C-SPAN’s Washington Journal (02/13/2026) dives into a Homeland Security shutdown looming at midnight, pitting Senate Democrats—led by Chuck Schumer—against Trump’s ICE over reforms like banning masks and racial profiling, while Republicans cite $75B funding and threats against agents. The acting ICE director testifies about cartel doxing and violence, yet Democrats demand accountability, exposing inhumane conditions in Baltimore facilities and alleging leadership purges under Trump’s appointees. Meanwhile, Trump revokes EPA climate rules, sparking lawsuits and industry divides, while callers clash over immigration fraud, pandemic-era border policies, and partisan corruption. The episode underscores how ideological standoffs risk destabilizing public safety, from disaster response to airport security, amid global tensions previewed at the Munich Security Conference. [Automatically generated summary]
were funded by these television companies and more, including Comcast.
The flag replacement program got started by a good friend of mine, a Navy vet, who saw the flag at the office that needed to be replaced.
He said, wouldn't this be great if this can be something that we did for anyone?
Comcast has always been a community-driven company.
This is one of those great examples of the way we're getting out there.
Comcast supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, along with your calls and comments live, we'll talk about the Trump administration rescinding a 2009 policy regulating greenhouse gas emissions with Politico E ⁇ E news reporter Gene Chemnik and then Nicole Clowers on the Government Accountability Office's yearly report on efforts to improve the performance and accountability of the federal government.
And Washington Times National Security editor Guy Taylor will preview the annual Munich Security Conference.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal is next.
Join the conversation.
Unless there are really strong, meaningful reforms to rein in ICE and stop the violence, there will not be Democratic votes to fund ICE and extend the awful status quo that now exists.
They want our law enforcement to be totally vulnerable and put them in a lot of danger.
They have some things that are really very hard to, very, very hard to approve.
Good morning, everyone.
It's Friday, February 13th, a freaky Friday here in Washington, as once again, for the third time, the government is headed toward a shutdown.
This time, it's a partial shutdown of the Homeland Security Department after Congress and the President could not agree on policy changes for the Immigration Customs and Enforcement Agency.
Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked two attempts to fund the Homeland Security Department, and then lawmakers have left town.
So at midnight tonight, agencies within the Homeland Security Department will close until the two sides come together to fund the department.
That doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.
So this morning, it's your turn to join the debate on whether or not to fund the Homeland Security Department.
Republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
Independents, 202-748-8002.
Text if you don't want to call at 202-748-8003.
Join us on Facebook.com slash C-SPAN or on X with the handle at C-SPANWJ.
Good morning, everyone.
The countdown has begun.
The clock is on your screen.
And at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.
Before we get your take on this debate, more from President Trump at the White House yesterday.
President, we might be heading into a partial government shutdown.
When was the last time you spoke with Chuck Schumer?
And do you still feel Democrats are negotiating in good faith?
Well, a week ago I spoke, but you know, we have to protect our law enforcement.
Actually, the Supreme Court gave a ruling, or one of the courts gave a very big ruling on masks that you have the right to use them for personal protection if you want.
So I don't know how that interjects.
They want our law enforcement to be totally vulnerable and put them in a lot of danger.
They have some things that are really very hard to very, very hard to approve, frankly.
As you know, it's only pretend.
We had various of the other bills.
That's all done, but we're left with this one.
We have to protect our law enforcement.
Very important.
President Trump on the negotiations between the White House and Democrats over their demands for policy changes when it comes to immigration enforcement tactics.
Now, here is Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democrats, in the Senate yesterday after those two votes failed by Democrats blocking them on the Senate floor to fund parts of the department.
Today's strong vote was a shot across the bow to Republicans.
Democrats will not support a blank check for chaos.
This vote today asked a simple question: Will you rein in ICE's abuses or will you vote to extend the chaos?
Republicans chose chaos, and the Democrats refused.
Republicans chose to put a bill on the floor that ignored the abuses, ignored the outrage, ignored what the American people want overwhelmingly.
And they failed to get the votes to avoid a shutdown at DHS.
As we've said for weeks, if Republicans want to keep DHS funded, they need to get serious.
They need to sit down.
They need to negotiate in good faith, produce legislation that actually reins in ICE and stops the violence.
And I'm proud of my caucus.
Senate Democrats listened to the American people and stood together with one clear, strong voice.
Enough is enough.
We listened to the American people and stood together with that clear voice.
The American people are tired.
They're tired of seeing these horrific videos.
They turn your stomach.
And 90% of Americans say they've seen them.
The videos of Americans beaten, snatched off the streets, treated like they have no rights.
These videos are reminiscent of what you see in dictatorships.
The Americans are tired of masked agents conducting warrantless operations in their communities, secret police.
They're tired of chaos, secrecy, and zero accountability.
That is not what law and order looks like.
And Republicans simply cannot pretend that this outrage does not exist.
It's their responsibility now to step forward, heed the calls of the American people, and work with us to pass real reform.
The path forward is simple: negotiate serious guardrails that protect Americans, that rein in ICE, and stop the violence.
Americans are watching what's happened in neighborhood after neighborhood across the country.
They know what's wrong, they know it's excessive, and they want Congress, the Senate, to fix it.
The Senate Democratic leader yesterday saying his party stood together with one clear voice.
One Democrat, John Fennerman of Pennsylvania, did not vote with the Democrats.
He voted for funding of the Homeland Security Department.
On the party's demands, here's what they want changed at ICE: targeted enforcement, no masks, requiring the ICE agents to have ID, protect sensitive locations, stop racial profiling, uphold use of force standards, ensure state and local coordination and oversight, build safeguards into the system, body cameras for accountability, not tracking, and no paramilitary police,
meaning new regulation to standardize the uniforms and employment DH officers carry during the operations to bring them in line with civil enforcement.
These are the demands by Democrats.
And then they say they would agree to funding the Homeland Security Department.
From Politico's playbook this morning, Democrats are expected to send a counteroffer to the White House this weekend after the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed the bill text that the administration sent Wednesday night.
But despite the rhetoric, both sides are largely keeping the details private, a sign that officials are taking the talks seriously.
Your take this morning on no funding for the Homeland Security Department as a partial shutdown looms here in Washington.
We'll go to Stuart in Jacksonville, Florida, an independent.
You're up first.
It's an honor, Greta.
Good morning.
Good morning.
It seems obvious to me, to critical thinkers, that this is just championship wrestling.
There's no people with common sense didn't want this kind of ICE enforcement.
They wanted people, they wanted our president to go after people that are traitors to this country and hire these people to force American wages down.
When we went to Orlando, the bus drivers for Disney World, they were, most of those are migrants, you know, but they're legal migrants.
And they were mad as heck.
And they were telling us how under the cover of darkness, they would ship these people by plane, courtesy of the taxpayers, throughout the country to these designated warehouses.
And they would not, they don't hire Americans.
They're all this particular culture.
That's all they have housed in these warehouses.
And that's throughout this country.
And I've been to them because I was a truck driver.
And it's all pretty much kept in secret.
So, Stuart, your point is what?
This is all about money.
This is about lowering American wages.
Both parties allowed, Mexico would never allow migrants to trespass through their country to go take their American jobs.
You see how these kind of points are never allowed except on C-SPAN, where this is the only free voice you have that's not censored.
So Stuart, let me ask you then, which side do you agree with here?
I mean, you just follow the money.
Like Charles Ferguson, you guys had them on question and answers not long ago.
And he had this documentary called Inside Job that with full, with proof without just by voting records, that both of these parties, there's not a dime's difference between them, as Eisenhower said.
Just follow the money.
Okay.
I mean, why wouldn't they use common sense with ICE?
This is just championship wrestling.
So what's common sense?
Stuart, what's common sense with ICE?
Common sense would have been going after the traders that hire these migrants to force American wages down.
Follow the money.
It's about got it, Stuart.
I'm going to go on to Trudy, who's in Wisconsin, Democratic caller.
Trudy, what's your take?
Yes, I agree with the last caller.
We need to get ICE under control.
What's happening in America?
I never thought I'd see it in my lifetime, ever.
So, Trudy, do you think Democrats are reasonable in their policy demands, their changes that they want to see at ICE?
Yes.
I think unmasking these people, I believe what we have is a criminal military presence.
I don't know what these background checks are on these people.
They're targeting minorities.
People are afraid to walk out on their streets.
This is not America.
This is not the melting pot.
I grew up understanding that we were, as Americans, we were a melting pot of immigrants.
I grew up with Puerto Rican, Korean, Chinese, Mexican.
I mean, and I'm a 67-year-old woman, and I'm talking back in kindergarten.
We were mixed-race schools and never had a problem.
And what's going on now is putting us backwards so far.
Just the destruction to families, the destruction to mental health.
Okay, Trudeau.
Alex is a Republican in Delaware.
What do you say, Alex?
You, when you talk about shutting down the government because of ICE, you should be saying about FEMA and TSA.
They're more important than shutting it down because of ICE.
And ICE is already funded for three more years till 2029.
And so they're already funded.
So I don't understand what's going on here.
Yeah, Alex, let's yeah, Alex, your point is taken here.
And let's listen to Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania.
There was a hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday with Minnesota officials like Keith Ellison, the Attorney General, and then there was a second panel with border and customs enforcement agency officials.
So you had ICE there.
You had customs and border protection at this hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill.
Here's Senator John Fennerman talking about if there's a partial government shutdown at midnight tonight, what agencies are actually impacted?
How many billions did the Big Beautiful bill allow or amount for ICE effectively?
Sir, we're about $75 billion.
Yeah, I mean, you know, AI, AI just called up, says that it's $75 billion.
Right?
Is that accurate?
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Okay.
So now, now, and I think even, I do believe, everyone here at the chair never voted for the Big Beautiful bill, correct, Chairman?
Okay.
All right.
So, but now, can we establish now that ICE has plenty of money right now?
I mean, effectively, now, so now that vote's going to come about shutting down DHS because a lot of people, including myself, would like to see some changes made.
But if that vote happens and DHS is now shut down, would that have any meaningful impact on ICE operation?
Because they have $75 billion from the Big Beautiful bill.
Is that a statement or not?
It would impact personnel actions.
And when I say to that, sir, I mean as far as like pay retention, our civilian workforce, non-badged gun carriers, it would affect that.
Glenn Blames Both Sides00:14:29
Senator John Fetterman, with his questioning yesterday of ICE officials on Capitol Hill, C-SPAN cameras were there and you can find it in its entirety if you go to our website, c-span.org, or our free video mobile app, C-SPAN now.
John Fennerman was the sole Democrat to vote with Republicans to fund the Homeland Security Department and avoid the partial government shutdown.
Those votes failed.
And at midnight tonight, there will be a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.
So what does that mean?
Politico rights of the three agencies, the Customs Board of Protection relies most on the cash Congress provides each year in the regular government funding bills.
But the agency received $65 billion from the party line legislation Republicans cleared last summer.
In addition to the $75 billion, the law included for ICE.
So, what agencies will be impacted by this partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department?
Political notes that it's TSA and FEMA, along with the Coast Guard and cybersecurity.
Those are some of the units within the Homeland Security Department that will be impacted by a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.
Back to your calls and your turn to tell Washington what you think of this debate.
Eric, in Port Tobacco, Maryland Independent, let's hear from you.
Yeah, good morning.
I blame both sides here.
I don't think that both sides want to solve this immigration issue.
And please let me explain why I blame both sides.
First of all, immigration is a mess today because both the Democrat and the Republican throughout the years never really addressed the issue, the elephant in the room.
The Democrat under Biden, he allowed so many people to get in, and that was wrong.
And now, President Trump is pretty much using ICE as his private militia to deport not the criminal as he promised, but to go after anybody.
So, if they were really serious about this immigration issue, first of all, they will understand that it's not possible to deport more than 20 million illegals that are here.
They will have tried to find a solution, how they can secure the border and see how the people who have already been here, especially for years, those who have walked, those who have paid their due, to see how they can give them a path to move forward.
So, I blame both sides here.
And I think that the Democrat demands are just unreasonable.
Just like also the Republican attitude is also unreasonable.
I mean, law enforcement.
Both sides should be accountable.
A law enforcement officer, we do have a use of force policy.
So, why masking yourself if you're doing what is right?
Why going after the innocent?
Not going after the gang as you promised, but you're going after the innocent.
So, I blame both sides here.
Okay, Eric, the Democrats are pointing to polls that they conducted, and this is from Semaphore's reporting on that poll.
It's an exclusive poll suggests voters back Democrats' shutdown demands.
A new heart research poll commissioned by the Senate Democrat Alliance, Senate Majority PAC, found that 54% of likely midterm voters expressed support for the Democratic demanding reforms to ICE and blocking DHS funding unless those reforms are adopted.
And six in 10 view Republicans' refusal to accept changes requested by Democrats negatively.
So, here are the numbers.
Shares of the likely midterm voters who support the following measures during ICE operations, 92%, according to this poll commissioned by Democrats, support body-warrant cameras.
85% support standards and restrictions on the use of force.
Independent investigations of shootings, 81% said yes to that.
Court issued warrants before entering private property.
77% agreed.
76% agree with requiring DHS agents to identify themselves, while 67% agreed with restrictions near schools, hospitals, and polling places.
Let's go to Glenn in Texas, a Republican, and get your view on this.
Glenn, good morning.
Go ahead.
Yeah, good morning, Mayor.
Well, it's been a while since I've been on C-Stim.
Well, I tell you what, old Chuck Schumer is like a little kid.
He's throwing a 10% because the Democrats can't get their way now.
And he is for SHIT.
Anyway, we need to pass the SAFE Act.
The Republicans don't need the Democrats to do that.
All they have to do is call a voting roll and call a roll and vote it in.
That way it will knock the Democrats in the head.
All it wants us want to vacate Democrats vacating the Senate and going overseas.
We just need to pull their citizenship and they can stay overseas.
All right.
Glenn in Texas, a Republican.
Now, many lawmakers have left Washington after this impasse that took place yesterday on the Senate floor.
Many senators and some House members had plans to travel to the Munich Security Conference that's taking place today and tomorrow.
Senators who had those plans have left town or are leaving town today to participate in the Munich Security Conference.
While over on the House side, a CODEL, that is a congressional trip overseas that was slated to go, is now not.
According to Punch Bull News, House members can travel, but Speaker Mike Johnson canceled official CODELs.
So members and aides have to pay out of their own pockets.
We will still expect some members who will make it to Munich and maybe Milan for the Olympics.
Lawmakers in both chambers are on notice to come back to Washington if a deal is imminent.
President Donald Trump and Senate Democrats will keep exchanging offers and attempt to strike a deal on ICE reforms during the break.
The next step is for Democrats to send a new offer back to the White House, which sent over its own proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday night.
As it stands right now, lawmakers are not slated to be back in Washington for 10 days.
So on your screen, you see the countdown has begun to the shutdown, which will begin at 12.01 a.m. on Saturday, of the Homeland Security Department's parts of the Homeland Security Department.
Here's how it all unfolded on the Senate floor yesterday.
