>> the bill has passed.

thank you. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for sunday, april 21. yesterday, the house passed a series of foreign aid funding bills, including $60 billion for ukraine and $20 million for israel as republicans pushback on some of the pending. we want to know what you think about the bills. here are the lines. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to send us a text, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. make sure to include your name and city. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. and you can also post on x, @cspanwj.

we will get to your calls in just a few minutes, but first to tell us more about those bills and yesterday's vote is congressional reporter stephen neukam. welcome. guest: good morning. host: what stood out to you about yesterday's vote, especially the more contentious votes on ukraine and israel? guest: yeah, i think the number one thing that stands out about the vote yesterday was when the ukraine a vote -- speaker johnson got less than half of his conference to vote with him. less than half of republicans voted to pass that legislation. there were many that were upset about the process behind it, the fact that even got to the floor, and yes, it still passed relatively easily with a healthy number of republicans and democrats voting for the bill, but politically and internally within the party for johnson,

the fact that he got less than half of his conference is a big issue. host: what was the mood post vote with that kind of voting? guest: obviously some frustration about the fact that again it passed with more democratic support than republican support, but i think overwhelmingly and the reality is that on capitol hill, there is an overwhelming consensus that the u.s. needs to back not only ukraine but israel, taiwan, and other international partners. there may be a little bit of a fight over it in the senate, but it will pass the other chamber so i think overwhelmingly the sentiment was feeling that the house had just accomplished something it needed to accomplish and something pretty historic. host: remind our audience why speaker johnson had to break this down into four separate bills. guest: yeah, so it is

essentially the same topline number. the bills all put together, the same topline number as a package that passed the senate a few weeks back or over a month ago now, which was $90 billion plus. johnson separated out these bills to allow his members to have an open amendment process and be able to vote on amendments on the floor, sort of a way to appease conservatives who were not happy with the legislation coming forward in the first place. the reality is that really none of those amendments were ever going to be attached to the bills. but it was sort of a process that speaker johnson had to go through politically. host: and what happens now? what is the senate going to do on their end? guest: they will try to get this thing done as quickly as possible. the way the senate works as a little different from the house. it takes more time.

they will have to come to a time agreement between all 100 senators to limit debate on the bill. there will be negotiations over that. if they cannot reach an agreement, it is likely the bill can get past the senate tuesday i think at the earliest, but they will work to come to a time agreement, and it is possible they get that done as early as tomorrow. host: you had some recent reporting that talks about speaker johnson's future. there were a lot of debates and some republicans who were not happy with him moving forward especially with ukraine bill and the potential motion to vacate. where do things stand now? guest: i think there is more support than -- there is starting to be more public support coming forward for the motion to vacate pushed by marjorie taylor greene and thomas massie and some others who have now said they would

support a motion to vacate, but the dynamics here are way different than when a speaker mccarthy lost his job. we already have democrats publicly saying they would vote to save speaker johnson. marjorie taylor greene said after the vote yesterday she was going to let her colleagues go home and hear from their constituents because they are on recess, but the expectation is that will be acted upon once lawmakers are back in d.c., not this week but the week after. host: going into the votes this weekend, last week, some house democrats had attempted to restrict u.s. weapon sales and military aid to israel as part of the foreign aid package. what happened with that? guest: yeah, well, i think if you just take a step back and look at the coalition of folks who voted against the israel bill, there were a number of

conservatives but also partnering with a number of progresses who voted to not pass that aid. it is an interesting coalition of lawmakers on sort of both fringes of each party. progressives who are upset with the white house and the israeli government's treatment of gazans and palestinians and also republicans who are upset with mike johnson who want no more international aid. host: all right, stephen neukam, congressional reporter, we really appreciate your time this morning. thank you so much. guest: yeah, thanks. host: and we will get to your calls. people are already starting to dial in. we will go first to ross in battle creek, michigan, on the democrat line. ralph. caller: yes, i was going to say it looks like the republicans are split on this and there is a

pro-russia, pro-authoritarian, pro-dictator, pro-putin wing of the party, the dangerous republican party, which is authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-ukraine, anti-nato. i think this is good news in the sense that ukraine will not fall to the russians. we won't have a collapse of a country in eastern europe. there will not be thousands and thousands if not millions of refugees in eastern europe if russia takes control of ukraine. i can't imagine the ramifications of russia advancing and consolidating their control of ukraine. there will be i am thinking probably millions of refugees leaving ukraine. nato would be in trouble. there would be instability in eastern europe. the consequences are very bad. did you get all that? host: i did.

thank you, ralph. we will go to billy in alexandria, indiana, calling on the independent line. billy? caller: yes. i am really not too much for this bill. we don't know where the money is going. they need to be held accountable for all the money. this president over there in ukraine, i don't know about israel, but i know ukraine. he spent a whole lot of money over there buying yachts and buying land. he bought a big place in florida. we just don't know where the money is going.

and nobody seems to want to -- nobody seems to care to be held accountable for already the billions of dollars that we have sent over there. i can see sending weapons over there, but as far as just giving them a blank check on our money, i just can't see it, you know? host: ok, billy was talking about the ukraine aid bill. here are some of the details of what was in it. it was $60.8 billion. it converts all financial assistance to ukraine's government into a loan. it requires the administration to submit to congress wi5 days a strategy establishing specific and achievable objectives with metrics that define and prioru.s. national security interests.

it is 13 billion dollars to replenish american defense stkpiles. $7 billion for current u.s. military operations in the region. 13 .9 billion dollarfor procurement of advanced weapon systems. and $13.7 billion for purchasing u.s. defense systems for ukraine. we will going out to brian in salt lake city, utah, calling on the republican line. brian. caller: hey, you hear me? host: yes, brian. caller: no money to ukraine. they are the most corrupt ever. six days -- barack obama says we are six days from fundamentally transforming america. this is what is going on. this is our third woman president. woodrow wilson, his wife was president. fdr, his wife was president. and valerie jarrett, she is running the show. and susan rice. because biden is just not there.

host: ok, we will go to melvin in arkansas on the democrat line. melvin. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: my complaint is the republicans are trying to get rid of mike johnson because he is trying to do his job because the american people need our allies because we are surviving on that land. we are keeping our military on their property. i don't feel like donald trump replaced in this party to be supplying ukraine and other allies with what their needs are. host: ok. we will go to juliet in

massachusetts on the independent line. juliet. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: welcome, c-span. i have been watching for 25 years. you have one of the best jobs in the world, i must say. for the purpose of my remarks, you know, this war in ukraine is tantamount to a world war i style of trench warfare. so is this going to go on in perpetuity? are we funding this forever? will this be a "forever more?" -- forever war?" beyond that, the money that was allotted, $60 billion plus, a lot of it is allotted for ukraine but only $23 billion is actually going to ukraine to basically fund their government, the pensions, to run the operation. like washington, how do you run

it? taxpayer money. our taxpayer money. aside from that, the rest of the money stays in the u.s. and goes to the military-industrial complex, which is basically manufacturing world war slam arms like guns and tanks, which it seems to be a never ending game. i don't know what is to become of ukraine. i think putin has no ambition of actually going into mulled although he is in moldova. there is a section that is russian land. there is also one area nestled right on the baltic sea. we are already in those lands if you will. it is a little bit may be overzealous of the rhetoric emanating from washington that putin wants to invade all of ukraine and into the baltic

region and beyond. host: do you think the house was right in passing the bills yesterday? caller: that is an excellent question. i think speaker johnson -- i give him a lot of credit because he is a former head of judiciary committee in congress. he got my attention years ago because he is a staunch conservative, a constitutional scholar, and it was against his ethers to do this. when he went into the private realms of the security about warfare, he was convinced that this is really not just to try to prop up ukraine, but there is more because we have a new axis of evil. we have russia, china, and iran. it is interesting. right now, we americans are pulling out of niger in africa because china is coming in. it is no longer monetarily

viable for us to be there and this is going on all over africa. i am sure you read about it but i want to thank you for taking my call today. i just hope we can find an engine for a resolution. we have an election pending and elections have consequences. host: thank you, juliet. from the "washington post" today, the article is talking about the ukraine funding bill. it says ukraine funds come at a key juncture for the country and its war with russia as the pentagon warns that ukraine would steadily ced more grant to russiaen forces and faced agri-casualties without more funding. it is a win for speaker johnson. he increasingly leads the coalition of more mainstream house republicans and democrats in high-priority legislation

passage. it goes onto say johnson, who evolved on the issue of ukraine, was defiant in his decision to move ahead on funding on the major ally in a bipartisan manner even though there were critics of the legislation. speaker johnson spoke with reporters yesterday after the house votes. here is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> as i said many times, i don't walk around this building worried about a motion to vacate. we have -- i have to do my job. we did. you do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may. >> a brave step at the same time, it took too long for aid to ukraine. why did you decide to do it right now? >> listen, the house had a lot of work to do here. we had to get the government funded in our appropriations

process and had to authorize the foreign intelligence surveillance act. we had a lot of important measures that had to be done and we got to this as quickly as could be. this is an important matter. it is timely. you heard from leaders around the world including ukraine this is being done on a timely basis, and the house had to have the time to deliberate and do this in the right manner. i think we did our work here, and i think history will judge it well. host: we will go to mike in st. louis, missouri, calling on the republican line. mike. caller: hey, good morning. how are you doing today? host: doing good, thanks. caller: i am all for the aid packages to be passed. i think the united states needs to let israel, the israeli military do what they need to do over there in the gaza strip. i think they need to employ the same strategy we employed in operation inherent resolve against isis as far as just go in there and read them all out. got to do that because they are

embedded in the population and it is troubling. number two is donald trump. the rhetoric he spews out of his mouth worries me sometimes, especially when he says i would let putin do what he wants to do. that is very troubling, very, very troubling. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: we will go to brenda in georgia on the democrat line. brenda. caller: good morning and thank you for being there. i have a problem with not -- if they don't fund ukraine. we promised in 1994 when they gave up all the weapons on the border that we would protect them, and we have so far, but we have all of these republicans who don't want to. our word was given. not only that, if russia continues to sweep across, which

he will because he is nuts, than american blood will be spilled over there. when it happens, it will be on the republican party for not doing what this country promised . host: we will go next to decatur, georgia, calling on the dependent line. garth. caller: yes, we are funding all of these countries and we have 82,000 homeless americans in new york city alone. that is the problem i have. tax day just passed, and they hurried up and cast a spending bill for war. war in ukraine, israel, gaza, and they are talking about a war in taiwan with china. to quote one of the greatest marines in the history of the united states, general butler, he said war is a racket.

