Senator Gene Shaheen and Tom Tillis critique Trump’s administration for neglecting Ukraine, citing just two sentences in a speech despite Bucha’s 500 victims and the war’s fourth anniversary. They warn of unchecked negotiations by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, lack of Senate oversight, and Russia’s 1.2M casualties vs. Ukraine’s 600K, while noting 50% of U.S. firms in Odessa were targeted. Dismantling RFE/RL and the Global Engagement Center weakens counter-disinformation efforts, risking NATO trust—Danish polling shows declining U.S. favorability. Vance’s criticism aside, they urge sustained pressure on Russia to deter China and North Korea, stressing Ukraine’s fight as a test for Western resolve amid Putin’s waning domestic support. [Automatically generated summary]
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
And coming up Thursday morning, Defense Priorities Rosemary Kalanik and the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka on the state of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and President Trump's military options.
And then the Tax Foundation's Alex Durante on what's next after the Supreme Court decision striking down President Trump's emergency tariffs.
And Politico-Congressional reporter Haley Fuchs previews former President Bill Clinton and Secretary Hillary Clinton's upcoming testimonies before the House Oversight Committee on its Epstein investigation.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
On Thursday, a hearing on the nominations of two assistant defense secretaries, Mark Ditlefsson to head up Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs, and Brian Birdwell for Defense Sustainment.
From the Senate Armed Services Committee, watch live at 9.30 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app and online at c-span.org.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, with our guest three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson, author of In-Depth Revolutionary War and World War II Trilogies.
and whose other books include The Long Gray Line, Crusade, and In the Company of Soldiers.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubinstein.
Wasn't one book enough?
Because when you say you're going to write a trilogy, if you're tired of the subject after the first book, you got to write the second and the third.
So did you ever think maybe you should have just say, I'm going to do one at a time?
I had two small epiphanies.
One was that the great events in American history are bottomless.
And the other epiphany was that you could tell the story as a triptych, three panels.
It's the liberation of Europe starts in North Africa, and then it evolves 100 miles across the Mediterranean to Sicily and Italy.
And then at Normandy, you have the final panel.
Watch America's Book Club with Rick Atkinson Sunday at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
Only on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN's America's Book Club programming is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as a public service.
Bipartisan Support for Ukraine00:11:36
Senators Gene Shaheen and Tom Tillis criticize the Trump administration's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, and they talk about bipartisan support for Ukraine.
This was hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.
Hello.
All right.
Well, welcome to the final session of today's symposium, The U.S. Vision for Ukraine.
I'm Jonathan Carl, Chief Washington correspondent for ABC News and co-anchor of this week.
And it's a great honor to be on the panel with Senator Gene Jaheen, who is the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, also the former governor of New Hampshire.
Senator from New Hampshire, great to have you here.
And Tom Tillis, another Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
And I'm a senator without portfolio.
I'm not on either of foreign relations.
That's right.
I was eight years on Senate Armed Services.
Oh, and the SNOG, of course.
And we can call you chairman because you're chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.
And the former Speaker of the House from North Carolina.
So great to have both of you here and both with a keen interest in Ukraine.
So I wanted to start with last night.
President spoke for almost two hours and I counted two sentences on Ukraine.
Senator Tillis, what does that say about this administration's where Ukraine is as a priority?
I don't think it's anywhere near where it needs to be.
I was just thinking we're about to enter the month four years ago that the occupation of Bucha and the systematic kidnapping, murder, and rape occurred to the tune of 500 people in a neighborhood that would have been Northern Virginia, you know, in terms of comparatively speaking to Kyiv.
How we can't focus on the fact that the Russians who got us here, I get that the president wants to negotiate a peace, but I think it was a missed opportunity to remind the American people that we care about the transatlantic partnership, we care about free Europe, and we care about totalitarians who invade sovereign nations.
And that was a missed opportunity last night.
And it was literally on the fourth anniversary of the invasion.
It was.
Literally.
What is your sense as you deal with the administration?
And by the way, the Ukraine portfolio seems to not so much be with the State Department, but it's Steve Witkoff and it's Jared Kushner.
Do you get visibility into what they're doing and what the negotiations are?
I mean, can you call them before the committee to brief you?
Well, we could if the chairman would agree to that.
But no, we don't have any insights into what they're doing.