When Republicans tried to pass a two-week stopgap DHS funding bill, listen to the back and forth between Senator Katie Britt, Republican of Alabama, and Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut.
Our concern was that two weeks wasn't long enough.
It took the Democrats a week to articulate what it is they wanted.
They articulated it via press conference and via tweet, not by conversation.
Let's be clear, not by conversation.
Then it took them a number more days from Wednesday to Saturday to come up with legislative text.
We then did the same thing, working back and forward.
Look, you've seen advancements made from the administration.
We saw a big announcement made today by Tom Holman.
There is no way that you can't say we're working in good faith.
We want to continue this conversation, but yet you're penalizing a TSA agent.
A TSA agent is going to go without a paycheck.
Why?
So that you can posture politically.
I'm over it.
Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that ICE and CBP will continue to be funded.
They're going to continue to enforce the law just as they should.
Who's going to pay the price?
It's a TSA agent.
It's the person working at FEMA who already went 43 days without a paycheck.
Who's trying to figure out how to make things work?
I have reports of TSA agents sleeping in their car Because they can't afford gas.
Selling plasma to make their bills.
Guys, come on.
We're asking to continue a conversation.
Mr. President, I just want to reiterate that we got the language last night.
We've been in a two-week continuing resolution, and last night we got the first offer of legislation from the White House.
We're not in charge.
Senate Democrats aren't in charge.
We don't run the House.
We don't run the White House.
We waited for a week for there to be some process to be convened.
We got no signal as to what that negotiation would look like, so we finally put our proposals, our text on the table, and didn't get an offer back until last night.
My wish is for my Republican colleagues to be just as upset as they are about what is going to happen next week at TSA or at FEMA as for the children that are being traumatized right now in this country, who are being thrown in what's called the baby jail outside of San Antonio.
The lives that are fundamentally changed by an immigration policy that is out of control.
To have concern for the American citizens who have been killed simply exercising their First Amendment rights.
To care about the 4 million Americans who are losing their insurance as we speak because this administration has chosen to put money into a lawless immigration enforcement operation instead of protecting people's health care.
That's what's happening in America today.
4 million people are losing their health care insurance.
20 million people are having their rates go through the roof because the priority is flooding Minneapolis with ICE agents chasing down kids at school buses, at school bus stops, as they were doing just two days ago in Minneapolis instead of protecting people's health care.
People are losing health care in this country so as to fund this runaway Department of Homeland Security.
And so we all have outrage about what is happening in this country today.
And I don't know why it took the White House until last night to send any semblance of specifics on what they were willing to work for.
We have an obligation as members of Congress to fund a government that obeys the law.
This Department of Homeland Security is not obeying the law.
They are not.
From our gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Senate floor yesterday, and that is how it all unfolded when Democrats blocked two attempts to fund the Homeland Security Department.
The department has been operating under a two-week continuing resolution.
And as Punch Bull notes, the two-week CR for DHS added some time between the initial uproar over Predty's death and the current negotiations.
During that period, congressional Republicans have grown more critical of Democrats' position.
Plus, the Trump administration has used the time to make its own changes to ICE operations, including sending border czar Tom Holman to Minneapolis and Holman announcing yesterday that Minnesota operations will wind down, but not end entirely.
These changes won't win over Democrats who've been clear that they need ICE reforms written into law because they don't trust the administration.
But Republicans say these steps show the Trump administration is operating in good faith.
There's pressure on GOP leaders in the White House from immigration hardliners to reject Democratic proposals.
If there's a deal, conservatives have their own priorities that they want in the mix, including targeting sanctuary policies, sanctuary city policies.
They're eager to turn the fight into a battle over immigration policies.
And if conservatives went out on those sorts of demands, a deal could totally fall apart.
Your thoughts this morning on a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department at midnight tonight.
There are the lines on your screen.
Join us for this first hour of today's Washington Journal.
Glenn in Texas, a Republican.
You've been waiting, Glenn.
Good morning.
Well, good morning.
I've been listening to the spiller, but see, the Democrats, they're all crying because they cannot control the government anymore.
Republicans are in the House and the Senate and the White House.
That's what they're crying about.
And that ICE is doing a good job of removing the illegals.
And the Democrats can't stand that because they want the illegals to vote here in 26.
And that's the whole deal in a nutshell.
Okay.
Luis in North Carolina, Democratic caller, your turn.
Good morning, Greta.
Good morning.
I have a lot of stuff to tell.
I'm going to try and get it quick, though.
Okay.
I do agree with them shutting down the government because it is out of control.
One thing, they could unmask these ICE agents and put body cameras on them.
They should not be flooding our streets like they are doing.
And they're mainly Trump's building is his militia.
ICE's Militia Threatens Safety00:10:25
We don't have that.
We've never had this in our country like this before.
And all this is, it's his personal militia.
If they want to go after somebody, go after his wife.
She's not, she's an immigrant.
Well, Lisa, do you think it's a good sign that the president's border czar Tom Holman from Minnesota yesterday announced the drawdown there?
Is that a step in the right direction by the White House?
That's a step in the right direction.
But the people that are in this cabinet, Tom Ha'Oldman also, they're so corrupt, it's a shame.
That's our problem right there.
And Stephen Miller.
But it's just ridiculous.
And one other thing.
Luis, I'm going to leave it there and let's listen to Tom Holman from Minnesota yesterday announcing this drawdown of ICE.
With that and success that has been made arresting public safety threats and other priorities since this surge operation began, as well as the unprecedented levels of coordination we have obtained from state officials and local law enforcement, I have proposed, and President Trump has concurred, that this surge operation conclude.
A significant drawdown has already been underway this week and will continue to the next week.
We have a lot of work to do across this country to remove public safety risk who shouldn't even be in this country.
And to deliver on President Trump's promise for strong border security mass deportation, law enforcement officers drawn down from this surge operation will either return to the duty station or be signed elsewhere to achieve just that.
We will continue to enforce Title A immigration law throughout this nation.
Prioritizing national security threats and public safety risks makes sense.
But I'll continue to say over and over again: if you are here in the country legally, you're not exempt from our immigration laws.
If we encounter you, we'll take appropriate enforcement action.
For those that say we are backing down from immigration enforcement or the promise of mass deportations, you are simply wrong.
Look at the data.
Record number of arrests and deportations under President Trump's first year.
And we'll continue that effort.
Prioritizing public safety threats and national security threats doesn't mean we'll forget about everybody else.
We will take action on everybody else.
That's just a stone cold fact.
A small footprint of personnel will remain for a period of time to close out and transition full command and control back to the field office, as well as to ensure agitator activity continues to decline.
And that state and local law enforcement continue to respond to ensure officer and community safety.
Tom Holman from Minneapolis, President Trump dispatching him there after the fatal shootings of Renee Goode and Alex Predi.
The Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, Democrat, reacting to the decision by the White House and what he heard there from Tom Holman.
Here he is in Minneapolis yesterday.
I want to note that the announcement today by Mr. Holman, we are cautiously optimistic, as we've said, and that this surge of untrained, aggressive federal agents are going to leave Minnesota.
And I guess they'll go wherever they're going to go.
But the fact of the matter is, they left us with deep damage, generational trauma.
They left us with economic ruin in some cases.
They left us with many unanswered questions.
Where are our children?
Where and what is the process of the investigations into those that were responsible for the deaths of Renee and Alex?
So while the federal government may move on to whatever next thing they want to do, the state of Minnesota and our administration is unwaveringly focused on the recovery of what they did.
And there will be many steps in this process, many answers that we still need to get and will pursue.
But as we started earlier this week, one of the first things we can do and what we're focusing on today is what can we start doing on the economic recovery, the damage that has been done to our economy, specifically to small business owners and even more specifically to immigrant small business owners.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Minnesota Star Tribune with the headline, Operation Metro Surge, Draw Down Sparks Cautious Optimism.
This morning, we're talking about the partial shutdown of the Homeland Security Department, which will happen at midnight tonight.
Democrats in the Senate blocked two attempts to fund the department, and lawmakers have now left town.
We're counting down to Friday, 1201 a.m. Saturday, when agencies within the Homeland Security Department will come to a close.
It's your turn to tell Washington what you think of this debate.
Calvin in New York, an independent.
Good morning.
Good morning, ma'am.
I could never trust Tom Holman because he should be investigating him because what?
He took $50,000 and nobody knows where it came from.
Also, who are the people in ICE?
They were some of the people that stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
Nobody vented them.
They said, oh, he's just, he got pardoned by Trump.
So who vented these people?
We did not police officers.
They were terrorists when they came into the capitalists.
They were talking about killing people.
So how did we get these people into a job like that?
I don't understand that.
Thank you.
All right.
Patrick in California, Republican.
Patrick, what do you want your party to counter with in these negotiations with Democrats?
What do you think Republicans should demand when it comes to any policy changes for ICE?
I don't think they should.
I don't think they should be changed.
I think ICE is doing their job.
I think they're doing it by the law.
You know, they, you know, this only happened in a sanctuary cities.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, they should abolish sanctionary cities because I think they're corrupt.
You talk about fraud.
I mean, Minnesota is one of the worst states in the country as far as fraud.
You know, I don't get it.
You know, the Democrats, you know, they are so it's a radically left that, you know, they have no common sense.
So, Patrick, it sounds like you say to your party leaders, if there are going to be any changes at ICE, you need to deal with sanctuary cities, which is what some of the conservatives are saying.
They're not going to agree to Democrats' demands, that long list of demands that we showed you earlier, unless, or maybe they wouldn't agree at all, but they're saying you need to change sanctuary city policy.
Yes, that's correct.
Okay.
Patrick in California, Republican.
He says ICE is doing a good job as well.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill heard from the ICE acting director.
He appeared before Senate Homeland Security yesterday, answering questions about the pressure ICE agents face from day to day.
Here's his exchange with Senator Ron Johnson.
So talk about the violence, the threats, the doxing against ICE officers.
Because again, that's where I've got a great deal of sympathy for people trying to enforce the law.
They've been shot at.
They've had their vehicles rammed, rocks thrown their vehicles, doxed.
I mean, on Central America, I found out that if you're coming new police chief, you get a DVD from the friendly drug cartels with your children and wife going into school and going to church.
I mean, it's an explicit threat, hands off, or we're going to do something.
Well, there's such a demand for unmasking ICE officers, but they've been doxed.
So just talk about the violence, the threats, the doxing that your law enforcement officers are really under.
So, sir, it's day to day.
If you, you know, I was the Philadelphia director for the state of New England.
I covered all of New England.
And if you looked at the beginning of the operations, beginning, oh, you know, January 20th up until April, ICE officers and agents weren't masked.
But it's bad.
And I'll just use myself as an example.
The week that Charlie Kirk was assassinated, there was a tweet that went out.
It said, kill Charlie Kirk, kill another, there was another individual in that, killed Todd Lyons.
That's the stuff that ICE.
Yesterday after the testimony on Tuesday, I went back to numerous death threats against my family.
There was a videotape of my wife walking to work that people accurately post.
The cartels have actually posted the schematics to my home.
ICE agents feel that every day.
We actually did an operation with the Secret Service where we identified doxers who put up on telephone polls the home addresses and the schools where ICE officers and agents went to.
But yet no one covered that operation.
We covered that as a success.
And I don't want my officers masked.
I would work with this committee and any committee to work with holding individuals accountable that dox ICE agents, because ICE agents don't want to be masked.
They're honorable men and women.
But the threats against their family are real.
The acting ICE director testifying Capitol Hill and C-SPAN cameras were there.
You can find it if you go to our website, c-span.org, or download our free video mobile app.
You heard the acting director say: ICE agents don't want to wear masks.
Abbott On ICE Funding Threats00:15:56
That's one of the demands from Senate Democrats, House and Senate Democrats, when it comes to funding Homeland Security.
Here is what they have put on the table: they want to see targeted enforcement from ICE, no masks, requiring them to have ID, protect sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, stop racial profiling.
And the list continues with upholding use of forced standards, ensure state and local coordination and oversight, build safeguards into the system, body cameras for accountability, not tracking, and no paramilitary police.
Those are the demands put on the table by Democrats.
The White House Wednesday evening sent over text of legislation that they want to see.
Negotiations continue here in Washington, but lawmakers have left town.
So it looks like we are headed toward a partial government shutdown of the Homeland Security Department tonight.
David, in Cincinnati, Ohio, a Democrat, what do you think?
Well, they should hold them accountable and the shutdown.
But there's something they don't really get.
I didn't really get it until everything fell into place with talking about the warehouse of these people.
It's about money.
The Trump administration is building all these private prisons and the contractors that go along with it making money.
I don't know if Trump is making something on the other end or not, but that's where it's at.
It's the money.
It all fits together with this aggressive stuff about picking up American citizens and legal immigrants and all of that.
Okay.
They ask what's going on.
All right, David.
John, Rocky Mountain, North Carolina, and Independent.
John, it's your turn.
Good morning, Grabby.
Very beautiful.
You know, very beautiful this morning.
I just want to say that if they wanted to, you know, make quick work of this, that they could just let the business owners get punished.
You wouldn't have to spend all this money to get these people out.
They said it costs $18 million a week for ICE to be in Minnesota.
That's ridiculous.
You know, that's, you know, if you told the business owners to stop hiring these people, that, you know, they shut them down, find them, they would go.
And one other thing, you know, the Republicans always talk about the law, they report the law.
It's not true.
Because if they did, then they would let these people like the guy that did the Bondi the other day, Joe Nagoose, he asked her, showed a video of a guy telling a Capitol police officer at his body cam, kill them all.
And the guy, she asked, he said, he said, that guy, he works for you now.
They hired the guy, and she gave a smirk and said, Trump pardoned him.
So these are the people that are behind the masks, and they're not respecting the law.
John Louis, where was that from?
Was that with the Attorney General, Pam Bondi?
Yes, look up the hearing.
Yeah, Joe Nago.
Joe Nago, he showed a video of a capital police officer at the one of January 6th, and there's a man that was talking to him and said, kill them all.
And she paused it and he sent back to you to say, that guy works for you now in the DOJ.
Yeah.
And she personally had to put it off.
Yeah, John, well, I'll stop you there because our cameras were there for the entirety of that hearing with the Attorney General Pam Bondi.
It went on for more than four hours, and we're going to re-air it in its entirety Saturday night at 8 p.m. in case you missed it.
You can, of course, find it online on demand at c-span.org or our free video mobile app, C-SPANNOW.
Back to the debate on Capitol Hill over funding for the Homeland Security Department.
Here is the Senate Majority Leader, John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, yesterday blaming Democrats for being unwilling to react to reach a funding deal with the White House.
The White House has continued to show it's committed to taking actions on its own, with Tom Holman this morning announcing the withdrawal of almost all agents for Minnesota.
It's clear, Mr. President, that the White House is serious, but it's increasingly looking like Democrats are not.
Now, I'm not sure if Democrats thought the White House would just accede to every one of their demands or what, but they cannot reasonably expect to reach an agreement without actual negotiation with give and take from both sides.
We warned Democrats they were not allowing enough time for this process.
But they insisted on their two-week timeframe CR anyway.