general eisenhower, president, he said overspending on the military is like hanging all of humanity on a cross of fire. the united states has been in 75 wars in 247 years. we should think about that. where are our tax dollars going? tax day just passed and they could not help but spend it. i don't mind helping homeless people, but on ukraine, taiwan, and israel, those are welfare states. republicans are always talk about people on welfare. thank you. host: our previous caller brenda brought up opposition to the aid funding, and yesterday on the house floor before the vote, republicans spoke out in opposition to that legislation. here is some of his remarks. [video clip] >> mr. chairman come i rise in

opposition to the act, and i will make a glaring point. this war is not economically speaking even a fair fight. the gross domestic product of the european union is nine times that of russia. their population is three times that of russia's. the european union can do more. if the united states continues to fund this effort, the eu will not muster the political will to do what they should. yes, russia is a strategic adversary of america, but it is a bigger threat to our european allies. nato nations now, many are not doing the required 2% of gdp on defense. europe must act with greater urgency. we heard a lot about churchill and chamberlain. if i may point out, they are both british. if great britain and europe as a whole had done more with

austria, history might be different. >> the gentleman's time has expired. host: we will go to art in pennsylvania calling on the republican line. art. caller: i am just talking about that a package. i do think that ever should have went through. i really don't. i don't think it should have went through. host: for any of the eight packages or for a specific, ukraine or israel? caller: the one they just passed. they are doing these things for other countries. what about our own country? look at our border. it is a mess. and they are worried about their borders? it is ridiculous. they keep passing these bills like the republicans and democrats. i think they are getting kickbacks from that. they better check your overseas accounts because i don't trust any of them. host: ok, we will go to mary in

philadelphia calling on the democratic line. mary. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. i agree with the last gentleman that called. we should not be providing aid, foreign aid to all of these countries with no oversight. i worked for the government for 45 years. and i saw it firsthand. we have no one in place to verify exactly what they are doing with this money, and that is with all aid packages, even domestic aid. we need to make sure that we hold these people accountable based on the system that we have in place. now we are looking at israel. israel was listed as the richest country in that region with no oil, and that was based on the international stock exchange. we have been funding israel for

i would say over 45 years, maybe even longer than that. and for a two state solution, which they had no agreement in place to do anything about a two state solution. ukraine, based on when someone was the president of ukraine, he was listed on the panama papers where they had siphoned money off. you know, until we have strict oversight over these countries and even over our domestic spending, we need to make sure that we hold people accountable and we do have the system in place because it is entered on our system based on ronald reagan integrating everything when he was president of the irs , security exchange commission,

the state and federal government, also, fbi, cia. everything has been integrated. only thing we have to do is look up who is stealing money from the government, and we do have government officials, senators, and congresspeople. host: let me ask you, the bill that passed for ukraine, two parts of the bill is saying it converts all financial assistance to ukraine's government into a loan. it is a loan. also, it required the administration to submito congress within 45 days a stra establishing specific hievable objectives with metrics that define and prioritize u.s. national security interests. does that change your mind at all? caller: no because we have provided weapons to ukraine, and they notified the government

that the weapons were missing. so i am looking at no strict accountability of these governments. if they want to engage in wars, they need to borrow the money from anywhere, the world bank not just depend on the united states for them engaging in war. host: got your point. we will go to douglas in st. petersburg, florida, on the independent line. douglas. caller: good morning. i have been watching and listening to everyone and it appears to me that right now we are already in basically kind of a proxy world war and that these are becoming more testing grounds for weapons and military strategy. here in the united states, i think we should be looking to make this more real for the citizens to see what is exactly

going on there, maybe with live videos of the battlefields and with gaza, what is going on, to also maybe make direct taxes on people so that it is hitting us more in our back pockets so that if we pull out money for these, it becomes more real to us. perhaps even reactivate the draft and go to a wartime economy to building more weapons and things like that, so people can see and really feel what is going on. i think then they will get more involved in what is going on. host: we will go to bart in salt lake city, utah, on the republican line. bart. caller: hey, don't cut me off. the late senator ted kennedy, a reporter asked him, who is the smartest and who is the dumbest out of all the senators? he goes hands down, joe biden. who is the smartest, i don't

want to tell you because i don't like him. but you let these people go on and blather and always cut somebody off and they are getting to a good point about what is going on. we are losing our countr. y. this next election, we will lose our country. host: what do you think? caller: israel was attacked, and that is what you guys don't get. they attacked them. oh, my gosh. i hate even saying it when they have done to the children playing soccer, you know? that is messed up. we can change it right now. if biden becomes president again -- you guys need to stop watching the barack obama baby channel msnbc.

that is all propaganda. nrp, propaganda. host: we will go to patrick in grand rapids, michigan, calling on the democrat line. caller: hi. good morning, and thank you very much for taking my call. i want to briefly address the person who made the claim that zelenskyy was buying yachts and land in florida. i have done some really quick research on it, and a lot of critical resources are saying that never happened. i am surprised that people just take one piece of information and let themselves go with that as well. i am one of the people who do support the vote that took place yesterday. because i don't think we really have much of a choice when it comes to what could happen down the line. those are my comments. thank you very much. host: we would go to steve in robert co., missouri, calling on the independence line. steve. caller: yeah, i think it is

great. wherever that guy gets his information from, fox news i guess. it is money well spent. the republicans stole $2 trillion when trump was in office so if they want to complain about the money, but they go back and take the tax cut and let them pay all that money back? that is a really good idea. i just want to appreciate all of the congress and the president for passing this bill. i may not agree with everything they do, but i sure agree with this. thank you, and god bless ukraine. host: from the "new york times," they have an article talking about the arms. the article that was just passed yesterday by the house is worth about $60 billion. a sizable amount is to

replenish the u.s. stockpile and billions more to purchase u.s. different systems, which officials say are badly needed. u.s. officials have not explicitly said which weapons the united states will send as part of the package, but the pentagon press secretary told reporters thursday more air defense and artillery ammunition would probably be included. we will go to arthur in florida on the republican line. arthur. caller: yes, ma'am. two things we need to think about. what the -- one, the united states is paying the bulk of all of this with ukraine, kind of like a bottomless pit. our allies don't seem to be paying their share when they are the most closely affected. secondly, we were warned many years ago to not be in tied with

european internal affairs. we were warned about that. our nation has been involved in too many outside squabbles. it is time we take care of america. look at how many veterans are homeless right now. look at how many people need help and don't get it because all of it is going overseas. thank you for your time. bye. host: we will go to ray in pittsburgh on the democrat line. ray. caller: hi, how are you doing? three things. first, i am tired of these people calling and saying this money is the only money we have left in the world that we are sending to ukraine and when we send this money out to foreign countries for aid, it is the only money we have in the world.

there is no other money in the united states but this money and if we send it there, our poor people won't get taken care of, our veterans. no one will get taken care of because that is all the money we have ever. that is so stupid i can't stand it. number two, the aid package was fine. i think that was a good thing to do. and number three, it is not the democrat party, it is the democratic party. get it right when you talk about the lines you are calling on. it is the democratic line, not the democrat line. thank you. host: we will go to john in wisconsin calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. i agree with marjorie taylor greene, the speech she gave. she was 100% correct. it is terrible. war is just not good. host: how do you feel about the bill that was -- the bills that were passed yesterday? caller: i was really against it

all. it is just a big war machine. host: you were against all of the eight bills, for israel and ukraine taiwan, all of them? caller: well, i think we should take care of our own border first. i don't know why congress can't do anything for us. it seems they care more about funding these wars then protecting our own border -- than protecting our own border. host: ok, we will go to christopher in california on the democrats line. christopher. caller: yes, i was wondering why they have ukrainian flags waving in our capitol, kind of like a disrespect to our country. host: were you watching the debate yesterday? caller: yes. i was kind of concerned about the overseeing. it passed overseeing the funds in ukraine, which is kind of

scary as well. why wouldn't they want to see what is going on with you spending over there? host: ok. we will go to lori in youngstown, ohio, calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you? hope you are doing good. i am totally against all funding of war. and these packages are warmongering packages that will only enable the ukraine war, russian war to continue. we should have a peaceful negotiation there. i am against any further funding to israel until they stop the apartheid state and the genocide against the palestinian people. i am a pro peace person i do not support any politician.

