this shutdown.
		These shutdowns started in Reagan's era.
		He was the first one to do it.
		And they've been weaponized by the Republican cartel ever since then.
		I live in the state of Texas.
		Texas is fully authoritarian.
		If Trump wants to be a king, Greg Abbott wants to be his duke.
		And that is something the American people, and particularly Texans, will not tolerate.
		Our government, because of partisan politics, has become representative of the oligarchic class in this country.
		So they benefit.
		We don't.
		We suffer.
		We are made to pay their way for people who have obscene amounts of money and only want more.
		I am disgusted with the Democratic cartel.
		These are no longer political parties in that they do not call into question every single day the mental health of the president who was elected under the lie that he was sane.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Laura, I got your point.
		We'll stay in Texas.
		This is Robert in Beaumont Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hey, oh, I tell you, that was hard to absorb all that much hate in one sitting here.
		Listen, one of the, there's so many rabbit holes I could run down, but I'm going to try to stick with one or two.
		Okay, I'm sorry, I was looking at myself or looking at you on the TV.
		Listen, when all the people voting, including Congress, which was a week before the shutdown started, it was voted on.
		And then it got to the Senate, and then Chuck Schumer and them decided.
		And then everybody else on the Democrat side have decided that why vote for people we hate to get paid, which is the Border Patrol, ICE, all the different government things that the Democrats really truly showing how much they don't like.
		Why would we vote for this to go through?
		On top of that, $1.5 trillion, talk about a roadblock.
		Put that roadbuck up.
		That'll stop anything from happening when it only takes about $400 or $500 million just to cover the extend that Obamacare for one year.
		You still got a trillion dollars out there.
		That's to get all their projects to get them back because that's the only way that the crooked side of Congress is going to get their little side money.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Robert, and this is Michael in Manassas, Virginia.
		Last call here in Open Forum.
		Go ahead, Michael.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, Sioux Pan.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		You know, I find it fascinating that Donald Trump loves to engage in his childish social media antics, such as the airplane dropping the, well, you know what, on No Kings protesters.
		Well, I find it fascinating also that since he wants to import beef from Argentina, in addition to bailing them out, you know, to the tune of $40 billion, you would think that since the head of the Wyoming Cattle Ranchers Association has come out and said that Donald Trump has basically betrayed the state of Wyoming and cattle ranchers throughout the country,
		perhaps Donald Trump should consider doing a meme in which he's dropping excrement all over the state of Wyoming.
		In fact, he's pretty much dropping it all over the entire country.
		Because here's the reality: Donald Trump does not care about the American people.
		That's it.
		He does not care.
		He doesn't even care about him.
		I mean, it's even debatable whether he even cares about himself.
		So that's pretty much all I have to say.
		But, you know, the thing is, the Democrats need to hold the line.
		They're doing the right thing and don't get tangled up in this idiotic social media garbage that the Republicans are putting out.
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		It's Michael in Virginia, one Democrat in the Senate, continuing to hold the floor of the Senate.
		Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, continuing his marathon speech.
		It's about 20 minutes away from being a 15-hour speech at this point.
		We'll see how far he goes.
		But up next on the Washington Journal, we'll be joined by Ryan Berg from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
		We'll talk about the rising tensions between the United States and Venezuela.
		And we'll also talk about that Argentine bailout that the caller was just mentioning.
		Stick around for that conversation.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		Friday on C-SPAN's Ceasefire.
		In a time of sharp political divides, two senators from opposite sides of the aisle come together for a candid conversation.
		Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons and Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford discuss cooperation on key foreign policy and the government shutdown.
		They join host Dasha Burns to talk about what really matters.
		Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold new original series.
		Sunday, with our guest, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
		Only the fifth woman to serve on the high court and author of the book, Listening to the Law.
		She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
david rubenstein ▲ ● ▼		And what do you hope most people will take away from your book?
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		I think what I want them to take away from the book is that they should be proud of the court.
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		And I want them to be able, I want them to understand the way the court grapples with the legal questions that matter to the country.
unidentified		Watch America's Book Club with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
		Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future.
		We bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments, only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Have been watching C-SPAN Washington Journal for over 10 years now.
		This is a great format that C-SPAN offers.
		You're doing a great job.
		I enjoy hearing everybody's opinion.
		I'm a huge C-SPAN fan.
		I listen every morning on the way to work.
		I think C-SPAN should be required feeling for all three branches of government.
		First of all, if you say hello, C-SPAN, and how you all covered the hearings.
		Thank you, everyone at C-SPAN, for allowing this interaction with everyday citizens.
		It's an amazing show to get real opinions from real people.
		Appreciate you guys' non-biased coverage.
		I love politics, and I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices.
		You and C-SPAN show the truth.
		Back to the universe for C-SPAN.
		It's the one essential news network.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A focus now on Venezuela, Colombia, the deployment of U.S. military assets in the Caribbean.
		Ryan Berg joins us for the conversation from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he directs the Americas program.
		And Ryan Berg, start with a 30,000-foot view here.
		What are the Trump administration's strategic objectives in Latin America, and how did we get to this point where we're seeing a military asset build up in the Caribbean and now boat strikes happening nearly every few days?
unidentified		Well, John, I think you have to take a step back and understand that the Trump administration wants to reassert U.S. influence in the Americas.
		I think there's an abiding sense within the administration that we've lost a lot of influence over the last two decades as we've been paying attention to other geographies of the world and that that absence has accrued to China's gain.
		And we need to be back in the Americas.
		And one of the most dramatic ways that we can signal that we intend to be back in the Americas is to literally move some of our most precious military, naval, air force assets into the region.
		Now, on the specific mission itself, I think for now we're safe in saying that this is a counter-narcotics mission.
		It is a changing paradigm that we're seeing before our eyes from a law enforcement paradigm that used to be used against suspected drug-laden vessels to one that is far more dominated by a military approach.
		So taking it out of the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard, law enforcement agencies, putting more power into the hands of the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, and showing, lastly, John, that these FTO designations, these foreign terrorist organization designations on criminal organizations throughout Latin America, that that has consequences, right?
		This is not just a rhetorical move by the administration, but this is actually the sign of a changing paradigm that we're seeing before our eyes with strikes on drug vessels.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		A map from the New York Times takes a look at what we know, at least in the open source reporting about military assets, U.S. assets in the Southern Caribbean.