And now that we have been proven right, the onus is on Democrats to agree to an additional CR to allow time to complete the negotiations.
Unless, of course, Democrats are more interested in a political issue than they are in an actual outcome.
Because it's starting to look like Democrats might not have been interested in actual reforms.
As I mentioned, they left an agreement on the table that would have provided for body cameras, de-escalation training, and increased spending oversight.
And now, instead of allowing adequate time to negotiate on additional measures, they are threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, which will get them exactly zero changes to the status quo.
So what is it?
What is it, Mr. President, that Democrats want?
Policy changes?
Or is it a political issue?
Mr. President, Democrats are never going to get their full wish list.
That's not the way this works.
Republicans, for example, will not agree to measures that make it impossible for officers or law enforcement officers to do their jobs.
But Democrats can build on the measures that Republicans have already agreed to if they actually engage in serious negotiations with the White House.
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune.
Now listen to the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries.
This is what he had to say about the president's latest offer to immigration enforcement reforms.
My preliminary assessment of it is that it falls short of the type of dramatic changes necessary in order to change ICE out-of-control behavior and deliver immigration enforcement that actually focuses on violent felons who are here illegally,
which is what the president promised to do and he lied because taxpayer dollars are being used to brutalize and kill American citizens or violently target law-abiding immigrant families.
And that's unacceptable.
In our view, for instance, we need to make sure that if ICE agents or DHS agents violate the law or are engaging in violent behavior that brings harm to everyday Americans,
they are held accountable independently through state and local investigations and, if merited, criminal prosecutions.
There's no indication that the White House is prepared to walk away from its outrageous position that federal agents who violate the law under the banner of ICE are able to benefit from so-called absolute immunity.
That's not America where no one is above the law.
And that administration position is incentivizing ICE agents to violently brutalize people in American communities with impunity because the administration has told them they don't have to worry about ever being held accountable.
That's just one of the types of common sense changes necessary in order to do what the American people want us to do, which is get ICE under control.
It's a rogue agency right now.
You've heard from leadership on both parties on Capitol Hill yesterday on this Friday morning, February 13th.
Punch Bowl says, what could possibly go wrong on this Friday, February 13th?
Well, we are headed toward a partial government shutdown at midnight tonight, and we're getting your take on this debate.
Who do you agree with?
James in Pennsylvania, a Republican?
John, just to let you know, I was a Democrat all my life.
You know, Democrats made me a Republican.
But this, none of this would be going on if they didn't let those 12 million unvetted illegals into this country.
And Jeffrey's just saying he's doing the will of the people.
Then why won't they go ahead and pass the SAFE Act?
Over 80.9 people want voter ID.
They're lying, you know, and you can't take those masks off these people.
Schumer wants them off because he's hoping people won't join ICE.
They lie constantly.
That's why I became a Republican.
So, James, what do you think the party should do?
Should they concede on any of those demands that we've showed you by Democrats?
Would you agree to one or two or any of them?
No, nothing, because the simple fact is they want all these.
Look, look, the Democrats are protecting all these rapists, murders, pedophiles.
They keep throwing Epstein at us, but you know, they're protecting these pedophiles from being taken out of this country.
It's all about being in power and keeping these people in there to get counted on the census and to vote.
All right.
James, a Republican in Pennsylvania.
Roy is an independent in Pennsylvania.
Hi, Roy.
I'll tell you what, what they need to do, these Democratic leaders, is look in the mirror, jump in the shower, take a cold shower, then come back out and maybe they'll have some common sense.
That's the problem.
They caused the problem.
Not anybody else, but the leaders and Biden and Kamala.
There's where they should go.
Go talk to those two people.
All right, Roy.
Cynthia in Texas is a Democratic caller, and we'll go to her next.
Hi, Cynthia.
Hi.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
I agree with the shutdown basically because at a minimum, if we're a law and order country, there should be no reason why that the ICAN should uphold the standards of enforcement.
Again, we're going backwards.
We're trying to get police and the community to work together, but if they come in bullying people, that doesn't do any good.
Again, the Republicans keep saying that they're law and order, but they don't want to have standards that these people should be measured against.
I don't understand that at all.
And again, the cities, you know, Governor Abbott sent everybody everywhere.
If Governor Abbott had just tried to get the, you know, again, they don't want to solve this problem.
If they did, they would get in there and put some policy together to actually head on the problem, but they don't want to do that.
They want to keep this as a divisive thing between the countries.
Okay, Cynthia, let's listen to the head of the Homeland Security Department, the Secretary, Kristi Noem.
She was on the U.S.-Mexico border yesterday, held a news conference warning about the impacts of this looming government, partial government shutdown.
We're concerned about the Department of Homeland Security not being funded.
In fact, I think it's the wrong message to send to the world at this point in time.
When you think about it, every other portion of the federal government has been funded except Homeland Security.
That's telling the rest of the world the Democrat Party doesn't think that protecting America is safe.
It's the wrong message to send.
They keep talking about the fact that they want ICE's operations to be impacted, but only 11% of that bill is ICE.
The rest of it is FEMA, which is responsible for disaster response, for protecting our critical infrastructure.
If we had some kind of an attack or a terrible disaster that hit our country, FEMA is the agency that's responsible for running our government, for stabilizing our country.
And the Democrat Party is choosing not to fund FEMA and put us in jeopardy in that situation.
Other things that wouldn't be funded is TSA.
The security at all of our airports is in jeopardy because they've refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
TSA, those officers that show up and check your bags, they screen individuals on if they're safe to get on airplanes or not, they won't be paid.
After Friday, they won't be paid and won't receive their paychecks.
And I hear people talk about the fact, well, they're exempt employees.
They're expected to still show up.
How long would you continue to show up for a job that you're not being paid for?
Christy Nealm, the Homeland Security Secretary at the border yesterday talking about the impact of this looming partial government shutdown for her department.
Front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning is an in-depth piece looking at the leadership of Christy Noam and her number two, Corey Lewandowski.
The headline, a pilot fired over Christy Noam's missing blanket and the constant chaos inside DHS.
The secretary with close advisor Corey Lewandowski faces fire for confrontational immigration crackdown and self-promotional style, the White House to wind down Minnesota operations, as we told you earlier.
From inside this lengthy piece inside the Wall Street Journal, within DHS, Noam and Lewandowski frequently berate senior-level staff, give polygraph tests to employees, and have fired staff.
In one incident, Lewandowski fired a U.S. Coast Guard pilot after Noam's blanket was left behind on a plane, according to people familiar with the incident.
Simmering criticism over the past year for Noam's policies and publicity moves exploded in Minneapolis, jeopardizing her grip over DHS and putting her standing with Trump on thin ice.
Though some in Trump's inner circle have tried to persuade the president to fire Noam and Lewandowski, according to administration officials, he has so far resisted, saying publicly he has no plans to dismiss her.
DHS Leadership Shakeup00:02:03
Lawmakers from both parties have been critical, and Democrats in Congress are demanding changes to the department's enforcement methods, threatening to withhold DHS funding as they did yesterday.
It also says that the pair have lately been using a luxury 737 MAX jet with a private cabin in the back for their travel around the country, according to the people familiar.
It says that DHS is leasing the plane, but it is in the process of acquiring it for approximately $70 million.
There's also rumors of a romantic relationship between the two.
The two have denied that publicly, and DHS spokesperson says that that is a rumor.
Now, on the blanket, the Wall Street Journal notes this at the end of their piece: that within the DHS, Noam and Lewandowski have cut employees or put them on administrative leave.
The pair have fired or demoted roughly 80% of the career ice field leadership that was in place when they started.
In the blanket incident, Noam had to switch planes after a maintenance issue was discovered, but her blanket wasn't moved to the second plane, according to people familiar with the incident.
The Coast Guard pilot was initially fired and told to take a commercial flight home when they reached their destination.
They eventually reinstated the pilot because no one else was available to fly them home.
Wall Street Journal, front page today.
Let's go to Gina in Dalton, Illinois, Independent.
Gina?
Hi.
Hello?
Good morning, Gina.
Yeah, hi.
I wanted to make a comment about the immigration enforcement.
I think one thing they need to do, Trump or whoever is in charge, is to change the status.
If you're here illegally for more than you break in or come across the border, if you don't go back within a few days, you're raised to a felony instead of dismissed me.
Immigration Enforcement Reform00:03:17
I think you could do more with that because any local government or people or anybody protecting a felon, that's a bigger crime.
And people who interfere with the police when they're arresting somebody or they only get violent with a person when the person resists arrest.
The city police do that.
In Chicago, they do that.
All police do that.
If you come along quietly, there's no violence.
And violence normally is from these protesters.
And so if you interfere with that, then the fine should be maybe $5,000 and a year in jail, and your bank accounts will be frozen.
And they did that in Canada with those protesters.
After they froze their bank accounts, the protest ended within a couple of days.
So that's one of the things they should do.
And one last thing in Minneapolis, when they're making all that noise and harassing the people in the hotel and the restaurant because they think some ICE agents are in there.
Well, what about the other people who are in there?
All right, Gina, I have to leave it there.
More of your calls coming up here as we wind down this conversation in our first hour over the lapse in DHS funding for some of the departments there.
We'll get back to your calls here in just a minute or so, but also want to let you know what's happening over on C-SPAN 2.
We are live this morning with the German Chancellor from the Munich Security Conference.
Many senators and some lawmakers have headed that direction along with administration officials and leaders from around the world.
C-SPAN will have coverage of the Munich Security Conference.
So go to c-span.org for more details.
Let's listen in now to the German Chancellor.
It is an expression of a wish, also in many democratic states, a wish for strong leadership in a globalized world in which especially democratic states are coming very close to the limits of their ability to act.
Big power politics, it seems, gives strong and easy answers at least to the big players and at least at a first glance.
With disillusion, big power politics turns away from a world in which increasing connectivity translates into the rule of law and peaceful relations between states.
Big power politics has its own rules.
It is fast, harsh, and often unpredictable.
The Munich Security Conference, we are live over on C-SPAN 2 with that coverage, and we will have other live coverage from the security conference with U.S. senators, lawmakers, administration officials, and other world leaders.
Go to c-span.org for more details.
The Munich Security Conference taking place today and tomorrow.
Louie's Chicago Concerns00:04:19
Louis in Chicago, Democratic caller.
Louis, what do you say on this debate over funding for the Homeland Security Department?
Good morning.
Morning.
I think Americans want a safer country.
I think the way DHS is going through this is terrible.
They're not going after just violent immigrants.
They're going after everyone.
And this country needs immigrants to do the hard work.
And I think what they're doing is making us not safe at all.
All right.
Louie's thoughts there in Chicago on our line for Democrats.
Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, represents District in Maryland, putting on X that he exercised my right as a member of Congress to conduct an unannounced oversight visit of the ICE Field facility in Baltimore.
The staff I met with respect met with respected my right to visit, but what I saw was disgraceful.
Christy Noam has a budget of $75 billion she could use to ensure humane conditions.
But we saw 60 men packed into a room, shoulder to shoulder, 24 hours a day, with a single toilet in the room and no shower facilities.
They sleep like sardines with aluminum foil blankets.
Whether it's for these days or seven days, nobody would want a member of their family warehouse there.
The room set aside for dangerous criminals and violent offenders was empty.
We're demanding immediate answers and action.
Mike in Houston, Texas, an independent.
Mike, let's listen to you, a Republican.
Go ahead, Mike.
Good morning.
Well, maybe, Congressman Raskin, maybe the ones who are violent offenders have been deported.
Also, I think we should remind ourselves why this problem exists right now.
Joe Biden, it exists because the wall was, they stopped building it, and they basically said that, come on in.
And the Border Patrol were turned into travel agents.
And that's how you do create a problem.
You know what's interesting when you think about human behavior in your own home?
Everybody listening right now knows they want to know who comes into their home.
That's why we lock our doors at night, we lock our car doors, and we know it's more secure.
We want to know.
We want basically to be vetted.
If our kids go on a date, we want to know who the person is.
So it's a fair reason.
It's a reasonable expectation that people coming across the border are vetted, and that was not happening.
They were travel agents letting people in.
Okay.
I heard your point, Mike.
I'll go to Gordon, who's in Maryland and Independent.
Gordon, what do you say?
Good morning.
Yeah, I just feel that they should follow the same rules as a regular police officer.
I have a nephew, cousin, and friends who are a police officer.
And I don't think that you should have one rule for one group of people and another rule for another agent, you know, because my, like I say, Gordon, do you agree with Democrats' demands?
Long as it's the same rule as the rules that my nephews follow and my cousins, because I didn't know anything but ICE.
You know, I just know they worked on the border, but the image that I'm seeing now, my circle of people, they don't look at them as being good people no more.
Okay.
They have ruined, you know, the reputation.
All right, Gordon in Maryland, an independent caller.
We'll leave it there for now.
We'll come back to this conversation when we go to open forum in the last hour of today's Washington Journal.
Revoking Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding00:17:07
You can talk about this issue along with other, any other public policy or political debate happening here in Washington.
Later on this morning, Nikki Clowers from the GAO joins us with the results of their 2025 report card and how the agency helped streamline several federal programs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
But first, after the break, the Trump administration yesterday announced a huge rollback of an Obama-era climate change rule.
Gene Chemnick from EE News will explain what it means.
Stay with us.
Today on C-SPAN's Ceasefire.
At a time when finding common ground matters most in Washington.
We'll feature a bipartisan conversation on civility in politics.
The upcoming midterm elections.
and the latest news from Capitol Hill with former New York Democratic Congressman Steve Israel and former Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Charlie Dent.
Joint host Dasha Burns.
Bridging the Divide in American Politics.
Today at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, best-selling biographer Walter Isaacson, who chronicles history's most remarkable lives.
His books include Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, and Einstein.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
What attracted you to these people?
Was it because they were geniuses or you just happened to like them?
Smart people are a dime a dozen.
In order to be a genius, you have to be creative.
You have to think out of the box.
And one of the things that struck me when I wrote about Benjamin Franklin early on was what a great scientist and technologist he was.
Watch America's Book Club with Walter Isaacson, Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
only on C-SPAN.
Washington Journal continues.
Joining us this morning is Gene Chemnik.
She's a reporter with Politico's EE News here to talk about the president's announcement yesterday of repealing climate pollution regulations and the headline from ENE News: EPA repeals endangerment finding.
So what does that mean, Gene Chemnick, and why is that important?
So this is more than just a rule.
It's sort of the condition for all climate change rules.
Under the Clean Air Act, you have to decide that pollution is harmful before you regulate it.
So what they did is pull that decision, which was made back in the Obama administration, and that has allowed the agency to regulate cars and power plants and oil and gas development and require reporting.
And, you know, it could have, you know, been used for other sectors in the future.
And they're basically rolling it back and saying that for the purposes of regulation, the six greenhouse gases are not pollution.
So is this considered a big change?
Yes, it's a very big change.
I mean, it's basically the end.
If the courts were to uphold it, and the next two years will settle that, but this would be the end of climate regulation until Congress acted, whenever that would be.
So you see this going to the courts?