we need to stop this. we need to take care of our own people that are starving and out on the street. this needs to stop. we have no say. we have no say. i don't want my tax dollars to further fund these criminal wars. you have a great day. host: the ukraine aid bill totaling $61 billion passed yesterday by a vote of 311 -112. the 112 who voted against it were all republicans. dear is democrat representative betty mccollum from minnesota. he was on the floor yesterday before the vote, speaking in favor of the a bill. [video clip] >> it has been six months since president biden sent his security supplemental to the congress, two months since the senate passed it, but today, the house finally acts. it is not a moment too soon for

the situation in ukraine is dire. vladimir putin has failed to release thousands of ukrainian children who have been kidnapped and continues to murder ukrainian citizens on a daily basis. the ukraine military faces a severe shortage of ammunition, ammunition to protect their citizens and sovereignty. and why? because for months this house has remained silent, but today that changes. today we will pass this legislation we will provide security and economic assistance to ukraine. we will replenish depleted stocks of u.s. equipment at home, and we will join and show the baltic nations, romania, and poland, that we stand with them along with our european allies. together we will support the ukrainian people in their fight for freedom. we will make it clear to authoritarian nations that american will always stand democracy here at home and around the world. host: we will go to bradley in georgia calling on the democrats line.

bradley. caller: yes. i am super happy the bill got past. i just hope it is not too late. what i want to say though is we have a horrible problem, like over 100 republicans basically they are either willingly or they are actively working to help russia. marjorie taylor greene, if you look at the talking points that come out of the kremlin but they are word for word what she says the next day started out by fox news. this is a real problem. i don't think people are really coming to terms with it. what do you do when these people know they are helping russia? they are actively helping russia. at that point, what are they? are they breaking laws? or are they traitors? you hear the same talking

points, our border, secure our border first. we will have to come to grips with people in our country are russian traitors. thank you. host: jerry in alliance, ohio, calling on the republican line. jerry. caller: yes. i am against this bill. and the reason why i am against it, for the past 50 years, every two years, every two years for the past 50 years there is war in israel or something like that and we have been helping these people out, and it is time to stop. it is time to stop this. host: we will go to henry in new york on the independent line. henry. caller: yes.

i am for what they voted yesterday. the only issue is there is no justification for the money that is being given to ukraine, ok? the other thing is we have to take care of our border. and that is the one thing that is most important to this country right now, because we are being basically invaded. it has nothing to do with republicans, democrats, or independents. it has to do with the united states of america. host: ok. troy in georgia calling on the democrats line. caller: yes, i am for the aid package. i am a united states army veteran, and i have been there, and i have seen what happens. to fight tierney, you have to fight it with a long arm. i am all for the aid package. host: we will go to mike in

california calling on the independent line. mike. caller: yeah, i am against the aid package. just for the democrat that was speaking on the democrat line earlier, i think it is more important to secure our own borders first. not only our borders, but i think europe should be pitching in a little bit in the ukrainian war. we can't even track the money we are giving them. i think we need to speak or concentrate on america first. our veterans, everything here, and then worry about other wars. host: one of the previous callers brought up securing our own borders. and according to the washington examiner, they have a headline on passing the border security bill meant to appease johnson's right flank. they also voted on that yesterday, and it failed to move forward.

we will go to roger in fort wayne, indiana, on the democrats line. roger. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. i am for the aid packages, especially for ukraine. because of our commitment that we made years ago to them. not so much as for israel because of the regime that is in israel right now that is following trump in doing his bidding or whatever. i want to address to the people who is claiming there so -- they are so concerned about veterans and spend the money at home, but when president biden first got in office number president biden and the democrats, they tried to spend the money at home and help the working class and help the veterans and help the single mom, but the very ones that are claiming to spend the money at home now, they were preaching to us about how we were always for

spending and it is reckless spending and it needs to stop. now they are talking about spend the money at home. if you conservatives actually really wanted the border secure like you are claiming, you would work with the democrats and secure the border instead of just complaining about it. but we already know that you guys really don't want the border secure. you just want to use it as a political weapon against the democrats in hopes that it gets your god back in office. look, people, as long as we keep listening to these conservative, evangelical republicans and their misinformation, propaganda, conspiracies, and lies about country will stay divided. we got to stop listening to them. they are lying to us blankly. host: got your point, roger.

we will go to john in virginia calling on the republican line. john. caller: good morning. the way i see it, america's chickens have come home to roost. we get the dumbest senator in america to the white house. russia would have never invaded ukraine with donald trump in office. host: ok. we will go to mary in michigan calling on the independent line. mary. caller: good morning. i just want to say i am all for the aid package. i think my fellow callers should get out a map of the world and look at it. it is in our moral and national security interests. i read a column yesterday by mark theissman.

it tracks where weapons are made in the united states. and it showed the district where people that representatives that voted against the package yesterday. each of their districts where the weapons are actually made in their districts, and they voted against the good paying manufacturing jobs that have been in their districts for really decades. 90% of the weapons that we are sending are made in the united states. it is kind of ironic that the one thing the united states is actually making and not china is weapons. i don't like to say that i am hearing rampant misinformation, russian propaganda on the house floor. several of the representatives have been on the news lately saying they are hearing word for

word russian propaganda on the house floor. there is not a blank check. all of this is tracked. people need to realize europe is 10% of the world population. look at the size. the united states of america is 340 billion people. we are number three in the world population. poland, the small country of poland, i would like to say they have taken in over one million refugees. from ukraine. when people talk about the southern border, they act like we are being attacked by tanks and guns. that is what ukraine has been attacked by, so you need to just get out a map of the world and look. we don't have people coming over the mexican border or over the canadian border with tanks and guns and bombs. and for that, i rest easy at night and am so thankful to be

an american citizen at this time in this world. host: the house passed those bills yesterday, and the senate is expected to take them up on tuesday. yesterday, president biden put passage of those bills.house's he said, tmembs of both parties in the houed t advance i wouiona security interests and send a m about the power of american leadership on the world stage at this critical inflection point. they came together to answer histories call, passing urgent needed national legislation i fought hard to secure. it comes at a moment of great urgency with israel ci unprecedented attacks from ira, the ukraine under ntued bombardment from russia. to thank speaker johnson and the bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in the house who voted to put our national security first. we will go to randy in madison,

wisconsin, on the democrats line. randy. caller: i want to reiterate the statements that actually -- thank you for having my call and for hosting this wonderful program. i want to reiterate the statements other people have said this morning and the fact that the republican party seems to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of russia. i don't understand why they keep supporting russian talking points. could it be the money maybe? barack obama and 2010, when he appointed the supreme court during his address to congress, he said money in our politics, and it looks like money in our politics again. i don't understand why. nobody wants to address the fact that russia and their money in our politics is corrupting america. this is a wrong thing.

several people have talked about it this morning, and i reiterate their comments. they both said, why are we talking about russians? i don't understand. we should be supporting ukraine, and we have done this. host: randy, what do you think of the bills that passed yesterday, the $61 billion for ukraine? caller: it is a starting point, but we need to help them. do you want to send your boys and girls to russia -- sorry, to ukraine to die? no, i don't, so we should support them. host: we will go to kevin in connecticut calling on the republican line. kevin. caller: hi, how are you doing? the bill i guess -- i don't know, kind of torn with the bill. we give these guys money and i think it was said before that no one is held accountable for

where the money goes, so i kind of -- that worries me. but the other thing is we are the youngest country in the world and yet we give the most to other countries. you are not even listening to your callers. when i go to the grocery store, i pay $60, $70 for a bag of groceries. the gentleman who said the $90 billion or whatever the package was, we are going to run out of money, we are running out of money. our country is in a lot of trouble, and we need to protect our border and us. but we need to find a balance with giving aid to other countries and giving aid to our country. host: how do we find that balance, kevin? caller: i don't know. i am 63. i am a vet. i am a republican who wants to listen to both sides, but i think that the both sides somehow get stuck with their

lost ways. when i grew up, the aisle was crossed. today, there is no aisle. there is a wall. and we need to somehow figure out how to break that wall down and let all representatives represent us and give us a choice. because we don't have these choices. they make all the rules. they make all the decisions for us, and i think a lot of americans, republicans, democrats, independents, would like to be part of the decisions that america makes towards other countries. i think we should give money to other countries, but i think we have to have a fair balance of what money we give to them we give to us because i know people have said it with the bridges and this and that, so we do have problems, but i just wish the republicans and the democrats

would just work together, and the blame game has to stop. donald trump this, donald trump that, biden this, biden that. whatever. we all have our own paths too like our representatives and we will not waver for them but i think that is a bunch of crap. we need to be able to work together. talk about that. talk about working together to resolve that problem and the problems will go away. that is all, thank you. host: we will go to jeremy in madison, wisconsin, calling on the independent line. jeremy. caller: hey, what is going on? i don't know randy and i am not looking at randy right now but you know what i am looking at? i am looking at a guy across the street and a blanket who has been there for i don't know how long right in the middle of downtown. what is the price of gold? the russians got gold. we got gold. gold means something. does ukraine mean something? i don't know who you are or you

can be. host: we will go to frank in st. paul, minnesota, calling on the democrats line. frank. caller: how's it goinghi. -- hi, how's it going? host: doing well. can you turn your tv down? caller: yes, i am turning it down now. host: thanks. caller: obviously, i am a democrat. not a lot of people have a lot of faith provided. i was wondering if it is actually true that hunter biden did smoke crack. i am not sure if that is true or not. host: we are talking about the 80 bills that were passed yesterday. do you have a comment on that? ok. we will go to bob in tennessee calling on the republican line. bob. caller: ok. what don't make sense to me is we are going to throw good money at bad bunny.