		We can just move around the map, the combat ship USS Wichita, Reaper drones, surveillance aircraft, stealth fighters, replenishment ships, the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, three missile-guided destroyers, special forces ships, and a guided missile cruiser.
		What does that mean?
		How different is that from what our footprint was in the southern Caribbean 12 months ago?
unidentified		It's quite a list of assets, and it's not even a complete list of assets as well.
		There's F-35B Lightnings out there, about 10 of them.
		Just the other day, there were some B-52, what are called Strato Fortresses, some of our oldest bomber planes, flown out of Louisiana and did some runs near the Venezuelan flight identification region.
		So there's a lot more out there as well.
		And I think percentage-wise, John, it's about 10% of our deployable assets are currently in the Southcom area of responsibility.
		That is a very unprecedented situation.
		The last time we had a buildup of this kind, you have to go back to 1989, Operation Just Cause, when we overthrew the government of Manuel Noriega in Panama, or 1994 when we had a UN mandate to restore democracy in Haiti, and there were aircraft carriers back in the Southcom AOR.
		But this is not a normal situation by any means in terms of the force posture that's out there right now.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Does this look like the beginnings of a regime change mission?
unidentified		I think it's fair to say, John, that possibly the mission set could be evolving as we go along.
		I think for now, the strikes have been in international waters.
		They haven't dared to go on to land and strike the Maduro regime there, but they are talking about it.
		And as we know, the Office of Legal Counsel has issued its ruling that we're in a non-international armed conflict with criminal organizations.
		And so I think that the administration could possibly be building the legal foundations for strikes to come against Venezuela on Venezuelan land.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So explain how Colombia plays into what we're doing down there.
unidentified		Well, Colombia is traditionally the U.S. best ally in Latin America.
		It is a significant partner in the fight against drugs.
		And at the moment, we have quite a testy relationship with Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia.
		He sees things differently than Washington does in terms of our approach to counter-narcotics.
		And there have been some frictions of late, including starting on Sunday of this week, when the president said that we may see an escalation with Colombia based on some comments that the Colombian president has made.
		We've gotten some inklings from members of Congress who have spoken to the president that there could be tariffs coming against Colombia.
		So things are getting a bit heated over this changing paradigm to counter narcotics.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is Colombia's relationship to Venezuela today?
unidentified		Colombia is far closer to Venezuela today than it has been historically under the leftist president Gustavo Petro.
		There's no doubt about that.
		There are certainly plenty of claims that some of the organizations in Venezuela have funded his campaigns and he over the three plus years in office has been quite close to Maduro trying to play a kind of mediating role with the United States.
		Historically, Colombian governments have not been particularly close to governments that are run by Chavismo in Venezuela.
		In fact, it's a very rivalrous type of relationship, where in the past you've seen actually almost border skirmishes break out between the two countries.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		In Venezuela, what is Maduro's relationship to drug cartels?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is he essentially at the top of the food chain when it comes to the cartels or do they operate separately?
unidentified		Well, these are networks that are allowed to operate within Venezuela, and there are particular networks that are given favor by the state using the resources of the government and the state institutions to participate in illicit activity.
		And it's not just drug trafficking.
		It's illegal gold mining, it's human trafficking, it's a number of other illicit economies in which he is participating.
		But there should be no mistake for viewers that Maduro is involved in quite a few illicit activities, and that's why we at CSIS started referring to his government, his regime, back in 2018, as a criminal regime, because it's involved in these criminal activities, but also it uses criminal organizations for power projection capabilities to destabilize other countries in the region.
		It has a relationship with them such that it can use them in ways that they think to their strategic advantage.
		Most recently, they've started to use criminal organizations in transnational repression against opposition figures in other countries, including a gruesome murder last year of an individual seeking asylum in Chile.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If you have questions about what's going on in South America, the Southern Caribbean, now would be a really good time to call.
		Ryan Berg is with us from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the director of the Americas program.
		They're taking your questions on phone lines, as usual.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Ryan Berg, might be a good time to remind folks what CSIS does, what the Americas program is.
unidentified		CSIS is a premier national security think tank here in Washington.
		We are very proudly bipartisan.
		We're in favor of evidence-based policy.
		And so if you like evidence-based policy, if you like logic and reason and U.S. leadership in your foreign policy, we want to work with you.
		The Americas program is the only program in CSIS that has all of the 35 countries of the Western Hemisphere in its portfolio.
		So we have every country from the tip of the Arctic to the Antarctic in our portfolio.
		But the subject of today's interview is a very important one for us.
		We have a program within the Americas program called the Future of Venezuela Initiative because we know that what happens in Venezuela hardly ever stays in Venezuela.
		And I'm not just talking about the 8 million people who have been forced to flee that country to find livelihoods elsewhere.
		It's the criminal networks that emanate from there.
		It's the violence and the instability.
		It's the geopolitics, right?
		Russia, China, Iran, and other adversaries are finding ways to project power from Venezuela, beachheads, if you will, that Venezuela serves as a beachhead for those three countries.
		So we think that the focus on Venezuela is very much warranted within the Western Hemisphere.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What happens in a post-Maduro Venezuela?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What are you watching for?
unidentified		Well, one of the most interesting parts of this situation, John, is that there is identifiable leadership in Venezuela.
		Just over a week ago, Maria Corina Machado was given the Nobel Peace Prize, I think very rightfully, so for her tireless efforts for democracy in Venezuela.
		There was an election last year which was brazenly stolen by Maduro.
		The brilliant part about all this is that the opposition was able to get the tally sheets from all of the municipalities and prove that in fact they had beaten Maduro by a ratio of at least two to one, and yet he has repressed his way out of this.
		So one of the most interesting parts of this scenario, John, is that there is actually identifiable leadership.
		My opinion, there won't be a leadership vacuum here, but there could be a transition to identifiable people who have a legitimate claim to run the country because they won an election last year.
		And so they are waiting in the wings if a democratic transition were to happen in Venezuela.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Before we get to the calls, a caller in a previous segment wanted to talk about the $20 billion currency deal with Argentina.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Can you explain what's going on?
unidentified		Sure.
		The Treasury has what's called the ESF, which is an exchange rate, an exchange stabilization fund, which the Secretary of the Treasury is allowed to use at his or her discretion.