It's definitely going to the courts.
It's already going to the courts.
Lawsuits are already being filed.
You know, there will be a whole bunch of challenges about the process that led to this, about, you know, the substance of the rule, and it'll probably eventually make it all the way up to the Supreme Court who will make the final decision.
We want to get our viewers to join us in this conversation about the Trump announcement yesterday to revoke the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases.
Here's how you can join the conversation this morning.
Democrats dial, Republicans dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
And a reminder, you can text us as well, include your first name, city and state, at 202-748-8003.
Let's listen to the president yesterday when he was asked about concerns that the rollback will have on public health.
I tell him, don't worry about it because it has nothing to do with public health.
This is all a scam, a giant scam.
This was a ripoff of the country by Obama and Biden.
And let's say Obama started it and got it rolling.
And a terrible ripoff.
They'll have more money to spend for health care.
If you look at it, now they can go out and spend it on something that's meaningful.
President Trump, when asked about health concerns over the rollback, Gene Shemnik, I want to show you and viewers and have you respond to the former president Barack Obama who put this in place on X saying today the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules.
Without it, we'll be less safe, less healthy, and less able to fight climate change.
Also, the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.
Take that last point from the former president.
Was the White House lobbied by the fossil fuel industry for this?
You know, the fossil fuel industry is actually divided on this.
You know, not all everyone in the oil and gas industry thinks this is a great idea for a couple reasons.
One, they're trying to access markets abroad that still care about climate change, and this could make it harder for them to do that.
They could face more barriers going into Europe, for example.
You know, and second, you know, there's a reputational hit if people know that they're sort of emitting without any limitation.
So there are some companies that wanted this, there are companies that didn't.
The big trade groups did say they did not want this rollback or at least had some qualms about it.
But I mean, it's really driven more by ideology than by business.
This is something that some of his supporters really cared about.
How is the world reacting?
You know, the general stepping back of the U.S. on climate change is not popular abroad.
I mean, that there's the sense that we're, you know, the U.S. is the second largest emitter these days, but it was the largest emitter for a long time.
And, you know, greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for centuries, you know, in the case of carbon.
And so most of the carbon up there, you know, is ours, or at least the West's, and we're more responsible for this global phenomenon.
So there's some anger.
It is eroding some goodwill around the world.
Who's the number one emitter and what are they doing?
China's the number one emitter.
You know, they're building a lot of different stuff, but a lot of it is green energy these days.
You know, I mean, there are always questions about whether maybe they've peaked their emissions.
You know, I mean, they're a major huge, huge, huge emitter, but they're also a huge country and a huge economy.
And they are leaning into electric vehicles, to renewable energy, not for altruistic reasons, but because they think they benefit from it.
So.
All right, well, let's get to calls.
Brian in Washington and Independent.
Good morning, Washington Journal.
Morning, Brian.
Hey, I can, if I could make a comment and then ask Gene a question, and my comment is going to be just to everybody out there that's in journalism: how the conversation about government shutdown has made the Democrats responsible for it.
And if you go back to the shutdown in the first Trump occupation, Trump tried to, from the White House, tried to say, hey, okay, enough of the shutdown.
We're opening back up.
And the Speaker of the House said, All right, Brian, Brian, we've moved on to the EPA and the announcement by the President.
Do you have a question or a comment about that?
I'm sorry.
I thought I got a free comment there.
But my question in regards to the environment is during the Bush-Cheney administration, they decided that the West Coast versus the East Coast on energy costs, it was unfair for people out here where I'm at.
We are on hydropower and we have inexpensive electricity.
And so Bush and Cheney decided that we should have rates that the East Coast people have for more expensive electricity and how that was put into action.
And it has never went back to say, hey, if you want to run nuclear or coal, you've got to pay more dough for the cleanup.
But if you're running turbines off of a flow of a current of a river, then you're good to go.
There's no disaster other than the environmental disaster of the salmon migration is huge.
Brian, I'll jump in.
Gene Chemnick, are you familiar with this?
I cannot, not really, not to be able to comment on it.
We'll go to Cheryl.
That's okay.
We'll go to Cheryl in Maine, Democratic caller.
Yes, hello.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'm calling about the fact that Trump told oil executives when he met with them in Mar-a-Lago April 2024 that it would be a great deal if they raised $1 billion for his campaign.
In exchange, he would get rid of the Biden-era regulations and make sure no other regulations went into effect.
So in effect, he was saying he would give them a deal.
And that's exactly what happened.
So we're all in a mess because of it.
Gene Chemnik?
Oh, yes.
I mean, fossil fuels companies do want rollbacks of Biden-era rules universally.
They want, you know, changes to a lot of those rules.
The question with this one, what distinguishes the rule yesterday is that it's sort of the rule to end all rules.
It's the absence of regulation.
And what some companies would prefer is rules that they say are manageable.
They're definitely weaker than the Biden-era rules by a large margin, but that there would be some kind of a placeholder rule in place for things like energy development.
Now, they may still try to find a way to have an energy development, oil and gas, methane rule.
It'll be interesting to see how they do that.
But they want things like that for the reasons that I mentioned earlier.
It actually benefits a lot of companies, not all of them, to have something like that in place.
Andy in Brooklyn Independent, welcome to the conversation.
Your question or comment?
Thank you, Pussy San.
Thank you for the guests today.
My comment is about the structuring of the wealth class system in America created by oil investors and how energy keeps financial banking and people enslaved to the system that we live in.
Let's talk about monopolies in America.
Utility companies are monopolies.
They're regulated monopolies, but they're monopolies.
They're in cahoots with the oil companies and they're price gouging.
I cannot believe that I'm turning off everything I have and I'm still paying over $600 almost on mortgage payment on electricity, sometimes twice as much.
We need to regulate or get rid of these monopolies and make energy structures based on renewables and things that are not based on oil that makes plastics and destroy our economies.
They run the banking systems.
It's just unfair.
All right, Andy, I'm going to jump in.
Gene Chemnick, do you have any thoughts on what you heard there from the caller?
I mean, I can't speak to a lot of it.
The one thing I would say is that there are a lot of states that put up barriers to things like community solar, structural barriers, policy barriers.
And in the Biden administration, at least, there was some thinking about that.
And maybe there still is thinking in certain states, but that does exist.
There are policies in place in a lot of places that make it impossible for communities to come together and co-own a solar project, even if it would offset some of the power costs.
Go back to the Obama administration and when they issued this endangerment finding rule.
How did that come about in the first place?
Sure.
Well, in 2007, there was an important Supreme Court decision.
This is obviously during the end of the Bush administration.
Where, you know, EPA was saying, we don't think we need to regulate greenhouse gases.
They're not mentioned in the Clean Air Act.
And the court said, well, you have to think about whether or not they endanger the public.
And if they do, you should regulate them under the Clean Air Act.
So years go by.
There's this assessment done under two different administrations.
The Obama administration comes in and they look at the science.
And there's a lot of science to show that human emissions are driving harmful warming.
And they come to this finding.
And that paves the way for first vehicles to be regulated for greenhouse gases and then power plants and oil and gas methane.
So that was the beginning of it.
They've been regulated for 16 years.
It's been kind of a ping-pong match.
You know, a Democratic administration comes in, they put in place a rule.
Trump gets elected.
He rolls them back.
That happened with the Obama rules.
It's happening with the Biden rules.
There has been a lot of inconsistency and uncertainty for business to deal with.
And that is the history so far of regulation.
John in Georgia, Republican.
Yes, good morning.
Good morning, John.
I don't think that anything the United States is doing or will do will make a difference until China and India make significant changes to what they do.
Each of those countries has approximately 1.4 billion people.
They occupy, I mean, they represent about 35% of the world's population.
In the same period of time since the year 2000, the United States has reduced the CO2 emissions by about 17%.
China's gone up 300%.
India's gone up 250%.
China emits about, what, 12 kilotons per year?
India about 3 kilotons per year.
If the United States were to achieve net zero by the year 2050, all China would have to do is go up 40% to overcome that reduction.
It doesn't make any sense.
John, let's take your numbers.
Gene Chemnick.
You know, I can't fact check all of those numbers right now.
I don't cover China that closely.
I have colleagues who do.
What I would say is that the U.S. economy was already very developed in that timeframe, whereas China and India are still developing.
So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
And I don't think there are any estimates that China is going to go up 40%.
And there are actually estimates that they've peaked their emissions.
They've made that commitment by 2030.
And so, you know, There are some problems with that analysis.
It is definitely true that China and India are huge emitters, and I'm not here to say that they're necessarily doing what they would need to do to contain emissions either.
But it is not true that the entire U.S. economy is an important contributor to climate change.
Daniel's in Louisiana, an independent.
Climate Litigation Spur00:13:47
Good morning.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
Morning.
Go ahead with your question or comment.
Well, I kind of got a question, I guess, and a comment, but I'm kind of curious about Job Bernard.
If you watch, if you type in and do a search on John Brennan with the CIA and you do a search about Job Bernan and chemtrails, geoengineering, weather warfare.
All right, Daniel, I'm going to move on to Terry in Westville, Illinois, Democratic caller.
Terry, your question or comment about the announcement from the White House yesterday on this EPA regulations.
Thank you.
He always rules this stuff back trumpy, like they're saying.
Yeah, we got to do a little bit to stop this.
Like the guy just before saying, well, we can't, why should we stop what China's putting out the most?
Well, if we're the second most, ain't that a big help?
You can't get completely clean, and we need to go with newer solar stuff.
It's, you know, like I see a saying on the CBS Morning News, they couldn't afford their teachers.
So you put up solar panels, and now you give these teachers big bonuses because they paying power bills to the school district.
It just helps.
So Terry, let's learn from Jane Chemnick.
What's next from the administration after this announcement?
Oh, litigation is the main thing that happens with this rule.
You know, it'll go to the district court.
It will see what happens there.
And then, like I said, probably eventually the Supreme Court will take it up and will decide whether this stands.
If it does, then for the most part, greenhouse gases will not be regulated at the federal level unless Congress eventually passes a climate law or an amendment.
This could spur more action at the state level.
It could lead to a lot of litigation against high-emitting facilities.
And, you know, as far as other rules go, I mean, there's just going to have to be rule makings to see what happens with power plants and oil and gas development and all of these other things.
But this is definitely the first step towards getting rid of all of those.
The president announcing yesterday a repeal of climate pollution regulations put in place during the Obama administration.
We want your questions or comments about the announcement.
You can join us if you're a Republican at 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202-748-8000.
And Independents 202-748-8002.
Gene Chemnick, do you expect that the White House, while there is litigation going on, makes some moves by executive order?
And if so, what are they?
Well, I think they're trying to contain what states do to regulate greenhouse gases.
That will be interesting to watch.
There was an executive order last year to look at state policies.
That will be another area where there's a lot of litigation.
Because when you get rid of regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, there is an argument that that frees states to regulate vehicles at the state level.
So, in theory, and this has not been litigated, we'll see what happens in the courts.
But in theory, you could have an Idaho rule for vehicle emissions and a California one.
And you could have a patchwork of state policies potentially governing these emissions because there isn't a federal law anymore to preempt them.
This is all going to be litigated.
It's not clear that that's how it would work.
So, that's a problem.
And then this could also spur states to do more to regulate stationary sources like power plants and factories and whatnot.
So, all of that remains to be seen.
All right.
Yeah, they don't want that to happen.
Go ahead.
Okay, we'll go to Joe, who's in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky.
Good morning.
Morning, Joe.
I have a question about the Green New Deal and what effect that has had.
All that money that's being spent that was spent on that, how has that helped?
Or do we know yet?
Jean Chemnik?
A lot of it has been rolled back.
A lot of those policies were prescribed in one big beautiful bill last summer, you know, and other things have been canceled.
The most consequential thing that came out of that was an extension of tax credits for a variety of green technologies, wind, solar, vehicles.
And they did spur an expansion of those technologies, more investment in them.
There were very good quarters for those technologies, lots of grow out of solar, et cetera.
But those are expiring because of the policy last summer.
So not all the money is being spent because of that other bill.
And, you know, I mean, it's hard to know exactly what would have happened if it had run its course.
Let's go to New Jersey.
Jerry is watching.
They're on the line for Democrats.
Hello, good morning.
I have a comment and a couple of questions for you.
The comment is: I get confused because here in New Jersey, we cannot use plastic bags at all.
We have to use the reusable ones.
But I went to Myrtle Beach in July and they used the plastic bags.
They have not followed that rule.
So how do we separate even states?
Like we've got South Carolina doing one thing, which evidently hurts the climate.
And then we got New Jersey following the rules.
So we don't even forget about China.
I'm thinking in my own country, we don't do the same rules.
Let's take that point.
Jerry, let's take that point.
Jean Chemnick.
Well, I would say that yesterday's decision is probably going to mean that there's more variety between states on climate regulation than there otherwise would have been because it's going to get rid of a federal floor for things like vehicles, power plants, etc.
So it makes it more likely that it'll kind of be state by state or groups of states working together to deal with emissions and that many states will not have any policies in place at all potentially.
Wolker in Royalton, Minnesota, Independent.
Hey, morning.
My opinion, it's a global issue.
We have to work together in that matter.
Doesn't matter point and finger at China who produces more or less.
We have to set an example and get better than all the others.
I've seen the development in Germany, the impact on the water quality, air quality, when they restricted carbon output, cars, and factories and so on.
And so, well, that's my opinion.
I think we should work in that direction and invest in the future.
All right.
Gene Chemnik, there are leaders from around the world, NATO allies gathering in Munich for the security conference there.
The annual gathering to talk about a variety of issues.
Climate change is on the agenda as well.
I am sure it is, but probably not from the U.S. delegation.
You know, the U.S. has dropped out of the Paris Agreement again, the Paris Agreement being the 2015 global deal on climate change.
China is still in it.
India is still in it.
Most other countries in the world are still party to it.
We've departed twice, so we're not part of that effort.
We've even pulled out of the underlying framework for climate agreements.
So, you know, I think that the world is still cooperating on climate change.
It's just not something that the U.S. is participating in on the federal level at the moment.
You can tune in to our coverage of the Munich Security Conference if you're interested in the climate change discussion and other discussions.
If you go to our website at c-span.org, we are going to have live coverage from the conference today and tomorrow.
Bob in North Carolina, Republican.
Hi, Bob.
Hi, Farmer Bob here.
Good talking to you.
Thanks for calling in.
What's your question about the climate?
Hey, Gene, let me ask you something.
And do you know what caused the last ice age?
You know, I do not.
Okay, well, I'd just like you to consider something.
With the greenhouse gas emissions, which are supposed to warm up the atmosphere, the temperature.
And don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of conservation.
I'm all in favor of health and everything.
But if we raise the temperature a couple of degrees of the world, it might prevent the next ice age.
And the last ice age ended, what was it, 12,000 to 30,000 years ago, something like that.
Is that correct?
So, Bob, your point.
Well, my point is, my point is, if we warm up the atmosphere, it might prevent the next ice age.
And the next ice age will come.
Okay.
Okay.
Bob in North Carolina.