what i mean by that is trump had sanctions on russia. and then biden left some. we are fighting money against money. i guarantee you unless we go to war with them, same thing with iran. he puts they got money to fund hamas and all of these other terrorist bills. but anyways -- ma'am? host: yes. caller: but anyways, we are going to give our tax dollars to fight these wars that are never going to end unless somebody really gets blown completely out of the water. it is because both sides have money to fight it, so how long is the war going to go on?

and then let me say one last thing. one thing obama said, and i am not a democrat at all, but i believe the reporter asked him, do you think -- what did he think about russia? like was he worried about them. he said, no, we would crush them. that right there tells me all of these politicians are going to make money on these bombs. they got stocks in them weapons. i will guarantee you, just like nikki haley did. host: ok, we have time for a couple calls. we will go to mike in north carolina on the independent line. mike. caller: thank you, c-span, for taking my call. the reason i am calling in, i am just glad to see that finally democrats and republicans joined together to pass legislation. that shows the power that we are

the united states of america. thank you for taking my call. host: we will go to cheryl. oh, i am sorry, we lost cheryl. we will go to stephen louisiana on the republican line. caller: yeah, i just wanted to say that the package that they have is way too much money for our country to take in. we have $8 trillion we have given the world as of the last three years. we have nothing being given to our border, and our borders are being taken care of, so that is all i had to say. thank you. host: we will go to terry in joplin, missouri, calling on the democrats line. terry. caller: yes. host: hi, terry. caller: hey.

host: do you have a comment? caller: yeah. i was going to say i agree 100% with what joe biden has done. he does not want to go over there and shoot them. he wants to do everything through diplomacy, which is great. world war ii, if we did not step in, look at what happened. the jews. if we wouldn't do nothing. the jewish people would be killed, you know. host: all right, that does it for this first hour of "washington journal." up next, we are going to be joined by cook political report founder charlie cook to discuss the issues of campaign 2024.

and later, we will be joined by bradley bowman of the aid foundation for the defense of democracy to discuss the israel-hamas more in the recent strikes between israel and iran -- war and the recent strikes between israel and iran. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are out for the passover holiday. on wednesday, from the washington national cathedral, a conversation between former congresswoman liz cheney and historian john meacham, how america's leaders can put principles first and americans can improve on relationships. on thursday, the supreme court of your oral argument to decide if former president donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. and former members of the house and senate meet for a conference to discuss the current state of

congress and potential changes it could implement. to operate more smoothly. on saturday, the white house correspondents dinner, washington's premier black tie event. this year's headliner is "saturday night live"'s: just come and is set to speak. live on the c-span networks or on c-span now. also head over to c-span upward for scheduling information or to watch live or on-demand anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> celebrating their 20th anniversary of our annual student cam documentary competition. this year, c-span asked students to look forward while considering the past, 20 years into the future or 20 years past and in response, we received thought-provoking and inspiring documentaries.

our top award of $5,000 goes to nate coleman and jonah -- come 10th graders in connecticut for their compelling documentary innocent held hostage: navigating past and future conflicts with iran. >> and it is evident that in the next 20 years the lead state make -- must make more policies that placed heavy restrictions on all americans traveling to iraq because not only will be see less hostage-taking united states will no longer have to participate in such considerable negotiations with iran. >> congratulations to the winners and be sure to watch the top documentaries on c-span every day this month on c-span or anytime online at c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: juuling this now is charlie cook, the political report founder and contributor. thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: we are going to talk about

campaign 2024 and why don't we start with the senate, where does the battle for the senate stand right now? guest: the senate and the house are very different animals. the house, all 35 seats are up every two years that the senate, only one third is up every two years and it matters which one third. if a party has a really great year, six years later they may be overexposed. this is really bad for democrats because they have basically nine seats that are more vulnerable bad the most vulnerable republican seats. it is an unfortunate situation for them. they are defending three seats that are up and states that donald trump kerry twice. ohio, montana and west virginia. and four more that he carried in 2016, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania and arizona. democrats are playing defense right now. they can't have anything go wrong without losing control of

the senate. host: you wrote a piece recently that said rather than asking if the democrats could lose control of the senate, the better question is what the republican majority could look like. so what could that look like? guest: given that west virginia, where joe manchin is retiring, given that that sequel turnover, that is 50-50 so if trump wins, they could go 7-01 9-0 for vulnerable republican seats and still lose the majority. but i think if democrats could get out of this with losing only two or three seats, they would be really pretty lucky. we'd seen years where parties have lost 7, 8, 9 or more. 1980 they lost 12 seats. this can be a horrible night for democrats or a could be just

kind of sort of bad, but it is pretty unlikely he will be great. host: jon tester is seeking his fourth term and npr has that article, the headlines that he is pitching his usual moderate message as he is seeking reelection. does that moderate vision still work for him in montana? guest: it has worked well, but doesn't work well enough. the analogy i'd used is you could be an olympic gold medal swimmer but if the undertow is great enough, even you could get pulled under. i think jon tester and jerry brown are the only democrat who could possibly win statewide, but the question is how many trump voters does tester need to convince to vote for him as well? how many trump voters for brown?

we are not seeing a whole lot of ticket splitting anymore. ap research center figured out that since 2012, 91% of senate races are won by the party that carried the state that night or two years earlier. in 2016, all 34 senate races went exactly the same way they were going presidentially. in 2022, it was all but ron johnson. we are nationalized in our voting now. host: we are still several months away from the election but are you seeing any of that right now from last election carryover? where it seems to be following that same trend for this year? guest: well, it's too early to say because i think the defining thing for republicans is 2022

that made the night not what it should have been is that they nominated in about two dozen key races around the country some pretty exotic candidates. if republicans had nominated a pod plant it would have done better than whoever was nominated. there were about four senate races in four governors races, the attorney general, secretary of state had races where republicans just nominated the wrong people. it's too early to know who is going to come out of all these primaries, too early to say whether it will be the same dynamic or not. host: only one third of senate seats up, but all those house races are up for reelection. what do those look like right now, what are you watching? guest: think of coming out of 2020, the democrats lost seats they held onto by have a dozen seats. 2022, republicans got a majority

but only held on by a half dozen seats this election there are more republican seats in districts that trump won, or more republican seats in districts that biden won in 2017 vs. democratic seats that trump won/ but i'd call it a draw. it is going to be within a handful of seeds one way or the other, most rightly. host: you wrote a piece recently, for democrats the best shot at the firewall is winning back the house. what kind of chain democrats have? guest: in this context, president biden, it is hard not to say that he is at least something of an underdog. the senate is just about gone for democrats. so if democrats are going to have any way of keeping a check on former president trump, it is

going to have to be the house. there, they at least have a 50-50 chance. obviously you fight the presidential race as hard as you can, you fight the senate race as hard as you can, but i think the house in some ways is more critically important for democrats or republicans. host: you noted in one of your piece is if republicans win the senate and democrats take the house, it would be the first time in history that both were split. guest: right. you see one party gaining seats in the senate, the other in the house, but not flitting in opposite directions, ever seen. but again, the senate is about the map and the house is generally a little or that national trends for ready prevailing winds happen to be.

host: how likely do you think it is for that to happen? obviously you talk about the senate pretty likely to switch. guest: i don't know, 35, 40% chance? maybe a little higher than that. if the house is 50-50, we will see. host: we are talking with charlie cook, founder and contributor of the cook political report. if you would like to estimate question, if you have a comment for him, you can do so by calling in now. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. president biden and former president trump, you look at their polling, they have been pretty close. there have not been big shifts.

what, if anything, is going to move the needle between now and election day? guest: i think we have to remember that the national polls, a whole lot anymore through american history in the 1800s, 1900s, only three times that you have in versions for the popular vote went one way and electoral college when the other in 2000, bush/gore. 2016 it happened, it came within 126,000 votes of again in 2020. and part of the problem is yet, there is some polar representation of republican the electoral college because they had a lot of these really small states, but democrats run up the score and a half dozen or so big states that were the distorts the national polls. so for example, once you win a state by one vote, that's it. you don't get bonus electors for

winning big. biden carried california by 5.1 million votes. 5.1 million votes, had no effect whatsoever on the electoral college. the top 10 states in terms of wasted votes, democrats won one through seven and it was only when you got to 8, 9, tennessee and alabama that you got republicans wasting additional votes. i think a democrat has to win nationally the presidential race by 3, 4, maybe even 5% before that is likely to translate into 270 electoral votes. host: you talk about not paying attention necessarily to national polling. what is a better indicator to watch? guest: it depends on your definition. there are six swing states that joe biden carried in 2020, and

right now he's running roughly even in two of them, wisconsin pennsylvania, and running behind in the other four. michigan, nevada, arizona and georgia. some people also add north carolina which trump just barely won. but when you are behind in four at of and running only even in two, right now the electoral college, it wouldn't be that close if you had it today. now, it is not today, but we also find that races aren't nearly as volatile as they used to be because you got 90, 91%, 92% of voters pretty much baked in. 45%, 46 percent for democrats, for republicans. there are high floors and low ceilings for both parties.