The most information we've gotten about what's happening with negotiations we got in Munich at the security conference from the UCOM commander who gave us some insights into the lower level negotiations that are going on around security guarantees, around definitions, around how you define territories, that sort of thing.
But we've gotten nothing from the administration.
And based on even that, I mean, my sense is we are seeing Ukraine Zielensky willing to make concessions that I don't think he would have talked about a year ago, two years ago.
Are we seeing any movement on the Russian side?
No, not at all.
And we just introduced a resolution yesterday on the four-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine with 31 co-sponsors, and we're still building on those: 15 Democrats and 16 Republicans.
So I think the President is overlooking the fact that there is still strong, and Tom would agree with this, strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in the Senate and in Congress.
And you know why that is?
Because there's also strong bipartisan support among the American people.
Very seldom are you going to find an instance where a politician isn't taking the position of their constituents.
That's important.
That's their job.
And the fact that we're seeing these numbers also suggests, and I'm sure the administration's seeing the same numbers that I am.
You know, the transatlantic partnership, the NATO alliance in Ukraine matters.
And bullies, the United States has a long history, and the electorate has a long history of hating bullies.
And Russia is a bully.
So have you seen any diminishment of that support?
I mean, clearly the president hears from people and has key, very prominent supporters, I mean, people inside the administration and outside, who are adamantly opposed to the idea that the U.S. should be aiding, I mean, just blatantly pull the plug.
Well, I don't have insights into the White House.
They don't talk to me on a regular basis.
But I can tell you that we have more Republicans signed on to this resolution this year than we did last year.
And it is in America's interest to support the Ukrainians because for all kinds of reasons.
One is because they are defending democracies everywhere.
And if we believe in democracy and the importance of promoting democracy around the world, Ukraine is the place where it's happening.
It's also the place where our adversaries are watching.
One of the interesting meetings we had in Munich at the security conference was with the Japanese defense minister.
And one of the things he talked about was the fact that China is watching what's going on in Ukraine and the fact that North Korea is learning a lot from Russia and from the war in Ukraine.
And they're going to bring those lessons back to North Korea and that's going to threaten the whole region.
So the fact that we aren't there paying attention to what's going on, learning from this war, is to our detriment.
And it doesn't make sense at all.
That makes sense on any level.
If you go back and look at it from the standpoint of Russia's design for moving from Ukraine to Moldova to the Balkans, we can have that discussion, all the hybrid warfare that they're engaged in now.
There's no dispute about that.
But folks, we had what we thought was a near-peer competitor result in adding two countries to NATO and creating the most lethal, largest military in Europe.
And they've held him off.
We've demonstrated that Russia has nothing to, I mean, and the ones who are learning are dying.
They're non-commissioned officers.
They can't execute a multi-pillar attack like our NATO alliance can.
I mean, we've forgotten some of the capabilities because we've moved on that Russia's baseline capabilities don't exist.
When do you ever give a would-be totalitarian who has his designs on reimagining and re-implementing the Russian empire and out with the abject failure that we call his decision to invade Ukraine?
You put your foot on the accelerator, not on the brakes.
I hate that the Russian people are having to go and live under the yoke of this murderer.
But we in the West should seize an opportunity to make him loose.
And if the United States is going to have its own internal challenges, I think that Europe must stand up.
They must continue to rearm.
They must send the message to Vladimir Putin that you're there for the long term.
And if you're from Europe, you should be there for the long term because a success for the West in Ukraine is intrinsically linked to your own national defense.
So put the foot on the accelerator.
Demonstrate to Putin that I don't think you'll have to go out alone, but you're prepared to do that because he will not succeed if we remain committed.
There's no way in any scenario where he succeeds.
That is powerfully stated.
I don't think I've heard anything remotely like that from this administration.
Making your case.
Yeah, but that's, again, you know, when you go to Europe, you know, how many of y'all remember the schoolhouse rock, I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill?
Well, I do that.
Sometimes when I go to Europe, I said, I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill.
Let me show you how policy works here.
First off, any agreement between Kushner and Witkoff are very accomplished business people.
I'm sure they're good negotiators, but they're not subject to Senate confirmation and they're not subject to oversight.
So hopefully they've got some adults in the room who are.
They can negotiate the broad strokes.
But at the end of the day, an agreement that doesn't be that bill on Capitol Hill that gets ratified by the U.S. Congress isn't worth the paper it's written on, in my opinion.