Kurt in Orient, Washington, Independent.
Washington Journal, did that guy just say that if we put a bigger hole, the ozone will be ahead of the game?
Holy cow.
I used to use antiperspirant in a canned air saw.
Now I think we're all using stick deodorant, right?
Not spray cans to put our antiperspirant on.
But, Gene, I got a question.
We had an article done by the local print-on-paper newspaper in Spokane, Washington.
The Uplander did an article by a nuclear, an ambassador for nuclear energy.
He retired from the nuclear industry.
And his article stated that if they shut down the nuclear whoops program at Hanford, Washington, in six months, the ratepayers from the local utility company Avista would have reduced electrical rates because we wouldn't be supplementing an obsolete nuclear power facility at Hanford,
which contributes zero to the electrical grid and has less than 80 workers there that could be redistributed through the Westinghouse operation at the Hanford facility.
And we would all get cheaper electrical rates by not supplementing a defunct nuclear program at Hanford, Washington.
All right, Kurt, I have to jump in.
Gene Chemnik, your final thoughts here.
Well, I mean, the next couple of years will be interesting to see.
It'll be interesting to see, you know, obviously what happens with this rule, whether it survives legal challenge.
It'll also be interesting to see what states do.
And it'll be interesting to see whether in the future, you know, there's some kind of congressional effort to deal with climate change.
You know, other countries have climate change laws.
The U.S. never has had one.
I think the U.K. had the first one.
It was in 2008.
It'll be interesting to see if this is sort of a beginning of a new chapter in this whole effort to contain warming.
You can follow Gene Chemnik's reporting if you go to eenews.net, Politico's EE News Reporter.
Thank you for the conversation.
Coming up on the Washington Journal, Nikki Clowers from the GAO explains how the agency helped streamline several federal programs last year, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
That coming up after the break.
Stay with us on this episode of Book Notes Plus with our host Brian Lamb.
Russian Evgeny Progojin, leader of the Wagner group, marched toward Moscow starting on June 23rd, 2023.
GAO's Impact on Congress00:15:05
His forces were advancing north on M4 Highway after seizing Rosto on Don.
The rebellion against his longtime colleague Vladimir Putin was halted the next day.
Literally, two months later, at a little past 6 p.m., Rogoshin and nine others boarded his Embraer 600 jet in Moscow.
Several minutes later, at 6:20 over Tver, Russia, 100 miles north of Moscow, the plane exploded.
All 10 passengers perished, including two pilots and the flight attendant.
Writer and intelligence expert Candace Rondo gives us the rest of the story in her book, Putin's Sledgehammer.
A new interview with writer and intelligence expert Candice Rondo about her book, Putin's Sledgehammer: The Wagner Group and Russia's Collapse into Mercenary Chaos.
BookNotes Plus with our host, Brian Lamb, is available wherever you get your podcasts and on the C-SPAN Now app.
And we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.
Every single day, we will stand up and we will fight, fight, fight for the country our citizens believe in.
Watch the C-SPAN Networks live Tuesday, February 24th, as President Donald Trump delivers the annual State of the Union Address before a joint session of Congress.
The speech will mark President Trump's first State of the Union of his second term.
The State of the Union Address live Tuesday, February 24th.
Our coverage starts at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN networks.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
This week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on the Department of Justice.
Their inquiry produced some heated moments between Ms. Bondi and House members.
And we invited you in.
This guy has trumped arrangement syndrome.
He needs to get, you're a failed politician.
You have not held a single man accountable.
Shame on you.
If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.
Watch the re-air of the House Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi Saturday at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN and online at c-SPAN.org.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Washington Journal continues.
Mickey Clowers is back at our table this morning, acting chief operating officer for the Government Accountability Office here to talk about a report card that the government agency puts out.
How did this report card come about?
What's the aim?
Sure.
First, thanks for having me.
I'm really happy to be here.
This is our annual performance and accountability report.
It is a report card.
I'm glad you described it as that.
It shows how we did last year, what we delivered in terms of results.
Executive branch agencies are required under GIPRA to issue an annual performance plan or report.
GAO, we're an independent ledge branch agency, meaning we're located in the legislative branch and work for Congress.
So we're not required to put out this report.
But like other high-performing organizations, we have goals, we have measures.
We track the measures.
We want to understand our impact.
And we believe in transparency and accountability.
So we put this report out each year.
It's in your name.
Credibility.
Absolutely.
So how do you determine what you're going to review?
Well, in terms of the work that we do, we do our work for Congress.
Congress drives everything that we undertake.
They make those ask in two forms.
Either ranking member or chairs of committees will send requests for GAO to study a particular issue or to review a particular program, or they'll put a provision in law or a committee report that would direct us to do a review of a particular program.
And you can imagine the bigger the bill, sort of the more mandates, that's what we refer to, the ones that are in law, the more mandates that GAO will have.
Just to give you an example, the annual National Defense Authorization Act typically includes about 100 mandates for various GAO reviews.
So we tease this conversation by saying the GAO has streamlined federal agencies saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
Give us the highlights.
Sure.
So we're often referred to as Congressional's invest Congress's investigative arm because we do work for Congress and sometimes we are also referred to as the taxpayer's best friend because of the work that we do and sort of some of the numbers that you were mentioning.
Our mission is to examine how tax dollars are used and to make recommendations on improving government efficiency and effectiveness.
And we have different measures to see how we're doing on that front.
And one of the measures is that we track the amount of financial benefits that we achieve each year.
Last year it was $63 billion that we were able to document.
But what financial benefits are, they are cost savings or where the government has been able to avoid certain costs or enhance revenue based on recommendations that we've made.
And so again, last year we were able to document $63 billion in financial benefits.
To put that in perspective, that means for every dollar that Congress gave us, we returned to the taxpayer $68.
So that's some of the highlights.
Another measure that we use is that we track the number of programmatic or operational benefits that we find with agencies or Congress implementing our recommendations.
These are things that maybe you can't put a dollar figure to, but they do improve government services and program delivery.
So here are some of the numbers from the report card.
$16.6 billion connected to fraud controls at Small Business Administration COVID disaster loan programs.
This has been in the news.
Our viewers talk about it.
We've talked about it with them and lawmakers about disaster loan fraud during the COVID era.
You also found $15.7 billion in Medicaid savings tied to budgeting, $5 billion from Energy Department from Accelerated Radioactive Waste Cleanup in South Carolina, and $4 billion from Defense Department actions connected to a classified acquisition program.
Are these the big numbers from this GAO report card?
Those are the larger numbers, but they're typical of the type of work that we do.
Our responsibilities span the entire government, so we do work in all those areas, from transportation to health care to defense.
So you mentioned, Greta, the Small Business Administration.
That was work that we started and issued in 2021 when we were looking at SBA's pandemic loan programs.
We found they didn't have sufficient controls to prevent fraud.
We made recommendations that they take certain actions.
They did, including putting in automated checks as well as cross-checking data.
And when we went back to them, we found when they implemented that, they were able to save or prevent $16 billion in fraudulent payments.
You said GAO is taxpayers' best friend.
So let's hear from the taxpayers this morning.
And want to know from you, is there somewhere, some program, law that you want GAO to investigate where the taxpayer dollars are going.
Republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
And a line for federal workers as well, 202-748-8003.
All of you can use that last line, 8003, to text.
If you don't want to call, just include your first name, city, and state.
You also looked at, the GAO also looked at the One Big Beautiful bill that was passed by Republicans, pushed by the President and signed into law.
This is what you found.
Sets new limits on how states use taxes on health care providers to fund their share of Medicaid costs, directs the HHS to allow Social Security numbers for Medicaid and CHIP program enrollees, and provides dedicated funding to improve the U.S. stockpile of critical minerals.
Talk about the work that GAO did on the One Big Beautiful bill.
I think that's a great example of where Congress used our work.
We're in constant communication with the Congress about what we're finding and our recommendations.
And the bill contained a number of our recommendations, which you're mentioning.
I'll give you an example.
In the Medicaid program, which is the joint federal state program that provides health care to low-income and vulnerable populations.
It serves about 70 million people across the nation.
Medicaid, the CMS will allow Medicaid to states to implement pilots.
They call them demonstrations.
But basically, you can test new ways of providing those services as long as it doesn't cost the federal government more in testing those innovative approaches or different services that the states want to provide.
Our work has consistently shown that it does cost the federal government more.
An individual pilot may cost the government several million dollars more, tens of millions of dollars more, but collectively, when you look across all these pilots, it's tens of billions of dollars.
And so we've made recommendations for CMS to take action on that.
And the bill did.
It requires that CMS now certify that all of the demonstrations are budget neutral.
What is the GAO's annual budget?
Our annual budget is $811 million this past year.
We've had flat funding for the past few years, as many agencies have.
But we've had good bipartisan support for GAO's budget because of the return on investment that I mentioned earlier, and that we're able to document how we're improving government.
So when Congress comes together or when one party is in control and they push big pieces of legislation or even smaller ones, how often are they consulting the GAO to tell them, advise them about how they write this legislation?
We're almost on a daily basis talking to members of Congress or their staff about our ongoing work, our recommendations.
Each year we'll receive between 500 and 700 requests for work from Congress.
That represents 90% of all standing committees.
So it sort of shows you the breadth of the work and how we're serving many members and offices of Congress.
Again, we want to know from all of you this morning, are you interested in where your taxpayer dollars go?
Is there a certain program or department or law that you would suggest to GAO that they investigate?
We'll go to Rich, who's in Marion, Ohio, Republican.
You are up first in this conversation.
Rich, go ahead.
Great.
Yeah, great conversations.
It seems like if we could break down when people donate money to the government, that it goes to different things like Alzheimer's or whatever.
The other thing that makes me curious is some people that have a lot of money are getting together and deciding what they're going to do with it.
But I wonder why they don't donate to the government.
Like different charities, if they're doing good things, you say, oh, that's good.
And then you find out doing bad things and say, I'm not going to donate them again.
So what would it take for the government to the right thing, say, boy, they're using that money so efficiently.
I think out of all the places I could give money, I want to help the government with the big debt.
I'll hang up.
Let's see your suggestions.
Thanks, Rich.
Thanks for the question.
I'll mention a couple of things.
First, the government does publish information about where they're spending your taxpayer dollars.
You can find that in different sources, but one source would be at usaspending.gov.
And you can break it down by programs and see where the big dollars are going and different programs that you may be interested in.
Regarding donations to the government, of course, the government's funded by your taxpayer dollars.
And certain laws govern in terms of appropriation laws how governments can receive money and use money.
And so that would need to be looked at in terms of what would be allowable.
The Trump administration had fired 17 inspectors general.
How has that changed the ability of the GAO to review spending decisions?
It hasn't changed our ability to conduct this work.
We partner with the Inspector General community.
We always have, because we want to make sure that we're leveraging their work in our work and that we're not duplicating their work.
But we have different missions.
The inspector generals are assigned to a particular agency, so that's their scope of responsibility.
They're looking at all the agencies' programs and activities.
GAO has the pan-government responsibility where we're looking across government.
So we do rely on their work, and we collaborate often, but we are able, we conduct our own independent analysis.
We'll go to Iowa.
Craig is watching there, an independent.
Your question or comment here?
It's a comment.
Okay, Craig, go ahead.
Okay, I would like to learn more about how government employees and federal employees use their expense accounts.
Sometimes I think they abuse their accounts and it costs the taxpayers a lot of money.
The example that I'm kind of referring to would be Kash Patel when he would arrange a flight for he and his, I don't know if he's married girlfriend wife, and they would get a plane and there's hardly anybody on it, but they would use these services at taxpayers' expense, you know, which is kind of over the top where they could have used better choices.
How does the GAO kind of provide oversight for things like that, mainly expense accounts?
In a couple of different ways, I'll first note for individual use of accounts and those type of decisions, that often does fall to the agency's inspector generals, where they're looking at the spending decisions of a particular agency.
But sometimes we do get asked as well, and we'll look at across government or maybe across the agency and document the controls that were in place and how decisions are made.
And again, we get our work from Congress, and so Congress will request that we'll undertake certain work.
Government Payments to Deceased00:04:21
So we've looked at issues such as travel costs by different officials across government.
Ronald, in Colorado, independent?
Yes.
Morning, Ronald.
Go ahead.
Yes.
I'd like to know why hasn't there been an audit, I think, for the last seven years on the Department of Defense.
There has to be waste there.
Over?
All right, Ronald.
Ronald, I appreciate the question.
It is important because the Department of Defense does have a very large budget.
And consistently, the Department is unable to get a clean audit opinion.
It does get audited in terms of the financial statements, but it's been unable to achieve a clean opinion.
We've made a number of recommendations to them in terms of what they need to do to achieve that.
And we'll keep monitoring it because one of our responsibilities as GAO is that we are the auditor of the consolidated financial statements for the United States government.
And so we look at the individual audits of agencies when we pull together that consolidated statement.
And so this is very important.
Until DOD gets a clean opinion, we can't render an overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements.
We'll go to Culpeper, Virginia.
Wilbert on our line for Democrats.
Good morning.
Good morning, America.
I'd just like to ask the young lady, do you know how much money go back to the U.S. Treasury for people that pass away that collect Social Security every year?
That's something that the government never talks about.
And we as American people just like to know how much money go back to the U.S. Treasury due to people passing away that's on Social Security.
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't have a particular number in terms of what the caller is asking about, but I'll mention a related issue is that we've long reported on the problem of the government paying dead people, people that have passed away, and we continue to make payments to them.
And that occurs because of the silos within government.
Treasury makes the payments, and they don't have the data needed because the data is housed in the Social Security Administration.
That agency keeps death data.
And so we've long recommended that they share that data with the Treasury.
Congress took action on this in 2020, established a pilot program for three years requiring Social Security Administration to share that data with Treasury.
In the first year alone, there was over $100 million in savings in terms of by preventing payments going to deceased individuals.
Congress more recently acted on this and made it permanent in January of 2026 with the ending improper payments to deceased people.
And we believe that will save the taxpayers like you millions of dollars.
Let's end on some big numbers.
The Congressional Budget Office predicted the deficit to grow to $3.1 trillion in 2036.
Debt held by the public rises from 101% of GDP in 2026 to 120% in 2036.
What, in the GAO work, how do you tackle the debt and deficit in this country?
That is one of the most significant challenges facing our nation.
We issue an annual report where we look at the physical health of the government.
And our bottom line conclusion is that we're on an unsustainable fiscal path, and difficult decisions need to be made.
In addition to the numbers that you mentioned, right now we're paying over a trillion dollars in interest on the debt.
That's unsustainable as we go forward.
So we make a number of recommendations both to Congress and agencies in terms of how to improve the fiscal health of the nation.
We've also made recommendations to Congress in terms of how to better manage our debt.
Vicki Clowers is the acting chief operating officer at the Government Accountability Office.
You can learn more if you go to GAO.gov.
Trillion Dollar Interest Bill00:03:09
Thank you for the conversation this morning.
Thank you so much.
We're going to take a break.
When we come back, get your reaction to news of the day.
Here are the lines.
You can start dialing in now.
