CSPAN - Washington Journal 10/23/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 23, 2025 07:00-10:01 - CSPAN

03:00:51

Washington Journal 10/23/2025

Participants

Main

errol louis

06:04

mimi geerges

cspan 35:07

Appearances

andrew cuomo

01:21

curtis sliwa

r 01:09

doug collins

01:23

hakeem jeffries

rep/d 01:51

mike johnson

rep/r 01:20

pete hegseth

admin 01:20

zohran mamdani

d 00:41

Clips

adam smith

rep/d 00:07

david rubenstein

00:05

john b wells

00:10

justice amy coney barrett

scotus 00:25

katherine clark

rep/d 00:15

Callers

jeff in washington

callers 00:06

odin in michigan

callers 00:07

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and U.S. tensions with Venezuela and Colombia.
		Also, Illinois Democratic Congressman Brad Schneider, a member of the Ways and Means Committee on the Government Shutdown, Federal Deployment of Troops to U.S. cities, deportation policies, and congressional news of the day.
		Washington Journal starts now.
		Join the conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		It's Thursday, October 23rd, day 23 of the government shutdown.
		President Trump has refused to meet with Democratic leaders until the government reopens.
		A procedural vote is scheduled for later today in the Senate on a bill to pay federal workers that are working during the shutdown.
		We'll get your thoughts on that during our first half hour, and then we'll open it up for other topics that might be on your mind after that.
		Here are the phone numbers.
		Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		Democrats, 202-748-8000.
		And Independents, 202-748-8002.
		Federal workers can call us on 202-748-8003.
		You can use that same number to text us your comments, include your first name in your city-state, and we're on social media, facebook.com/slash C-SPAN and X at C-SPANWJ.
		Welcome to today's Washington Journal.
		We'll start with Politico with this headline.
		Shutdown puts food aid in a precarious spot.
		SNAP, which helps feed more than 40 million people, will start to run out of funds November 1st.
		And Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, was speaking to reporters yesterday and talking about the messages that Republicans and Democrats are delivering.
mike johnson ▲ ● ▼		While 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.
		Democrats keep making history, but they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.
		The contrast is the split screen, and I've referenced that at this podium a few times already.
		But I just think it's an important thing to point out because that contrast between the two parties grows more glaring with each passing day.
		And you can look at all the evidence for yourself.
		There is, of course, a literal split screen every day.
		You've got Republicans and Democrats out all over the airwaves, burning them up, speaking directly to the American people.
		But you'll note that there's a key difference between the messages of the two sides.
		The Republicans are all repeating the same simple truth, and that is why that message is resonating with the American people.
		And that's what the polling indicates.
		At the same time, on the other side, the Democrats are doing their very best to obscure and create distractions from that simple truth.
		So the reason that we find it important to come out here every day and repeat again the same simple truth is because they're trying so hard to cover that up.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was Speaker of the House yesterday, and this is what Punch Bowl News is saying this morning.
		It says, inside the caucus, Senate Dems hold the line despite no exit strategy.
		It says, the Senate is scheduled to vote today on Senator Ron Johnson's of Wisconsin.
		That's a Republican bill to pay accepted federal employees who've been forced to work without pay during the shutdown.
		Democrats are likely to filibuster the measure, believing it gives President Donald Trump and OMB Director Russ Vote too much authority over who to pay or not to pay.
		It says that's a tough vote for Senate Democrats.
		The plan, the Democrats' plan is to offer two bills of their own today from Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland and Gary Peters of Michigan, both Democrats.
		The Van Holland's bill would pay all federal employees throughout the shutdown and bar any more layoffs by OMB.
		Peters' narrower proposal would pay all federal employees up through the day the bill is enacted.
		And we'll take your calls now.
		William in Ohio, Independent Line.
		Good morning, William.
unidentified		Good morning.
		How are you today, Mimi?
		Good.
		Well, I got a few things to say.
		Number one, I blame this shutdown on Donald Shorty Johnson Trump because it is all his fault.
		And Mikey Little Johnson is going to do whatever he tells him to do because, number one, they don't want to open the Epstein files.
		And number two, he can run riots like a drunk sailor with America's money during this whole time.
		And I just got a feeling that they're going to shut it down as long as they can till they can just take the whole country over.
		And, you know, Donald Trump is blaming this shutdown because of his dictatorial ways.
		And we've got to get rid of that, man.
		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Raymond in California, Line for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Raymond.
unidentified		Hello, yes.
		I'm blaming this on the Democrats and the Republics of the shutdown because they've been kicking the deficit down the road for 20 or 30 years.
		We wouldn't have a shutdown or under this or any of these problems if they would do their jobs.
		And it's our fault because we keep electing the same people over and over and over again, and they don't do anything.
		You know, nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
		Thank you.
		Bye.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John in Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, John.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I'm wondering if there's any way that you could get your technicians to pull up the tape of the minority whip being interviewed by Fox News yesterday.
		She actually admitted.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		John, you still there?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm still here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		She actually admitted that the Democrats did shut the government down to use as leverage.
		So now the debate's over.
		We know who shut the government down.
		It was the Democrats.
		They admitted it.
		All you have to do is pull up that tape and show it to everybody.
		It's been on Fox News over and over again.
		Great year.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're talking about Catherine Clark?
		Is that the whip that you're talking about?
		Okay.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
unidentified		Yeah, she's clearly on the tape asked, you know, and she answers the question that we purposely shut down the government to have leverage.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, we'll look for it, John.
		And here is Scott in Arizona, Independent Line.
		Scott, you're a retired federal worker.
unidentified		That is correct.
		And thank you.
		I hope everyone's having a great day.
		Mimi, I'm going to preface this with a fable, one like Aesop's fable.
		You can look it up, and it talks a lot about a fox and a lion.
		And I retired from the military.
		I was called up as a civil servant in 2012, was when I retired.
		And if you look back, the government was going through a shutdown in 2013.
		And that was affecting how I could come off active duty and return to my civil service job.
		And I actually had to go into disability in 2013.
		So that's an impact a lot of people don't see.
		But back to Aesop's fable.
		When we talk about the fox and the lion, the lion's the mightiest in the jungle, and he comes out and he comes up against the fox, and the lion's used to everybody running away from him, and the fox says, I'm better than you, lion.
		And the lion says, prove it.
		And the fox said, well, just follow me.
		And the next 10 people that we meet, watch.
		They're going to be afraid of me.
		And so the lion follows the fox, and he notices that 10 people, 10 animals, move out the way of the fox.
		Think about it.
		They're not moving out the way of the fox.
		They're moving out the way of the lion.
		And you know.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what does that mean, Scott?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Bringing us back to the shutdown.
unidentified		Right.
		It means that in ATOP's fable, sometimes you have to be a fox.
		Sometimes you have to be a lion.
		The lion is mighty.
		The fox is wittier, smart.
		But in 1987, the Pentagon saved $3 billion by moving the military payday one day from September the 30th to October the 1st.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Scott.
		So going back to the previous caller about Catherine Clark, she's the minority whip.
		This is the Washington Examiner.
		It says, Republicans slam number two House Democrat for acknowledging the left's leverage point in the shutdown.
		And we have for you that clip of the Democratic whip, House Democratic Whip, Catherine Clark, from yesterday on Fox News.
katherine clark ▲ ● ▼		I mean, shutdowns are terrible.
		And of course, there will be, you know, families that are going to suffer.
		We take that responsibility very seriously.
		But it is one of the few leverage times we have.
unidentified		I mean.
unidentified		Did we lose that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Sorry.
		That was it.
		And we are taking your calls this first half hour on the government shutdown.
		The numbers are in your screen.
		We've got Republicans on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8002.
		Federal workers can call us on 202-748-8003.
		And here's Dwayne in Jamaica, New York, Independent.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		It's frustrating each and every day when both parties are coming on television giving their little sermon on about the shutdown.
		What they need to do is come together, sit in a room, and Donald Trump needs to either be a part of this negotiation or just let the minority and the majority leaders work this out.
		I don't know why he's getting involved in this.
		These guys are seasoned veterans.
		They are seasoned politicians.
		They can get us out of this jam.
		It is frustrating for the workers.
		It is frustrating for the citizens.
		And I really truly believe election has consequences.
		Remember, he only has three more years unless he decides he wants to run another four years.
		So he needs to get out of the way and let these four seasoned veterans do their job.
		Thank you, Mimi, and have a good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Gerald in Cincinnati, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Gerald.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning, Mimi.
		Yeah, thing that I want to say is this has become a joke.
		How can he have all the advice over the money?
		And he practically stealing everything.
		You know, he have made The East Wing to a ballroom and hear all the people in the United States is going through all these disasters.
		This is it seems preposterous.
		And I hope he gets what he's gonna get.
		Thank you very much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Russ in San Antonio, Texas, a Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Russ.
unidentified		Fine, how are you doing?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good.
unidentified		My opinion is the Democrats don't want Americans to become prosperous.
		They want to give everything at the expense of the American worker.
		And it's really, really sad.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, let's take a look at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
		He spoke yesterday about the issues that the shutdown is causing Americans.
hakeem jeffries ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump and Republicans promised to lower the cost of living on day one.
		Costs aren't going down.
		They're going up.
		Electricity prices through the roof.
		Housing costs up.
		Grocery costs up.
		Child care costs up.
		And now Republicans refuse to do anything to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, which is going to result in tens of millions of people experiencing dramatically increased premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.
		It's out of control.
		It's a cost of living crisis and it's a health care crisis at the same time.
		And yet Republicans continue to ignore it, refuse to deal with it.
		And on top of all of that, we're in a moment where millions of Americans are about to increase their experience with heightened food insecurity with hunger because of the one big ugly bill and the fact that Republicans enacted the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history.
		These are all quality of life issues that have to be dealt with right now.
		And yet Republicans want to talk about process and their my way or the highway approach, their take it or leave it approach, which is what they've been visiting on the American people this entire year in terms of their extremism.
		And it's all unacceptable.
		Just come back to work.
		Let's sit down.
		Let's negotiate a bipartisan agreement.
		Let's reopen the government.
		Let's address the high cost of living in the United States of America.
		Let's address the hunger that you're creating.
		And of course, let's address the Republican health care crisis.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And let's go to Mo in Washington, D.C. Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Mo, you're a federal worker?
unidentified		Yes.
		And wow.
		You know, I had a whole lot to say, but you know, I'm pretty much speechless.
		You know, we've been going through not getting a deposit to pay our bills.
		And what's shocked, what citizens don't understand is there are a lot of us who didn't save.
		I saved for a rainy day, so I wasn't spending my money previously.
		But my daughter, she's in the Navy.
		And I started getting a mail from her bank from her bank, like several letters from her bank had come in at one drop.
		And I said, you know, I usually don't open her mail, but I opened her mail.
		And it said, your account has insufficient funds.
		Mind you, she's out of the country.
		And I'm like, insufficient funds.
		So they're not even paying the military.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So just.
		But, Mo, they were supposed to, there was, they were supposed to be paid on the 15th.
		Did your daughter not get that paycheck?
unidentified		My daughter did not get her paycheck.
		She did not get any funds.
		I had to deposit funds into her account to ensure that they got what was insufficient.
		And I was saying to myself, why?
		You know, it's not just about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no.
		She better check about that because they were supposed to have gotten their October 15th paycheck since she's in the military.
		She did not.
		Yeah.
unidentified		Everything I love.
unidentified		My daughter did not get paid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And what about you, Mo?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You said, are you also a federal worker?
unidentified		Yes, I am a federal worker.
unidentified		And no, I haven't gotten paid, but I saved for a grainy day and I have a cushion to survive.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And are you allowed?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are you having to work or are you furloughed?
unidentified		I still work.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell us which agency or department?
unidentified		I don't want to say no, but I still get paid.
unidentified		And you mean you still have to work.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're not getting paid.
unidentified		I still have to work.
		As a matter of fact, I'm driving to work now.
		Okay.
		I'm driving to work now.
		And I'm what you call an essential employee.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so how are you feeling about the shutdown as far as do you think that they should just pass a clean CR?
		Don't worry about the ACA health care premiums.
		Just reopen the government, or do you say they should hold out even though you're working and not getting paid?
unidentified		I'm a giver.
		I'm not a taker.
		So I expect everyone in these United States to have some type of health care for themselves.
		It is essential that we all have health care.
		And I also think that they should stand firm.
		Yes, God's children, we've always suffered, you know, but at the end of the road, there will be a shining blessing.
		But I just want them to work together instead of trying to do tick-for-tack.
		This is the United States of America, and we're supposed to be one.
		And the bill should be bipartisan, not just one group once in control.
		I mean, it's sickening to me to the point where I can't even communicate how I feel.
		You know, we've got to stop this.
		There are a lot of people who are hurting.
		And then for a federal employee to have to go to the food bank?
		But what do you mean you can't communicate how you feel?
		It's almost like I have so much emotion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I see.
		I see.
		You're having a hard time getting it all out.
		I get it.
unidentified		Yeah, it's so many emotions that's going all over the place.
unidentified		And I just hope God just shines a light on us and just try and make sense of it all.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's talk to Betty on the Republican line in South Carolina.
		Hi, Betty.
unidentified		Yes.
		Donald Trump ain't the one that shut the governor down.
		It's the Democrat, all these people that is, and I know they had to sleep what I've seen.
		And that Jeffrey and Chuck Schubert, they are the main ones that's not open up the government.
		And, you know, just like they ain't going to do nothing till they punch what they want.
		And when they do, the illegals is the ones, the American paper, they gonna give to the illegals.
		And you forget about the American people.
		I mean, I say that already.
		And everybody comes on her.
		What if this were you that hate?
		God said love everybody.
		I don't hate Donald Trump and I don't hate the Democrats.
		I have wanted to say that word, but I hear something has said you're supposed to love everybody.
		And that's God telling me that.
		So I won't say I hate them on account of that.
		So anyhow, just like they treating Donald Trump, the man I think is doing a good job.
		And he done a good job the first time.
		And like I said, it illegals where we at.
		And you talk about when you go shopping, sometimes you can't get nothing because their buggy is filled up to the top.
		And you can't take your money with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, buddy.
		And this is Jimmy on the line for Democrats, Maryville, Tennessee.
		Good morning, Jimmy.
unidentified		Good morning, Emmy.
		I got a couple of things that I want to talk about.
		Number one, the main reason why the government is shut down right now is because the Democrats is fighting for your health care.
		And we, back when the beautiful bill was passed, a lot of people doesn't realize this, and you can check this out for yourself.
		The Republican states that voted for Donald Trump is getting hit hard.
		The poverty rate in those states is higher than it is in the Democratic states.
		So the ACA premiums will hurt people in the Republican states more than they will in Democratic states.
		Second of all, Donald Trump has lost control completely.
		There's nobody in Washington now that can control him.
		He can do exactly what he wants.
		Supreme Court won't do nothing or nothing like that.
		That's why the midterm elections this next year is going to be very important to the American people.
		People need to go out and vote, vote Democrat, because we are the only ones that can stop him in his tracks next year when we get control of Congress.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And this is what the New York Times says.
		This is an analysis that says, as shutdown drags and Trump flexes, Congress seeds its relevance.
		Quote, it's like we have given up, one Republican lawmaker said.
		It starts this way.
		By almost any measure, Congress is failing and flailing.