you don't have the big variations like he used to have in presidential races. host: we are starting to get people on the lines to talk with charlie cook. dayton, tennessee, democrats line, you are up. caller: this is irvin porter. i'm calling about when the government took social security money, u.s. government funds, i want to know if they ever paid back. because some social security people didn't get much money. guest: i'm not an expert on social security funding but unless you die young, most people will come in -- come out,

a lot more money out of it than they ever put in. it is not actually true that social security is funding risk to the government because unless you die young, it is a heck of a program. it is not intended to be your entire income, but i think there's a lot of misinformation about what social security is and does. host: what have you been hearing about social security on the campaign trail from candidates? guest: to be honest, it's not something that i hear a great deal about. there happen other times i can think about in the 80's were there was a lot of talk about social security, but not so much now. people that have already retired or are approaching retirement age know it is going to be there in younger people need to worry about the future of the system and how to stabilize it so it

will be there for future generations as it has been for my generation and generations before us. host: we will go to mark on the independent line. caller: both the democrats and republicans know how much money they pay each year on taxes. why can't the president running for office say we want 20% or 30% of whatever money is coming in to go down on the deficit rather than the scan they are playing with now? what is wrong with that as far as who is going to elect who for what reason? guest: well, maybe we should put you one with the previous caller. i mean, the thing about it is we've got between our debt

service and between obligations, things that have already been incurred, there's not a lot of discretionary spending left, to be honest, in the federal budget. we are going to be spending more on debt retirement before too long and we are on anything else. it's not as easy as it looks from up there. it is a lot more complicated than i think a lot of people giving credit to be. host: rochester, new york, democrats line. caller: i see these polls, they ask like 1000 people, 900 people, but since 2017,

republicans hadn't been winning elections, it has been democrats. that is one thing i agree with trump on, the media. they are trying to hide everything up. i just feel like the democrats are going to blow them out. they keep talking about the border. trump told them no, so that is the only thing they have going for them, but other than than that i just think democrats have the edge. have a good day. guest: well i just take issue with the color on a couple of things. first he said that republicans haven't been winning since 2017. last time i checked, they won control of the house in 2022. but a poll of 1000 people, it called sample. i don't think the doctors ever

drained his blood to give him a blood test. you can do it with a test to or two or three. polling is not nearly as accurate as it was back in the day when everybody had land lines and there was no caller id and all that. but they are a lot more accurate than a lot of people give it credit for. a lot of people said the polls and 2016 said that hillary clinton was going to win. well, the polls did show that she had a three point lead in the national vote. guess what, she won the national vote by 2.2 percentage points, but is the electoral college that determines who the winner is going to be and national polls, no national polls break things down by state. but between the 2000 and 2016 appearances, why people should be watching these key states for clues as to where this thing is going to go. yeah, there is a fair chance that we could end up with a 269-

269 tie in this election. basically if president biden wins michigan and pennsylvania, wisconsin, and both the second district of maine and the second district of nebraska, that gives them hundred 69. if trump wins the seven swing states, this 269-269. that could happen. but polling is not as good as it used to be in a whole lot better than many people think. host: what would happen if they both get tied? guest: if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, it gets thrown to the house. but in the house, each state delegation gets one vote. north dakota gets one vote in california gets one vote. and the members of that house

delegations decide who is going to get their elector. right now, republicans have 26 state majorities, democrats have 22. there are two states that are tied. minnesota and north carolina. but it is going to be the next house, not this house that would be doing that vote in early january. republicans would have a little bit of an advantage, all that don't know exact what will happen in the house. north carolina is not likely to be a tie since the map has been redrawn in of the kids are likely to pick up two or three seats. this thing, i'm absolutely not saying that president biden can't win reelection, but it is a both uphill and a fairly narrow path. he doesn't have much room for error here. host: and polling isn't just

looking at who is ahead, per se at that particular moment. it also looks at other factors. some polling is showing the president biden is making ground younger voters. others are showing he has recently lost ground with african-american voters, hispanic voters. how important are those building blocks? guest: free democrats, he's going to win the african-american vote by a wide margin, but it is not likely to be nearly as wide as it was back in 2020 four that hillary clinton had in 2016. the latino vote, it is actually looking very, very close with polling showing a little bit one way or the other. in young people, obviously that was something they thought about a lot. i think the one route you could find that president biden is doing better than he did four years ago is college educated whites.

he is in some polling performing a little bit better than four years ago, but these other groups, it is more underperforming. overall nationally, the president is probably about seven points below where he was four years ago and trump is probably about two points below where he was, so that kind of gives you a picture of where things stand compared to four years ago. host: we will go to mike in virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. i don't know how to modify our system. we need to fix the system. choosing between the lesser of two evils is no choice. we have to overhaul the system. we have no true democracy when we have money coming in in campaigns. the senate chamber must be abolished.

you cannot have 775,000 with 40 million people having the same power. we need to overhaul the whole thing. the two-party system is not working anymore. it is almost identical to each other. guest: there is a lot to chew on there. i think i will go with the last thing first. you say two identical parties. our parties have never, ever, ever been more different than they are right now and i can remember 40, 50 years ago when there were a substantial number of conservatives in the democratic party and liberals in the republican party. lots of centrists voting in primaries on both sides. one of the reasons why we had one of the most stable democracies in the world is that we had two broad-based,

ideologically and geographically diverse parties with a substantial overlap. and the parties have moved out toward the flanks. it is one reason why our policies have gotten so volatile and unstable. the senate and the electoral college was the product of big states who wanted everything to be done by population, small states that wanted equal representation, and it was a compromise. at least in terms of the electoral college, i think nebraska and maine to a very interesting way that i think would be a good compromise on getting rid of the electoral college, which would mean presidential candidates and only run around 5, 6, seven major metropolitan areas that in

nebraska and maine, whoever wins each congressional district instead elector and whoever carries that state gets the other two. so there are two congressional districts in the maine and three in nebraska each to theirs separately. and that is one reason why for the last month, the 2020 election, you had both joe biden and donald trump going to omaha, to get the second congressional district was a competitive place. they would be no other reason they would be going there. i think it would be a better compromise between throwing out the electoral college and just having the sitting people basically take our presidents and a system where nobody really like to see somebody would a lot more popular votes and at the

other person gets elected. host: the color was also talking about not liking either choice, and gallup had a poll saying americans are showing average enthusiasm for voting in 2024. his enthusiasm is not there, could for her turn out the race? guest: i think voter turnout is going to be pretty low to be honest when you have two of the least popular nominees in american history, you are going to have a pretty low turnout. we had gone through 2018, 2022. 2022 was a record turnout for midterm elections. 2020 was a record high. we are not going to be seeing record high turnout the selection, and that is unfortunate but it is a sign of people on each side not being particularly happy with their nominee, but that is a problem of what is going on inside the

two parties rather than the national systems. host: do you think people will fit it out altogether or are they going to be looking at a third-party candidate like rfk jr.? guest: the thing about it is with the electoral college, we effectively codify a two-party system. that when you got a dozen or so states that are going to vote democratic no matter what, a dozen or so that i going to vote republican no matter what, an independent or third-party candidate would have to win something like 80% of the remaining electors to win the presidency which doesn't happen. a third-party candidate could be a spoiler but they can't be elected. it has been 1968 since the last time a third-party or independent candidate picked up even one elector, since a third-party candidate won a s tate. they can be spoilers, but they

can't be victors. host: illinois, democrat line. caller: good morning to you and your guests. first, i do have a question for mr. cook, but first i would like to congratulate c-span on their excellent coverage of the house of representatives. it was wonderful to watch that yesterday and actually see it working like it is supposed to. i don't think i've seen that in a long time. and i want to ask mr. cook if he has a cast on who may be taking mitch mcconnell's place as the senate leader. guest: oh, gosh. that is a really good question. originally it was between three john's. john thune, john rasco and john cornyn. but john rasco has opted to go for the number two spot. so it's going to be between john thune and john cornyn.