It will simply not have the staying power that we need to provide long-term certainty for Ukraine and for its neighbors.
So I don't care who negotiates it.
It is suspect that you can negotiate a Ukraine peace, an Iranian situation, a Gaza situation, and whatever, and be the same two people.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
And the reason I'm saying it is just purely from a business context, guys.
This is pretty complex, hairy stuff.
You need historians.
You need national security experts.
You need people that understand at a very granular level the motivations and the past history of these people to be in a position to actually execute credible negotiations.
And it's not that they can't be in the room, and it's not that they can't play an important role.
But you can't just go, oh, where's the time?
I'm off to Gaza now.
I'll get back to Russia tomorrow.
And, well, I've got to do that Iranian thing, too.
What do I do?
Working lunch?
I mean, it's just not the way to project steady, strong leadership, which the world needs from the United States on these very dangerous hotspots.
And again, I very seldom disagree with what the president is trying to accomplish, but I do have some challenges with how they're going about it.
Met with Allies and Officials00:15:45
And these are three good examples of the what.
You know, if the president really just wants to get Russia expelled or get to something that Vladimir Zelensky will accept, great.
But let's just get the people in the room and focus on that.
Let's get these other pieces parsed out to folks that can do an equally good job.
And it sounds funny, but the reality is the State Department is missing in action because the State Department has been hollowed out by this administration.
And that should worry all of us.
Are there reforms that needed to be done at the State Department?
Absolutely.
But the way they've gone about it is not the way to address making sure that there is a State Department that is functioning in the way that is in the best interest of the United States and our security.
But I'm very glad that Marco said what he said in Munich.
I was there on the third row, and everybody should realize that wasn't Marco talking.
That was a position of the administration, and I think that's a good first step.
Yeah, explain that, because that was a, I mean, the contrast was stark, obviously, with what JD Vance had said the previous year, where he was basically poking his fingers in the eyes of Europe, saying that Europe was the problem.
And then Marco Rubio comes out with a message that the Europeans found very reassuring.
I mean, how do you explain and what is the true message of the administration?
Did it change over the course of the previous year?
Yeah, a lot of changed, by the way.
This is where I get to, I know some of you probably heard this.
One of the reasons we're here is because for the first two decades of this century, too many of our NATO allies fell short of their commitment to our mutual defense to the tune of $2 trillion, folks.
$2 trillion.
You wonder if we had spent those who had fallen short, the $2 trillion, whether we'd even be having this discussion.
What does $2 trillion do for our interoperability?
What does it do for each and every member country's capability to defend itself for modernization?
And so I think that JD went to Munich when we were still having a discussion about whether or not 2% or some other threshold was appropriate.
And so I have to give the credit to the President.
I would have never given the speech that JD did.
But we were a month and a half, two months into the administration.
We're still looking down at a $2 trillion shortfall, and time to get serious, get our industrial base back up to speed, shift the priorities, deal with the politics back home.
Don't come to me, as some have done in my capacity as Senate NATO observer group and say, well, it's just really unpopular.
Really?
Defending your own country is really unpopular back home?
Or have you allowed that little tidbit to escape the discussion of your priorities?
So, like I said, I had never given that speech that JD gave.
It's just not my style.
I mean, the context is we had also had seen in the same time period, the meeting in the Oval Office with Zelensky.
Well, that was a very important thing.
I'm going to talk about more than about what percentage of your blockchain is.
Well, J.D. served in the Senate for two years.
JD and I have been on the opposite end of the spectrum on Ukraine.
You know, he's definitely, I think, personally believes that it's not a war that we should fight.
We can help without shedding American blood in Ukraine, or we can deploy when our Article 5 commitment, which one do we want to do?
And at the end of the day, I think helping Ukraine be successful, holding it very accountable before it could ever be considered for any accession into NATO is something I strongly feel.
But I do believe that we should give them time to continue to implement the reforms that they're doing heroically right now in their parliament.
I met with the Speaker of the Parliament.
We met with the Speaker of the Parliament.
They're doing remarkable reform work there that they should be given credit for.
But there should not be any notion that we negotiate a peace with two people who maybe had reasons for their behavior.
And look, Tom and I agree on the importance of the Europeans and our NATO allies contributing more to their own defense.
And I give the President credit for setting that 5% threshold and pushing our allies to get there.