		In this case, Argentina, a very strategic ally of the United States, a government that's overtly aligned itself with Washington, is having a bit of difficulties in its currency markets, and the administration has decided to provide a kind of lifeline of $20 billion from the ESF.
		Secretary Besson has said on multiple occasions that this is not a bailout.
		This is not a loan.
		This is not free money.
		And so I do suspect that at some point in time, John, we will get a list of U.S. requests and U.S. demands on bringing Argentina further within the strategic friendship zone, let's call it, of the United States.
		There are many different things that we could ask Argentina.
		Argentina is rife with critical minerals.
		It has a number of important ports.
		There could be requests regarding reducing the relationship that exists there with China.
		There are a number of different things that I think we can ask for in exchange as part of this extension, this loan that comes at such an important time for Argentina.
		Midterm elections are coming up on Sunday.
		And so this is really meant to stabilize Millay in a time of dire need for him.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You've written about U.S. bases as this major buildup has happened in the South Caribbean.
		Would Argentina be a place in South America for U.S. bases?
		What do we know about the needs of the massive amount of assets that are being moved in that direction of the globe?
unidentified		Well, for now, the focus seems to be on the Caribbean basin and particularly on the southern Caribbean.
		And from that perspective, Puerto Rico plays a particularly important role for U.S. power projection.
		We've seen the reopening of bases like Roosevelt Roads in La Ceiba in Puerto Rico for the first time since 2004 when they were decommissioned.
		If we were to engage in further deployments further south in the region, Argentina could be a potential candidate if it were to allow the U.S. to open up some kind of base or station.
		But one of the places, John, that we are most interested in putting a station or a base is in Ushuaia, which is very far in the south of Patagonia.
		It's actually kind of the gateway to Antarctica in many ways.
		I don't imagine Antarctica being militarized anytime soon and there being large-scale deployments.
		So I think that is a base that's of interest to the United States more from the perspective, yes, of geopolitics and competition with China, but also from the scientific research perspective as well.
		It's just easier to get to our bases in Antarctica if you've got a base, say, in Ushuaia and Argentina from which you can do logistics and supply runs.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Let me get you some calls.
		This is Sharif in Palm Bay, Florida, Independent.
		Sharif, you're on with Ryan Berg.
unidentified		Hi, I have two quick questions for you.
		Who funds evidence-based nonpartisan think tanks like that?
		And the second question is, for the boats that we've shot out of the water, what evidence do we have that they are narco-terrorists?
		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Ryan Berg.
unidentified		Terrific.
		On the first question, so as the director of the program, I'm in charge of much of our fundraising.
		We have a wide base and a diverse set of funders.
		CSIS is a very transparent organization.
		You can go online and see a list of our funders every single fiscal year.
		It's foundations, it's private sector companies.
		When the U.S. government had a more robust funding scheme, sometimes we'd work with the U.S. government as well.
		And so it's really a broad base of funders interested in evidence-based policy in our foreign policy.
		On the second question, the caller asks about what evidence do we have.
		There was a really interesting article I point the caller to yesterday in The Guardian giving very important details on the Central Intelligence Agency's role in a lot of the signals intelligence and imagery analysis that's going on here before any strike is made.
		Sometimes the president refers to we have tapes, we have recordings, we have various photographs of these individuals.
		That is all being provided, it's my understanding, by the Central Intelligence Agency before strikes are being taken to make sure that these are in fact boats that are suspected of being drug-laden and not, say, fishing vessels, as has been asserted by some analysts.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What is the rationale for blowing them up in the water as opposed to tracking these boats to where they're going and trying to dismantle them further up the chain and further down the chain?
unidentified		Well, if you listen to what the Secretary of State has said, he said that interdiction hasn't worked.
		That past paradigm that I referred to where the law enforcement agencies were in the lead and they want to try a new paradigm.
		And I think that they're most interested in having a deterrent effect.
		They want dissuasion as the goal here.
		And I think these videos being released.
		Exactly.
		Why they're being made public, John.
		And I think that in the short term, the administration is probably right that they will have a highly dissasive or deterrent impact because those videos are very shocking when you watch them.
		And I can imagine that they are circulating in every signal and WhatsApp group for some of these criminal organizations at the moment.
		And those who thought about getting on a fast boat in the Southern Caribbean at this point in time are probably saying, you know what, I'll sit and wait this one out a little bit longer as opposed to making my journey.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Earl Kansas Democrat, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You are next.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Yes, I noticed your guest hasn't mentioned oil one time since he's been on here.
		And we know that Venezuela has the largest amount of oil reserves in the world.
		I think that's the main objective here with this administration.
		And quite frankly, Venezuelan, the Venezuelan people, haven't done anything to America.
		This is another drumbeat by the Republicans to go to war for no particular reason.
		And it's probably going to turn out bad.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Oil in Venezuela.
unidentified		Well, the caller is right.
		Venezuela does have the largest proven oil reserves in the world.
		I would note, however, that Venezuela's production has been in precipitous decline since Huachavez took over in the 1990s.
		The apex of Venezuelan oil production was right before Huachavez took over in the late 1990s.
		Venezuela was producing about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day.
		Now it produces under a million.
		And that's a mix of policy, that's a mix of corruption, that's a mix of a summary firing that happened of Pedevesa, the state-owned oil company, workers, and so the loss of human capital.
		There are a number of reasons for it, but Venezuela simply doesn't produce the same level of oil that it used to, John.
		And I would say in terms of the U.S. relationship with Venezuela's oil sector, this administration, through the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department, OFAC, has issued a license for Chevron to operate in Venezuela.
		So from the oil perspective, the administration is getting oil from Venezuela.
		That oil is being shipped as we speak and every day to Gulf Coast refineries for the U.S. market.
		So if this was purely about oil, it seems that the administration has the license in place that it would like to be in place in order to engage with Venezuela's otherwise sanctioned oil sector.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Ocean County, New Jersey, Eric, Republican line, good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Certainly this is an area of the world that doesn't get enough attention.
		But if you could spend a minute or two talking about recent influence by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in South America.
		Great.
		Thanks for the question.