for these kind of inside caucus selections, the people that i talking don't know and the people that know are talking. but even on a secret ballot, even people inside the senate don't necessarily know what is going to happen. i have no idea who is going to come out. you could take a 50-50 chance and have a 50% chance of being right. host: minneapolis, minnesota on the republican line. caller: i was just wondering, is there a way to put the house and senate paychecks in a lockbox and not pay them until they actually do it? and a question about polling, i'm wondering, the christian

polling -- voting and how it affects republicans, i'm a first generation mexican-american. are we not joining those two to get more accurate polling on subjects such as that? guest: before you drop off, you use a term i didn't pick up on early on. our posters starting to look at what? caller: we have the christian ventricle poll, that vote affects it. a lot of mexican americans going through my generation are about family and protection. i'm just curious, we are starting to maybe think about merging them. guest: it is not a matter of merging them because they are taking samples and a lot of the

polling, or a good number of the national polls do segment out, and you can see how evangelical christians, how they vote. so that is just how you look at men, you look at women, evangelical christians is one of the breakouts in a lot of posters use -- pollsters use. they are being sampled and have been and will continue to be. but the caller does raise an interesting question, that because we are seeing a trend of more sort of erosion in support of democrats from the latino community and the african-american community, and there has been some research and some interesting books, and i think it was 538 and financial times about conservative latinos

or conservative african-americans had stayed voting democratic even though their positions were a lot more conservative, and you are now starting to see them starting to break away and move the other way, that there was sort of peer pressure or pressure within the community directly or indirectly of not defecting, and that now you are seen conservative latinos voting more republican and conservative african-americans voting more republican, and that is a relatively new trend that you weren't seeing 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. but those people have been sampled, they are being sampled and they are being broken out. there is a limit to when you're talking about 1000 samples and if the group is only 10%, that

is only 100 people, that is a 10% margin of error. a lot of times you want to combine a bunch of surveys so you can get a robust, big enough subsample of evangelical worship have a decent idea which way they are going. although we kind of do have an idea which way they are going. they vote very republican. host: on x, and that stevenson a question. she asked are these women getting the predicate health care rights returned to them on the role of mark what would that take? guest: it is interesting. i will use sort of abortion and reproductive rights in general. when it is the focal point in the election, when it is the thing on the ballot or one of the only things, or the thing the spotlight is on, it has been

very powerful on behalf of democrats and on behalf of reproductive rights. when it is in an election with lots of other things going on, g, and what is going on around the world and this and that, it gets diluted a lot. i think a lot of people think that it was the dobbs decision that made the 2022 results less favorable to republicans than they otherwise would then, and the theory is that millions of pro-choice voters came out and voted after the results of the dobbs decision. i understand the theory and it is very plausible, the data doesn't back it up. the fact is there were 9.8 million fewer votes for democrats in the house of representatives in 2022 than there had been in a 2018, the previous midterm election. about 3.6 million more republican votes in the 2022

than a 2018. if millions of pro-choice voters suddenly came out, where did they go? they weren't voting for the house of representatives. i think it had to do more with exotic candidates. we saw the power of in kentucky and the governor's race last year that ended up being a lot about abortion you saw it when it was on the ballot in michigan. without right bands, -- bans, a case can be made that the abortion issue will be more potent in 2024 than was in a 22. maybe it will, but that is to be determined. everybody has an opinion, but how many people are voting on that as opposed to the economy or donald trump's legal situation or all these other issues that are out there? it has got a lot of competition.

host: michael at hoboken, new jersey on the democrats line. caller: hello. hi. yeah, i had an idea. i'm liberal and i'm also conservative in some ways. i'd like -- to be president, hillary clinton to be vice president at john mccain's daughter to be's drove the house. it would be a great idea and fix a lot of stuff. thank you for letting me call. host: any comments? guest: i'm wondering which party would come up with that nomination. there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the nominees in both parties. i think there's a lot of ambition in each party, a lot of talented people, but for whatever reason, watching some

of the republicans that were going to the nomination, presidential nomination this year, it seemed like there were a lot of applicants for a position that wasn't open. a majority of republicans simply weren't looking for an alternative, so it was what it was. a lot of democrats would like to have been the nominee, but there was a lot of pressure on don't rock the boat. if you run against biden and effectively cost democrats the presidency, do you want to get blamed for it? so there's a lot of pressure in each party not to take on president biden. host: how important our vice presidents in this campaign? guest: generally speaking, people vote for presidents, not for vice presidents.

i don't think sarah palin cost john mccain the presidency to be perfectly honest. but when you got one candidate that is 78, another is 81, that could be more of a factor. i think for donald trump, and i want to make a distinction, that from an electoral standpoint, i don't think many people are going to be voting for or against that ticket because of whoever donald trump takes to be a running mate. i mean, they may be voting to renew joe biden's contract or against it or up or down on trump, but i don't think trump's running mate is going to make much difference. having said that, whoever trump's running mate is has a pretty good chance of being president of the united states within the next four or five years. so from a governing standpoint, the is important.

what in terms of affecting the outcome of this november election, i don't think it will or not. democratic start is a little bit more complicated because vice president harris' approval numbers are not very high. i think if biden had a more popular vice president, i think the pressure -- on one hand, the pressure on him to step aside would be higher, but on the other hand, i think there is uncertainty about whether harris would be a good president or not and that is one of the things that factors in because of joe biden's age. it is a little bit of a mix on the democratic side. host: lauren in minnesota on the republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i don't know why they are talking about biden bunning but

i am wondering if he makes it to november, how many times has he fallen? he muddles his sentences, gets names mixed up. there is no way he could run. there is a day and night difference between his energy and trump's energy. host: talking about dissatisfaction amongst -- guest: i suspect the caller watches a good bit of fox or something like that, everybody stumbles a little bit and if you've got news organizations that are going to replay it over and over and over again, it is going to have a stronger impression. never had anybody that is president at that age, and at the end of the second term he would be 86, closer to 90 than 80. but at the same time, and i

think there is no question, biden is three years and seven months older than trump. the perception, the age difference looks a lot wider when you sort of watch footage of both of them campaigning. biden does look a lot older than he did in 2020. i wouldn't want to have a lot of journalists that are going to focus on everything because they can make almost anybody look bad and let's face it, you have to be a little more careful. you're sort of shuffling and walking and taking smaller steps . host: oliver in falls church, virginia calling on the democrat line.

caller: good morning. host: good morning, you are on. caller: what is your name? host: my name is tammy. caller: this is tammy's first full show, everybody. she's doing a great job. tammy and mr. cook, i'd like to tell you i am a black man who retired living in the metro d.c. area all my life. mr. cook, i heard the comment you are having about joe biden losing some support in the black community. i'm going to tell you and tammy both this morning that blacks are going to come out like you wouldn't believe. i'm not sure about the numbers from last presidency, but what i'm going to tell you,

communicate and mingle a lot of people in the alcoholics anonymous program, i am not a drunk but i do believe the meetings. we all are going to vote like crazy. most of my friends, most of my people in the program that i deal with, go to conventions with are going to vote for joe biden. we think joe biden has done a great job. donald trump is a liar, a criminal being charged with crimes. he's got a fraud charge now for his company and congratulate himself on being able to sexually assault women and get away with it. how do you put him back in the white house? the american people ought to wake up and realize we have been lacking -- he would be the

laughing stock of the world if we put a gentleman like that or who is supposed to be a gentleman like that back in the white house. we need to give joe biden another chance to finish the job he started because he has done a lot of good for the black immunity, like cutting insulin prices down and getting infrastructure through. have a good weekend. guest: i appreciate the caller's passion. as a lot of c-span callers have, they obviously are very interested in this, they have strong opinions and they are willing to articulate the. i don't think there's any question that president biden is going to win overwhelming support of the african-american community, but it may not be quite the margins and there is a lot of data to support the enthusiasm a not be as great as

it was four years ago. people tend to look at these national polls and say yeah, he won the national popular vote by 4.5%, but when you break it down and look at it state-by-state, it was a lot closer, as i said earlier, one under 26,000. to just pay attention to the national polls is like going to a football game and watching totally guardage gained as opposed to the score, going to a hockey game and watching shots on goal as opposed to the points. biden losing to the extent that turnout among some of these core groups goes down or that he wins a group by 10 points as opposed to 15 or 20, back and mean the difference between winning and losing the election. host: vanessa in berlin,

maryland on the republican line. vanessa. caller: my comments, two things. just listening to the previous caller, i am biracial and i am a mother and i am a huge trump supporter and i absolutely will be voting for him again. and mr. cook's comments that everybody stumbles occasionally and there is more scrutiny on president biden i think is ludicrous because anybody with two eyes their head can see that he is suffering from what, i don't know, but he doesn't seem well. my question is i'm concerned about the illegal aliens and if they will be allowed to vote because here in maryland, and i work at the polls, we don't check ids for voting and anybody who signs up for social services, any type, is automatically registered to

vote. when people come in and automatically handy their id, because they just assume they need to show it, we are not even allowed to look at it. supporting much anybody can walk in invoke. and i'm wondering you think it will be a large poster -- portion of these illegal immigrants coming in that would be allowed to vote and if that is going to affect anything. guest: this country has got a lot of problems, there are a lot of things we don't do well. but i have never seen any credible evidence that there is any significant problem with illegal people voting. it is all sort of urban legend and all that. it just -- you can't say it doesn't happen, you can always get a few of something, but this is kind of a manufactured problem, to beyond we do a lot of things not so well, but the

amount of voter fraud in this country is infinitesimally small. i know some of the top republican elected lawyers in the country, people that were intimately involved in bush v. gore who say no, 2020 wasn't stolen. there is very, very little voter fraud. just as democrats exaggerate all the talk about voter suppression, and a lot of the changes that are being debated, argued about right now are whether to change things back to where they were before the pandemic, from changes that were made during the pandemic. i think between voter fraud on this side and voter suppression on the other, those are exaggerated far beyond any real

problem that is out there when elections don't go the way they like, they want to argue my candidate can't possibly have lost, that has to be stolen. everybody i know votes the same way i do. how could somebody else win the election? that is not the real world. host: we will go to sand in alexandria, louisiana calling on the independent line. go ahead. caller: yes, i don't understand something. something i hear about on these irregularities existing in the legal system today and in the judicial system. and they seem extreme to me from all the courses over the years i've had in law and our system of government.