		Government shutdown for 22nd day, many federal workers not being paid.
		Congressional staff members have begun referring to themselves as volunteers.
		That reminder that congressional staff are working but not paid.
		The members are getting paid.
		It says the House has quite literally ground to a halt.
		Chamber has not voted since September 19th.
		And Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to call members back, preventing them from doing any legislative work.
		He has refused to seat a new duly elected Democratic member from Arizona one month after her victory, though he encouraged her to return home and work for constituents.
		She does not yet officially represent because he won't administer her the oath of office.
		As the Trump administration shifts billions of dollars around to take care of its priorities during the shutdown with scant input from lawmakers, ignoring Congress's clear constitutional supremacy over the power of the purse, Republicans in control have done nothing to push back.
		Wonder what you think of that.
		We'll talk to Jim in Washington, D.C., Republican.
		Hi, Jim.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		And I'm a Republican, but I think that both parties are at fault.
		I think what we need in the situation is transparency.
		I mean, every day the Democrats come on and say, we're fighting for the health care.
		And then the Republicans say, oh, no, what you want to do is give the health care to the illegals.
		And then the Democrats say, all you want to do is to protect the rich.
		And so we really don't know who's telling the truth and who isn't.
		And we need to know what is going on in terms of what each party wants.
		And the Republicans have a clean bill, but yet the Democrats have put a lot of things in there.
		So if they really just want health care, they should try to just go for that.
		And the thing is that the issue with the health care, where the rates are going to go up a lot, they keep saying that, is really important.
		So I think that's an issue that should be taken up by the Republicans.
		They keep trying to dodge that, and they don't want it to take the health care issue.
		So I think basically both parties need to be transparent and let us know who is telling the truth and who's not.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Jim, here's my question for you.
		Have you done any of your own research on that question?
		Because, you know, as you said, the Democrats are saying we're not giving health care, government health care to illegal immigrants.
		Republicans are saying that's what they're trying to do.
		They're trying to give health care to illegal immigrants.
		So what have you done?
		Have you done any research on that?
unidentified		That's a great question.
		Honestly, I haven't.
		But, you know, and other things in terms of like they're saying that the Democrats want to do give a lot of money to overseas and to like programs for operations for the trans and all that.
		And, you know, what is the truth?
		Who is telling the truth in terms of what is in the bills?
		And you're right.
		I haven't done that, so I should do that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And this is Ron in Amsterdam, New York.
		Democrat, good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Chief, I just got a couple things to say.
		First of all, the Senate has a 60-vote rule, and that's the forcing compromise.
		Where are the Republicans when it comes to the compromise?
		You know, you can check that out in another thing here.
		I think one of the most un-American things that's going on in this country right now is not seating that congresswoman from Arizona.
		That's not right.
		That's un-American.
		She should be seated as quickly as they can.
		Most people aren't being represented.
		I'm a little nervous, but that's all I've got to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ron.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins visited a VA medical center in Washington, D.C. yesterday, and he spoke about the effects of the government shutdown.
doug collins ▲ ● ▼		So, look, VHA, let me just assure everybody here: health care system is working.
		We have pre-approved funds.
		We go into an advanced funding appropriation.
		So, nobody should be, no matter what you read or what you hear, if you need health care at the VA, the VA here, especially in Washington and all over the country, are actually operating.
		Our clinics are operating.
		They're going through exactly what they've been doing all along.
		And by the way, I just have to say they're doing it better, faster, and quicker in more quality than we've seen in years.
		And I think that's the testament to the doctors, the nurses, the administrators saying, hey, for the first time, we can make changes that actually help our veterans.
		I received a call just the other day from a doctor out in Colorado who called me up.
		I had talked to him because he had given some good care.
		And I just picked up the phone one day in the airport and called him and said, hey, I heard about what you did.
		And he began to talk.
		Well, he checked me out, which is I'm glad he did.
		He said, I saw you on Sean Ryan podcast.
		I saw you in these other.
		He said, I believe in what you're talking about.
		He said, I want to talk to you about how I can help my patients.
		So I had a good conversation with him, and he was able to give us some stuff that is going to help us with patients.
		That's what this is all about.
		That's why we do what we do.
		And so, as we continue on to look at this functionality on VHA, I'm very proud of HA.
		Now, how does that affect the rest?
		Well, in VBA, we're all mostly on furlough.
		That means our disabilities payments are still being made.
		Please don't worry about your disability benefits.
		We're all processing them, but I'm having them processed by people who are not getting paid.
		This is not right.
		It shouldn't happen.
		We need to fix that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Robert Waldorf, Maryland, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Robert.
unidentified		Good morning, ma'am.
		I think the one thing that this has proven with the government being shut down, that all the government employees that have been furloughed are basically of no use to the federal government.
		My life hasn't changed.
		I'm not worse off for it.
		Life goes on.
		Everything's great out here.
		You know, the lights are on and everything's working.
		So it goes to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the government is bloated.
		It's got too many people in it.
		This shows where the cut can be made.
		If you're not essential and you are not on the job right now, you should be permanently laid off.
		And you can cut the budget massively by doing this.
		This proves it beyond a doubt.
		Now, secondly, I'd like to point out: everybody's talking about how the electric rates are going up.
		Well, that is going up because of the Democrats.
		In the state of Maryland, we have closed three power plants: Bickerson, Chalk Point, and Morgantown.
		They are closed down.
		This has cut down the megawatts on the JPM.
		That's where your electricity comes to you, people.
		This has cut that down.
		They're not producing, they're not producing electricity.
		So this is why electricity is more valuable now and costs you more.
		The Democrats put in all these different environmental, environmental things so that they couldn't, you know, we can't burn coal, we can't do this.
		But if you look at the reason why in the state of Maryland, or even New Jersey or Virginia, the reason your electric rates are going up, they've shut down the power plant.
		So don't let them sit here and complain about the power and how the rates of electricity have gone up.
		They're the ones that caused all that.
		And, you know, the second thing with this government shutdown, the only thing that I have noticed, Mimi, is the damn golf courses are just full of bureaucrats.
		Now, you can't get them on tea time.
		Have a good day, America.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Matt in Martin, Texas, on the line for Republicans.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Matt.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		So, first, I'd like to say, Mimi, a few calls ago, you were right.
		The troops did get paid.
		Donald Trump realigned some money, I think, his research and development, and he paid the troops.
		And he's going to bust his tail to keep the troops paid and keep the government open.
		But they've done had what 12 or but you were right, well, go.
		The troops did get paid the 15th.
		And the woman was just sitting there, she's in the Democratic Party.
		She's, you know, in my opinion, there ain't no Democratic Party.
		It's not like it was with Harry, the great Harry Truman and JFK, the good Democrats.
		They've been turned into communists.
		That's what they are.
		And but they done had 12 or 13 votes.
		And every time the Democrats vote to keep the government shut down, every single time.
		And they're going to have another vote probably today and the vote, and the Democrats will vote again, communists, to keep the government shut down and not pay the troops.
		Now, I don't know how many times Donald Trump diverted money From research and development and paid them this last time.
		I don't know how many times he can keep doing that.
		Eventually, he'll, you know, I don't know.
		I guess he can keep doing it as much as he can and fight for the troops.
		But God bless him.
		He's doing a great job.
		If there was an election today, he'd win by even more than he did November the 5th.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Matt.
		And this is USA Today.
		If you recall, Democrat Jeff Merkley, the senator from Oregon, it says that he broke state record with a 22-hour Senate speech to protest Trump.
		It says that the Democrat held the floor for over 22 hours, a new record for the longest floor speech given by an Oregon senator.
		However, he did not surpass the record of his colleague, Senator Corey Booker.
		That was 24 hours and 18 minutes.
		Sorry, that was 25 hours that broke the previous record.
		And here is a portion of his concluding remarks from yesterday.
unidentified		And we have to recognize that the next election is absolutely critical if we're going to save our republic because the strategy of an authoritarian is to rig the elections.
		And the more time they have, the more entrenched it becomes.
		And already, here is Trump trying to do a national voter registration file that can be more easily manipulated for the elections next year.
		Here is President Trump trying to do massive gerrymandering in a whole bunch of states in order to offset the balance between Democrats and Republicans that are fairly represented in the House of Representatives.
		Here is President Trump saying he'll do everything possible to stop the use of vote by mail across the country because we know why, because vote by mail has such integrity.
		It can't be manipulated on Election Day like the precincts can.
		In precincts, you can move their location.
		You can put them where there's no parking.
		You can understaff them.
		The machines can break down.
		You can send intimidators.
		You can proceed to put out fake information about their location.
		You can put out information.
		The election was last week when it's really this coming Tuesday.
		Can't do that with vote by mail.
		And when we have the majority, we must pass the for the people freedom to vote bill and slot down the integrity of our elections so we will not worry for a generation about the people having a fair voice in our government by and for the people.
		I'm proud to be colleagues with all of you in this effort.
		Thank you very much, and I yield the floor.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That was Senator Jeff Merkley yesterday of Oregon, a Democrat.
		We are in open forum now, so if there's other things in addition to the government shutdown that you would like to talk about, now's your chance to call in.
		The lines are Republicans 202-748-8001, Democrats 202-748-8000, and Independents 202-748-8002.
		And we'll talk to Susan, Line for Democrats in Massachusetts.
unidentified		Oh, good morning.
		Good morning.
		I'm glad it's opened forum because I actually wanted to talk about the destruction of our historic White House by President Truman.
		I think this is the absolute indication.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		By Trump or Truman?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You said.
unidentified		I mean by Trump.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, because Truman actually did do a renovation, Susan.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did you know that?
unidentified		Doing a renovation is a little different than destroying the east wing of the White House.
		The White House is not his house.
		He's only borrowing it for eight years at the most, as any president is allowed.
		There is a committee that's supposed to handle renovations.
		I mean, guide the historic value of our house, not his.
		This is all Americans' house, whether you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
		He paved over the rose garden.
		He's destroying the East Wing, and that has the Lincoln bedroom in it.
		That's where First Ladies held their offices.
		It is our history, and it indicates his total disregard for the United States of America.
		He has ripped up the Constitution and is doing exactly what he wants.
		And that is why he's always being brought to the judicial system because they're the ones who have to remind him that we are a law of name, a land of nations of law, and not a dictatorship.
		Anyway, I wonder who gave him permission to do what he's doing to our house.
		We should all be absolutely angry.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, Susan, here is what Reuters says.
		White House East Wing will be torn down fully to make way for Trump ballroom.
		It says that the full East Wing of the White House will be torn down to make way for President Donald Trump's new ballroom, contradicting the former New York real estate magnate's pledge that the project would not interfere with the existing U.S. landmark.
		Demolition workers on Monday began ripping down the section of the White House that holds offices for the First Lady and staff.
		Trump announced that ground had been broken on the project after images of demolition circulated in news reports, though the full extent of the tear down only became clear two days later.
		That's in Reuters.
		And this is Pamela, Baltimore, Maryland, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Pamela?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Pamela, yes, go right ahead.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I apologize if this question has been posed, but I'm confounded by the fact that the President and Congress and the Senate all receive payment during the government shutdown.
		Is that accurate?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Congressional members do receive payment, though some of them, Pamela, have been deferring their paycheck.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Some of them voluntarily have deferring their paycheck.
unidentified		But if it has shut down, why do they receive it at all?
unidentified		They're the representatives of the government.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Because the Constitution says that they will be paid for their services, something I don't know the exact phrasing.
		I could look that up for you.
		But they would have to pass a law that they would not get paid during a government shutdown.
		They have not done that.
unidentified		Yeah, it just seems unconscionable and an act of absence of conscience.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		So I just find that very reprehensible.
unidentified		But I thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Pamela, and this is Lloyd in West Virginia, a Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		I just want to say the Dems are holding everything up because they got to bring this up at election time against Trump and the Republicans.
		They got to have something to bring up.
		And the government is supposed to be open to help the country and the people.
		And the Democrats are for the parties.
		Even Biden said that.
		He said that the Democrat, that's one mistake he made.
		It was too much for the party.
		And the government's supposed to be open to the people and the country.
		And that's the reason they need to go and open it up.
		And so the Democrats are the one holding it up.
		And that's my opinion.
		That's what I got to say.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Lloyd.
		Let's talk to James next in Aiken, South Carolina, Democrat.
		Good morning, James.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		Can you hear me?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go right ahead.
unidentified		Yes, because I have a cold here.
		I have three things in less than 20 seconds.
		This is open forum for the call in Maryland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yes, go ahead.
unidentified		Yeah, for the call in Maryland.
		My power bill goes up, and we do not get our power from Maryland.
		Sorry, sir.
		Just shut down Johnson and McConnell.
		I mean, Johnson's doing the same thing.
		McConnell did.
		He held up the courts.
		Johnson shut the government down because he's because of Epstein.
		And Johnson again, Oliver from Arizona, he's holding that up because of Epstein files.
		And one last thing: Betty from Blightsburg, please stop calling once a week.
		I'm surprised nobody can't.
		She calls in and she can keep calling in, hating Democrats.
		Betty, I do not hate you.
		I do not hate Republicans.
		But please stop calling in for the last six weeks.
		You've been calling in once a week, and everybody should recognize your accent because you have a deep southern accent.
		Please stop calling in.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, James, and just a reminder that everybody has to abide by our 30-day rule.
		So if you've called, don't call for 30 days.
		It's always a good reminder to have that.
		So I appreciate that, James.
		Well, here is a portion of the New York City mayoral debate.
		It was yesterday.
		The three candidates are Democratic nominees Oran Mamdani, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, and Independent candidate Andrew Cuomo.
		And they responded to a question about how they would handle President Trump and the federal government's increasing role in New York City's affairs.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Start with you this time, Mr. Sleewa.
curtis sliwa ▲ ● ▼		Well, both my adversaries have decided to bump chess with President Trump to prove who's more macho.
		You can't beat Trump.
		He holds most of the cards.
		He's already cut federal funding for Medicaid, the SNAP program, and it's threatening to cut funds for NYCHA.
		So if you're all of a sudden going to get adversarial, you're going to lose.
		And who gets hurt?
		The people of New York City.
		With Trump, it's always the art of the deal.
		You have to go, you have to try to negotiate, whether it's with his minions or himself.
		He'll want you to give in order to get a little bit.
		But if you immediately act like you're going to take him on, like, you know, it's going to be a one-on-one fight, we're going to lose.
		All the people in New York City are going to lose.
		You have to be able to show respect.
		And I think if you show respect, you'll get respect and you'll protect the New Yorkers who are so desperately in need of federal funds.
		What's the good of it?
		They'll bump chess with Donald Trump.
		They won't get the money.
		And then they'll blame Donald Trump.
		I will negotiate with Donald Trump and try to get the best deal possible for our poor and indigent citizens.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mr. Cuomo.
andrew cuomo ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the difference on this question is I've actually lived it and I've done it with President Trump over many years through the most difficult situation that this country has gone through, COVID plus.
		You're wrong.
		You're going to have to confront President Trump.
		He is hyper-aggressive and he is going to overstep his bounds.
		And you are going to have to confront him and you can beat him.
		I confronted him and I have beaten him.
		He was going to quarantine New York during COVID and I stopped him.