		This is something that is important and we see a residual level of influence, I would argue, from groups like Hezbollah in countries like Venezuela, especially during previous periods of time when individuals such as Tariq Al-Assami, a very important minister who played multiple functions in Venezuela, his ties to the Levant, giving Venezuelan passports to individuals in Syria, in Lebanon, to be able to travel throughout South America and participate in some of these networks.
		What we think happens is that Hezbollah engages in criminal activity in South America, countries like Venezuela, also the tri-border region between Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil.
		And a lot of that money from smuggling and drug trafficking is sent back to the Levant where it then funds other activities, terrorist activities that Hezbollah might participate in.
		So there are plenty of concerns here, and there are certainly cells throughout the region.
		U.S. intelligence assets have been on top of those cells.
		I think it's safe to say for a while that this is not exactly a secret anymore that Hezbollah operates there.
		The problem that I have is that in too many countries you still have a permissive operating environment for some of these groups.
		And we need to work better with our partners in order to close up that environment to groups like Hezbollah.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Scott, Pennsylvania Independent, good morning.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You're next.
unidentified		Wow, I didn't think I'd get through this quick.
		I just want to know his opinion.
		I don't know what the heck he is, a reporter or what he is, but are you supposed to be brainwashing people or what's your job here?
		What did you think about him?
		What did you think about him breaking the Constitution doing this and blowing people's boats up?
		Those boats can't even make it to the United States.
		Where were they going?
		Don't you think there should have been a trial?
		Don't you think these people have rights?
		Honestly, what do you think?
		Do you think they have rights?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, Scott.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Reinberg might help with starting what your role is again at CSIS.
unidentified		Well, thanks for the question, John.
		Look, I'm a political analyst.
		I'm a political scientist.
		I've studied the region for a long time.
		I speak Spanish and Portuguese, and I travel throughout the region a lot.
		So I have a lot of contacts in the region to try to interpret and analyze what is going on.
		The other thing that we do, John, is we use informed analysis, sometimes in a written form, sometimes in audio or visual form, to try to put good policy recommendations with sound evidence behind them out there for an administration of either party to pick up on and to consider as a set of policy options.
		One quick comment on something that the caller said about these boats.
		I think it's important to comment for a second, John, on the strategy here.
		So these boats are what we call fast boats, right?
		They are usually powered by three or four outboard motors of over 100 horsepower.
		They can go very quickly.
		And their strategy is to island hop.
		So they go from one island to the next island to the next island.
		There's basically a chain from the southern Caribbean, sometimes to the United States, sometimes to Europe, but it is an island-hopping chain as they move their way up towards the homeland.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		You touched on this a little bit earlier, but can you talk a little bit more about Russia and China's influence in South America, where they focus their efforts, how they are focusing their efforts?
unidentified		So let's start with China.
		China is a very difficult competitor of the United States.
		The engagement in the region is much more wide-ranging than, say, with Russia.
		Russia tends to stick to three very close allies, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua.
		China tends to have relationships with just about every country in the region, save for the seven that still recognize Taiwan as the official China.
		And China's engagement, as I mentioned, John, it's economic.
		Sometimes it's military.
		Sometimes it's educational exchange.
		It's much more multifaceted.
		With Russia, engagement tends to be more on the military side of things, and again, more limited to those three allies that I mentioned.
		Both Russia and China are present here in Venezuela.
		In Russia's case, it's been a regime guarantor, been very interested in helping to shore up regime security for Maduro.
		Maduro has bought over $10 billion of Russian weapons over the years.
		The state of maintenance of those weapon systems is unclear to us, but they've spent money on that, and they've been present in the oil industry.
		Venezuela, for China, has been a much bigger partner.
		Venezuela has been lent something like $64 billion over the last two decades by China.
		By some accounts, that's about 50% of overall lending to the region, to one country.
		And when Hugo Chavez was in power, he made more trips to China than any other president in the region.
		Of late, it's important to note, John, that China has, I think, pulled back a little bit from its support of the Maduro regime.
		I think they've realized, frankly, that they've gotten burned here a few times, and they haven't been able to recover a lot of that money that they've invested in Venezuela.
		And the last two trips Maduro has made to Beijing have basically been empty-handed trips.
		He's come back without much to show for it, because I think the Chinese have learned their lesson.
		Investing in Venezuela, you rarely get your money back.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Last call on the banks of the Hudson River.
		It's Fishkill, New York.
		Derek is an independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
		Want to ask Mr. Berg about the recent retirement or resignation of Admiral Housley, fourth Admiral, who apparently had disagreements.
		There might have been tensions between him and the administration.
		Can he give us some insight as to what those tensions were?
		Great.
		Indeed, the caller is right.
		Admiral Holsey, the head of Southcom, recently retired.
		He will finish his command, I think, in mid-December, if I'm not mistaken.
		And as the caller correctly noted, early.
		I don't have much information other than what has been speculated on and reported upon publicly, which is that there were disagreements on the approach.
		And I think Admiral Holsey, being the honorable admiral that he is, decided that the best path for his future or for his career was to resign.
		I can't say much more than that because I simply don't have the details other than what's been reported publicly.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And it's H-O-L-S-E-Y, not Halsey, like the famous World War II abuse.
		Abstract.
		We've got a minute left.
		History lessons here when it comes to U.S. military actions in South America, specifically efforts to fight the drug war in South America.
		What lessons should this administration keep in mind?
unidentified		Well, I think it's important for the administration, I think they know this already, but also for viewers to know that you don't win a drug war.
		You manage flows, right?
		And I think that's what the criticism has been of previous administrations, that we've given up on the fight to be able to manage this massive flow of drugs towards the United States.
		And part of that is a supply control challenge, and then part of that is a demand control challenge.
		And so there are issues on both sides outside of the border and also inside our borders that we have to deal with here.
		But the goal, the strategic objective here, in my opinion, should absolutely be managing the flow, not necessarily winning the war.
		It's the wrong way, I think, to look at counter-narcotics.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		To read more of Reinberg's work, you can go to csis.org.
		That's the website for the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
		He's the America's program director there, and we appreciate your time.
unidentified		Thanks very much, John, for having me.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Coming up in our last half hour of our program today, more of your phone calls in open forum.
		We'll also talk with Wisconsin Republican Congressman Glenn Grothman on this, the 22nd day of the federal government shutdown.