But the reality is this administration does not have a consistent foreign policy strategy.
They have mixed messages.
They have not put the kind of pressure on Putin and Russia that needs to happen if he's going to be serious at the bargaining table.
Every person we met with in Munich said that they don't believe Vladimir Putin is serious about negotiating a peace deal.
And we are not going to get a peace deal unless we put pressure on Russia.
And there are lots of ways to do that.
And we've known this for the last four years.
We need to give them the weapons that allow them to continue this fight.
And they need to be long-range weapons so that they can go into Russia.
We need to continue the sanctions and go after Russia's economy.
There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week saying that Russia is not winning this war, and Russia is not winning this war.
I mean, the losses are staggering.
35,000 people, 35,000 Russian casualties in the month of December, 1.2 million casualties, double what we've seen in Ukraine.
Now, sadly, they have the capacity to do that because they have the population and Putin controls all of the information that the Russian people get.
But the reality is Ukraine can win this war, and we need to put pressure on Russia to ensure that that happens, that they come to the table, that there's a real negotiation, and not weigh in consistently on the side of Russia.
For the United States to do that is antithetical to everything that I believe about our democracy here at home.
And, Senator, you led a congressional delegation to Odessa, which was the first delegation since the invasion.
What was your sense of the level of resilience from the Ukrainians?
What did you pick up in Odessa?
You know, we had, there were four senators.
Unfortunately, we lost Senator Tillis because he had some family issue.
So it was four Democratic senators, and we drove from the capital of Moldova, Keys now, into Ukraine in a snowstorm, the worst snowstorm they'd seen in Odessa in 20 years.
And to get into the city, we had to go over a bridge, and there was some concern about whether the bridge was going to be safe enough for us to go over because the Russians had destroyed the bridge in December and they had rebuilt it already.
And one of the observations we heard as we were talking to our embassy officials is that whenever something gets destroyed in Ukraine, they rebuild it immediately because they're thinking about the future.
And what we heard in that trip in Odessa, and we met with the border patrol, the folks on the Black Sea who are watching and saw all of the drones that they are fighting this battle with, more advanced drone technology than we have in the United States.
They're not buying drones from us because our drones are too expensive and they're not technologically advanced enough.
We heard from their port officials how they're keeping the port open.
We met with some American business people in Odessa who said that the Russians are targeting American businesses and we aren't doing anything to respond to the fact that they're targeting American businesses.
So that means people, our adversaries around the world are saying, well, we can target American businesses with impunity because nobody's going to come after us when we do this.
But what we heard consistently was people want a peace agreement, they want a fair peace agreement, they want security guarantees, but they're not going to give up their freedom and they're not going to give up their country in order to get that.
And I think we should all be cheering them on and providing help in any way that we can.
But let me just underscore what you said.
You said that the Russians are targeting American businesses.
Absolutely.
Deliberately targeting American businesses in Ukraine.
Yes, and we asked a couple of the business people if they thought that the attacks were deliberate, and they said yes, because they've attacked not just once, but multiple times.
So they are very clear that Russia is targeting American businesses.
50% of the American businesses have been targeted by Russia and HIV.
Wow, you think the administration, do they know this?
Did you, I mean.
Well, I'm sure they do because the embassy certainly is tracking this and they're reporting back.
So the State Department knows.
Absolutely.
All right.
At this time, I would like to invite all of you here to ask questions.
I think we have some folks who have joined us via Zoom.
Any questions?
Yes, in the middle of it.
Thank you, Toby Gotti.
I served in the NSC and State Department under President Clinton.
In talking about the U.S. public, it seems national security arguments don't work.
And business, maybe that'll be the key to getting in.
And we have very naive negotiators.
The Russian negotiators have 100 years of experience dealing with the United States and English-speaking countries.
And we have ZIP.
My question is this.
So what works?
Well, in Nigeria, what worked was attacks on Christians.
So my question to you is, and I did a little research on this and wrote a piece called Ukraine is a Christian Nation.
Why is there no concern in the United States about what Russia is doing to the Ukrainian people and would do to the Ukrainian church if Russia won?
At the prayer breakfast, there was no mention of Ukraine.
I listened.
There's going to be a mall, something, One Nation Under God is the theme.
Of course, those of you who know American history know that One Nation Under God was against communism and Russia and the organizations like the KGB, which Putin worked for for many years.