We'll be back in just a minute.
Book TV, every Sunday on C-SPAN 2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books.
Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend.
At 2.45 p.m. Eastern, former Newsday reporter Bill Blyer looks at how calling New York City home shaped the political legacies of the Roosevelts and the Roosevelts in New York City.
Followed by University of Georgia professor George Selgin on his book, False Dawn, The New Deal and the Promise of Recovery, 1933 to 1947, criticizing FDR's New Deal programs.
Then at 4.45 p.m. Eastern, military historian and presidential biographer Nigel Hamilton discusses the military face-off between two American presidents during the Civil War in his book, Lincoln v. Davis, The War of the Presidents.
At 8 p.m. Eastern in The Case for American Power, Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamin argues that American power and influence in the world is a good thing despite its flaws.
After that, at 9.15 p.m. Eastern, Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel describes how individuals can lead healthier lives in Eat Your Ice Cream, Six Simple Rules for a Long and Healthy Life.
Watch Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org.
Washington Journal continues.
Welcome back.
We are in the last hour of today's Washington Journal.
We'll get your reaction to news of the day: the partial government shutdown for the Homeland Security Department.
Looks like it starts at midnight tonight.
The clock on your screen is counting down to that time when different agencies within the Homeland Security Department will close down at 12:01 a.m. Saturday morning.
The debate taking place here in Washington yesterday when Senate Democrats blocked two attempts by Republicans to fund the Homeland Security Department.
We, of course, had gavilogabble coverage of that debate in the Senate, and you can talk about that in our last hour today here in open forum.
Any public policy or political issue that's on your mind.
We'll start with Rodney, who's in Greensboro, North Carolina, Democratic Caller.
Hi, Rodney.
Good morning.
I just wanted to discuss the thing about the Secretary Norms.
I mean, with Secretary Noles and the things they're doing, and also the way they're promoting things, having all of us thinking that ICE is doing a good job.
I hear so many people say ICE is doing a good job, and with the money they're getting, they need to have a reform and act more like more police and dress like regular police.
ICE Reform Debate00:13:15
And I also wanted to just say this to everyone out there who's talking about the victims of the SC file.
Just remember this: my parents always told me: if you hang around nine broke friends, you're bound to be the tenth one.
If you hang around nine rapists, you're going to be considered like a tenth one.
When they're doing this and brushing it over, like people don't understand that these people are molesters out there and they need to be accounted for.
They need to take care of them out there.
They need to get these people out of the government.
And everybody out there, no matter how rich you are, you need to be prosecuted for your deeds that you did.
Okay.
Rodney, with his thoughts on this debate over funding for DHS and the Epstein files, two debates that have happened this week in Washington and continue to have happened over the weeks and will in the coming days as well.
Lawmakers have left town for the Munich Security Conference, which takes place overseas.
And we're expecting world leaders, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, other administration officials, senators, and U.S. House lawmakers to participate as well.
Joining us now is Guy Taylor, who's the National Security Editor with the Washington Times, to talk about the Munich Security Conference.
Guy, let's just talk about what is this conference?
Why does it take place?
Well, first of all, thank you for having me back on C-SPAN.
It's always great to be here.
This is a major gathering that happens every year in Germany.
It's basically a German civil society event, although European leaders always gather there.
And usually the United States, the White House, whoever's in the presidency will send a delegation.
And this becomes a major public foreign policy event with speeches from major leaders around the world.
Obviously, Ukrainian President Zelensky will be there.
Interestingly, the Chinese are sending a foreign ministry delegation.
And this year, instead of Donald Trump attending, the administration is sending Secretary of State Rubio.
And he's going to be giving a major speech on Saturday.
And I think this is a moment where you're going to see a lot of airing, public airing of differences between European leaders and the Trump administration over a range of Trump administration policies, specifically toward Greenland and the president's push for the United States to take some, to really take control of Greenland against the wishes of several European allies.
So it's going to be that type of a gathering.
There are a lot of behind the scenes meetings that happen at Munich every year.
I think you'll see Secretary Rubio having meetings with the prime ministers of Denmark and of Greenland.
All major global security issues will get discussed, including U.S. policy toward Iran, the prospect that the Trump administration may authorize strikes towards Iran.
So everything is kind of on the table.
It's really a focal point of global security news, if you would, for a few days.
And it starts today and it runs through the weekend in Munich, Germany.
And C-SPAN is having live, we will have live coverage of the Munich Security Conference on our networks.
Go to c-span.org for more details.
Guy Taylor, remind our viewers about the speech that the vice president gave at the security conference last year, how it was viewed, and then preview Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech.
Will they be similar?
Well, it's a great question.
So JD Vance was sent to Munich last year and gave a pretty aggressive wake up and smell the coffee the Trump administration, you know, the sheriff is back in town in Washington,
and he's not going to stand for European powers not spending what the United States spends on defense in NATO and that there was going to be a reckoning where the U.S. would be evaluating every alliance across Europe and President Trump May-level tariffs.
It was the kind of speech that really shocked, I think, a lot of Europeans into realizing that this current Trump administration was going to be a serious contender on the world stage and they were going to have to find a way to communicate with Trump after four years of really kind of conciliatory unity between the Biden administration and European powers.
The JD Vance speech, before I get into Rubio, I think what's important to remember is that the administration was really just taking power last February, and that was like a coming out party speech.
So much has happened in the last 12 months with the administration's projection of a new national defense strategy, a new national security strategy, all of them outlining a kind of spheres of influence dogma, this America-first posture of the Trump administration.
And now we're a year on where the President Trump's top advisors have kind of gained their footing.
And interestingly, the president is sending Marco Rubio.
And Rubio is known to have a much softer diplomatic tone in his speeches overseas in the last few months.
He's known to have the respect, I think, of European leaders in a way that some others in the Trump administration, JD Vance included, I think are viewed more skeptically by Europe.
So there's really an opportunity at the Munich Security Conference for the administration to try and show unity, I think, at this moment when there's quite a bit of acrimony and frustration among European nations and NATO allies, especially over President Trump's Greenland push.
So it'll be interesting to see how Rubio navigates that.
I do think that Rubio will echo some of the messaging that we heard from JD Vance last year, but he'll do it in a more diplomatic way.
Rubio actually took off from Andrews Air Force Base late yesterday, and right before he did, he held a little roundtable with journalists.
And in his comments, he said, look, the world is changing before our eyes right now, whether it's because of technology or geopolitical shifts or the alignment of autocratic authoritarian governments, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and that the United States is really trying to project a message that the U.S. is navigating that change and it's looking for partners.
So that could be viewed as a totally contentious message in Europe, particularly among left-leaning governments that are just angry about the Trump administration in general.
But I think that you'll find there are some middle ground security-oriented leaders in Europe, particularly in Germany, maybe to a lesser degree in France, but especially with the Miloney government in Italy, that are going to be very receptive to that message despite the ongoing kind of diplomatic fraucus over Greenland, over President Trump's push for end of war negotiations in Ukraine.
Remember, there are European powers, conservative or liberal, that are frustrated that the administration is offering concessions to Russia, territorial concessions in those negotiations that are just unpalatable for Europe right now.
So there's a lot on the table.
And then one last thing here on the Iran factor.
When you're watching coverage and trying to understand what's really going on at the Munich Security Conference and is Europe in this clash with the United States or not, remember the European Union just a couple of days ago joined the United States in designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, the IRGC, the military essentially of the Iranian government, designating it as a terrorist organization.
That is very much a pro-Trump policy toward Iran, and there could be real unity at Munich over Middle East policy, I think, with the United States and European powers.
Guy Taylor, the National Security Editor for the Washington Times, thank you for those details and previewing the Munich Security Conference.
Thanks for having me, as always.
The Munich Security Conference is, of course, on the table as well this morning as we turn to all of you to get your reaction to news of the day happening over on C-SPAN 2.
We are live at the Munich Security Conference, a conversation that is happening right now with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.
He's participating in a conversation there about international world order.
And so you can watch our coverage on C-SPAN 2.
We will be live as well on C-SPAN 2 with Lindsey Graham from the Munich Security Conference at 9.30 a.m. and Mark Kelly as well at 10 a.m. on C-SPAN 2.
Let's listen in to Mike Waltz at the Munich Security Conference.
The status quo was unsustainable and not working in places like Gaza or Azerbaijan, Armenia.
You have to ask yourself, why were we 18 months ago in so many active wars around the world?
And I think it's a fair question for the president to say: why hasn't the UN been able to resolve issues like a border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand or Azerbaijan or media, or we could walk around the world or Kashmir and India and Pakistan, where we faced a very serious nuclear escalation.
So, what I'm hearing outside of forums like this privately is: thank you for American leadership.
America has to lead.
If we have to have more focused plurilateral or focused multilateral organizations to do so, I think that should be perfectly acceptable if we're getting the results that result in peace and security.
Yep, okay, thank you.
I think that was actually very clear.
Questions?
lady here in the fourth row.
If you could identify yourself and keep it very brief.
My name is Amal Modeli.
I'm a social at Princeton University.
I have two quick questions.
Live coverage of the Munich Security Conference over on C-SPAN 2.
You just heard a little bit from Mike Wells, the president's ambassador to the United Nations.
Look for our coverage of the Munich Security Conference today and tomorrow on the C-SPAN network.
So you can go to c-span.org or download our free video mobile app.
We're an open forum.
Any public policy or political issue that's on your mind?
Carl in Naples, Florida, and Independent.
Carl, what do you want to talk about?
Hi, good morning.
I just wanted to mention, I wanted to mention I went to the GAO.gov site and I had problems getting in.
I couldn't link in, so then I went to usa.gov.
So in case anybody's having a problem, I wanted to put that out there for you.
But also, I'm really concerned with the civil unrest and the violence from the civil unrest.
And I'm thinking that we might see some of this again as we get closer to the election.
So I wanted to read something very quick.
It's from a speech in 1968 called The Menace of Violence.
Whenever any American life is taken by another American unnecessarily, whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of law by one man or a gang in cold blood or in passion in an attack of violence or in response to violence, whenever we tear at the fabric of life, which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.
Robert F. Kennedy, April 1968.
Thank you for your time.
Sip in Houston, Texas, Democratic caller.
Good morning, C-SPAN.
Good morning.
I like to say my comments from 30,000 feet.
First of all, I want to say to all them Republicans that call in, talk about Joe Biden for the last four years.
Joe Biden pulled us out of a pandemic, and he spent the rest of his term building our economy.
That's exactly what he did.
Explaining Constitutional Rights00:07:24
And as far as the immigrants coming in here, it wasn't open border.
They gave a visa or whatever to come in here temporarily.
We, as the most powerful and richest nation in the world, had a responsibility to try to do something to help the world.
And the F-STEN, all the stuff that's going on now is a distraction from the F-STEN file and the big, beautiful bill.
We are going to suffer from that big, beautiful bill.
Okay, Sips out there in Houston, Texas.
He talked about immigration.
And ICE, of course, is at the center of the debate over funding for the Homeland Security Department.
We are counting down here on the C-SPAN networks to a partial shutdown for the Homeland Security Department at 12.01 a.m. on Saturday.
Negotiations were taking place here in Washington yesterday, but Senate Democrats blocked two attempts by Republicans to fund DHS.
Politico reports this morning that President Donald Trump and Senate Democrats will keep exchanging offers in an attempt to strike a deal on ICE reforms during the break.
The next step is for Democrats to send a new offer back to the White House, which sent over its new proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday night.
There are some signs of progress.
Democratic leaders in the White House are keeping details of the negotiations under wrap, which leads to indicate a serious effort, although Democrats have said repeatedly that the White House doesn't want a deal.
Listen to the back and forth in Washington yesterday.
We'll start with President Trump from the White House when he was asked about Democrats' demands.
President, we might be heading into a partial government shutdown.
When was the last time you spoke with Chuck Schumer, and do you still feel Democrats are negotiating in good faith?
Well, a week ago I spoke, but you know, we have to protect our law enforcement.
Actually, the Supreme Court gave a ruling, or one of the courts gave a very big ruling on masks that you have the right to use them for personal protection if you want.
So I don't know how that interjects.
They want our law enforcement to be totally vulnerable and put them in a lot of danger.
They have some things that are really very hard to, very, very hard to approve, frankly.
As you know, it's only protected.
We had various of the other bills.
That's all done, but we're left with this one.
We have to protect our law enforcement.
Very important.
From the White House, President Trump, responding to the demands from Democrats, listened to the Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, after attempts to fund DHS were blocked by his party.
Here's what he had to say.
Today's strong vote was a shot across the bow to Republicans.
Democrats will not support a blank check for chaos.
This vote today asked a simple question.
Will you rein in ICE's abuses or will you vote to extend the chaos?
Republicans chose chaos, and the Democrats, we refused.
Republicans chose to put a bill on the floor that ignored the abuses, ignored the outrage, ignored what the American people want overwhelmingly.
And they failed to get the votes to avoid a shutdown at DHS.
As we've said for weeks, if Republicans want to keep DHS funded, they need to get serious.
They need to sit down.
They need to negotiate in good faith, produce legislation that actually reins in ICE and stops the violence.
And I'm proud of my caucus.
Senate Democrats listened to the American people and stood together with one clear, strong voice.
Enough is enough.
We listened to the American people and stood together with that clear voice.
The American people are tired.
They're tired of seeing these horrific videos.
They turn your stomach.
And 90% of Americans say they've seen them.
The videos of Americans beaten, snatched off the streets, treated like they have no rights.
These videos are reminiscent of what you see in dictatorships.
The Americans are tired of masked agents conducting warrantless operations in their communities, secret police.
They're tired of chaos, secrecy, and zero accountability.
That is not what law and order looks like.
And Republicans simply cannot pretend that this outrage does not exist.
It's their responsibility now to step forward, heed the calls of the American people, and work with us to pass real reform.
The path forward is simple.
Negotiate serious guardrails that protect Americans, that rein in ICE, and stop the violence.
Americans are watching what's happened in neighborhood after neighborhood across the country.
They know what's wrong, they know it's excessive, and they want Congress, the Senate, to fix it.
The Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer on the impasse over funding for the DHS.
A deadline looms of midnight tonight.
Lawmakers have left town, so it's unlikely that they will come together in the 11th hour.
However, the leadership in the House and the Senate have said that members of Congress are on call to come back if they're able to strike a deal.
What do Democrats want?
Here's their list: targeted enforcement, no masks, requiring ICE to have ID, protecting sensitive locations like schools and hospitals, stop racial profiling.
They also want the upholding of use of force standards, ensure state and local coordination and oversight, build safeguards into the system, body cameras for accountability, and no paramilitary police.
Democrats feel emboldened because they point to a poll that they had conducted with Hart Research that found 92% say they support the idea of body warrant cameras.
85% support standards and restrictions on the use of force.
When they asked about independent investigations of shootings, 81% said yes to that.
77% support court-issued warrants before entering private property.
76% support requiring DHS agents to identify themselves.
And 67% told Hart Research that they support restrictions near schools, hospitals, and polling places.
We're getting your thoughts on the news of the day.