		Go ahead and start calling in, and we will get to your calls right after the break.
unidentified		Delaware Democrat Senator Chris Coons and Oklahoma Republican Senator James Lankford discuss cooperation on key foreign policy and the government shutdown.
		They join host Dasha Burns to talk about what really matters.
		Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold new original series.
		Sunday with our guest, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, only the fifth woman to serve on the high court and author of the book, Listening to the Law.
		She joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
		And what do you hope most people will take away from your book?
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		I think what I want them to take away from the book is that they should be proud of the court.
justice amy coney barrett ▲ ● ▼		And I want them to be able, I want them to understand the way the court grapples with the legal questions that matter to the country.
unidentified		Watch America's Book Club with Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
		Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
		America marks 250 years, and C-SPAN is there to commemorate every moment, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the voices shaping our nation's future.
		We bring you unprecedented all-platform coverage, exploring the stories, sights, and spirit that make up America.
		Join us for remarkable coast-to-coast coverage, celebrating our nation's journey like no other network can.
		America 250.
		Over a year of historic moments, only on the C-SPAN networks.
		Washington Journal continues.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		25 minutes left in our program this morning in that time open forum.
		Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about, now's your time to call in.
		Here's where we are in Capitol Hill.
		We were expecting the Senate to come in at 10 a.m. Eastern today.
		That may not happen because Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley is holding the Senate floor.
		He has been there since about 6:20 p.m. Eastern yesterday and is continuing to speak.
		He's had a few exchanges with fellow Democratic members of the Senate, but otherwise has carried the floor by himself, a marathon session that you can watch live over on C-SPAN too.
		As you call in in this final 20 minutes of the Washington Journal, we are going to head up to Capitol Hill to the House side where we are joined by Congressman Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin.
		Congressman Grothman, good morning to you, sir.
		I know you're fresh off a telephone town hall with your constituents on this 22nd day of the federal government shutdown.
		What are your constituents telling you about how long they can go and how long they think this should last?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Really, right now, President Trump has done a good job of keeping as many programs going as possible.
		It's not like we're going to shut down under President Obama.
		So right now, I don't get a lot of urgency back home.
		I have one farmer I'm worried about, that he is not getting a support check that he thought he was going to get.
		We're trying to check in with him.
		But largely, the public is, you know, not as engaged on this as I think we are in Washington.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is that farmer going to be impacted by the news we're hearing today?
		Farm aid funding frozen during the shutdown is set to be released.
		The USDA reopening some county offices to deliver assistance.
		Is that the program?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		We certainly hope so.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How do you see this thing ending, the shutdown?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's very difficult.
		So your listeners understand, under normal circumstances, the fiscal year for the federal budget starts on October 1st.
		We have not got our budget done or what we call appropriation bills, the public would call the budget, since 1997.
		Okay, so what we do is we pass what we call continuing resolution, just keeping spending going at last year's level.
		It's uncontroversial to even make inflationary adjustments in there for some programs.
		And the reason we're going through this is unlike every other time in the last 25 years, as far as I'm aware of, the Democrats will not vote to keep spending at last year's levels, which is such an easy vote.
		I've taken it so many times myself.
		We did it 13 times for President Obama.
		We did it once earlier this year for President Trump.
		But the Democrats, we believe, because they have an angry group of people, particularly in the New York area, are afraid to be seen as getting along with President Trump.
		And it's just childish and it's beginning to hurt people.
		But that's the way it is.
		I think it will end when the public becomes a little more upset and when more people see the effect of not passing a continuing resolution.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivey, who we talked to earlier today, thinks it will end after the November open enrollment period starts for Americans looking at their health care for next year, that Republican members will begin to hear from their constituents about the importance of the ACA subsidies and that that will break this log jam, a deal will be made, and then the government will reopen.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of that scenario?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, obviously that's going to be one of the things that's taken up when we do get back to the negotiating table.
		You've got to remember, we're dealing with the entire federal budget, so there are literally thousands of programs out there.
		We're right now borrowing 26% of our budget.
		Think about that.
		So when you borrow 26% of your budget, if one line in the budget goes up, another line in the budget should go down.
		And we'll see if that happens.
		I know that's apparently a priority for Glenn Ivey.
		I do think when people get their premium notices, they'll say what's wrong here.
		What's wrong is Obamacare is costing way more than people thought.
		And if they're going to hold the premiums in line, it's going to take putting a lot more federal money in there.
		But like I said, we're already borrowing 26% of our budget.
		So I think the Republicans, if we have to spend another 24, I think it's $34 billion next year on Obamacare, they're going to want to see reductions somewhere else.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So if it were up to Glenn Grothman, what would happen with those ACA tax credits?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll stand with a plan that we passed already, but we're realistic.
		I know there's some Republicans who are going to want something done.
		I think to give 100% of the credits is reckless.
		You know, in any situation where you have a compromise, I can speculate it's the priority for the Democrats.
		They'll probably get some of what they want, but not all of what they want.
		And people like Glenn Grothman will get a reduction in spending other places.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Switching gears, at the beginning of this shutdown, there was some speculation about large-scale reductions in the federal workforce.
		We've seen reductions to the tune of a few thousand, but not those large-scale that were threatened at the beginning of the shutdown.
		What are your thoughts on the level of reductions we've seen in the federal workforce in the past three weeks?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		I'm very disappointed in our leadership in that we have not insisted on bigger reductions.
		Right now, we have well over 700,000 non-uniformed employees in the Department of Defense.
		Nobody thinks that we need those 700,000 people.
		I do not know why our committees and our leadership is going with mild reductions there.
		I think we could lay off 200 or 300,000 employees.
		That's what Doge showed us.
		And for whatever reason, Republican leadership in both houses and not insisting that happens.
		But man, when you're borrowing 26% of your budget and when the Democrats, not just this, but in a variety of areas, are holding out for spending still more, we cannot have people working at under 100%.
		And I surely hope that President Trump maybe will have to lead some of these congressmen by the nose a little bit and tell them we cannot afford all these employees.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What's the roadmap for finding those 300,000 federal employees that should go?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Is it the people who are not working right now?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, some of them, that's true of some of them.
		Some of them are working right now.
		It's going to take a lot of analysis of President Trump's new appointees to go through line by line and say, what is this person doing?
		What is this person doing?
		This happens in the private sector, but nowhere near like it does in the public sector, where you may have people going for years and years, not working near 100%.