So obviously, that's not a problem.
So now the Russians are selling large quantities of missiles to Iran, which would be used against our forces if we invade Iran.
Why are these arguments not being used by you and by others to make the case that it's not because we love Ukraine or we feel bad for countries that are subjugated, but this is really harmful to the United States, to our security, to the future of Christianity, actually, in a large country like Ukraine.
Who wants to take that?
Yeah, I think there are valid questions.
I think the more fundamental questions are the security of the Western world, to be honest with you.
I understand what you're saying.
I mean, you could use the argument of the thousands of children who have been kidnapped and relocated.
That should be a sympathetic argument.
Whether or not you wade into bias in our priorities around Christian nations or non-Christian, I tend to be very secular.
I'm a Christian and born and raised that way, but I'm very secular in terms of my decision-making process.
I think there's a variety of other arguments that should be able to be used to make it very clear there is good and there are evil at the table in these negotiations.
And, you know, the Ukrainians, in some respects, a part of the reason why I think we're still dealing with the sins of the forefathers post end of the Soviet Union.
Take a look at the Baltic states, for example.
They move very quickly towards reforms, and they address the Russification of their country.
Ukraine did not move as quickly.
And a part of what they're dealing with, and those leaders, should be held accountable in the past for failing to move as quickly.
So I think your arguments are valid.
I've just tried to be balanced in terms of my view.
I think you go back to the triad and troll.
This is a real stress test for NATO, for our European alliances.
It's a real stress test for Putin to see where he goes next if he succeeds at any level in Ukraine, and he will.
He's hiding in plain sight in countries like Moldova, thank goodness for the election result there.
But I think that those are valid arguments, but the bigger arguments still carry a lot of weight, and they're the ones that I'm focused primarily on.
I get your point about Nigeria, though.
Yes.
David Smith of the Guardian, just commanding Ukraine with President Trump's recent threats to Greenland.
I wonder what you thought of what happened at Davos, and in particular, Prime Minister Carney's suggestion that there's been a rupture in the global order.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, can it be reversed in future?
We were part of a delegation in Copenhagen right before Davos in the height of the controversy over Greenland.
And it was probably one of the most upsetting trips I've had since I've been in the United States Senate.
Because what we heard from our Danish allies, people that we met with, was what's happened in the United States?
Why?
We've been your allies.
We fought with you through two world wars.
You know, Denmark recognized the United States in 1792, one of the first countries to do so.
We lost as many people in Afghanistan per capita as you did.
And why have you turned on us?
You know, the polling in Denmark showed that people have a more favorable opinion of China than of the United States now.
Wow.
How did you answer the question?
I said, you know, I don't think President Trump reflects where the American people are on this issue.
Just like I don't think he reflects where the American people are in Ukraine.
Maybe we weren't very effective in our earlier arguments about why it's in America's national security that we take action in Ukraine.
But is there this affected the trust that people have in the United States?
Rebuilding Trust00:07:25
Absolutely, it has.
It's going to take time to rebuild that trust, and we've got to work on that.
And that's one of the other things we said to our Danish officials that we met with, to the Greenlandic officials that we met with, is that we are going to work on this.
There is support in Congress, and that President Trump's rhetoric doesn't reflect where I think most Americans are.
Also, I think there is European nations are at risk of overreacting.
And I think certainly before the Rubio speech, but I believe in this philosophy that nothing is ever as good or as bad as it seems.
And so I've talked to a lot of leaders when we were in Munich just saying you should definitely take this serious.
But to draw the conclusion that the transatlantic alliance is over and there's a new world order is just silly.
I mean, it's emotions speaking.
But we should also keep in mind again, because I do try to call balls and strikes, when I won my election against a Democrat opponent for the Senate in 2014, I was talking about the mistakes that a president was making in Ukraine when it happened to involve the invasion of Crimea.
So once again, no one should say that any one president or administration is responsible for how we got where we are.
Because then you're going to proceed with a different perspective if you have that balanced perspective.
I don't think it's the end of the transatlantic partnership.
I do believe at the end of the day we can come out stronger, particularly if we remember not to repeat some of the mistakes that got us here to begin with with this administration.
We only have about a minute left.
Let's do one more question.
Yes.
Jim Slattery, first of all, just as a personal point, I'm awful sorry to see both of you retiring.