And of course, this debate is part of that on the front pages of the national newspapers.
Jay in Raleigh, North Carolina, are Republican.
What's on your mind?
I kind of got a question.
I'd like to, maybe somebody have on, somebody could explain the difference in constitutional rights for American citizens and non-citizens.
In my opinion, I don't think any non-citizen have the constitutional rights that American citizens have until they become a citizen.
But I was wondering if somebody could explain the difference on that.
Constitutional Rights Discrepancy00:02:28
And I have one sidebar comment.
All these people in Minnesota, I didn't see anybody getting shot or standing on the sidewalk with a sign or a megaphone expressing their opinion.
You put these officers, whether they're a policeman, state trooper on the side of the road or doing ICE enforcement, you're putting these officers to make a split-second decision.
And, you know, sometimes that doesn't come out right.
And I do feel for the people that were killed.
But the constitutional part was the main comment.
Okay, Jay.
David, Akron, Ohio, Independent.
Yeah, good morning, Greta, and thanks for taking my call.
Morning.
I'm an independent, but I lean progressive because I've been watching history for a long time.
And I watched C-SPAN also and the show.
And I've noticed that when people call, and if somebody calls and criticizes something the Trump administration does, a lot of his supporters will say, oh, they have Trump derangement system, syndrome, rather.
I see it a different way.
I see that the people that defend him seem to have Trump deification syndrome, where they've deified the man as if he could do no wrong.
I mean, he even said himself that he could shoot somebody in the middle of Main Street and he'd still have support.
At first, I thought, well, I was just being colorful there.
But actually, I believe that now from listening to what I've heard.
But I try to look at the facts, and I love the United States of America because of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
And I think where America went wrong was when Wall Street became a colonial power.
I mean, we came into being because we fought against colonial oppression from the British, and it was a marvelous thing.
We were way ahead of our time.
Again, we had the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
But slowly, surely, Wall Street began to accumulate power and wealth.
And so there's kind of like two Americas.
So I love the Main Street America, working class, and a lot of what pioneers in industry have done.
I mean, I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's been misses of power, and it's not an American problem.
It's a human problem.
David, I'm going to jump in so we can get some other voices.
Anthony in Dallas, Texas, Democratic Color.
All right, yeah, good morning, Greg.
Incidents in Early 201900:04:08
Hey, I don't think anyone's actually in favor of abolishing ICE.
I have a feeling that most of us just want ICE to go back to the way it was pre Trump's second term.
I mean, just two years ago, you didn't hear of any of these type of incidents happening anywhere in the country.
And all of a sudden, now you hear all these crazy, controversial incidents happening in all these different cities.
And it's like, I mean, it didn't start until Trump got into office.
I mean, Bush was setting records in deportations.
Then Obama came and he broke Bush's records.
Then Obama broke his own records.
And you weren't hearing about any of these type of incidents happening until like just a year ago.
So, I mean, like, they had numerous deportations and none of this type of stuff was happening.
And also, they say they're wearing, they say the ICE agents are wearing these masks because of doxing incidents.
I mean, I wish the Democrats would during one of these hearings that would ask for proof, or not during the hearings, just ask for proof from the DHS of the doxing incidents.
I'm pretty sure they have the doxing incidents on record.
All right, Anthony, well, I'll stop you there.
Up on Capitol Hill, yesterday, Minnesota officials testifying about the ICE actions in Minnesota.
And then the same committee heard from the acting director of ICE, the officials for customs and border protection, and other agencies within the Homeland Security Department.
And they talked about doxing.
They talked about the video of Alex Predi.
They broke down the video with ICE officials.
And our C-SPAN cameras were there for the entire hearing.
And you can find it on our website, sc-span.org.
When Minnesota officials testified, it became very heated between Josh Hawley, the Republican senator from Missouri, and the Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
They got into a shouting match when the senator accused Ellison of being complicit in a fraud scheme that resulted in the theft of federal funds allocated for Minnesota social service programs.
Take a listen to this exchange.
Do you know where it went, what it was used for?
The fraudulent money?
I do because we just heard testimony about it yesterday.
Because we were on players in the hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorist groups, to transnational criminal organizations, to the drug trade, to drug trafficking, to child trafficking.
And you took $10,000 And help them do it.
You know, the other thing is whistleblowers came to you as early as 2019.
Let's look.
As early as 2019, don't talk over me.
No, 2019.
It's my hearing, pal.
As early as 2019, whistleblowers came to, well, I should call you a prisoner because you ought to be in jail.
Well, see what you can do.
In 2019, whistleblowers came to you in your office and referred to you fraud allegations from Feeding Our Futures, and you blew them off.
Listen, your own state newspaper.
That's a lie.
The Minnesota Star Tribune, the Partners in Nutrition, brought its concerns to the Attorney General's office in 2018 and in 2019, and you did nothing.
You did nothing for years.
The only action you took is once all these fraudsters came to your office and asked you to get involved and offered you money, then you got involved.
Then you took the money and then you got involved.
They did not come to my office.
You're completely wrong about that.
You met with 40 minutes, and you took $10,000, and they also gave your family money.
They gave your family thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in addition to what they said.
They gave false statements.
Let's put the, you know, this is completely under.
The New York Post.
Yeah, we know the New York Post.
Minnesota Keith Elvison, AG accepted campaign donations from individuals linked to the $250 million COVID fraud scheme after they were in your office.
The donations came on December 20th.
Sir, you met with them on December the 11th, and on January 20th, the FBI knocked over their headquarters.
No, no.
That's the sequence of events here.
Sequence Of Events Shutdown Risks00:05:57
No, it's not.
You've been right at the center of this fraud.
That's the sequence of events.
And you've enabled it.
And, sir, you should resign.
And, sir, you should resign.
I was thinking the same thing about you.
You should resign.
I was thinking the exact same thing about you.
I'm sure after encountering this truth, you are.
Because the first to have accountability does.
Because after this parade of the USA, the first representation of the state.
I think you should be ashamed for misrepresentation.
Up on Capitol Hill yesterday, again, C-SPAN cameras were there.
And if you missed it, you want to see more, go to our website, c-span.org, or download our free video mobile app.
Bob in Middleton, Wisconsin, an independent.
Bob, what's your reaction to news of the day?
Any public policy or political issue?
Good morning, Greta.
I appreciate your indulgence.
I've got a few points to make.
First of all, to the earlier caller about President Biden curing us from the pandemic or fixing it, he actually exploited it.
How do you allow millions of unvetted, unvexed border crossers into this country from third world countries who haven't even been vaccinated for measles, mumps, rubella, let alone for COVID?
So I digress.
I want to take the listeners back to a speech that I just watched recently from Las Vegas on October 22nd of 2010 by a great president, President Obama.
I liked him.
I'm an independent.
But he made the analogy that the country was like, the economy was like a car, and the Republicans drove the car into the ditch.
And respectfully, Republicans, you don't need to give us advice how to get the car out of the ditch because you drove it in there.
Well, we're in this situation right now.
We have an inflationary cycle with our economy.
We have an open border crisis that we're trying to deal with the millions of unvetted people that are here.
So respectfully, Democrats, we don't need your advice right now.
We need your compliance, okay?
And I wonder what is the acceptable body count for the Democrats right now.
Do you want an airline to crash?
Do you want a terrorist to get through TSA?
Do you want screw worm to come across the border and infect the rest of the beef cattle that are here?
So please, we need to look at things in perspective.
And what the Democrats are doing with shutting down DHS and defunding is a very dangerous game, and the blood of Americans might be at issue.
Well, Bob, I mean, have you been following the debate that ICE and CBP aren't impacted by this partial government shutdown because they secured money in the one big beautiful bill, $75 billion for ICE and $65 billion for customs and border protection.
So when this government shutdown, partial government shutdown of Homeland Security begins at midnight, and that looks like where we are headed, those two agencies won't feel the pain.
About it.
If you want ICE reforms, if you want CBP reforms, with La Migra reforms, you don't do it through all these different other agencies and DHS's big, giant, bloated bureaucracy that touches every part of our life.
You don't do that and cause all the other issues that are you're going to have TSA agents wondering if they're going to get their tax refund and it refund in time to put groceries on the table and not have do their job.
So the Democrats are playing a dangerous game of chicken and extortion, and it's unacceptable.
All right, Bob, let me pick up because on Wednesday, C-SPAN cameras were up on Capitol Hill to cover a hearing where a number of agency heads at the Homeland Security Department testified and warned about the potential ramifications of the lapse in DHS funding.
Here's what leaders at FEMA, the agency's cybersecurity agency, and at the TSA had to say.
Under lapse in appropriations, FEMA will not be able to continue carrying out any missions other than life-saving and supporting disaster response efforts.
FEMA's disaster relief fund has sufficient balances to continue emergency response activities for the foreseeable future, and life-saving and life-sustaining activities are an accepted activity under DHS's lapse plan.
That said, if a catastrophic disaster occurred, the DRF would be seriously strained.
A government shutdown would severely disrupt FEMA's ability to reimburse states for disaster relief costs and to support our recovery from disasters.
I want to be clear: when the government shuts down, cyber threats do not.
And our adversaries work 24-7.
Even a brief lapse can have lasting consequences on small businesses, federal networks, and American taxpayers.
And the adverse effects of shutdown are not just felt by our agency alone, but extend to the communities we serve, as delays or disruptions may impact our collective ability to protect and support the national infrastructure security.
Funding for CISA is essential to safeguarding the nation's critical infrastructure.
During the recent 43-day shutdown, TSA personnel continued to report to work without pay and kept our operations running smoothly, ensuring millions of passengers arrived at their destinations safely and securely.
While average wait times across the country remained within our established standards, TSA saw increased rates of unscheduled absences and localized spikes in wait times as the shutdown dragged on and the cost of coming to work became more and more untenable for our frontline workforce.
We heard reports of officers sleeping in their cars at airports to save money on gas, selling their blood and plasma, and taking on second jobs to make ends meet.
TSA Shutdown Impact00:04:54
Many were subject to late fees from missed bill payments, eviction notices, loss of child care, and more, all the while expected to serve their country and perform at the highest level when in uniform.
12 weeks later, some are just recovering from the financial impact of the 43-day shutdown.
Many are still reeling from it.
We cannot put them through another such experience.
It would be unconscionable.
Wednesday's hearing on Capitol Hill and again C-SPAN cameras were there.
You can look at our extensive coverage this week of the debate over funding the Homeland Security Department if you go to our website c-span.org or download our free video mobile app.
Charles in Callington, Alabama, Democratic Color.
Good morning, Greta.
Morning.
And I just wanted to do you have any information on the ICE agents that are not getting paid the $50,000 and they'll say a lot of them that didn't read the fine print because it was $10,000 a year.
Do you have any information on that, Greta?
We can try to find an article about that, Charles.
And you're bringing it up because?
Well, that's Trump playbook.
That sounds like one of Trump playbooks.
Not paying the people that eat high.
Okay.
Marie in Charlottesville, Virginia, Republican.
Hi, Marie.
Greta, how are you today?
Good morning.
I'm calling to ask you if you would show some of the speech that Senator Smith did on the Senate floor yesterday.
I hope I'm correct about it, I'm sure it was the Senate.
Was it Tina Smith from Minnesota?
He's from Missouri, I think.
Okay.
His last name is Smith.
And it was a really good speech.
If you could just show some of that, it would be great.
And what was he talking about?
He was talking about the consequences if we don't do something about passing the laws to help ICE to enforce the law.
And it was really, really good.
Marie, were you watching the debate in the Senate yesterday?
Yes, I watched it a lot yesterday.
And he gave this speech after every, it was the last, he was the last one to speak about it before they, you know, dismissed the Senate.
Okay.
I think you're talking about Eric Schmidt.
And if viewers are interested in what he had to say, you can, of course, find that on our website as well at c-span.org.
Delia in New York, Democratic Caller.
Hi, Delia.
Hi, Greta.
Good morning.
Good morning.
And, you know, I hate to ask like everybody else, there's the thing I wanted to talk about with regards to what the president said yesterday about, you know, the ID, you know, that would be needed for people to vote.
Here in New York State, I think that if you could find something, that's what I wanted to ask, Greta.
I know that it happened, and I'm trying to think.
In New York State, when the illegal aliens started coming in in truckloads, they had a thing where they actually did give them New York State IDs.
They were given, there was a big brouhaha about it here in New York.
Well, right now I'm not physically in New York.
That's where I live, though.
And I'm telling you, I couldn't believe it at that time.
I said, how are they going to give them New York driver's licenses?
And I hope, you know, the ID, excuse me, New York State IDs.
And I hope the president or someone, you know, is listening to this because when I heard them say, you know, about having an ID to vote, I thought, great, you know, at least they wouldn't be able to vote.
And I said, wait a minute, wait a minute now.
Now, I don't know how that's going to work.
If that bill that went through or is going to go through about, you know, them not being able to vote, are those people that probably got the IDs already, the illegal aliens in New York State, if they got those IDs already, are they going to be grandfathered in?
What's going to go on there?
That's the first thing, because I believe that they already got them, you know, the New York State IDs, which means they're going to be able to vote.
Now, that's the first thing.
The other thing is that for me, I can't, you know, President Trump is a son of New York, and I'm praying that he, you know, comes and he was here the other day.
Something, I'm sorry, something back to my remembrance what he was, or he was talking about something related to New York.
But I'm hoping that he comes and takes a walk around New York City to see what has happened there.
Okay, Killia, I'll jump in and talk about the SAFE Act.
Trump's Visit to New York00:05:52
This is from Politico's reporting.
The House passed a major GOP election overhaul Wednesday after intense pressure from President Trump, tech mogul Elon Musk, and hard-right influencers.
But the legislation still has no clear path forward in the Senate where Republicans privately acknowledge there is not enough GOP support to skirt a Democratic filibuster as Trump is demanding.
The Safe America Act, an updated version of a bill tightening voter registration standards that the House passed last year, was approved on a 218 to 213 vote.
One Democrat, Representative Henry Cuare of Texas, voted for it, down from the four who backed the earlier efforts.
So that's the update on that voter legislation.
Also, in case you missed it this week, the Attorney General Pam Bondi testifying before Congress for more than four hours.
We covered gabble-to-gavel of that hearing, and we're going to air it again at 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Saturday night.
But in case you missed it, here is one moment from the hearing with Representative Ted Liu, Democrat of California, accusing the Attorney General of lying under oath after she claims there is no evidence in the Epstein files that Donald Trump committed any crimes.
Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein.
I want to know, were there any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein?
This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed a crime.
Everyone knows that.
This has been the most transparent presidency.
He's the one that those five.
You said there's no evidence.
Stop the clock.
This is my time belongs to the gentleman from California.
Okay.
I'm going to put up another document from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operations Center because I believe you just lied under oath.
There is ample evidence in the Epstein files.
Don't you ever accuse me of a crime.
I believe you just lied under oath, and this is on videotape.
You said there's no evidence of crime.
I'm showing you.
Here is a witness statement who called into the FBI's Threat Operations Center.
He drove Donald Trump around in a limo.
He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on the cell phone.