why does not someone or somebody such as the state bar for some committee step in, like some of these counts against mr. trump are past the statute of limitations. if that is so, then why doesn't somebody step in and slap this judge's hand? you cannot charge him with this because of this, bam, and clear the air instead of allowing all the this argument over situations like this. guest: i'm not a lawyer so i can't address whether the statute of limitations has run or not my guess is if it has, in fact, run out and in there is a guilty verdict, it will come out on appeal. i mean, i would agree, i think

the new york case, the manhattan case of the weakest of the four prosecutions against from -- from -- trump and it is the one that appears to be the most overly political. trump numbers actually went up after that indictment and it is likely to be the only one with a verdict between now and the november election. but i would agree that it is not the strongest of the cases against him. if i were in the anti-trump camp, i would rather have had one of the other one go first than the manhattan case. host: we will go to vince in ohio calling on the democrats line. caller: hello. this trick could, i think you're being very disingenuous as to

the reason why the democrats are losing black support. democrats have treated like people at their go to for votes. latinos, the only reason they are going to vote for democrats is because democrats are catering to them to the extreme along with the illegal immigrants. when they get in, they will switch and vote republican. i think you're being very disingenuous when you mentioned latinos and black americans in the data that there is some sort of coalition. latinos are not going to vote for democrats across the board. the only reason they're going to vote for democrats is if their

ideas and policies are enacted. guest: i'm not sure where i was disingenuous because i was addressing each of those groups individually, not lumping them together, but there is very, very solid data that shows that while democrats are going to carry the african-american vote by a wide margin, it just doesn't look like it is going to be as wide. the latino vote democratic margins have gone down. i think they will carry the latino vote but not by the margin they did four years ago. i'm looking at hard data as opposed to just impressions by watching television, but i'm not sure where i was being disingenuous. host: has noted there is still

an enormous amount of tea in the november election. what are you going to be watching between now and then? guest: at least in terms of presidential, i'm going to be watching, to me, providing to win, he has to sweep pennsylvania, wisconsin and michigan. he has to win all three of those , and pennsylvania would be the one that he is in someone fetter shape than in wisconsin, and better shape in wisconsin then he is shaken, but he has got to win all three of those and to the extent that he loses any one of them, he has got to replace them with nevada or arizona or georgia or perhaps north carolina. in the senate, i'd be watching montana and ohio. because those are the two most

vulnerable republican -- democratic seats in the senate. i'll be watching those. in the house, it is a little harder to watch. host: we will go to chuck in allentown, pennsylvania calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. i'm listening to the conversation but i want to make a comment about what i saw yesterday in the house of representatives. after that $60 billion package this past three crane -- was passed for ukraine, american lawmakers are raising another foreign country's flag in the house of representatives. i found that to be extremely appalling and disgusting that we would have u.s. lawmakers that are in the chamber of the american house to raise flags like that. i want to know what mr. cook and

possibly what other people out there are thinking about that. thank you very much. guest: well, my guess is the vast majority of the member that were waiting the union flag probably have not been to ukraine, but that they were expressing support for an ally and support for a country that is unwillingly being a buffer between putin in russia and the rest of western europe. there used to be an ad for some kind of car repair, pay me now, pay me later, that i think if the united states to draw the line and the west draw the line in ukraine, we would end up having russia adversary in some other country. it would be nice if we could not have to spend any money anywhere else in the world, but i think

history has proven that when we allow problems to fester elsewhere, they end up coming home. they end up impacting us. you can just ignore them. it is kind of like the border immigration issue. if south and central america were more politically and economically stable, we wouldn't be seeing the level of people trying to get into this country. a relatively minor investment in trying to stabilize those countries would decrease a problem that we got on our own borders. it was a little bit of an exaggeration but not that much to say congress had a choice to be a chamberlain or to be a church hill. i'm sort of more sabbath that it with that. i don't think it was showing allegiance to ukraine than the united states, but it was being

supportive of the cause that americans ought to feel very strongly about in terms of stopping vladimir putin. host: didn't go to vandy in kentucky calling on the republican line. caller: good morning. you're saying that illegals do not vote. what is the definition of illegal? on november 6, 1986, ronald reagan said the illegal that came here, they must be a citizen. i don't even remember in the amnesty act where anyone can come into this country illegal. from november 7, 1986 until now, ever given amnesty with the right to be a citizen. guest: i'm not an immigration

lawyer, i don't think that is the interpretation i've heard many people use, but president reagan did sign the last comprehensive immigration reform act i know president george w. bush tried very hard to do one, but was not able to do it. i mean, the thing is that this country, one of the reasons why we became a great country was people from other parts of the world wanted to come here to find greater opportunities, and it provided us an almost unlimited supply of labor, a bigger consumer market, and really was a power. you look at the disproportionate ceos of major companies in the united states sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of immigrants.

there are some statistics that show there are statistics that show immigrants have a lower rate of committing crimes than natural born americans. nativeborn americans, our child birth rate is down, you know. business needs workers. if this was simply an economic issue, i think it would be obvious we need to have more people break we should have some control of our border and there ought to be a better process of deciding who can come, who can stay, and who not. that could be done a whole lot better. the fact is we do need more workers. there is fresh blood that has been really important in terms

of building this country for 230-odd years. host: charlie cook sounder of the political report, and also contributor, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you and congratulations on your first full show. host: thank you. we will be joined by bradley bowman. he will be with us to discuss the u.s. role in the israel hamas war and recent military strikes between israel and iran. ♪ >> tonight on "q&a," the

filmmakers discuss their 4-4 netflix docuseries, "american conspiracy" about the events around the death of the freelance journalist in 1991. >> it was called "the octopus" because he starts looking into one 1980's scandal and that takes him into the iran-contra scandal and the october surprise and the savings-and-loan, and the same kind of players, nefarious players, their names are popping up here and there. >> the complexity of the story makes it difficult, so there were a lot of obstacles towards being able to find out what happened and being able to tell that story of what happened.

>> the filmmakers, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen on our free c-span now app. >> you say i am over the hill. some would say that is a man in his prime. [laughter] [applause] >> watch c-span's coverage live saturday with president biden expected to give remarks. our coverage begins at 6:00 eastern as journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. at 8:00 on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents' dinner live saturday on the c-span networks.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is bradley bowman, with the foundation for defense of democracies. we are going to be talking about the role of the u.s. in the middle east conflicts. welcome. guest: thank you so much, a pleasure. host: let's start with the latest on what is happening with israel and iran. there was a retaliatory attack. where are we? guest: thank you for the question. i think one would have to go back to april 1. on april 1, we saw a strike against a building adjacent to the iranian embassy in damascus where a number of islamic revolutionary officers were killed including a general. israel so i need most likely to

conduct the strike because, what is it doing in syria? it is facilitating the flow of weapons to hezbollah. we know that more than 3000 rockets have been launched into israel, and they are trying to open up another front. this will sound dramatic, but for the purpose of exterminating the state of israel. israel felt after october 7 and after many attacks by iranian proxies that it wanted to go at the puppet master. that is what it did in damascus on april 1. everyone knew that iran would respond. if you had asked me before the iranian response last weekend, i would have laid out a spectrum of responses. what iran ended up doing was among the most aggressive i would have predicted. it was quite surprising for . this was over 300 missiles and drones launched at israel

including 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and roughly 120 ballistic missiles. many of those came directly from iran. this was unprecedeedn terms of iran directly attacking israel and a coordinated attack from proxies including the houthis in yemen, and attack from libya, syria, and iraq. they timed the attack on israel so many of the projectiles would arrive at the same time. they launched the drone first because they travel slowly and take 10 to 14 hours to arrive. then they launched the cruise missiles that go a little faster and then they launched the missiles that would arrive in 12 to 14 minutes. you do that because you want them to arrive as close to the same time as possible for the purpose of overwhelming the air defenses of israel.

contrary to some reporting, i do not think any assertion this was not an attempt to kill would withstand scrutiny. the only reason they were unsuccessful is because of the impressive integrated air missile defense system and the support of the u.s. primarily but also the united kingdom, france, and some notable cooperation from arab partners. we only had a small number of ballistic missiles land in israel. some hit the airbase, minimal damage there. i would summarize the iranian attack on israel as an unprecedented complex attack intended to kill. and it was not for lack of iran trying. i would quickly note the friday before the iranian attack on israel, president biden was asked, what is your message to iran? he looked in the camera and said