		Like I said, that's what Doge showed us.
		That's what congressmen are hearing anecdotally from people who work in the bureaucracy.
		Maybe they have relatives, people from their church, what have you.
		And we know there are people doing very little work and should not being paid, getting paid.
		We don't like to lay anybody off, but man, we're borrowing 26% of our budget.
		To not lay off more people is scandalous.
		And like I said, I think so far I've been disappointed in the Republicans not anticipating a lot less employees.
		So I think President Trump may have to step up and try to shake up Congress a little bit.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		One more topic.
		I know we're short on time.
		You remember the Oversight Committee.
		Can you just update us on the status of the Epstein investigations and where that stands today?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're releasing more documents all the time.
		I think somewhere in these buildings they'll be interviewing more witnesses.
		And I anticipate more documents being released every day.
		We've released thousands of pages of documents already.
		I know Committee Chairman Comer is looking for more documents to release and I think we'll give you reporters plenty to look at.
		I myself am curious as to what type of people were being serviced by Epstein's crew.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Day 22 of the government shutdown, Congressman Glenn Grothman has joined us.
		I know you got to run.
		What's on your agenda today on this day of the shutdown?
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm trying to go through our budget to give leadership suggestions if they do cave in and spend more money in one place where other places are that they shouldn't spend much money.
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		I'll be talking to the Department of Defense about that as well.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Congressman Glenn Grothman, we always appreciate the time.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Republican from the state of Wisconsin, hope we get you back on the program soon.
glenn grothman ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Back to your phone calls now in our final 20 minutes, the Washington Journal Open Forum.
		Any public policy, any political issue that you want to talk about, now is the time to call in.
		202-748-8000 for Democrats.
		Republicans 202-748-8001.
		Independence 202-748-8002, and we have had that line open for federal workers during the shutdown.
		202-748-8003 is that number.
		We'll start on the line for Democrats out of Louisiana.
		This is Teddy.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		My comment is concerning the health care.
		I don't see any pressure or any responsibility put on the healthcare insurance carriers.
		I'm watching the news, and I've been disappointed because I haven't seen any health care carrier CEOs or representatives on TV being questioned as to why health care is going up 30, 40, 50, 100% plus.
		I find that outrageous and inconsistent with the inflation rate over the years.
		So I'd like some explanation there.
		And I don't see it anywhere on the news where these people are being held responsible as to the cost of health care.
		And what are they doing to keep the premiums down and make it affordable for the American citizens?
		And I know most of these companies are conglomerates where they have public information as to what kind of profits these companies are making.
		So I'm looking at the news and I'm seeing the politicians pointing fingers, but I blame this on the news media that they're not going to hold these insurance companies accountable and put some pressure on them and see what's happening or what's the explanation for all these premium increases.
		I understand that I've been working over 30 years and each year insurance premium has gone up more than inflation.
		I haven't seen any time that it's going down or stayed constant.
		And I do know that over the years there's been more managed care, so it's not that people are just abusing the insurance industry.
		That's just my viewpoint.
		But I've been disappointed that no one has reached out to the insurance conglomerates and say, well, you know, what are y'all doing?
		And why are these rates going up?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Got your point, Teddy.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Ian, Commerce City, Colorado Independent.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Hello.
		I just wanted to say a couple things about the budget.
		One is it irritates me to no end the fact that the Republicans, including the congressman you just had on, how they so conveniently skipped the Defense Department, which budget went up $150 billion, has never passed an audit.
		And you've got Pete Hegseth shooting off live ammunition over Interstate 5 in California.
		If they're so concerned about the budget, why is it each time under the Republicans, the deficit goes up?
		And the military is not even audited at all.
		Secondly, I wanted just to say that it's amazing to me that my fellow citizens are so anxious to blame illegal immigrants for every problem in the country.
		The idea that illegal immigrants are the problem with our health care is ridiculous.
		I've traveled the world fairly extensively, but in Western Europe in particular, the main question I got from residents was, is it really true that Americans have to pay all this money for health care?
		They were incredulous.
		And so this whole smokescreen about the budget while President Trump is having a military parade and they're flying all these generals for this ridiculous presentation, I just don't understand it.
		Thank you so much.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Ian.
		This is Arnold out of Ravenswood, West Virginia, Republican.
		Good morning to the Mountaineer State.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Hey, I just got one thing to say.
		The Democrats say it's the Republicans' fault because the government shut down.
		Well, they need to think about this.
		And when they vote again, and it says you're listening to you, Arnold, when they vote again.
		Okay, when they vote again, say they vote the Republicans out and the Democrats take over the House, they ain't going to get the government opened back up because the Republicans ain't going to go for what the Democrats want.
		And they have to have 60 votes to get it going.
		Does that make sense?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Arnold, do you think the shutdown is going to go to the midterm elections?
unidentified		Well, it could.
		I don't see anybody going anywhere.
		But if you think about this, I'm 75 years old, and I remember, and it's still that way, I think.
		If somebody goes to the emergency room to get treated, they don't ask you if you're an immigrant or anything, do they?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Arnold, so under a law dating back to the Reagan administration, if you go to the emergency room to get treated, you are treated regardless of whether you have insurance or don't have insurance, whether you're legal or illegal.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		If you need life-saving care and you show up at a hospital, you receive care.
unidentified		Right.
		That's always been that way.
		You know, that don't make sense that they say that the immigrants can't get health care because if they go to the emergency room, they're going to get treated if they're in bad shape, I believe.
		Maybe I'm wrong.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that we shouldn't do that?
unidentified		No, I think we'd be nice if we did it for anybody that goes to the emergency room like they did back in the old days.
		Anybody could go to the mercy room and get care, but even if they don't have insurance, they don't ask you what race you are.
		I don't think.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's where we are now, Arnold.
unidentified		Well, I don't see that.
unidentified		How do you figure that's the way we are now?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Because that law from the 80s still applies.
unidentified		Yeah, well, what's the Democrats fighting about wanting to keep the government shut down because they want to negotiate on the insurance?
		They want to negotiate on Obamacare.
		And Obamacare back when it first started, they lied to everybody telling that they keep their own insurance and everything was going to be great.
		Well, Obamacare wasn't that great until they did some changes around in it.
		I think Trump wants to do something with the insurance.