		He was going to cut aid to federal programs and I stopped him.
		But you also want to be in a place where you can cooperate on good things because we need federal help if we're going to save our city and rebuild our city.
		President Trump has to respect you.
		He sent the National Guard into 20 cities.
		City he didn't send it into?
		New York.
		Because I talked to him and I said, we don't need you here.
		He has said he'll take over New York if Mamdani wins.
		And he will because he has no respect for him.
		He thinks he's a kid and he's going to knock him on his tucus.
		So it is a balance.
		But you're going to have to be adversarial when you need to, but you want to cooperate to get good things done in this city.
		And you need federal help.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Mamdani.
zohran mamdani ▲ ● ▼		We first just heard from the Republican candidate for mayor, and then we heard from Donald Trump's puppet himself, Andrew Cuomo.
		You could turn on TV any day of the week, and you will hear Donald Trump share that his pick for mayor is Andrew Cuomo.
		And he wants Andrew Cuomo to be the mayor not because it will be good for New Yorkers, but because it will be good for him.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		Look, Donald Trump ran on three promises.
zohran mamdani ▲ ● ▼		He ran on creating the single largest deportation force in American history.
		He ran on going after his political enemies and he ran on lowering the cost of living.
		If he wants to talk to me about the third piece of that agenda, I will always be ready and willing.
		But if he wants to talk about how to pursue the first and second piece of that agenda at the expense of New Yorkers, I will fight him every single step of the way.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And we are in open forum.
		If you're on the line, please hold on because we are joined now by one of the moderators for that debate in New York City, Erro Lewis.
		He is political anchor for Spectrum News New York One.
		Errol, welcome to the program.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Mimi.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Great to be with you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So as a moderator of that, and that would be the last debate before voters go to the polls, what were your main takeaways?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		The main takeaway was that these are candidates who have been sparring for months at this point.
		And I think each was really trying to reach their own individual political bases, meaning they wanted to speak to the voters that they've already convinced, maybe try and lock them in a little bit and get them motivated because early voting starts the day after tomorrow.
		This Saturday, the votes will begin to be tallied in the race for mayor.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And I mean, were they successful in making their last pitch to voters?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did they do what they needed to do?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		I think so.
		Andrew Cuomo had been governor for 10 years, and he so leaned heavily on his experiences, as you heard in that clip.
		Mr. Momdani, who, if elected, would be the youngest mayor we've had in more than 100 years, talked about the idea that a new generation needs to take leadership and take the city in a brand new direction.
		And then the Republican, Curtis Liwa, he's speaking for a small slice of the electorate, but it's a working class population here in the city that tends to vote Republican.
		And he was making the case that we need some different solutions than the Democratic supermajority has been offering for the last few years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And as far as the race between Andrew Cuomo and Zorhan Mamdani, they've been sparring for a while.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did one get the better of the other last night?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it's an interesting question.
		I think probably Mr. Cuomo did better than certainly than he did in their prior debate that we also moderated basically back in June.
		Just so your viewers have a sense of the lay of the land here, there are about 4.7 million registered voters in New York.
		3 million of them are Democrats.
		1 million are independent, meaning non-affiliated, and only about 523,000 are Republicans.
		It's an overwhelmingly Democratic town.
		So Mamdani and Cuomo faced off in a primary along with a bunch of other candidates in June.
		Momdani came out ahead by about 12 percentage points.
		Mr. Cuomo has decided to run as an independent and try to basically turn it into a one-on-one against Zorhan Mamdani.
		That is complicated by the fact that you have this active Republican in the race.
		So that's kind of the lay of the land.
		The two of them really clashed.
		They have very different visions.
		Again, if Mr. Momdani is elected, he'd be the youngest mayor in 100 years.
		If Mr. Cuomo gets elected, he'd be the oldest mayor that New York City has ever had.
		So a real stark choice for the voters.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And speaking of the Republican candidate, Curtis Slewa, since there's only about 500,000 Republicans in New York City, there's been calls for him to drop out.
		How did that go?
		I mean, he said that he will not, I understand.
		How did he do last night, and did he change any minds?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		He did pretty well.
		I don't know if he changed any minds, but he certainly offered for people who do not like the Democratic dominance of New York City, he offered them a clear alternative.
		He's got ideas and policies on law and order, on education, on cutting the budget that are just very fundamentally different from where our mayor and city council have taken the city over the last decade or so.
		So I think he certainly stood out.
		One thing to keep in mind is he's trying to do something very difficult, Mimi, which is to be a non-Trump Republican.
		Not anti-Trump, but non-Trump.
		He's not a conservative.
		He's not on great terms with the president.
		They've known each other for 30 years, but the sitting president of the United States has not endorsed the Republican candidate in the race for mayor here in New York.
		So Curtis Liwa is trying to do something that he defines as creating urban Republicans who are unabashedly pro-city, unabashedly pro-New York, not necessarily conservative, definitely not necessarily pro-Donald Trump.
		It's a very tricky kind of balancing act that he's trying to walk, but he's trying to show that you can be a successful Republican.
		And by the way, it's not just him running for mayor.
		He's got a whole sort of slate of candidates who are running for city council and for some other positions here in New York.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You know, this race has garnered national attention, obviously, and Mr. Mamdani's critics have been calling him a Marxist.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Has that label been landing in New York City itself?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		You know, it doesn't land here the way it might somewhere else.
		Believe it or not, if he's elected, Mr. Momdani would not be the first Democratic socialist mayor of New York City.
		Back in 1989, we elected a mayor, David Dinkins, who was a Democratic socialist, part of the same organization that Mr. Mamdani is part of.
		We've had members of Congress and other officials throughout over the years.
		Again, it's a very pro-labor city.
		It's a very pro-democratic city.
		It's where the New Deal was pioneered.
		They hammered it out right here in New York City before FDR took office way back when.
		This is not a city that is afraid of experimentation and with trying massive government interventions.
		We've got 11 public hospitals, for example.
		We've got by far the biggest public school system in the country.
		We've got a lot of different ideas that, you know, especially if you talk to young people who don't remember the Cold War, are not afraid of the word socialism, don't remember what the Soviet Union was all about.
		All they're saying is we have a 1% vacancy rate here.
		We've got average rents that are in the $4,000 to $5,000 per month range, and they can't afford to stay here, and they want somebody to do something different.
		That's really the basis of Zorhan Mamdani's support.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And finally, Errol, what will you be watching in these last few days leading up to Election Day?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And as early voting gets started, is there anything that we'll be able to glean from maybe turnout or any other data that we might get?
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Well, it won't mean much to your viewers, but we'll know which areas are doing early voting.
		And depending on the neighborhood, you can look at it and say, okay, I think I know where the vote is going to go in this particular area.
		One thing that is worth keeping in mind is that Zorhan Mamdani is not, if elected, would not just be the first Muslim mayor, but he'd be the first South Asian politician to win anything citywide in New York.
		There's a whole contingent of newish immigrants, meaning they've been here for years or even decades, but they're reaching a critical mass, people from South Asia, from Pakistan, from India, from Bangladesh.
		And they are very, very excited about this homegrown son.
		And so when new immigrant groups break through, it happened with the Irish, it happened with the Italians, it's happened with black and Latino politicians over the years, there's an extra surge of activity.
		And that's definitely something we're all going to be watching here in New York.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Errol Lewis is political anchor for Spectrum News New York One.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
errol louis ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And thanks to our callers for holding on the line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll get back to your calls now and talk to Jodi in Wrangell, Alaska, Independent.
unidentified		Hi, guys.
		I'm glad you took my call.
		Wrangell, Alaska is also the home of Lisa Murkowski, a Republican.
		And I like Lisa Murkowski.
		And I became an independent when I got tired of the Republicans and the Democrats and the politics.
		And the first businessman, not Trump, it was Perot.
		And he was independent.
		And I was so sick and tired of the Republicans, but it was, you know, slick Willie Clinton against old fart Senior Bush.
		And then you had Perot.
		And Perot ran on, look, this Republican Democrat crap isn't working.
		So I want to run the country for four years, one term, as a businessman.
		I will donate.
		And he honestly needs not to himself.
		He's like one of the most selfless, you know, guys from Texas I've ever seen.
		And he's going independent for a reason.
		And we could have had him instead of Trump, the businessman.
		Where the hell was everybody when they were sick and tired and they want a businessman in there?
		Republicans gave it up to the best grifter who learned from the best grifters.
		Okay, I mean, Roy Cohn, if everybody does their damn homework, okay, I mean, this, the ignorant, and the people that voted for him are as ignorant as Trump is.
		He's lucky he's on a third grade reading level.
		I mean, I watched, I'm 62.
		I have watched.
		I was born in Jersey, raised in South Florida, and then moved here to Alaska because of climate change.
		I'm on a rock on an island with no roads in or out.
		I'm pretty snug as a bug here in the Tungus National Rainforest.
		I'd like to shake it up for the next election.
		Either I want a Republican president and a Democratic vice president or vice versa.
		I'd like to see the vice versa, a Dem and then a Republican vice president.
		And I would like to say, Mark Kelly from Arizona, if you saw him in the chambers for the long, you know, that all the Republicans are complaining about, yeah, he made so much sense.
		He made so much sense.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You want him to run for president?
unidentified		I'd like for him to run to president, and if he does, he gets the Democrat, then he picks a Republican, Lisa Murkowski.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Lisa Murkowski.
unidentified		Lisa Murkowski.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This girl.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You started with her.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it, Jody.
unidentified		He personally, as a Republican, went to Trump because Trump's like, we don't need Canadian lumber.
		We'll just take 90,000 acres from the Tungus National Rainforest.
		And Lisa went, my backyard?
		I don't think so.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, we appreciate the call from Alaska.
		It's awfully early there.
		Angie's in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
		Good morning, Angie.
unidentified		Good morning, Amy.
		I'm calling because every day is something with Trump.
		Every day is a deflection from the Epstein files.
		You know, they talk about the Democrats, the Republicans, okay?
		They talk about the Democrats and say they want us to hand over the sit down to them where they have nothing but ideas.
		All they say, we have ideas, we have ideas.
		Democrats have plans.
		They have put the paper, put them to the paper, and wrote a plan out to help the American people with their medical problems.
		Okay?
		They really need to sit back and think.
		They say they are Christians where they have so much hate in their heart.
		Christians don't do that kind of stuff.
		We are all people.
		We all bleed red.
		We all go to the bathroom.
		We come out with brown in our stool.
		We are all the same except for our colors.
		They are so hateful towards the Democrats.
		And the Democrats the same way.
		This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
		And Trump has sold his soul to the devil and all his millions.
		And really, the world needs to be praying for us because they're really laughing at us.
		And we need to come together as a country because these other countries are getting their plans together to attack us because we are falling by the wayside.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Angie.
		Let's talk to James in Lancaster, Virginia on the Republican line.
		Hello, James.
unidentified		Good morning.
		That last guess you had on was so refreshing that is why I listen to C-SPAN.
		That's why I get my news.
		My thing is asylum seekers.
		In 2024, we've got 1.5 million asylum seekers.
		I googled it before I got on the call just to double check.
		Asylum seekers allow certain benefits, social benefits.
		And once they're approved, they're allowed all social benefits, SSI, food stamps, et cetera, Medicaid, Medicare, all of the above.
		So yes, we are paying part of that $1.5 trillion the Democrats keep pushing is for illegal immigrants.
		So James, asylum seekers were so much less, but in 2024, they opened the floodgate.
		1.5 million asylum seekers.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So James, here's what I wanted to ask you, which is, do you consider somebody that has come into the country and gone before a judge and had a preliminary hearing that says, yes, you do have A valid asylum claim.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you consider that person illegal?
unidentified		No, I don't.
		If they go before judge and it's moved expeditiously, and this is what I don't understand, if I get a speeding ticket, which is a misdemeanor, I am in front of the judge within 30 to 60 days, or I pay the fine and move off.
		We got asylum shield.
		Illegal immigrants or people across the border, however you want to describe it, years in the pipeline.
		This is ridiculous.
		I don't understand how this is even possible.
		I mean, if you get a speeding ticket, how quick are you before a judge?
		This should not take years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you would advocate for a lot more immigration judges to speed that system along.
unidentified		I would fast-fact.
		If there are people here that's been in this country 10, 20 years, that, you know, their employer should be their sponsor.
		They should get benefits.
		They can't become U.S. citizens.
		Their kids get, but that should be fast-tracked.
		It shouldn't take more than six months, six weeks.
		Not no 10 years.
jeff in washington ▲ ● ▼		If you really drill down on this man, the lawyers are the ones making all the money.
unidentified		Why does it cost an immigration person to come to this country $10,000, $20,000, $30,000?
		Who gets the money?
		The lawyers get the money.
		What?
		Well, a couple pieces of paper to do background checks to find out who they are.
		I mean, if we really look at it, this is not a red thing or a blue thing.
		Follow the money.
		This is all about the money.
		It's the same as insurance.
		Look at insurance.
		It has gone up since Obamacare.
		What, 30, 40%?
		Before Obamacare, my insurance used to be $75 a week for a family of four.
		I actually had to quit job, change jobs because it went all the way up to $300 a week for a family of four.
		That was more than my mortgage a month just paying for insurance in the coal pay was.
		But those insurance companies were getting subsidies.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, James, let me get another call in.
		This is Michelle in Maryland Independent Line.
		Good morning, Michelle.
unidentified		Good morning, Mimi.
		I wanted to call out the Maryland man who called in again today, said his life hasn't changed since the shutdown.
		He called in last week.
		And I agree with Susan.
		Trump's demolition of the White House is just criminal.
		He's showing that he's not trying to be the president of everyone.
		I mean, what president releases a video crapping on Americans just exercising their right as America?
		But I really wanted to talk about Johnson with the shutdown.
		Last night he was on CNN, and he said that he has a bill, the GOP, they have a bill on health care.
		And so he has a bill.
		He won't convene the House to start negotiations.
		So that tells you all we need to know, that they are not sincere.
		They've had, they knew the ACAs were going to expire at the end of the year.
		They control the House and the Senate and the Presidency.
		And here we are.
		There's no solution on the table.
		And yes, the Democrats do have that provision to cover people who are going through the process.
		And, you know, in their bill, and part of the negotiating is you sit down together and you strike it and come up with something that works for the majority of the people.
		I mean, to think that the Trump and the presidency are sincere and caring about Americans, you know, is, I think we're deluding ourselves if we think that they are.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Michelle.
unidentified		They're clearly not.
		I have a question, though.
		Sure.
		Why is it that in the call-in lines, why is it the Democrats are 8,000 and the Republicans are 8,001?
		Why?
		So shouldn't the Democrats, it's D?
		They should be 8,000 and the Republicans won.
		I always wondered about that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are you saying, why do we say Republicans first and then Democrats and then Independents?
		Correct.
		Okay, so we switch that every month, actually.
		So this month, October, Republicans will be first, but it's the same line.
		We don't change the lines.
		And then next month, in November, it's going to be Democrats, Republicans, Independents.
unidentified		So why are the Democrats?
		The Democrats are zero because it's D?
		So you're saying you switch the order?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We switch the order, not the number.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we do that every month.
unidentified		Okay, I'll be on the lookout for it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
		All right, Michelle.
		And coming up on the Washington Journal, we've got Andres Martinez-Fernandez of the Heritage Foundation to discuss the Trump administration's use of the military strikes in its campaign against drug trafficking in South America.
		But first, up next, Washington Times National Security correspondent Ben Wolfgang.
		He'll discuss his recent reporting on Defense Secretary Pete Hexet's relationship with top military commanders.