He was so angry he was going to stop a limo and hurt Donald Trump.
And he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
She later had her head blown off, and the officers at the scene said that could not have been suicide.
No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness.
You need to interview this witness immediately.
Epstein should rot in hell.
So should the men who patronize this operation.
And as we sit here today, there are over 1,000 sex trafficking victims, and you have not held a single man accountable.
Shame on you.
If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes.
Gentleman has expired.
Can I respond?
Yeah, I don't know how you respond.
No one can ask me.
I did not ask a question, Michelle.
I did not ask a question.
That's a crime in California.
He does not want to talk about a crime in his state.
I did not ask a question.
Minnie will be in order.
Another contentious debate on Capitol Hill this week, and C-SPAN was there.
Numerous fiery exchanges between the Attorney General and lawmakers, and you can watch it in its entirety Saturday evening, 8 p.m. Eastern Time, right here on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free video mobile app, and online on demand at c-span.org.
Also, on Jeffrey Epstein, the Democratic leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, at a news conference yesterday, responding to allegations, the Justice Department is tracking the search history of lawmakers reviewing the Epstein files.
Here's what he had to say: It's not surprising to me, but that's because the bar is so low.
And in fact, there is no bottom for the Trump administration, for Pam Bondi, for the other sycophants who are part of this corrupt administration, and for Republicans at this point in time.
It's a disgrace.
It does violate the principles of separate and co-equal branches of government.
And of course, my Republican colleagues should be denouncing it, but they will not because they simply are reckless rubber stamps for Donald Trump's extreme behavior.
Pam Bondi and the corrupt hacks at the Trump Department of Justice are partisan, pathetic, pitiful, petulant petty foggers.
That's who they are.
And that was on full display in that disgraceful performance by the so-called Attorney General at the judiciary hearing yesterday.
Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jefferies, on the Epstein files.
And again, you can watch the Attorney General testifying before the House Judiciary Committee from this week, Saturday evening, 8 p.m. Eastern Time.
Government Officials Disrespecting Laws00:07:22
Dave in California and Independent.
Dave, good morning to you.
Good morning.
I thought there was a lot of irony in an earlier clip of Chuck Schumer blaming Republicans for choosing chaos.
Chaos is caused by disrespect for the law.
And when people don't respect the law, this social order kind of breaks down into disorder, anarchy.
And that's kind of what's happened up in Minnesota, where there's been a lot of disrespect for the law, disrespect for our immigration laws, disrespect for the laws against interfering with or obstructing law enforcement officers who are attempting to enforce the law, disrespect for the laws against fraud.
The estimates now are up in the billions of dollars that have been defrauded of the American taxpayers up there, mostly by Somali immigrants,
some of whom I suspect came into our country during Joe Biden's open border policy when thousands, actually hundreds of thousands of criminals were allowed into our country because Joe Biden ignored our immigration laws.
The government officials up there in Minnesota apparently looked the other way even after they were informed by whistleblowers of the fraud that was occurring.
There seems to be kind of a symbiotic relationship between the fraudsters and the government officials up there, including Governor Tim Valtz, Keith Ellison, the Attorney General.
Fraudsters made billions defrauding the taxpayers, and some of that money was used to pay the government officials to look the other way, so everybody got a cut.
The Ilhan Omar, the congressional representative for that district, has within a few short years accumulated an estimated net worth $30 billion on a congressional salary of $175,000 a year.
$30 billion with a B?
Excuse me, million.
Sorry.
And where did you find that number?
That number's been reported on Fox News.
She had a congressional salary of $175,000 a year, so I think we can all do the math on that.
We'll find out the truth because there's going to be an investigation.
Dave, do you know of any evidence, though?
You're accusing her of fraud.
Do you know of any evidence that proves that?
I know that she was in contact with some of the fraudsters up there.
So, you know, I can kind of understand why the government officials out there want to get the federal investigators out of Minnesota.
It seems like that is quite a den of corruption up there.
And I think if the people of Minnesota were forced to foot the bill for all of the fraud up there without help from the rest of the American taxpayers, that if they have to live with the consequences of their voting decisions, they may reconsider how they vote.
Okay.
So, Dave, Minnesota officials, including the Attorney General, Keith Ellison, were testifying on Capitol Hill.
This is at the Senate Homeland Security Committee yesterday.
Mr. Ellison answering questions about his experience working with federal law enforcement after the two ICE-involved shootings in Minneapolis, his exchange with Michigan Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat.
Can you describe the coordination between DHS or DOJ with the state and local officials into the investigations of the tragic shootings of Renee Goode and Alex Predi?
We haven't had any cooperation.
Senator, we haven't had any cooperation up until now, which is really unusual because in prior cases where there's been a federal and state interest in a crime, we've seen collaboration between federal and state authorities.
It's how we normally do work.
It's not unusual at all.
In fact, this situation, when we were told you can't have access to the evidence to the crime scene, that was highly unusual and surprising to us.
And so we're hoping that we can gain cooperation, perhaps in the Predi matter.
But we've been advised that the good matter is the feds are not investigating it, and we still haven't received any access to the evidence that is involved in that case.
So it's an unusual, strange situation, but we're with good faith hoping that things will change.
So that's important.
You're saying in the past they've worked with you or other folks.
But in these two cases, they're stonewalling you?
That's yes.
That's a yes.
At the Senate Homeland Security Committee yesterday, Minnesota officials, including the Attorney General Keith Ellison, testifying there.
Also, yesterday morning, the Border Czar Tom Holman announcing from Minneapolis a drawdown of ICE officials.
The Homeland Security Committee heard from Minnesota officials first, and then they heard testimony from the heads of Homeland Security departments like ICE and CBP.
Listen to the acting director of ICE talking about answering questions about the pressure ICE agents face day to day about ICE officers.
Because again, that's where I've got a great deal of sympathy for people trying to enforce the law.
They've been shot at, they've had their vehicles rammed, rocks roads, their vehicles doxed.
I mean, on Ice Central America, I found out that if you're coming to police chief, you get a DVD from the friendly drug cartels with your children and wife going into school and going to church.
I mean, it's an explicit threat, hands off, or we're going to do something.
Well, there's such a demand for unmasking ICE officers, but they've been doxed.
So, just talk about the violence, the threats, the doxing that your law enforcement offers are really under.
So, sir, it's day to day.
If you, you know, I was the Philadelphia director for the state of New England, I covered all New England.
And if you looked at the beginning of the operations, beginning, oh, you know, January 20th up until April, ICE officers and agents weren't masked.
But it's bad.
And I'll just use myself as an example.
The week that Charlie Kirk was assassinated, there was a tweet that went out.
It said, kill Charlie Kirk, kill another.
There was another individual in that kill Todd Lyons.
That's the stuff that ICE.
Yesterday after the testimony on Tuesday, I went back to numerous death threats against my family.
Michael Michigan's Concerns00:04:16
There was a videotape of my wife walking to work that people accurately post.
The cartels have actually posted the schematics to my home.
ICE agents feel that every day.
We actually did an operation with the Secret Service where we identified doxers who put up on telephone polls the home addresses and the schools where ICE officers and agents went to.
But yet no one covered that operation.
We covered that as a success.
And I don't want my officers masked.
I would work with this committee and any committee to work with holding individuals accountable that docks ICE agents because ICE agents don't want to be masked.
They're honorable men and women, but the threats against their family are real.
Minnesota officials and DHS officials before the Senate Homeland Security Committee yesterday and C-SPAN cameras were there.
Find it online on demand at c-span.org.
Sharon in Dave City, Florida, Democrat.
We're an open forum.
What's on your mind?
Hi.
I just want to remind the callers that are talking about the fraud in Minnesota that Trump was charged and convicted of fraud in a fraudulent university scam and also tax evasion by fraudulently the value of his home.
So those two things.
And my other points are: they really need to clean house and start with DHS because Christy Noam got out there ahead of any investigation at all into the murders of Alex Predi and Renee Good and said they were terrorists and assassins and all this.
And so that's one point there.
And my other point is all these people that keep saying that protesters are being paid.
Well, I've gone to several protests and participated, and so have many of the people I know in my party and all, and none of us have been paid.
And if these people really have information on that, please make it public so that we can pick up our paychecks, put an address, the name of an organization that's paying people.
Otherwise, stop spreading misinformation.
All right, Sharon, PolitiFact.
PolitiFact looked into this accusation that protesters are being paid.
Our viewers can go to PolitiFact.org to find out.
They said that that is false.
They looked into the social media posts about protesters getting paid, and you can find it there.
Andrews in Arizona, Republican.
Good morning.
Thank you for taking my call.
I enjoy watching your show every morning, but I just want to call in regards with the lady in New York that said because the migrants that came here were given ID, they have the opportunity to vote.
No, you have to be an American citizen before you can vote.
Having an ID doesn't give you an opportunity to vote, and that's all I got to say.
Thank you for taking my call.
Michael in Michigan, Independent.
Michael.
Yes.
The thing that amazes me about this ICE or the ICE working for Homeland Security is they have not went into not one business that hires these people.
People don't come.
I've lived in Colorado.
So many.
Excuse me?
We're listening to you, Michael.
No, we're listening to you.
That's why you can't hear us.
So many what?
Yeah.
I've lived in Colorado.
So many people from Central and South America was in there.
They even got businesses in Colorado that the name, they have Hispanic name.
They don't even have English names on them.
This can be verified.
And if that is a problem, why?
No, I'm saying, because if you're in the United States, you would have the name in English and in Spanish.
Okay, Michael there in Michigan.
Ray, Homestead, Pennsylvania, Democratic caller.
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
I was sleeping there for a second.
Home Depots and Hidden Corruption00:07:09
But anyway, I have a couple of points to make.
And the number one, well, that one just went out of my head.
Oh, yeah.
When you're given the demands that the Democrats want to keep the shutdown from happening, it would be nice if you also gave the demands that the Republicans want or what their response is to that because I've been watching all morning and you haven't given that.
Yeah, I'll just let you know from reports that we've seen, the text that was sent over by the White House has not been made public from the reporting that we've seen.
We did note, though, that conservatives are saying that they want, in any negotiations, they want to have their own policy changes put in there as well, including changes to sanctuary city policies.
So that's reporting that we shared earlier this morning in our first hour.
Okay, forgive me for that then.
Second item.
When the people, the color of the orange monkey, gets on there and talks, and they keep telling us that there are thousands and hundreds and millions and billions and gazillions of criminals crossing the border, one thing I think you might ask them is, how do you know?
Do these people come across the border say with a sign on them says, I'm a criminal?
And second of all, when they do come in, do you think they go to Home Depots and to garden places to get jobs?
No, they go where the gangs hang out, where the drug dealers hang out.
And if you go to any local police station, any police station in the country, and you ask them where your bad guys hang out, they'll be able to tell you block for block in city or state, anywhere.
They'll be able to tell you exactly where these bad people are.
And guess what?
I've never seen an ICE raid in any of these places.
And you know why, Greta?
Because when they go after the people in the garden centers and the Home Depots and that, these people, they can't fight back.
They're just plain old people.
You go down where the bad guys are if they want to get the bad guys.
Guess what's going to happen to the ICE agent thugs that go there that only go to these local places because nobody can fight back?
They're going to fight back.
And these guys, they don't want bullets shot at them.
They go crying home to their mothers if they ever got a gunshot at them.
Okay, right.
All right.
Heard your point.
Fred and Jessup Maryland, Republican.
Your turn, Fred.
Young lady.
Greta, last time I got a chance to talk to you, it was during the victim statements of victim impact statements of the illegal immigration violence crimes committed.
C-SPAM refused to cover that hearing.
I mean, I had to look elsewhere to find it.
But that was a couple years ago, and now I see you're on top of everything that's anti-Trump.
To that last caller who likes going after people with skin color issues, try that in Baltimore City and see how long it takes you to get out of there with your life.
The corruption is off the hook.
It's in the major Democrat cities mostly from what I see because the Republican cities are turning over information.
I live real close to Baltimore City.
The mayor has handcuffed the police, the inspector general, and there's nothing they could do to get to these NGOs.
Behind the scenes, there's tons of money going all over the place, and we can't figure it out.
This will never cease.
The level of corruption, it's a culture of corruption, just with the blue cities, and it's not going to stop until we get down to the bottom of it.
Yesterday during that hearing, they were talking about paid, not paid more or less, but they were training protesters to start these violent attacks against officers.
This is the same thing as to fund the police.
It's just, you know what I mean?
They're on the wrong side of every issue, and I don't see how they can stay in power.
Everything they've caused has been negative, and it's just negative toward all of us, and we're all paying for it.
Fred, do you think there is any middle ground between Republicans and Democrats on changes to ICE tactics anywhere?
Anything that you would agree with?
John Fetterman, yeah, I agree with the cameras and all that, but they're not interested in any of that.
This is all a stunt.
They're extorting us, is what they're doing.
And they're using their political powers to do it.
Last time they were in power, look what they did to the country.
They find judges to let them off the hook that don't interpret the Constitution as written.
They interpret it as they want to see it.
And that's why they're getting off the hook.
There's no Bill Clinton up there.
There's no, you know what I mean, IG Minnesota.
They're just keeping them all under the wraps.
Remember, there's only one TV station out there holding them accountable, and that's Fox.
Don't know anyone covered the border issue.
Nobody else did.
Okay, Fred there in Maryland, Republican caller with his thoughts.
From the Washington Post this morning, judge rejects bid to punish Kelly for troop message.
A federal judge ordered the Defense Department to halt pending disciplinary proceedings against Senator Mark Kelly, saying in a ruling Thursday that the retired Navy captain's right to free speech was under attack by the Trump administration.
The U.S. district judge barred Defense Secretary Hegseth from enforcing a censure against Kelly over comments that the Arizona Democrat made in a social media video reminding service members that they can refuse illegal orders.
Catherine in Minnesota, an independent.
Hi, Catherine.
Hey.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I've just Really overwhelmed by.
I mean, all of us who live here in Minnesota, I'm a white person and I don't want to go to the grocery store.
I'm afraid.
I have a son-in-law who's Vietnamese, and he's an American and has been his whole life and was born here.
And he doesn't want to go to the gym because he's afraid somebody's going to take him down or whatever.
I mean, I think this is crazy.
And then it's hard to hear people that suggest that all of us voted for some of these people.
I think Walls doesn't deserve his post anymore.
He hasn't been watching.
I think it's crazy.
We had systems a long time ago that were very adept.
And now in Minnesota, it's hard to get your driver's license renewed.
It's hard to do basic activities because our state services are such a disaster.
And I think Renee Good and Alex Party, I mean, I don't think they're ever going to get the justice they deserve.
And I just think it's sad that people actually think that I don't know.
For one, there is a little bit of a sentiment about people wanting to rally and wanting to protest.
All right, and Catherine in Minnesota and Independent, we have to leave it there.
The House is gabbling in for a pro formist session.
There is no legislative business.
We'll take you there live on C-SPAN.
The Speaker's Rooms, Washington, D.C., February 13th, 2026.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Michael K. Simpson to act as Speaker Pro Tempore on this day.