		He doesn't want people to have outrageous prices for insurance coverage.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So it sounds like you think there's a deal that's going to be made here.
unidentified		Not now, but they will whenever the government's open back up.
		The Democrats are the ones who got the government shut down because it takes 60 votes to open the government.
		And we've got to have, what, seven or eight Democrats to vote for it?
		All right.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Arnold in West Virginia to the Tar Hill State.
		This is Intisar.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, I just have a question about I don't understand how all these other foreign countries can get help with our taxpayer money, but the American people can get help.
		I don't understand how they think that is fair.
		We get up and work every day.
		We pay our taxes and our money is getting used for other foreign countries.
		And I'm not saying these other countries don't need help.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Intisar, how did you feel about USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development that was dismantled very early in this second Trump administration?
unidentified		I don't understand that either.
unidentified		I don't get that part either.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Did you support that effort?
		That was Intersar.
		I think we lost her.
		This is Dave in Idaho, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, sir.
		Thank you for having me on.
		I just have one question.
		And it's great to watch your show.
		I mean, lots of information here.
		Is it true that we're talking about $1 trillion is going to have to go to illegals for medical care?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		Is that a true assessment of what they're coming up and saying?
unidentified		I'm kind of confused on that number.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Dave, who do you believe on this?
		Because that number has been thrown around.
		Other numbers have been thrown around.
		Who do you trust when it comes to this debate?
unidentified		You know what?
		That's a great question you're asking because everybody wants to know the answer to that question, okay?
		Who do we trust?
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		We need to have a lot more transparency when it comes not just to Medicare, but to other issues in our country as well, because we're being dragged left, we're being dragged right out there.
willie nelson ▲ ● ▼		And people are trying to read in between the lines and saying, well, what are they saying that's right?
unidentified		What are they saying that's wrong?
unidentified		So I'm going to kind of just leave it at that.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Dave out in Idaho.
		It is just past 9.50 a.m. Eastern time, which by my calculation means that Senator Jeff Merkley, who is still on the Senate floor and has been speaking since 6.23 p.m. yesterday evening, that he just surpassed the amount of time he spent on the floor back in 2017 when he had that marathon speech in opposition to Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch.
		It was 15 hours and 27 minutes back then, and I believe we are now up to 15 hours and 28 minutes, if my math is correct.
		The sender showing no sign of stopping on this marathon speech, the Senate was expected to be in at 10 a.m. Eastern, but it would not come in for the day.
		If Jeff Merkley is still holding the floor, he would still be allowed to speak.
		He's been given a break by a few of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate in the form of questions that have been asked.
		Last night, late last night, it was Andy Kim of New Jersey.
		Earlier today, it was Chuck Schumer and Amy Klobuchar.
		And just a few minutes ago, Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, was asking him questions and giving the senator a break from talking.
		But otherwise, it has been about 15 hours and 30 minutes of Jeff Merkley on C-SPAN 2.
		You could watch it all night long, and we will go on C-SPAN 2 as long as he's talking.
		Whenever the Senate is in session, that's when we'll bring you what's happening on the floor of the Senate over on C-SPAN 2.
		Back to your phone calls.
		This is Terry in the Volunteer State.
		Republican, good morning.
		Terry, you with us?
		Go ahead, sir.
unidentified		Yeah, I'd like to know, does all the Republicans and Democrats, Senators, do they get like Chuck Schumer and all them, do they still get paid?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		During government shutdown, they would get paid.
unidentified		How come?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		My understanding, and I'm not a constitutional scholar, is that it goes to the requirement in the Constitution for elected members of the United States Congress to be paid for their work.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		And so therefore, you can't keep them from being paid that it's a constitutional issue.
unidentified		Well, I would think, and that's my opinion, and I think that in the shutdown, the rest of the people that work shouldn't Terry, thanks for the call from Tennessee.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		This is Anthony here in D.C. Democrat.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I would like to say that the guy who just got off, he's from Tennessee.
		And this other set we had was a guy from Tennessee who was talking about all the money that he pays into subsidizing people who don't have pay taxes and stuff.
		Well, the Doge also exposed that it's the red states that are getting all the subsidies and were getting health care through Medicaid and Medicare, which the cuts came.
		That was mostly the red states that are getting these subsidies.
		It's not the blue states.
		And Donald Trump says he wants to cut blue programs, but it was Democrats that created these programs, Obamacare, things like that, that benefited all Americans.
		It wasn't just for blue states when these laws were made.
		So they're finding now, especially after they chased the doctors out of their states, calling them all abortionists, the only way they were getting paid anyway was through Medicaid and Medicare because red states don't produce as much.
		The people there don't have much money.
		So Obamacare was their savior, you know, but they railed against it.
		And now they're still, they're finding out now that they cut their nose off to spike the states.
		And the reason they're doing the holdout, the Democrats, is to show who actually is benefiting from the blue states bills that Donald Trump wants to cut that he says that are for Democrats.
		But it's for everybody.
		And everybody's finding out now that the Republicans are for the rich.
		They rushed through the big, beautiful bill that gave them the tax cut, and they're cutting everything else for the Americans.
		I mean, people got to wake up.
		That's all it is.
		Just wake up, smell the roses.
		Democrats told you what this guy was about, and now y'all finding out.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Anthony in Washington, D.C. Just about five minutes left in the Washington Journal today.
		Just so you know where we're going after this, we're expected to hear from Speaker Mike Johnson right around 10 a.m. Eastern.
		We'll go there when he does come out to the podium.
		So we'll stick around taking your phone calls until he does walk out.
		That's here on C-SPAN 1.
		On C-SPAN 2, we'll continue to cover the marathon floor speech by Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the Democrat from Oregon.
		That's not Jeff Merkley.
		That's Maria Cantwell.
		She is asking Jeff Merkley a question, giving him a break from his now over 15 hours and 30 minutes of talking.
		The Democrat from Washington has been speaking for a few minutes, addressing Jeff Merkley, her fellow Democratic sender from the West Coast.
		Again, you can watch that live over on C-SPAN 2.
		Here, we'll take your calls for just a few more minutes.
		This is Chatham, New Jersey, Pete, Independent.
		Good morning.
		Thanks for waiting.
unidentified		Thank you for taking the call.
		I guess my only thing is, is, you know, I'm a 55-year-old retired police officer, and at the end of the day, I feel like everybody just keeps laying to each side.