Yeah, you're going to be missed in the United States Senate.
Both of you will.
Thank you.
You know, the Russians are constantly working day and night to sow discord in the United States.
And I'm just curious, have we given up on an effort to sow discord in Russia and undermine Putin's support among the Russian people?
I mean, what are we doing to communicate truth to the Russian people, I guess is my question?
Yeah, you know, one of the things that concerns me the most about the actions that this administration has taken has been in the information space because they've dismantled the corporation.
Yeah, the corporation.
Yes, the Radio Free Europe.
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, the traditional measures that we have used around the world to try and correct misinformation and disinformation from our adversaries.
The Global Engagement Center at the State Department has been dismantled.
There is not a consistent, coherent strategy for how we're dealing with in the information space.
And it's one of the places where we are woefully behind, not just in terms of diplomacy, but in terms of military engagement.
Because what do we see with hybrid warfare?
They come in, they disrupt cyber networks, they spread disinformation about what's going on before they engage in military activity.
And we don't have any comparable measures to respond to that.
And that's a huge problem.
We're actually working on legislation in the Foreign Relations Committee.
We haven't gotten anything yet.
But we've got to put back in place that structure because if we don't, we are not going to be anywhere.
You know, we had a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee last year.
Our first hearing was on China.
And the former Ambassador Nicholas Burns talked about the fact that China is now spending $1.2 billion on misinformation and disinformation annually.
And we're spending nothing by comparison.
I don't know how we think we're going to compete if we're not even on the playing field.
Yeah, the only thing I'd say is right now, you know, the information, well, Russian people are not dumb.
They're suffering right now, the economy.
We need to put our foot on the accelerator of the real, and that is going after more interdiction of the ghost fleet, trying to get Orban to have a brain and realize he shouldn't be spending so much money on Russian oil.
I mean, just continue to put them into the funnel and make their economy suffer and let the Russian people hopefully find freedom as a result of that failure.
But, you know, information war right now, I think I agree with everything that Gene said, but we got to play with the hand we're dealt.
And right now, we need to run up the score on pressure, and that will speak volumes.
There's only so long a population can suffer the way the Russian people are because of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we need to continue to exact pain there.
Unfortunately, we're out of time.
This could go on, I'd go on a lot longer with both of you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Tillis.
Thank you to the council.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
And coming up Thursday morning, Defense Priorities Rosemary Kalanik and the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka on the state of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and President Trump's military options.
And then the Tax Foundation's Alex Durante on what's next after the Supreme Court decision striking down President Trump's emergency tariffs.
And Politico Congressional reporter Haley Fuchs previews former President Bill Clinton and Secretary Hillary Clinton's upcoming testimonies before the House Oversight Committee on its Epstein investigation.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Thursday, it's a hearing on banking regulations.
Witnesses include Michelle Bowman, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision, FDIC Chair Travis Hill, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould, and Kyle Helpman, Chair of the National Credit Union Administration.
Watch the Senate Banking Committee hearing live at 10 a.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
Go-Go Music Live Feel00:02:13
C-SPAN, official media partner of America 250, commemorating 250 years of American democracy.
America 250 is traveling the country to honor the voices that define our nation: stories of identity, service, and community.
Here's one of them: Coming from a religious background, my mom always told us, put God first, whatever you do, and he'll direct your path.
We had five songs in the top ten.
Show some love of my man Silver Bear.
And that's what's going on now.
That's why I'm here today.
Let's do this.
Let's do this.
Go-go music is the sound of Washington, D.C. Period.
When you go to New York, you expect to hear a lot of hip-hop and rap.
You go to New Orleans, you're going to hear a lot of jazz.
So when you come to Washington, D.C., or the DMV, as we call it, you're going to hear a lot of Go-Go music.
This is our home.
This is our capital.
It's homegrown in Washington, D.C.
It's a party, a great party source of music.
Call and response.
You automatically become a part of it, but you gotta see it live.
Hearing a recorded version of a Go-Go song, it don't really do nothing for you.
But if you see it live, then you can automatically embrace it.
Because Go-Go music is a live feel.
You're right there with it.
You right there with it.
And you can't stay still.
Especially when I look around the world by me traveling so many places, I can see that living in America has been a blessing to me.
People living in poverty, people are poor.
People don't have water, they don't have clothes, they don't have food and shelter.