unidentified		We'll be right back.
		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.
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.
		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.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Ben Wolfgang.
		He's national security correspondent for the Washington Times.
		Ben, welcome to the program.
unidentified		It's a pleasure.
unidentified		Thanks so much for having me.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You wrote an article in the Washington Times with this headline, He Lost Us.
		General's senior officers say trust in Hegseth has evaporated.
		Now, this is after that September 30th speech where he brought in all the country's top generals and admirals into Quantico, Virginia to give that speech.
		You quote somebody saying, quote, if he ever had us, he lost us.
		Explain what that means.
unidentified		Yeah, I think what you had, Mimi, and thanks again for having me on here.
		You know, since Secretary Hegseth took the job earlier this year in late January, you've had questions bubbling beneath the surface about his professionalism, quite frankly, his qualifications for the job, his ability to do the job.
		I mean, you go all the way back to one of his first major appearances in office.
		He got way out in front of the administration talking about whether Ukraine could ever get its territory back from Russia.
		Then, of course, we had the Signal Group chat where he very clearly talked about classified military information in that chat that Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic was added to.
		And any number of other instances along the way where you had folks questioning his qualifications, whether he was, to be blunt, a serious enough person to be the United States Defense Secretary.
		And then the September 30th, Quantico speech for at least a lot of the folks that I talked to, including one current Army general and a number of senior officers, that was sort of the straw that broke the camel's back for them, that they felt that this was an over-the-top, you know, politically tinged or politically driven, if you will, theatrical performance by Secretary Hegseth.
		And again, now there were more than 800 people in the room.
		I certainly didn't talk to all of them.
		I didn't talk to 10% of them for this story.
		But the folks that I did talk to, including some who were there and some senior officers who, of course, deal with the Secretary quite frequently, they were just kind of appalled by, frankly, what they saw from his performance and his delivery.
		And it came, a lot of them that I talked to came to the conclusion that, you know, their trust in this individual to lead the largest federal department, the single largest employer in the United States of any kind with a budget of nearly a trillion dollars responsible for the lives of men and women around the world, their faith in this individual to do that job has been shaken and eroded probably irreparably, I think, at this point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Ben, you spoke to a lot of people, a lot of anonymous sources in your article.
		Can you tell us who you spoke to as far as what ranks they were?
		Are they current?
		Are they former?
		And why they needed to remain anonymous?
unidentified		Yeah, so in terms of the folks, there was one current Army general, of course, that's quoted in the story, a number of other current senior officers who I quote in the story as well.
		You know, the reasons that I wasn't more specific about, you know, the services they were in or their specific rank in the story, and it probably can't be this morning either, is just to be frank about it, they'll be fired.
		And I'm sure that over the past 48 to 72 hours since this story was published on Monday evening, I haven't heard this firsthand, but I have a pretty good idea that I'm sure there's been a hunt from the Secretary of Defense's office to find out who these individuals are.
		We've seen a number of people fired over leaks investigations, including some in the Secretary's inner circle over the past six, seven months.
		So these individuals would very clearly be disciplined and likely fired if they were to be found out as sources for this story.
		I, of course, can't put them in that position.
		I take it very seriously as a journalist when I'm quoting people anonymously, unnamed sources.
		I just personally think that that's something journalists should do only when it's absolutely necessary to do it.
		And I think this was one of those instances.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's take a look at a portion of Secretary Hagseth from September 30th in Quantico, Virginia, talking about the new direction of the U.S. military.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		The new compass heading is clear.
		Out with the Shirellis, the McKenzies, and the Milleys, and in with the Stockdales, the Schwarzkopfs, and the Pattons.
		More leadership changes will be made of that, I'm certain.
		Not because we want to, but because we must.
		Once again, this is life and death.
		The sooner we have the right people, the sooner we can advance the right policies.
		Personnel is policy.
		But I look out at this group and I see great Americans.
		Leaders who have given decades to our great republic at great sacrifice to yourselves and to your families.
		But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign.
unidentified		We would thank you for your service.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		But I suspect, I know, the overwhelming majority of you feel the opposite.
		These words make your hearts full.
		You love the War Department because you love what you do, the profession of arms.
		You are hereby liberated to be an apolitical, hard-charging, no-nonsense, constitutional leader that you joined the military to be.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What did the people that you spoke to make of that sentiment of if you don't like it, you can leave and do the honorable thing and resign?
unidentified		Yeah, I mean, look, in some ways it's not surprising, right?
		Because we've seen those words put into action from the very first weeks of Secretary Hegseth being in the job.
		And, you know, President Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C.Q. Brown, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti.
		These folks were fired shortly after the administration came into power.
		And you've had any number of firings, resignations, early retirements since then.
		So I think folks were not surprised to hear Secretary Hegseth sort of give voice to that idea.
		I think where the real problem lies or the disconnect between those words and those actions is when the Secretary talks about it being apolitical, that these folks are now liberated to be the apolitical, hard-charging, no-nonsense officers that they signed up to the United States military to be.
		What I'm hearing and what my reporting has uncovered here is that the apolitical part of that is just not accurate in terms of what's happening behind the scenes, that you very clearly have folks who need to be aligned with a certain brand of politics and a certain set of policies in order to be at this point, at least according to my sources, promoted and given more responsibility in the armed forces.
		And if you're not aligned with these politics and this particular set of policies, then you're probably not going to be promoted and potentially could be pushed out or even fired, as the Secretary made very clear in that statement that there's going to be more leadership changes coming down the pike in this administration.
		And so I think that's where the problem lies is that you have lip service, if you will, to this idea of wanting apolitical military folks in place.
		But behind the scenes, folks are telling me it's actually the opposite.
		It's not a meritocracy.
		It's making sure everybody in the ranks that's climbing up the ranks, that's in positions of leadership right now, is in fact politically aligned with where this administration is.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ben Wolfgang is our guest.
		He's a national security correspondent for the Washington Times.
		If you've got a question about Secretary Hegseth and his relationship with senior military officers, you can join the conversation.
		Here are the lines.
		Republicans are on 202748-8001.
		Democrats 202748-8000.
		And Independents 202748-8002.
		We also have a line for former or current military members.
		That is 202-748-8003.
		Ben, some of the sources that you cited described Secretary Hegseth as operating with a, quote, junior officer's mentality.
		What did they mean by that?
unidentified		Yeah, this is one of the more fascinating aspects to this story in doing the reporting that I uncovered is the number of people who independently made this case to me.
		And some analysts have put their names to this narrative or this argument as well.
		There's a contrast between folks we've had recently as Defense Secretary, for example, Lloyd Austin, General James Mattis, the general during the first Trump administration, any number of other folks, even if they're not generals, have experience in sort of leadership, either in the defense industry in some capacity or in the military itself.
		Secretary Hegseth was, and no disrespect for this, but he was a Fox News host for a decade before coming to this job.
		He did, of course, serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.
		He was awarded two bronze stars, and that should never be questioned or taken away from him.
		But he doesn't have the high-ranking officer level of expertise and experience that some recent past defense secretaries have had.
		And now, maybe you think that's a good thing if you're of the opinion that the officer corps is, in fact, too bloated and is too, you know, woke, if you will, or too obsessed with DEI.
		And you need somebody who's sort of outside of that circle to come in and shape things up.
		But what I think the tangible sort of ramifications of that have been are that you have a secretary who, by all accounts and the sources I've talked to, is really down in the weeds on some policies that a defense secretary traditionally would not have been involved in.
		For example, grooming standards, talking about, you know, he referred to them as beardos, the facial hair standards.
		Or even more recently than that, this is, of course, an example that's very much in the news right now, the Pentagon press access policy that led almost all major news outlets, including the Washington Times, to give up their access to the Pentagon rather than sign a policy that acknowledged we could be considered a security threat for trying to get information from sources, or in other words, do our job as journalists.
		I've heard from multiple sources with knowledge of that that this Defense Secretary Hegset was a personal driving force behind that policy, that He had a personal interest in setting up those new rules in terms of press access to the Pentagon.
		You know, I've covered a number of different defense secretaries, three different administrations in the Pentagon.
		I don't think I've ever seen a defense secretary get involved in terms of hard passes and press credentials for the building and briefings and who's allowed in and who has a desk and those sorts of matters.
		So I think when folks say that he has either a mid-grade officer or junior officer's mentality, I think that's what they're referring to: that he's not necessarily spending as much time as critics would like thinking about the threat from China or thinking about military modernization or what 21st-century warfighting is going to be like or how the U.S. military footprint needs to be divided today in 2025 between the Middle East and Europe and the Pacific.
		For example, he's talking about haircuts and beards and the press access policy to the Pentagon.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's bring in callers and start with Jorge in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Independent Line.
unidentified		Hello, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I'm not so much worried about personnel as like economic subterfuge.
		I believe that we're basically in World War III.
		I think the economic subterfuge comes through the AI.
		And AI is in charge of investment now in banking.
		And why not bank and invest in itself?
		And that's what it's doing through circular business contracts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Jorge, how is this related to our topic of Secretary Hagseth's relationship to top military?
unidentified		Because I think our personnel are good.
		It's not the people.
		There's different ways.
		The ways we destroyed the Soviet Republic or the Soviet Union was through economic subterfuge, and I think they're doing that to us now.
		Thanks.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let's go to Melinda in Arizona, Line for Democrats.
		Good morning, Melinda.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I wanted to talk about the gentleman that's on TV, and then I have a short comment on the shutdown.
		In my family, we have two purple hearts, three bronze stars, and a silver star.
		Pete Hetzip is the most insulting person to the Army I have ever seen.
		He is more like, he sells it like a car salesman.
		He doesn't know what he's talking about.
		And to have those people sit in that auditorium and be insulted as he was insulted, as the service was insulted.
		I am ashamed of our government's military leader.
		Now, to the shutdown.
		I'm a Democrat.
		I'm sticking with them Democrats.
		And I want to say something about that lunch President Trump held for the Republicans, which basically said thank you for holding the line and not working with the Democrats on the that, to me, is a slap in the face to the American people.
		Trump hosting a lunch to celebrate the Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Melinda.
		We got that point.
		Let's get back to the topic at hand.
		Go ahead, Ben.
unidentified		Well, no, I think she raises a point that I heard from a number of sources in reporting this story, which is, you know, I think when you summon 800-plus generals and admirals from literally all over the world to come back to Quantico for this address, which, by the way, is not cheap to do.
		I mean, you're talking about bringing folks back from South Korea and from Guam and all over Europe and the Middle East.
		They were expecting something more substantive from the Secretary.
		You know, we'd heard that there were plans for a downsizing of the number of three and four-star generals and admirals.
		We thought maybe we'd get some details on that, or there would be some new doctrinal shift or some major announcement.
		A lot of them did feel, as the caller just referenced, that they were being lectured and that this was something that really didn't justify the cost and the expense and the time and just the logistical headache of even arranging this meeting in the first place, let alone what the content of it actually ended up being.
		So that is a sentiment I've heard from a number of folks in the aftermath of that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Phil is former military in Columbia, Maryland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Phil.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for having me.
		I was calling because I am irate that Mr. Hagseth is the Secretary of Defense.
		I refuse to call him Secretary of War since that is an act that Congress has to enact to change the name.
		So he is still the Secretary of Defense.
		Mr. Hagseth is the ultimate DEI hire.
		He has zero experience and the same level that General Austin and General Armatis did.
		I did some research.
		There have been a number of Secretaries of Defense who had ranks of lieutenant when they were in the service or who had rank of captain, but they brought different attributes to the job.
		Mr. Hagseth has zero leadership ability.
		And this is what upsets me as a former Marine, as a Marine, right, who is about to celebrate his 250th Marine Corps anniversary.
		Mr. Hagseth's lack of leadership and his politicization of the Department of Defense is sad.
		It alienates all Americans, regardless of what color you are, what your gender is.
		Okay.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		So let's go ahead and get a response.
		Go ahead, Ben.
unidentified		Yeah, I would just say, you know, obviously that's a criticism I've heard from a number of people, both in reporting this story and the sort of the months leading up to it.
		I think it's worth keeping in mind.
		And I don't think that the Secretary would deny this.
		And I don't think President Donald Trump would disagree with this, that they see, and I made this point in the story, they see the showmanship, if you want to call it that, of Secretary Hagseth as a strength, not as a weakness.
		I call it a feature, not a bug, as they see it, of what he brings to the table.
		There are obviously a lot of folks who don't like that style, including the folks that I talked to for this story, the sources, the high-ranking officers that I talked to, and the gentleman who was just on the phone.
		And I understand that, and I think that's probably a prevailing view among a lot of folks.
		But it is worth pointing out, and I think stressing, there is a subsection, including, I think, probably the commander-in-chief, who look at the way Pete Hegseth conducts himself and how comfortable he is speaking in front of large groups of people and the way he can deliver a message authoritatively and how comfortable he is on camera, that they see that as a positive.
		And I guess it depends on which side of the glass you want to look through and view Secretary Hagseth.
		If you see that as a good thing or as a bad thing, there are some folks who think that's exactly what we need as the Defense Secretary right now.
		Clearly, a lot of folks disagree with that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Ben, who is advising Secretary Hegseth?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What does his inner circle look like?
unidentified		I'm glad you asked.
		And that's one of the, I think, the most underreported and interesting parts of this.
		His inner circle has been getting smaller and smaller over the past eight, nine months.
		You've had a number of advisors, including, you know, he had Colin Carroll and a number of other close advisors with him who were fired earlier this year because of concerns about leaks coming out of his office.
		You've had John Elliott, who is one of the key folks in the press office, resigned earlier this year, a number of other key resignations.
		At this point, what I'm hearing is that he's left with a handful of folks around him.
		Patrick Weaver is still there.
		Sean Parnell, of course, the Chief Pentagon spokesperson is one of his key advisors.
		I hear that he relies increasingly on his brother Phil for advice in sort of his inner circle.
		So, there are a handful of people that he relies on for advice and that he talks to, obviously, on a daily, if not kind of constant basis when making decisions.
		But his circle of trust doesn't extend, near as I can tell, doesn't extend far beyond that.
		And that is different and a key distinction from past secretaries.
		Certainly, everyone, every public official, everybody in any walk of life, a CEO or whoever we're talking about, has a core group of people that they trust.
		That's not surprising, and I don't think should be criticized in this case.
		But it does seem like he is, according to the sources I talked to, not as willing to go outside of that to even vet, for example, personnel decisions.
		In other words, he's not relying on folks outside of that small core group throughout the Pentagon who have decades, in some cases, of experience in a particular job.
		He's not going to them to try to vet an individual for a job or to run some kind of policy change, like maybe, for example, the Pentagon press policy by those folks.
		It's made by that core group of people around him in the secretary's office.
		And that group has been getting progressively smaller almost by the month.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to Tom in Woodbridge, Virginia.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning, Tom.
unidentified		Good morning, guys.
		There's so many things that have been said over the last like five or six minutes that I'd love to address, but I'm going to break it down, Barney style.