		And it's not a Republican problem or Democrat problem.
		It's an us problem.
		And, you know, the fact that the president can't go unchecked is just, it's disheartening of where we are right now when they're allowed to do this.
		And I guess my thing is, is I have friends and family members who are not getting paid right now.
		I feel like the Congress and House and all these guys should have a bigger stake in losing their salaries as well during this time because all these people who are standing in line and getting food because they're not getting paid is where it is.
		So, how is that making America great?
		How is that making America good again?
		You know, there's a lot of things I believe about what Trump does.
		There's a lot of things I don't believe about what Trump does.
		But morally for me, it's just who he is.
		What he's doing right now is just going unchecked.
		And because it's his last term, he's doing whatever he wants and getting away with it.
		And I guess that's just my only take on it.
		I just don't understand where our country's going right now.
		And it's really, really, truly disheartening.
		That's really all I wanted to say.
		Just kind of a venting session, I guess.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's what we're here for, Pete, in New Jersey.
		This is Susan in Georgia, Republican.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
unidentified		Thank you for taking my call.
justice neil gorsuch ▲ ● ▼		I just wanted to reiterate what the last guy said.
unidentified		And I think until the military gets paid, Congress should not get paid.
		I think that if the military's not getting paid, they should cut off all the congressional payments.
		They're not doing anything.
		I can't believe I'm a Republican, but the Republicans, they took time off.
		They keep taking time off.
		I don't know.
		I do not, I feel that the immigrants should not get Medicare paid.
		I pay $1,200 every three months for my Medicare supplemental insurance, where a lot of Medicare people get free Medicare because they have the Advantage plan.
		I have a health issue that does, you know, I can't get that.
		But I resent the fact that all these people are coming in and they're getting their money.
		I think if the Democrats would say, okay, we're going to have Obamacare and leave it the way it is, but not pay the illegals, then I think we should go with that.
		That's what I think.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean, not pay the illegals?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		How do you think they are being paid?
unidentified		They're getting paid.
		They're getting their, they were getting insurance.
		They were getting health insurance.
		When you go into a hospital, you have to get, you know, you're taken care of.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		So, Susan, that's treatment if they go to the hospital, but health insurance is a different thing.
unidentified		I think they're getting health insurance.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Susan in Georgia.
		Just a few minutes left this morning.
		Did want to keep you updated about some of our offerings on C-SPAN later this evening.
		Today, the three candidates from New York City's 2025 mayoral race are set to face off for a second time, including Independent candidate Andrew Cuomo, Republican candidate Curtis Silawa, and of course, Zorhan Mamdani, the Democratic nominee.
		They will be answering questions from moderators as well as New York City voters.
		It's being hosted by Spectrum News NY1, and we're airing that live at 7 p.m. Eastern here on C-SPAN.
		You can also watch at c-span.org and the free C-SPAN Now mobile app.
		So you can watch that later today.
		Back to your phone calls as we continue to wait for House Speaker Mike Johnson's press conference this morning.
		This is Kiana out of Cleveland, Ohio.
		Democrat, good morning.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		It's Kyana.
		Kyana.
		No worries.
		I just want to quickly say before I get cut off, because I know you guys are coming close to the end.
rachel scott ▲ ● ▼		This is just so sad that Republicans, the same people who claim to follow Christ, the same Christ who advocated for the poor, for the sick, for the stranger, you know, these same Republicans who claim to follow Christ are insisting that poor and working class people lose their health care and food assistance.
unidentified		Also, rich people can keep their tax breaks and money.
		And I just want to say if Republicans or Democrats really cared about cutting costs in Medicaid, they would be looking at cost controls for goods and services.
		Because I regularly have to get quotes for medical equipment for Medicaid recipients and the contracted providers with Medicaid, I mean, why?
		I'll give you some examples.
		A walker on Amazon that costs $47 will cost $90 from a contracted Medicaid provider.
		A cane, a walking cane, that costs $15 to $20.
		A Medicaid contractor provider charging $50.
		A hospital bed, $779 on Amazon.
		These Medicaid contractor providers charging $900 to $1,000.
		Again, if Democrats and Republicans really cared about cutting costs for Medicaid, they wouldn't be insisting on making poor people lose, Republicans anyway, wouldn't be insisting on poor people losing it.
		They would be trying to actually cut the cost that these providers, whether they're doctors, medical providers, contractor providers for home modifications, they would be trying to control those costs.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Kayanna in Cleveland to Lee Anna in Harleysville, Pennsylvania, Independent.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi.
		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just, you know, I like C-SPEN because you hear all different opinions, and that is awesome.
		What I would like to see is more.
		Do you hear me?
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		Yes, ma'am.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		More what?
unidentified		I think there should be more transparency in terms of, you know, these numbers are thrown around like, you know, $17 trillion.
		And I would like to know, is it $17 trillion?
		Where do we find this information?
		Because there is really a need for health care in the U.S., no matter which way you look at it.
		You need it, whether you are a Republican, Independent, Democrat, you need health care.
		I have a son who has an issue with being able to continue his health care.
		And I'm looking at this because he's under hours now because he's going to be 27 years old.
		So, and with the job situation as well.
		So there's so many dynamics involved in this issue.
		It's just not like health care.
		It's also the cost of living.
		Where is the transparency?
		How do we know what the news is saying, whether it's you or anyone else, that it is accurate?
		That's what, like, that's my opinion.
		I think that this country needs to look at health care, whether it be, you know, Obamacare or, you know, whatever care.
		We need care because as we get older, young people, we need health care and it needs to be looked at.
		And there's so many issues when you also look at how much money they're giving to other countries as well.
		Why isn't that looked at and helping us?
		Thank you so much for taking my call.
john mcardle ▲ ● ▼		That's Leanna.
		This is Joanne, Perry, Georgia.
		Actually, Joanne, we'll get back to you another time.
		We're going to take viewers up to the United States Capitol, Speaker Mike Johnson, beginning his press conference, day 22 of the federal government shutdown.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		Day 22 of the Democrats shutdown.
		Well, it's already been, as we noted yesterday, the longest full government shutdown in history.
		October 22nd marks another landmark.
		This is now the second longest government shutdown of any kind ever in the history of our country, and it's just shameful.

▲