		I've been in the military since 1987, prior to the coming down of the Berlin Wall.
		So I've seen pretty much the degradation of our military for over 30 years.
		And that's really what the leftist politicians in our country have done.
		They've denigrated and weakened and, you know, dismantled the warfighting spirit in the United States for the last 34 years.
		And that's why what we need is to get rid of the with all due respect and to just add some granularity to this.
		I've been involved in the military for over 34 years, and I have more sources than your person sitting there does at the same rank or higher who absolutely abjectly disagree with this person's fantasy, you know, these fantasy sources that they don't have the courage to come forward and say who they are that they disagree with, getting back to the basics.
		And that's really what this entire administration is about: we've got to get all the politicization out of the military, and we've got to get back to shooting, moving, and communicating because we're on the brink of a major crisis in East Asia, a major crisis.
		And we don't have time to be talking about whether we're he, she, they, them, she, her.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tom, we got your point.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Ben.
unidentified		Yeah, a few things on that.
		I mean, I mean, number one, I think the last point he made, you know, bringing up pronouns, for example, I think that's absolutely right.
		And a lot of folks do agree with that.
		I think folks would also add, you know, critics would also add things like the Pentagon press policy and facial hair standards as things that the secretary doesn't need to necessarily be focused on and could be focused on the threat from China, for example.
		So that's number one.
		In terms of the, you know, the unnamed sources, I take that point.
		You know, there are many, many hundreds of thousands, you know, of people that we could potentially talk to for this story.
		Obviously, I can't talk to all of them, and I'm sure that there are folks who would voice very different feelings about Secretary Hegseth to me as well.
		I do think, again, the reason that I think saying that these folks don't have the courage to put their names to their comments in this case is not really a fair criticism.
		There's no way to get this kind of information from current generals or high-ranking officers with their names on it.
		They would be out of a job.
		And I suspect that there are a lot of folks on either side of the political aisle who would be okay with unnamed sources in the military and otherwise, depending on where their politics lie and what those individuals had to say.
		But I do think the caller makes one really good point that I want to drill into more going forward with additional reporting.
		And that is a disconnect between some plenty of enlisted folks and some lower-ranking officers and some of the higher-ranking three and four-star generals and admirals.
		It does seem like there is a little bit more vitriol and criticism directed toward the Secretary coming from the higher ranks of the military and then also in the upper echelons of civilian leadership inside the Defense Department versus what I'm hearing anecdotally from enlisted folks and even some junior officers and certainly among the recruiting class that we've seen, which recruiting is significantly up across the services under Secretary Hegseph.
		So, you know, wherever your politics lie and however you feel about the Secretary, there is some pretty, I think, divergent views and a disconnect between different segments, if you will, of the armed forces.
		And that is a really interesting dynamic.
		And it's at a level that I haven't really seen before, personally, since I've been covering the Pentagon for almost a decade now.
		And it's something that I'm going to try to explore further with some more reporting going forward.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Ben Wolfgang, national security correspondent for the Washington Times.
		You can find the article that we have been talking about at WashingtonTimes.com.
		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thanks so much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And later in the program, Democratic Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, discusses the government shutdown, federal deployments of troops to U.S. cities, and congressional news of the day.
		But first, Andres Martinez-Fernandez of the Heritage Foundation discusses the Trump administration's use of military strikes in its campaign against drug trafficking in South America.
		We'll be right back.
unidentified		American History TV, Saturdays on C-SPAN 2, exploring the people and events that tell the American story.
		This weekend, as the nation celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding, join American History TV for our series, America 250, and discover the ideas and defining moments of the American story.
		This week at 11 a.m. Eastern, U.S. Navy and Marine Corps mark their 250th anniversary.
		First, retired Marine Corps General Jason Bohm, author of Washington's Marines, explores the creation of the U.S. Marine Corps.
		Then the Marines demonstrate an amphibious assault at Camp Pendleton in celebration of their birthday.
		Speakers include Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others.
		Then at 8 p.m. Eastern on Lectures in History, University of North Carolina professor Marcus Gadson discusses a successful campaign to overthrow the South Carolina government, triggering a constitutional crisis during Reconstruction.
		And at 9:30 p.m. Eastern on the presidency, it's a study of presidential leadership with scholars looking at George W. Bush's 2003 President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and Barack Obama's 2011 raid, which ended in the death of 9-11 terrorist Osama bin Laden.
		Exploring the American story, watch American History TV Saturdays on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/slash history.
		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 Road 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.
		C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250.
		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.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Andres Martinez-Fernandez.
		He's senior policy analyst for Latin America for the Heritage Foundation.
		Andres, welcome.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So we saw yesterday that there was an eighth strike on a drug boat since September.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		The U.S. has traditionally responded to these kinds of boats and alleged drug smugglers as law enforcement issues where the Coast Guard would interdict them and seize if there were drugs and things like that.
unidentified		Why do you think the administration is operating differently now?
		Well, I think what the administration and President Trump are responding to is what really has been a clearly, wholly insufficient approach to the narco-trafficking threats in our hemisphere.
		And what we've seen really over the past several years is these threats have not only maintained but also expanded dramatically the growth of these criminal organizations, the cartels, not just in Mexico, but across South America.
		They've become much larger, much more through significant revenue, well-armed and well-equipped, rivaling militaries in much of the world, if not exceeding, I think you could compare them, many of them, to the militaries of small European nations.
		So these are increasingly military threats in that way.
		And then in addition to that, we've also seen the impact on the American people very directly with 100,000 dead Americans on an annual basis because of drug overdoses, and then the destabilization through weaponized migration of U.S. cities.
		So there's been really a significant spike in not only the lethality and impact of these groups, but also the urgency of combating them.
		And at the same time, as I mentioned, the tools that we've been relying on in the past have just not proven sufficient to confront these threats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So I want to show you Democratic Representative Adam Smith of Washington.
		He's a ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee.
		He was on an interview, and he said that these attacks were extrajudicial killings.
		I'll play it and then you'll respond.
unidentified		What we are doing here is illegal.
unidentified		It amounts to an extrajudicial killing.
adam smith ▲ ● ▼		The president of the United States simply deciding that there's somebody that he wants to kill and killing them without legal justification.
unidentified		And that is an extraordinary expansion of the power of the president of the United States, and I think it's very dangerous.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think?
unidentified		I think that's a ridiculous assertion, frankly.
		There's measures very much in line with this that we've seen taken across the world in the past in the defense of the United States and the American people.
		And I don't know what the representative's position on much of our activities in Europe and elsewhere have been, but I find it odd and concerning that when it comes to protecting the American people from, again,
		what are active and dire threats that are killing over 100,000 Americans each year, that any use of the same tools and the same methods that we've used elsewhere becomes all of a sudden a grave concern.
		I think that...
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Andres, do we have proof that these are drug smuggling boats?
		That they're not fishing, I don't know, or doing whatever?
		I mean, do we know for a fact that they are smuggling drugs into the United States?
unidentified		I think we can say with high confidence, and I'm sure the administration takes very seriously its intelligence gathering on these drug shipments, which, by the way, we've been bolstering over the past several months as the administration came into the office to increase our awareness of these movements.
		But the reality is these small ships, which are go-fast boats and specially outfitted to evade detection, crossing along the Caribbean and now the Pacific towards the United States, that's not a fishing route and that's not a pleasure seeker's route.
		These are activities that are exclusive to the illicit and narco-trafficking.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of the term narco-terrorists, right?
		So dealing with these people as terrorists and therefore kind of outside of law enforcement.
		Typically, drug traffickers are motivated by financial gain.
		Terrorists are motivated by political or ideology.
		So where do you see that?
unidentified		Well, I think what we've seen is over the past several years really a blurring of the lines as far as these supposed motivations.
		And we've seen this in the past as well within Latin America.
		Obviously, narco-terrorist is a label that we've seen applied without much controversy to groups like the FARC in Colombia, the ELN, which, by the way, the ELN were targeted in one of the recent strikes against a maritime shipment of narcotics.
		But these are groups, again, that have very, very directly targeted the United States with destabilizing action.
		And they've not only targeted the United States, but they're targeted our partners and allies in the region using violence and terroristic methods to shift policies in their favor, and again, to undermine the United States and our security.
		And beyond that, we've also seen very dangerous partnerships between these organizations and anti-American regimes from outside the hemisphere.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We will talk about that.
		But I want to ask you about what types of drugs that these boats are allegedly carrying.
		Because South America typically is where you would get cocaine.
		Fentanyl comes from Mexico.
		And since fentanyl is so much more dangerous to Americans, shouldn't the focus be on what's coming from Mexico?
unidentified		Yeah.
		Well, I think it's certainly true that the majority of fentanyl in its finished form from Mexico.
		Now, certainly there's a broad supply chain, illicit supply chain that goes into Mexico from Asia and including from other parts of South America.
		But at the same time, these are the same organizations, and the commingling of all these illicit supply chains across our hemisphere is something that is intrinsic to not just these cartels, but the flow of fentanyl.
		So the stability of the flows of cocaine, much of which is laced with fentanyl these days, is impossible to separate from the broader criminal networks and illicit finances and illicit flows that support the fentanyl flow system.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is the cocaine laced with fentanyl or does that happen later?
unidentified		Well, with these shipments, it's not clear exactly what the composition of the actual drugs are.
unidentified		But again, at different points, these become illicit flows that are intrinsically linked, not just as far as their supply chains, but as far also as how they support these criminal networks, which are driving the fentanyl to the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Our guest is Andres Martinez-Fernandez of the Heritage Foundation.
		He's a senior policy analyst for Latin America there.
		We're talking about U.S. military response against drug cartels in the Caribbean and also now in the Pacific.
		If you'd like to join our conversation, you can give us a call.
		Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202-748-8000 and 2.
		We'll start with Alan in Brooklyn, New York.
		Democrat, good morning, Alan.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		A few questions here.
		We have the term a fishing expedition, which is used as a term of art for an investigation that doesn't have a basis, hoping that something will be found against your opponent.
		It's an ironic term here because here there's a possibility of the boats that are being attacked without warning and without any kind of evidence left over might be fishing boats.
		If this were true law enforcement activity, wouldn't you want to have live witnesses who are available to point to higher-ups in the chain of command of any drug organization or physical evidence to present, to verify?
		If they're not seeking to have that kind of evidence, there's no reason to trust that a man who said he would not touch the East Wing and then destroyed the East Wing is telling us the truth about his evidence that these are actually criminal trafficking boats.
		And that what seems really to be happening is he's trying to expand his prerogative to treat American natives within our territory the way he's treating them and attack and destroy any evidence of a person you don't like before people can find out if he was really telling the truth about a cause for his action.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Alan.
unidentified		Well, no, again, I have significant confidence in the capacities of our military and intelligence to identify the narco-trafficking ships and differentiate them from civilian fishing vessels.
		Again, there are several clear markers and identifiers, including the fact that these are unflagged ships that are modified often and from the routes that they're coming from.
		These are things that narco-trafficking shipments follow and they're clear markers and identifiers on that.
		I don't think that the fact that we aren't trying to prosecute and investigate and interview each one of the traffickers on these ships is an indication that we're not leveraging the full resources available.
		These are often, as far as the traffickers on these vessels, not going to be sufficient as far as pointing out or unraveling a larger illicit network.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to talk about Colombia.
		Colombia's leader is Petro.
		He has accused the United States of murder.
		He said that the attack, the strike last week killed a fisherman, not a drug trafficker.
		In turn, President Trump has said that he is, Colombia's leader, is an illegal drug dealer and has encouraged the production of drugs.
		Can you explain the relationship of the United States with Colombia and what their relationship is with drug dealers in their country?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, the United States has a long-standing relationship and positive partnership with Colombia going back decades as far as countering these security threats.
		And you go back to Plan Colombia.
		Colombia has really been an integral part in hemispheric security.
		And generally, the leadership of that country has reflected that.
		The current president of Colombia, who is in many ways an outlier from Colombian politics historically, has taken a very different approach.
		But he's also someone that, in addition to taking a very aggressive stance against the United States' interests and hemispheric security in many respects, and aligning himself with dictators such as the regime in Venezuela, he's also in this way isolated himself politically within his country and he's deeply unpopular.
		So I think what the United States and what the Trump administration right now is trying to navigate is the fact that they have a leader in this key nation, which is deeply problematic and causing quite a bit of challenge as far as confronting these security threats while maintaining the broader relationship with Colombia with expectations that,
		as all indications seem to suggest, there will be a return to stability in the relationship after their elections.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Deborah, Black Mountain, North Carolina, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		This is Deborah Lee in Black Mountain.
		And first thing I would like to say is if we do not have the rule of law, we have nothing.
		Nothing.
		And these murderers, these, I'm sorry, these are murders, these blowing these ships out of the water.
		They don't board them.
		They don't find any evidence.
		They have nothing.
		And this gentleman, bless his heart, says he trusts these powers in place to make the right decision.
		Well, like the gentleman that said before, Mr. Trump said he would not touch, would not touch the White House.
		And he's tearing it down right now.
		This is sickening.
		One more little point, not so little.
		This gentleman is from the Heritage Foundation.
		The Heritage Foundation are the authors of Project 2025, which distinctly says we want to destroy this government.
		And they're doing it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And did you author any part of Project 2025?
unidentified		I was not personally involved in it, but I can assure you that Project 2025 did not call for destroying our government.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to Francis in New Jersey, Republican line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Francis.
unidentified		Good morning.
		I really don't know where to start.
		I mean, the lady from South Carolina apparently has never been on a fishing boat.
		You don't go fishing for fish with four 500-power motors on the back of it.
		What kind of fish are you running?
		The bombs are hollow where they lay the cocaine.
		I mean, it's been a racket for years.
		And nobody sees it.
		They're all complicit in it.
		Our CIA has been involved in South America since before Reagan.
		You know, I mean, I'm in my 70s.
		I've seen every scam in the book.
		These people are narco-terrorists.
		Personally, I go down and kill them myself.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Francis.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And can you explain the role that China is playing in Latin America and what kind of influence they've got there?
unidentified		Sure.
		Well, it's significant and a vast influence that China has.
		Now, there's the political side where using particularly economic tools, China has really bolstered its influence over countries, democratic governments, and leaders in our nation through its investments, which it then holds over the head of regional governments in many ways to ensure that other decisions don't go against the interests of China.
		So it's really a significant attack on the interests and sovereignty of countries in our hemisphere.
		At the same time, what we see is China also being very deeply involved in the criminal networks that are underpinning all of this activity, and including the flow of fentanyl in particular, that we see Chinese precursor chemicals really being one of the core drivers of the fentanyl crisis in the United States.
		Really, what we are experiencing now wouldn't be possible without China having such a significant infrastructure designed to drive these chemicals to support and supply the cartels that turn them into fentanyl and traffic it into the United States.
		And then we also see all of this as far as the Chinese presence with these groups and also the infrastructure and economic influence really directed towards undermining the United States security and stability,
		whether it's the fentanyl flows, whether it's ensuring a significant and potentially military presence and access for China within our hemisphere, looking at ports and other critical infrastructure.
		There's a very worrying buildup that China has over the past several years accumulated.
		And unfortunately, this is one of the issues that we have ignored for so long, in addition to the transnational criminal threats and narco-terrorist threats that we're now having to confront.
		We've ignored it for so long that it's really become a dire challenge.
		And in part, that's why we, in the case of these narcoterrist threats, are now having to confront these with much more aggressive tools than perhaps we would have had to if Washington had paid attention before.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Donna in Illinois lying for Democrats.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Donna.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I would like to ask the gentleman what he thinks about the pollution of the water from all these drugs.
		They say that these drugs could have killed 25,000 people.
		Well, are they killing all the fish?
		We assume all the fish around there are dead.
		What do you think about this?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Environmental impact of the drugs and I guess the explosions.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
		I can't speak with expertise on the impact on the marine life in and around these strikes.
		I would say in general that narco-trafficking and these criminal organizations have significant impacts on the environment through their operations and allowing them to flourish has allowed that to magnify and multiply.
		Just through the involvement in illegal mining, for example, which is also one of the core support activities for drug trafficking narco-terrorist groups, that has caused widespread deforestation in and across South America and the rainforest.
		All of these activities, including the actual processing of drugs, also have significant impacts on the environment within our hemisphere.
		So I think if the concerns are primarily about the environment and the impact on marine life and ecosystems, these criminal organizations and the narco-dictatorships that support them are really top among the culprits.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about Venezuela.
		The Washington Post has this headline.
		Trump beats the drums of war for direct action in Venezuela.
		The administration has surged warships, planes, and troops to the Caribbean for drug interdiction.
		Some see the ultimate goal as toppling Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
		What do you think of that?
unidentified		Well, I think certainly what we have heard the administration describe this as is a counter-narcotics operation, and that has certainly been reflected in the targets.
		And we've also seen the expansion very recently into the Pacific with some of these operations.
		So I do think what we're seeing with respect to these deployments and counter-narcotics is broader than just Venezuela.
		But obviously, you cannot get at the narco-trafficking threats in our hemisphere without talking about Venezuela.
		This is a regime which has embraced actively narco-trafficking, turning its military into active partners for narco-trafficking groups from Colombia and directly facilitating the flow of narcotics to the United States, lending its territory and its resources and assets to those illicit activities.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Do you think the United States should try to remove Maduro?
unidentified		I think absolutely it would be in the interest of the United States and the free people of the Western Hemisphere to have a democratic government in Venezuela.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Should the government, the U.S. government, try to do it?
unidentified		I think the U.S. government should try to take measures to remove this narco-dictatorship from power.
		What that looks like as far as the actual methodology, I think there are numerous paths.
		But I think that this administration and there's, I would say, more broadly than just Republicans right now, also recognize that this is a regime which has no legitimate claim to power electorally.
		It stole blatantly elections to maintain power.
		And it's a criminal organization.
		Even within the Western Hemisphere and in Latin America, the voices that in the past were very vocal about anti-intervention have very much quieted down in large part because this has proven to be such a noxious regime for the hemisphere.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But the U.S. still imports oil from Venezuela.
unidentified		Well, we've taken some measures as far as licenses for our oil companies, U.S. oil companies, which had a presence in Venezuela prior to the regime with an eye towards balancing the interests of these companies and the U.S. economy with the necessity to combat the regime.
		I think that we have come to a place, though, where very clearly the priority and the actions are focused on hemispheric security.
		And that seems to be very directly at odds with the regime's perseverance.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's fit in Nick in Brick, New Jersey, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Nick.
unidentified		Hi, good morning, folks.
		I have a question for your host.
		And that's whether or not he remembers or he has studied the Iran-Contra drugs for guns scenario.
		And the second thing, you were absolutely right.
		I have a couple of comments.
		You were absolutely right about the type of drugs that are coming into the country.
john b wells ▲ ● ▼		If this administration were serious about curtailing it, they would be in Mexico because fentanyl is the drug of choice currently in the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so, Nick, what was your specific question about the Iran-Contra deal?
unidentified		Whether he has studied it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Certainly, I'm aware of the controversy over on Contra.
		I would say that the engagement in Mexico, one of the reasons that we have seen such a significant focus in the Caribbean and in and around Venezuela is because we have no partner in Venezuela in particular and in this maritime region between the United States and Latin America that can take the charge in confronting these security threats.
		In Mexico, while There's a deeply problematic arrangement as far as security cooperation there.
		I think the administration still sees a potential and a path to joint confronting of these narco-trafficking threats with Mexico.
		How long that maintains as kind of the central approach in Mexico is unclear to me.
		I think there's still quite a bit that the Mexican government has failed to follow through on as far as its commitments to regional security.
		But certainly the case that we see in Venezuela and in this international waters in the Caribbean and in the Pacific is significantly different in that the United States, if it's not taking the charge as far as confronting these threats, there's no partner that we can expect to do so.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I don't want to let you go, Andres, until I ask you about Hezbollah in Latin America and their relationship with the drug trade there.
		C-SPAN did cover that Senate hearing this week on it.
		It's on our website if anybody wants to see it.
		But can you explain how entrenched they are and how big of a threat this poses to the United States?
unidentified		Yeah.
		No, the significant presence of Hezbollah across the Western Hemisphere, in particular in South America, these organizations like Hezbollah have really taken advantage of, again, this lack of attention to hemispheric security from Washington, which has just allowed these groups to metastasize.
		So Hezbollah, for example, have tapped in very directly into drug trafficking flows within the Western Hemisphere, making money laundering and drug trafficking a significant source of revenue for this group, which it then uses to fuel its activities globally.
		We've also seen a worrying operationalization of the presence of Hezbollah within our hemisphere.
		And this is something which obviously these threats from Iran in the Western Hemisphere are clearly and significantly linked to this criminal presence of Hezbollah and these other organizations.
		But across the hemisphere, you just see this convergence of these Middle Eastern terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
		You see the convergence with anti-American authoritarian regimes from outside of the hemisphere and within the hemisphere.
		They're talking about China, Venezuela, and then these other criminal organizations like the Mexican cartels and guerrillas in South America.
		All of this is a dramatic threat to U.S. and hemispheric stability, which we have for far too long ignored.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's Andres Martinez-Fernandez, senior policy analyst for Latin America for the Heritage Foundation.
		You can find him at heritage.org.
		Thanks so much for joining us.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Up next, we're joined by Democratic Representative Brad Schneider of Illinois.
		He's a member of the Ways and Means Committee and will discuss the government shutdown and other congressional news of the day.
		That's 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.
		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.
		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 viewing for all three branches of government.
		First of all, if you say hello to C-SPAN and how you'll cover 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 year verse for C-SPAN.
		It's the one essential news network.
		Washington Journal continues.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Representative Brad Schneider.
		He's a Democrat from Illinois, member of the Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs Committees.
		Welcome to the program, sir.
unidentified		Thanks.
unidentified		Glad to be here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Can you give us an update on the government shutdown and what negotiations, if any, are going on between or among rank and file members?
unidentified		You know, I wish I could give you an update that there was progress being made and Congress was reporting back to duty.
		But Speaker Johnson sent Congress home on an extended vacation on September 19th and refuses to call us back and refuses to even sit down and have negotiations.
		As chair of the New Democrat Coalition, I represent 116 of the Democrats.
		These are the moderate centrist Democrats, majority of our caucus.
		We've been in Washington with our other colleagues, calling on Speaker Johnson to come to Washington and meet with us.
		I'm calling out all my Republican colleagues.
		Let's sit down, let's talk, let's look for common ground and seek shared ideas for getting through this impasse.
		The folks who are suffering the most from the shutdown are the American people.
		And Speaker Johnson just needs to let us sit down and get to working and get back to a functioning government.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So we are in the third week of the shutdown now.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What are you hearing from your constituents and if there's any of your constituents impacted by the lack of or are they missing any government services and also if you have federal workers in your district?
unidentified		Yeah, we have federal workers.
		I suspect there's federal workers in almost almost every district and I'll tell you there are citizens and people in every district who depend on the federal government, whether it's for their social security checks or checking in with the IRS to make sure their taxes or tax refund is in the mail, working with Veterans Affairs, you name it.
		The federal government touches our lives virtually every day.
		And the things I'm hearing most about are concerns about health care.
		On Monday in Illinois, the premium notices go out for 2026.
		What Democrats have been demanding from Republicans is to address a health care crisis that they've created.
		Essentially, in Illinois, it's expected that across the board, health care premiums are going to go up as much as 18% on average.
		Folks who are on the Affordable Care Act exchange are likely to pay, or not likely, will most certainly pay substantially more because of the failure of Congress to extend the affordable tax credits for health care premiums.
		Nationwide, exchange policies, premiums are expected to go up 114%.
		That's on average.
		In some places, they're going up three, four, even 500%, all because Congress isn't sitting down and working to craft a solution.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, the Senate GOP leader, Senator Thun, has filed a standalone bill.
		It's called the Shutdown Fairness Act.
		And here's what it would do.
		It would allow government funding to provide back pay and ongoing wages to military service members and essential federal workers required to work during government shutdowns.
		I know that you're not in the Senate, but how would you vote on that?
unidentified		Well, in the House, we need to get our workers paid.
		There's no question I'm going to support efforts to pay federal workers.
		The President and Russell Vault have formally declared they're trying to use the shutdown to punish federal workers, in particular, federal workers working on programs that the president deems as Democratic programs, whether that's helping educate our kids, provide health care to our families, making sure to keep our communities safe.
		We passed a law in 2019 that would require all federal workers to receive back pay, whether they were declared essential or not.
		Once a shutdown is over, they should be getting paid.
		There's no question about that.
		But the most important thing is they shouldn't be punished, as the administration is doing to them.
		And again, this could all be resolved quickly if Speaker Johnson would call his colleagues back to Washington.
		Democrats have been there.
		Democrats will be there.
		And we are ready to sit down, willing to work to find that common ground.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Now, Congressman Schneider, House Democratic leader Jeffries, has said that he opposes that standalone bill, calling it a political ploy.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Would you still vote for it, even though your Democratic leadership has said that they're against it?
unidentified		Well, I think what Leader Jeffries is saying is paying some and not paying all doesn't make sense.
		And I agree with that.
		We need to pay all of our federal workers and stop using federal workers as a pawn in this game of politics between Republicans and Democrats.
		What we need to do, as I said before, is we need to sit down and find common ground.
		Workers should not be a tool for either side to punish the other.
		Workers should be the folks we count on to deliver services for the American people.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And if you'd like to join our conversation with Representative Brad Schneider, a Democrat of Illinois, you can do so.
		Our lines are bipartisan.
		Republicans are on 2028-8001.
		Democrats are on 202-748-8000.
		And Independents 202748-8002.
		We also have that line for federal workers.
		That's 202-748-8003.
		Congressman, if Republicans were to negotiate with you on those ACA tax subsidies, what concessions would you be willing to give on that?
unidentified		I'd be willing to discuss just about anything.
		What we need to do is end this health care crisis.
		People are going to lose their insurance, make the hard decision they can't afford insurance because their premiums are rising 100% or more.
		And all because the Republicans refuse to extend these tax credits.
		If we can find a way to extend the tax credits, there's a lot of things where Democrats and Republicans agree.
		Sometimes we disagree on the process to getting there.
		But if we're not talking, we're not finding that common ground and looking for those shared solutions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your district includes northern Chicago suburbs.
		And earlier this month, the Trump administration has authorized the deployment of 700 members of the National Guard to Chicago, 300 from Illinois, and 400 from Texas.
		That has been in the courts.
		Can you give us the latest on that and if you're seeing National Guard on the streets of Chicago?
unidentified		We're not seeing National Guard right now because the court has extended a temporary restraining order indefinitely on this.
		And the court was very clear.
		There is not a case justifying National Guard in Illinois.
		The federal buildings, including where detainees of DHS agents, ICE and others, are being taken are being secured.
		Local authorities are cooperating with federal authorities to keep those places secure.
		So at the moment, the National Guard is not on the streets there in a different suburb, not in my district.
		What I do have are the DHS agents, ICE CPB.
		They are stationed at Naval Station Great Lakes.
		They're not staying there, but they are operating from there.
		And we have seen ICE agents in our area, in communities across my district.
		They're targeting individuals, not with warrants, not for specific reasons, but based on how they look, where they might be working.
		They've targeted a car wash, hardware stores, various places where people are.
		And they're doing it not in a respectful way, approaching these people and arresting those who deserve to be arrested.
		They are tackling people.
		We've seen video of them tackling 15-year-old girls.
		We saw them arrest a 23-year-old woman who's a U.S. citizen.
		She was cooperating with them when she turned to the local mayor who was coming to try to calm down tensions.
		An agent came and slammed her into the car unprovoked.
		And this is what we're seeing in communities all across our district.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk to callers, and we'll start with Bruce in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Bruce.
unidentified		Hi, good morning.
		I just have a couple comments here and a direct question for your guest.
		So there's a lot of Republicans out there who are not Red Hat wearers, who are not watching Fox News, OEN, MSNBC, or CNN.
		They're just middle-of-the-road men and women who just trying to make a living every day.
		My question is, with a Democratic Party, instead of trying to stiff-arm Republicans, middle-of-the-road Republicans, because by the sheer fact we're only Republicans, you ought to come to the districts.
		You ought to come down to a district other than your own and make the case to the actual people who are going to decide the midterm elections and say, hey, listen, this is why we shut the government down.
		We want to have the subsidies extended so you can continue to afford your health care.
		And force the Republicans, which I am one of, force my representative to push back on this view.
		Force them to say, nope, we don't want these subsidies extended because make the case to the peoples.
		Get off the talk shows and go out to the communities that are the Republican communities and say, hey, this is what we're trying to do.
		We're trying to support the working man and woman.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What do you think, Congressman?
unidentified		Bruce, thank you.
		And I'll start saying I'm doing everything you're talking about except the idea of going to other districts.
		And I like that idea.
		But you're 100% right.
		And I talked about the idea that we've got Republicans and Democrats left and right, but each side is not monolithic.
		And there's a wide spread of ideas and opinions in each.
		I'm a moderate Democrat.
		In my district, in my early races, in the last drawing of the map, I beat a one-term incumbent by one point.
		He beat me the next time by two.
		I won the third and final round by five.
		We were, the way I described it, we were standing on opposite 45-yard lines debating each other.
		There wasn't all that much difference.
		There were on the edges, and that became determinative in the district.
		I've won my last few races by anywhere from 20 to 30 points because I do reach across the aisle exactly as you're saying.
		We need to find what unites us to find that common ground and work together.
		And I like to say when I travel my district, I run as a Democrat.
		I represent everybody, and it's my job to listen to everybody.
		I've been around the district talking to folks, explaining exactly as you've described, and expressing that we're not going to get this through this crisis with only one side getting their way and the other side losing on every argument.
		We have to find a way to compromise and meet in the middle.
		I like the idea of going into other districts.
		I'll also tell you, I've reached out to former colleagues, Republicans who are no longer in Congress, asking how can we try to do this.
		We have to bring people together.
		And everyone deals with health care.
		Everyone is facing the same crisis of rising premiums.
		It's not a Democrat or Republican premium notice that's going out.
		And all the families that are looking at the notice, recognizing they're going to pay a lot more next year for health insurance, will have no one to blame but Congress unless Congress comes together and works to solve the problem.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Congressman, as you know, Republicans are accusing Democrats of trying to give government health care, Medicaid, to illegal immigrants.
		Democrats are denying that that's the case.
		However, there's a large number of people that were paroled into the country under the Biden administration.
		Those, are they considered illegal immigrants to you, or would they, under the Democratic plan and what the Democrats are trying to get out of the shutdown, be eligible for Medicaid?
unidentified		The simple answer is unless you are here under legal authority, you do not have access to Medicaid.
		And what the Republicans are saying, well, no, if someone shows up in an emergency room, they will get care.
		That's something entirely different.
		Under legislation called Antala that was passed decades ago, anyone who shows up to an emergency room, no matter where they're from, no matter their status, no matter their health insurance, whether they have it or not, if they do have it, where it comes from, whether they have a job or don't have a job, if they're at an emergency room, they are going to get taken care of.
		That's just the humane thing.
		That's the American way of doing things.
		We take care of people who are in need.
		That amounts to, I believe, about 0.4, less than a half of a percent of the total expenditure on health care.
		And that's what the Republicans are trying to use as the case.
		If you are not here legally, if you do not have authority to be here, you do not have access to Medicaid.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But going back to my original question about parolees that came in during the Biden administration, those are those that crossed the border, presented themselves to Border Patrol, I would assume got some sort of documentation or some sort of a promise to appear later to an immigration judge.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Would those people be eligible for Medicaid?
unidentified		It depends on the circumstance, but someone who seeks asylum, whether they're coming from the border in Mexico, they present themselves to an officer saying, I'm asking for asylum.
		Some may be coming from Cuba.
		Some may be coming from Russia, wherever the case may be.
		If they present to the United States for asylum, international law gives them the right to a hearing.
		And they are given a status waiting for that hearing.
		The problem, and this is what we've been working on for a much longer time than just this current fiscal crisis.
		The problem is our courts are backed up.
		Republicans have refused to work with Democrats to pass the comprehensive immigration reform we need with border security.
		The two have to go hand in glove.
		There was a bill that passed the Senate in 2013, so a dozen years ago, with a 68-32 majority, bipartisan, that never saw the light of day in the House.
		We've been working on this for decades.
		We need to address the issue.
		We need to make the process more efficient, more effective, so that when someone does apply for asylum, they can have a hearing within a matter of months or even weeks rather than waiting the years as it is today.
		But those people who apply for asylum and are going through the process are here legally.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Michelle in Tomo, Wisconsin.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Democrat, good morning, Michelle.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Thank you for taking my call.
		My concern is the health care.
		I rely on the subsidies to provide for my health care.
		I am a caregiver.
		My employer does not offer health insurance.
		And I've applied for other jobs, but because of my age, I'll be 64.
		I couldn't get any other jobs unless I went to fast food, which pays a lot less than what my current job is.
		And they do not offer health care because they keep your hours below 40.
		So you don't really get much in benefits as far as fast food and other establishments that won't allow you to work 40 hours.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Michelle, what are you doing for health care?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Are you on Obamacare?
unidentified		Yes, I am.
		And which has been great for me.
		I have serious health issues, but I'm still able to work.
		My health issues is my COPD and my Alpha 1 antratrypsin deficiency, which is my liver.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Michelle, Michelle, have you gotten any information about your premiums?
unidentified		Not yet, but I've called the health care market and they couldn't give me any answers because the government shutdown.
		They don't even know where things are going.
		But I did find out I'm paying $160 a month for my health care with the subsidies.
		But they did tell me with my insurance through the insurance I have is going to go up to $1,500 and something a month.
		I only make $2,000 a month.
		So therefore, I will not be able to afford my bills.
		I will not be able to afford my prescriptions.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		These are life-saving medications.
unidentified		And to be honest, I will be just totally royally screwed.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's get Congressman Schneider to respond.
unidentified		Michelle, again, I'm going to start with.
		I'm sorry you're going through this.
		I'm a few months older than you, 64.
		I know as we get older, the health issues only compound.
		And you described your situation.
		You're not alone.
		That doesn't make it any easier.
		And that's why you just laid out every reason why Congress has to act.
		It's an issue of taking care of our neighbors, our fellow citizens, who are, as you're trying to do, just make ends meet.
		So many people on the Affordable Care Act Exchange insurance programs are either self-employed or working for a small company that doesn't provide insurance otherwise.
		We're talking about 22 to 24 million people in a similar situation.
		And the statistic I know, you know, Michelle laid out her issue.
		Her premiums will go up from $160 a month to more than $1,500 a month.
		That's not 100% increase.
		That's 1,000% increase, almost 10 times as much.
		And people just aren't able to afford that.
		It's wrong, and we need to address it.
		A couple who are 60 years old, so roughly our age, Michelle, the number in Illinois, they're making roughly $80,000 a year.
		So making ends meet, but it's not easy.
		Their health insurance premium is expected to go up as much as $25,000 for the year, $2,000 a month.
		This is what we're seeing across the board.
		And it's why the Republicans need to come to the table.
		It's people like Michelle who are working, who are trying to be, are doing the responsible things and taking care of themselves.
		And government made the right decision by passing the Affordable Care Act, made the right decision by making insurance through the Affordable Care Act affordable for working Americans.
		And now the Republicans are turning their back and saying we're going to leave these people high and dry.
		And either, you know, as Michelle laid out with her figures, her insurance will increase almost $18,000 a year.
		And that's almost all of her monthly income is going to be going to insurance.
		If she keeps her insurance, how does she pay for rent?
		How does she pay for food?
		How does she pay for the things necessary just to live, let alone spending time and enjoying time with family or friends?
		It's just so wrong.
		And again, all Speaker Johnson needs to do is call his colleagues, call the Republican Conference back, call the Democrats back.
		Let's sit down.
		Let's work to negotiate a solution.
		We have Republicans who I've spoken with, whether it's through the Problem Solvers Caucus or other groups, who recognize that we need to do something.
		We just need to get it done.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Homer in Florence, Massachusetts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Hello, yes, I have two points.
		Please let me make them.
		On January 1st, 2015, the Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%.
		The top income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%.
		The top income payroll tax went from 37% to 52%.
		Capital gains tax went from 15% to 28%.
		Dividend tax went from 15% to 39%.
		Estate tax went from 0% to 15%.
		So, Homer.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Your point being?
unidentified		Point is these taxes were all passed solely with Democrats' vote.
		Not a single Republican voted for these new taxes.
		These were all passed under the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, which, if affordable, it wouldn't need subsidies.
		And my second point is in 1996, on September 30th, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act was passed by the Congress and the Senate, and Bill Clinton signed it.
		And that allows for deportation without a judicial hearing with a process called expedited removal.
		And my third point is, you talk about Michael Flanone and Harry Dunn all the time, those traumatized Capitol police officers from January 6th.
		Is that the only day you cared about police officers?
		Because I know that a lot of ICE officers have suffered and they're just enforcing the laws that the Congress has passed.
		So please explain why you're not worried.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Got it.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Congressman.
unidentified		Well, Homer, thanks for sharing that.
		And I'll touch on a couple of things.
		As far as the tax rates, we're facing a $37 trillion debt and in no small part because of unfunded tax cuts during the Bush administration.
		I believe we need to find a way to balance our budget, give people the opportunity to work, to earn a living, not just to make ends meet, but to get ahead.
		And everyone should have a chance to achieve the American dream.
		But the American Dreams built on the infrastructure we provide.
		It's built on the rule of law, and I'll touch on that in a second.
		And that's why I'm proud of my bipartisan record working with Republicans to find ways to responsibly provide services Americans need, want, and deserve, and to do it in a fiscally responsible way.
		As far as police officers, I honor our police officers every day.
		I'm proud of the relationship I have with my local police departments.
		They know me by name.
		They don't address me as Congressman Schneider.
		They call me Brad.
		They call me when they have an issue.
		I talk to them when I'm in their communities.
		We need to support our law enforcement officials.
		And if the president wanted to make our communities safer, if he wanted to reduce crime and we need to always reduce crime, any crime is a challenge and crime's coming down in our cities across the nation.
		We need to continue to try to bring it down to zero, should be the goal.
		What the president could do is release the $800 million Congress authorized that I was proud to support that would provide more police officers to local communities, would offer support services, social workers, other things for de-escalation, equipment to keep our police officers safe and extraordinarily dangerous job.
		So I will always defend our police officers.
		I defended them on January 6th when an angry mob attacked our Capitol Police police who saved my life that day.
		And I will defend them every day in our local communities and across our country.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Edward in Keysport, New Jersey, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Edward.
unidentified		Thank you.
		So number one, with health care, I think you need to raise the poverty limit.
		The fact is that Medicaid cuts off at $21,000 a year and you can't afford health care up until maybe even $60,000 or $80,000 a year.
		So you guys should raise the poverty limit to say 80K and then get those people in there.
		As far as ICE is concerned, you guys need to start pulling those records and start putting it in everyone's face that we're paying a trillion dollars over the next 10 years for this behemoth.
		You know, pull the records on these helicopter expenses, on the limit, you know, their traveling expenses, et cetera, et cetera.
		How much health care are they getting subsidized for free?
		I don't want to pay for it.
		And as far as the National Card deployment, if you guys want to end crime, these guys should be in the ghetto like fixing lampposts and fixing lead pipes.
		They shouldn't be picking up leaves in the theater district.
		It's a total waste of taxpayers' money.
		Pull those records and start putting it in everyone's face in America.
		How much money are we spending on this?
		They're crying about spending money on illegals.
		We're spending on money on illegals right now.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Any comment, Congressman?
unidentified		Lots of comments.
		Edward, thanks for your notes.
		Let me touch first on Medicaid.
		One of the things, and this is the debate on the Affordable Care Act advanced tax credits.
		This goes up to much higher than the numbers you were talking about.
		And someone who's making $80,000, $130,000, the way the system is structured is that they won't have to pay more than 8.5% of their income for their health insurance.
		That's what the tax credit provides for.
		Medicaid, what originally 50, 60 years ago was designed to be that stopgap insurance, over the years, more and more people have come to rely on Medicaid.
		In different states, it's called different things, but it's now millions of people across the country, which is why the Republican, what they call their one big beautiful bill or now act, OBBBA, by cutting a trillion dollars out of that program, they're taking health care away from between 15 and 17 million Americans because so many people are relying on Medicaid today.
		So we should always work to fight fraud, waste, and abuse.
		But what the Republicans are doing is cutting away health care from American families that desperately need it.
		And that fighting fraud, waste, and abuse is a role of Congress through its oversight function.
		And by not being open, Congress is not doing the oversight.
		The oversight that Edward's talking about, whether it's oversight of ICE or oversight of our immigration system as a whole, oversight of our courts, oversight of the IRS, you name it.
		Every committee in Congress has an oversight function over the various administrative agencies that they have jurisdiction to review.
		That's the way our government was designed, checks and balances.
		So, absolutely, we need to do that.
		And on the last piece of where we're spending money, this is why it's so important that Democrats and Congress sit down, that people who are willing to sit at a table with open minds to share their ideas can come up with fiscally responsible solutions.
		Sometimes the obvious answer is the way to go.
		Sometimes it's the counterintuitive approach, but we're wasting so much money.
		And what you're seeing with these ICE officers tackling people, arresting citizens, you know, those cases are going to end up in court.
		You know that those American citizens who are wrongly arrested, physically abused, held in detention for days or weeks at a time, there's going to be lawsuits.
		And the American taxpayers are going to be ones who are going to end up paying the bill.
		That's why oversight becomes so important.
		So, Edward, all your points were outstanding.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		One more call for you, Congressman.
		This is Tim in Westby, Wisconsin.
		Democrat, go ahead, Tim.
unidentified		Yes, good morning, Representative Schneider.
		I'd just like to say that I was very fortunate this year.
		I fell down, broke my hip, crawled in my house on my belly at zero out, had my fingers amputated, except for my thumb and two above the knuckles.
		Anyhow, I had $297,000 worth of health bills.
		I'm on Medicare and a Medicare supplement.
		And so I only had to pay $3,400, which I can handle.
		But I'd also like to say that the medical supplement insurance company is Pulling Auto, Wisconsin, except for six counties, the one I had.
		Today I have to go to a nearby city named La Cross and talk to an insurance agent to figure out what it's going to cost me now.
		But I know it's going to go up by a couple hundred dollars a month to get the supplement package.
		And that's what people need to understand: it's not just affecting Medicaid and the amount of our Affordable Care Act.
		It's going to affect Medicare too, because people are going to pay a lot more for their supplemental programs.
		And nine out of ten, these lowest income states are registered.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Congressman.
unidentified		Tim, thanks for sharing your story.
		I'll touch on your story a second.
		Let me answer the Medicare issue first.
		Because of the way the Republicans designed the One Big Beautiful bill, their program, Medicare is facing a $500 billion cut.
		It's because the bill was financed with more federal debt, which just another reason why I and all the Democrats opposed that bill.
		But to your story, and again, thank you for sharing that.
		I'm sorry you went through and had to go through all of that.
		I will tell you, listening to you, I found inspiration.
		You started this call by saying, I'm lucky, and then laid out a story of breaking your hip and losing your fingers.
		But you brought what to me describes the American spirit.
		That, A, we have a responsibility to take care of our community, take care of our neighbors, and you extend that across the country.
		We take care of Americans as a whole.
		That's why when there's a natural disaster in one place, the country comes together to support the people in that place because the next disaster could be anywhere else in the country.
		And what's true in a community-wide, statewide support has to be true on the individual level.
		And we are lucky to be in the greatest country in the world.
		But it's the greatest country in the world because, despite our differences, we work and support each other.
		We're the greatest country in the world because wherever we came from, whether it was individuals who came directly or in my case, my grandparents and great-grandparents who came here, we can be Americans because being American is supporting a set of ideals defined by our Constitution, initiated in the Declaration of Independence, and built on over 250 years.
		And we need to keep building on it.
		And that's, I'll close with this.
		That's why it's so important that Congress come back into session, that Democrats and Republicans sit down and work together.
		That's what the Democrats have been calling for since September 19th.
		Since July 3rd, the House has been in session only 19 days, and 10 of those days are travel days.
		So it's nine full days of this Congress working because of Speaker Johnson keeping his members away from the House floor.
		We all need to be together on the House floor, working together.
		I'm beseeching Speaker Johnson to bring us back into session.
		Let's start talking and let's take the inspiration from people like Tim, who, despite breaking a hip, despite all the other challenges, looks to the opportunities and the good things in this nation and is grateful for it.
		We should all be grateful for it.
		And let's make sure that that gratitude extends to generations to come.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's Representative Brad Schneider, Democrat of Illinois, member of the Ways and Means and Foreign Affairs Committee, and also coalition chair of the New Democrat Coalition.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Thanks so much for joining us today.
unidentified		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Coming up next, it's Open Forum.
		You can start calling in now.
		It's 202748-8001 if you're a Republican.
		It's 202-748-8000 for Democrats, and Independents are on 202-748-8002.
		Stay with us.
unidentified		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.
		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.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		It's Open Forum.
		We'll go straight to your calls.
		And this is Joanne in Perry, Georgia.
		Democrat.
		Hi, Joanne.
unidentified		Hi, thank you for taking my call.
		I just have two points and then a suggestion.
		Not only do immigrants get free care at hospitals, it is also for disadvantaged white and black people.
		Stopping pay of congressmen won't hurt them because they are wealthy from lobbyists and the stock market.
		My suggestion is that to take a break in the shutdown is for Americans to stop shopping for anything but gas groceries and medication.
		That will put pressure on corporations, Trump, and the Republicans to open the government and work out a solution.
		I hope someone will organize this.
		Thank you.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Tony in Sugarland, Texas, Independent.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		You're on the air.
unidentified		Yes, ma'am.
		Good morning.
		First of all, for all the veterans out there, active duty people and first responders, thank you for your service.
		Mimi, I haven't called in in 13 months.
		So just bear with me.
		I got some facts.
		I do my research, and I feel the fact that since y'all hired Mr. Feis from CNN, I feel Washington Journal, not C-SPAN, Washington Journal has gone more to the left.
		Project 2029, Democratic Project.
		I never heard anything about it.
		New York Times put out a report on it in July.
		Axios report last week about Jeffreys.
		Numerous Democrats will not vote for him.
		Nothing.
		Heard nothing about it.
		CBS put out an article.
		Maybe y'all need to put that out there.
		The facts behind the government shutdown, October 2nd.
		Great article to read.
		It explains to everybody about the immigration situation where it's not illegal immigration.
		They reclassified, just like you said a little bit earlier.
		Mimi, you had the congressman on last week, and he quoted page 52.
		It's page 57, section 2141.
		Please put that up where it says they want to repeal everything that was put in the one big beautiful bill.
		So when they tell you, when these Democrats say no, it's not about enhanced subsidies.
		It's more to it.
		Okay.
		So two things.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So Tony, can I ask you about some of the things that you've mentioned so far?
		You said that Washington Journal is moving to the left.
		Can you give us an example or 2029?
unidentified		Okay.
		2029.
		So y'all talked about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we talked about it and then?
unidentified		I don't know how many times you had people come on there and you talked about it, but 2029 has been out since July.
		Nothing's heard about it.
		Okay.
		How about the CBO analysis on fraud of the ACA sign up?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Wait, so Tony, this is, tell me about Project 2029.
		I've got it up here on the screen.
		Who's behind it?
		Why do you want to talk about it?
unidentified		Democrats are behind it because they have a – read the article from the New York Times.
		It'll tell you who's behind it, what their play is in the future.
		Okay.
		I mean, there's the article right there.
		I mean, y'all read the New York Times, the Washington Post, and whoever else every day.
		That's information.
		I'll give you another thing, Mimi.
		I text in when y'all were talking about NATO.
		I said Hawaii is not part of NATO.
		I got kudos from somebody in your back office there.
		Text me back.
		Yes, I was right.
		But you don't tell the people.
		Why is it part of NATO?
		Yes, ma'am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hawaii is part of the United States.
unidentified		Ma'am, they are not part of NATO.
unidentified		Research that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Wait, Hawaii is a state in the United States.
		The United States is part of NATO.
		How are you taking one state out?
unidentified		Because they are not in the North Atlantic Treaty.
		Okay, research it right now.
		Google it.
		Is Hawaii part of NATO?
		And it'll come back and say no.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tony.
		Here is the New York Times article.
		Tony is talking about it.
		It says, sound familiar.
		Democrats lay groundwork for a project 2029.
		The plan to write a policy agenda for the next Democratic president is at the center of a raging debate within the party, whether its biggest problem is its ideas or its difficulty in selling them.
		And you could read that.
		This is July 7th, 2025.
		You could read the article here again, New York Times on what's being called, here it is, they're calling it Project 2029.
		And this is Andre Cherney, a one-time Democratic speechwriter and state party leader.
		He says the way he saw it, President Trump ran on his own ideas, but Ms. Harris only ran against Mr. Trump's.
		And it says, Mr. Cherney, the co-founder of a nearly two-decade-old liberal policy journal, is organizing a group of Democratic thinkers to recreate what Mr. Trump's allies did when he was voted out of office, draft a ready-made agenda for the next Democratic presidential nominee.
		Here's Craig Frenchlick, Indiana Republican.
		Go ahead, Craig.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		Boy, my friend from Texas there was pretty sharp, but I just want to mention two subjects.
		First, regarding the Affordable Care Act, when it was initiated, healthy people, everybody had to pay in or they were going to get a fine.
		That was kind of based on a similar program called Social Security, where workers put in the money and people withdraw it.
		That mandatory enrollment was taken away.
		That was the first downfall.
		Secondly, the premiums, when the government pays an entity, let's say like universities and colleges, they produce student loans and back the student loans.
		Tuition goes up.
		When government gets involved in another program, such as the Obamacare, with the subsidies, the insurance companies love it because they can raise the prices and all the government, all they do is raise the subsidies.
		It's dramatic when that lady said she paid $160 a month that goes to $1 to $2,000 a month.
		That's the actual cost due to Obamacare.
		The inflated prices of insurance is directly related to the premiums subsidies.
		And I guess that's about it.
		But it has a long history, and those necessary points need to be kind of brought out more.
		Thank you so much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And circling back to what Tony said about NATO and Hawaii, this is, he was absolutely correct.
		CNN says this.
		This is from March 30th of 2024.
		This U.S. state is not covered by the NATO treaty.
		Some experts say that needs to change.
		It says because a quirk of geography and history, Hawaii is not technically covered by the NATO Pact.
		If a foreign power attacked Hawaii, say the U.S. Navy's base at Pearl Harbor or the headquarters of the Indo-Pacific Command northwest of Honolulu, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, would not be obligated to rise to the Aloha state's defense.
		That's in CNN about 18 months ago.
		Here is Jennifer Rancho Santa Margarita, California, Democrat.
unidentified		Hi, I am not from Rancho Santa Margarita.
		I'm from Santa Margarita, California.
		It's in the central coast of California.
		Rancho Santa Margarita.
		Yeah, it's in Orange County.
		They tried to take our name, but I was actually in the LA Times helping to fight that, and we want to keep our name because our post office began before theirs.
		I actually am a retired postal worker, and I really enjoyed my work with the federal government because I'm a historian at heart.
		And right now, my heart is broken because I really think that all political parties should be able to agree that it's not okay to tear down our White House without any permission or notice to the historical, you know, any historical preservation society or whatever, you know, is governed by.
		I know enough about historical buildings to know you can't just alter them just because, you know, you feel like it.
		That would be like acting like a king.
		So all I want to say is, can't we all just agree that what he's trying to do here, you know, it's just so horrendous.
		I just, I'm sorry for getting emotional, but it's been bearing on my mind watching it all yesterday.
		And I just, if anything could pull us together, can we all agree that this is not right?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Jennifer, and some more information for you on that from ABC News.
		What we know about the donors funding the White House ballroom says the Trump administration has yet to release a full list of donors contributing a picture of potential donors and companies funding the project is beginning to emerge.
		It says that Trump appeared to increase the cost estimate by 50 to 100 million, telling reporters during his remarks on Wednesday the price tag for the new venue was about $300 million, more than the $200 to $250 million estimates previously given.
		It says earlier this month, the Trump administration released a list of people and companies who are expected to attend a dinner at the White House about the construction project.
		The companies scheduled to attend come from the tech and crypto industries, including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, along with Coinbase, Ripple, and Tether.
		Cameron and Tyler, Winklevoss, two tech and cryptocurrency investors were also on the list.
		Here's Justin, Madison, Wisconsin, Independent Line.
		Hi, Justin.
unidentified		Hi.
		Thank you so much for taking my call.
		I just have two quick thoughts.
		I felt these protests over the past weekend were quite ironic.
		I mean, it's July 4th.
		My understanding is that July 4th is no King's Day.
		And what was frustrating to me is looking into the people that were funding the protests.
		They were not natural, just homegrown protests.
		They were clearly funded.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		By who, Justin?
unidentified		By who?
		Well, there's the whole list of people.
		I mean, for example, I mean, it's been very widely reported that in many cities that the Democrat socialist organizations were funding the protests.
		You know, and so.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And when you say funding the protests, sorry, you meant paying the protesters or like organizing or getting the word out.
unidentified		Organizing, and I personally believe paying some of the protesters too.
odin in michigan ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you look at the median age range of a lot of these protests, and it was not, you know, necessarily gumbooks.
unidentified		And so, and then my last quick point before I get off is just I think political violence of all sides needs to stop.
		This is, you know, whether it was the assassination of the politicians in Minnesota to the constant threats on President Trump's life.
		I did not vote for Trump the last two elections.
		I voted for him the first time around.
		But, you know, there were small samples of individuals that were holding signs calling for the president's life.
		And so on both sides, we need to tone down the rhetoric.
		It's okay to disagree, but it's not okay to use some of the terms that have been used towards our current president, which again, I didn't vote for, or towards any politician on either side of the aisle.
		So thank you for taking my call.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Justin, let's talk to Jeff next.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Racine, Wisconsin, Republican.
unidentified		Hi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		How are you doing today?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Doing great.
unidentified		I think it's just kind of funny with the rubber.
unidentified		You had Randy Gardner, the lady from the teacher union up there the other day.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Winearten.
unidentified		Yeah, wine.
		Yeah.
		Well, she was up there saying, oh, people are this, Nazis, and fascists and stuff.
		And it seems like every rally she goes to, she gets up on stage and she looks like a raving lunatic, calling everybody fascists and everything else.
		And it's like, boy, she just talks out of both sides of her face.
		You know, she's very calm on TV.
		But then when she gets into a rally, she looks like a raving lunatic.
		That's all I've got to say.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here's Pete in Chicago, Illinois, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hey, Meanie, good morning.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Morning.
unidentified		How are you?
		Listen, when Jimmy Carter left office, the national debt was $990 billion.
		Now, since 1980, when Ronald Reagan came in to now, between Republican and Democratic presidents, we've put on $36 trillion.
		Now, the president, Donald J. Trump, claims that we've brought in $17 trillion into the Treasury.
		Now, if we brought in $17 trillion, here's an easy way to solve everything.
		I think it would be good for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
		Take a trillion dollars and give it to the Democrats to give to their programs.
		Give a trillion dollars to the Republicans to give to their programs.
		Take a trillion dollars for the American people in a rebate in the taxes that we're paying on the tariffs.
		Take $4 trillion and put it in a rainy day fund, and then take the other $10 trillion and pay down some of the debt.
		Now, what's wrong with that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, Pete.
		Where did you get the number as to how much the tariffs have brought in?
		You said how much trillion?
unidentified		$17 trillion.
unidentified		You had some of your Republican callers call in.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And say that it was $17 trillion?
unidentified		Yeah, said that the president has come out and said that we've brought in $17 trillion.
		Now, that's a lot of money, Dick.
		That could be a lot of fun.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's a lot of money.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure that that's correct.
unidentified		Well, I'm just, I'm just going by what the president said.
unidentified		He said this in all his interviews.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, okay.
		So I've got here for you, bipartisanpolicy.org.
		They've got this called An article called How Much Are U.S. Tariffs Raising in Revenue.
		And this is from April of this year.
		And it's got a tracker here of revenue over the years.
		But it's looking like in billions of dollars, close to $200 billion, not quite $200 billion in tariff revenue.
		So certainly not near that trillion, $17 trillion mark.
		Tucker in Illinois Independent line.
		Go ahead, Tucker.
unidentified		Yes, I was just listening to the other gentleman.
		President Trump did say brought in $17 trillion in profit from the sales over Saudi Arabia and everything like that.
		He did say in tariffs.
		Trillion.
		Tariffs.
		Yes.
		Monies from the tariffs.
		$17 trillion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But you just mentioned Saudi Arabia.
unidentified		Well, that's for the sales of when he went overseas for a long time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		That's not terrifying.
unidentified		Before the president brought in $17 trillion.
unidentified		But that's not what I'm calling him about.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay, go ahead.
unidentified		But he did say that.
		I'm just kind of just laughing at people, at Americans, because number one, with the last month when Cracker Barrel took the cracker off the Cracker Barrel sign, it was outstanding.
		President Trump weighed in.
		But now the East Wing is being torn down.
		Very few people are outraged as they were as Cracker was taking Cracker Barrel off the Cracker side.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, Tucker.
		A couple of things for your schedule.
		So we are standing by to take you to Speaker Mike Johnson, who will be speaking to reporters at the Capitol.
		That's right after this program.
		And Representative Infrastructure, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves will also be with him.
		That is right after this program.
		So stay with us for that.
		At 1 p.m., Press Secretary Caroline Levitt will be holding a White House press briefing.
		That's also right here on C-SPAN at 1 p.m.
		And then at 3 p.m., we will have live coverage of an announcement by President Trump again, 3 p.m. here on C-SPAN.
		All of those you can watch on our app, C-SPANNOW, and online at c-span.org.
		Elizabeth Franklin, Michigan, Republican, good morning.
unidentified		Yes, good morning.
		First of all, it's to our best interest for everyone to have health care, whether you're immigrant or not.
		We all must stay healthy and not give diseases to each other.
		Secondly, our president in the White House needs to stop.
		He is not, somebody needs to stop him because he's doing anything he wants without permission.
		It's nice to have a new ballroom, but that money could be used to help these people that are going to be in financial difficulties.
		I've never seen a person in the White House like this ever before.
		It's so sad.
		And nobody wants to hear that group with Mike Johnson every day get on the TV and tell lies.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So, Elizabeth, you are a Republican.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is that correct?
unidentified		Yes.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Did you vote for President Trump this last time?
unidentified		No.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And why not?
unidentified		No.
		Oh, no, because he may be good in something, but not for presidential.
		No, no, no.
		Uh-uh.
		He's not qualified.
		He's not qualified.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Bruce in Independent in Kingston, New York.
		Good morning, Bruce.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		You know, I'm a little surprised that the East Wing is not front and center of everyone's outrage.
		You know, frankly, it's more than a destruction.
		It's a desecration of 100 years of history.
		Many of the great First Ladies have not only had this as their residence, but have historic speeches and conferences and luncheons.
		And you have it.
		It's all being just crushed with this destruction.
		Without any overview or anything, this is essentially an impulse.
		Trump's probably going to put his name on it, the Trump ballroom, and we're all going to live with the White House being not the people's house, but the Trump House.
		I think we should have a class action lawsuit against him and his billionaire people and restore the East Wing.
		In any case, a definite class action lawsuit seems to me that the right you know from the American people.
		This is an insult and an injury to American people and American history.
		So again, I really if there's people out there who know how to go about this class action lawsuit against Trump for doing this.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Brian, a Republican in Massachusetts.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Hi.

▲