"don't, don't." i think he repeated it for dramatic effect. the president was clear about what he wanted to see or not see from iran. how did iran respond to the warning from washington? they shrugged and proceeded to conduct an unprecedented, large-scale attack directly on israel, crossing a major rubicon. it seems they were not particularly impressed with the warning from washington. how would israel respond? for days, people were wondering. again, president biden said, "israel, take the win." i felt that was a bad response. i felt israel had the right and responsibility to respond. there was an open question of how they would respond. what did they end up doing?

there is a lot of reporting, and a lot of details are still unfolding, but it appears an israeli fighter aircraft launched a precision guided munition, probably more than one, and they targeted and airbase not far from the nuclear facility and targeted the air defense system and hit what they intended to hit. there is some reporting that may small drones were involved. it is possible this is not the first time israel has launched small drones inside iran. it is possible israel used these drones to have the iranians activate there are defense systems to eliminate -- illuminate their radars for the

purpose of hitting them. there are also reports of strikes in southern syria against the syrian military. if accurate, that would confirm what we think happened. you had israeli fighters that took off across southern syria. they did not want to be threatened by the syrian air defenses so they took out some of those radars, launched munitions, and hit what they intended. i know that is a lot of detail. here is a summary. israel accomplished with three or fewer missiles in iran what iran could not accomplish with more than 300 missiles and drones. i would say this was a very restrained response by israel against the direct attack by iran, but a restrained attack with a poignant message. the message is that israel can hit anywhere it wants in iran,

and it can do so quite effectively. and iran, if you make the unwise decision for nuclear capabilities, we can hit you there. host: you talked about the fact they were more accurate in their strikes. but iran downplayed the significance of what happened. what does that tell us about the situation? guest: great question. it seems israel had two grand strategic objectives. one was to try to restore the deterrents and say if you hit us directly in israel, we will respond. but they were also argued -- but they were also eager to not see an escalation spiral. they accomplished both objectives. consistent with israeli practice

, their approach is to let their acting do their talking. one of the advantages of living in a tough neighborhood like the middle east is it allows the iranians to deny the attack occurred. maybe it was kids with drones type of thing, and not respond. by not issuing press releases from jerusalem and making lots of public statements, it allowed iran for now to de-escalate. the covert aggression will continue. the ring of fire strategy will continue. for now, it seems we are not going to fall into an escalation spiral. host: israel had a direct attack on iran versus attacking proxies. why is that wise? guest: many have been concerned you have iran conducting a

strategy since 1979 where they have used proxy puppets to attack u.s. forces and israel and our arab partners. our counter punches are always directed at the puppets rather than the puppet master. from israel's perspective, the number one concern is iran's march towards a nuclear weapon. if you are only hitting the puppets, you are playing into iran's strategy of being the puppet master displacing countermeasures onto the puppets. i think there was a need to make clear that they can and will hit the puppet master and make clear there will be consequences if you attack israel directly, and that israel has its eye on iran's nuclear program and has the need to do something about it. host: we are speaking with

bradley bowman about the u.s. role in middle eastern conflicts. if you have a question or comment for him, you can join the discussion by calling in on the line for republicans them -- republicans, democrats, and independents. does the strike tell us anything about the chance of escalation beyond the two countries? guest: we have already seen escalation. we had an unprecedented assault on the freedom of navigation and shipping conducted by the houthis. you have the iranian proxy attacking international shipping affecting more than 150 countries, directly attacking u.s. naval vessels.

in some ways, we are already at war with an iranian proxy in the red sea. this is not only an american or israeli problem. this is an attack on a fundamental international interest in the freedom of navigation in many countries. many countries rely on being able to travel safely up through the suez canal into europe and vice versa. iran has long threatened to shut down the strait of hormuz. they can do that directly based on the geography. now, they are using the proxy to threaten one of the other four or five maritime choke routes in the world. from october to late january, you have over 165 attacks on u.s. forces. because of the failure to respond strongly, you had the

incident where tragically three american service members were killed. only after that, the administration finally responded with strength, conducting more than 185 strikes and killing the head of hezbollah in iraq. you know what happened after that? not a single attack on u.s. forces in iraq and syria. once again, underscoring that when we confront them with resolute american power, they tend to back down. host: we will go to regina calling from virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you. i am a little puzzled because you said iran did an unprecedented attack on israel. but i recall israel attacked iran first. israel is constantly making some

time attacks when they are killing iranian nuclear scientists, some of their litary individuals. when you say itwas , i am cfud. can you please state your reasons for tt,nd please be truthful and factual when you ke that statement, because that is the propaganda we have been hearing from many individuals in the u.s. government. so, please be factual when you answer my question. thank you. guest: thank you. we have a shared commitment to being factual. if i got my facts wrong, please let me know. i don't believe i did. i describe the attack by iran on israel is a complex attack that was unprecedented. what is unprecedented about the attack? this is the first time i am aware of where iran has conducted a direct attack itself from iranian soil into israel. that is a fact. look it up. you are saying israel attacked iran covertly before.

that is absolutely right. we can go around and around. here is the bottom line. israel is fighting for its survival. israel is not saying it wants to exterminate iran. iran is the one launching missiles with words written in hebrew "death to israel." this is not just bluster some might want to dismiss. they are backing up with action. do not forget what happened on october slaughter -- october 7. the worst slaughter of jews since the holocaust. do not miss hezbollah launching so many attacks into israel that you had thousands of israelis have to leave their homes. one country is sending things to the border for the purpose of attacking it. the other country is trying to defend itself. trying to suggest moral equivalence is ill-informed. host: we will go to london,

england, on the independent line. caller: i'm calling from london. i was introduced to c-span through bbc news broadcasting 20 years ago. unfortunately, they stopped a few years ago. i hope bbc will reconsider the decision and start broadcasting c-span again because the u.s. is an important ally and we should know more about u.s. politics and their attitudes about world affairs. that is the first thing i wanted to say. secondly, to your guest, mr. bowman, i want to say when you are dealing with a religious regime like iran that believes in self-destruction, we have to accept that deterrence does not work. we keep getting western politicians applying western solutions to middle eastern problems. in the middle east, in order for any deterrence to have an impact

, the attack has to be at least three times any attack. unfortunately on this occasion , the attack was too little and would have no mom -- almost no impact on the iranian attitude. i wish the western politicians with think again about how to advise allies in the middle east. guest: thank you for the call. a lot of significant points. i will try to address a few of them quickly. saying the regime in iran is not your average nationstate, i would agree with you. that is one of the fundamental flaws with a lot of the policies from washington and the biden administration. i worked in the u.s. senate for nine years and had the opportunity to cease senator biden in action doing the best he could.

i think there is sometimes a tendency to view everything through the nation-state lens. it has some value. the bottom line is this is a radical regime that is a fundamental threat to regional security. that is one of the reasons you had the abraham accords a few years ago. you had bahrain and the united arab emirates finally admitting publicly what many arab governments had said for a long time, that iran was the threat to regional security, not israel. i agree you have to start with an accurate diagnoses of your adversary to get effective prescriptions. after diagnosis suggests iran a process and brutalize as its own people and the more revenue it makes, the more it will export terrorism and build on the largest missile arsenal in the world. as we saw a few days ago, this is not for show. this is for the purpose of killing and attacking israel and attacking u.s. forces, which we

have seen over and over again. your points on deterrence, i will not bore the viewers with a lecture. the bottom line is deterrence is what they think about our political will and military capabilities that prevent them from accomplishing their objectives and whether our response will make them regret it in the first place. that is a perception of military will and capability. what israel demonstrated was the military capability to do much more, and to do it effectively and precisely, while also being restrained. it is a bit like the iranians attacking israel is like a crazy, misbehaving, out-of-control child lashing out ineffectively. the israeli response was a confident adult spanking the child. host: yesterday, the house

passed a series of foreign aid supplemental bills that included more than $60 billion for ukraine, more than $26 billion for israel, $8.1 billion for taiwan in the pacific, and the 21st century peace through strength act. what is your reaction to those amounts and aid bills going through? guest: my reaction is better late than never. the biden administration requested this funding roughly six month ago. the senate passed a version several months ago. this version is quite similar. there are some improvements but it is largely similar. as we speak, ukrainians are fighting and dying to defend their homes against a brutal unprovoked attack by vladimir putin, the largest war in europe since world war ii. we have seen russian advances in recent days and weeks.

we have seen ukrainians dying unnecessarily because they have had to ration munitions. that is a direct result of an action in the house of representatives. this is not a game of risk. this is starting to feel like the 1930's from my perspective. you have americans generally and the republican party deciding what kind of nation we want to be, whether we want to lead on the international stage or we want to fall victim to more isolationist tendencies. i am glad to see the house passed this legislation because it will help restore democracy. it comes down to this. either give your democratic partners the means to fight or we will have to send americans to fight and die later. i would rather send weapons than our soldiers. host: i think this question is

based on your summary of israel's taliatory attack on iran earlier this week. bobby on x asks, why does israel need u.s. war machine support? guest: i am not sure i would respectfully agree with the premise. i do not think israel can dominate iran. i think iran is a formidable adversary. it has significant conventional capabilities. they are not 10 feet tall. that is one of the mistakes we make. we treat t cventional running mattila terry -- military as 10 feet tall. they are not. they tend toack down could we did a study from 2021 to 2023. i think we documented 26 incidents. this is all on our website.

when the u.s. navy showed up, they ran. iran has significant ballistic missiles. we saw in the recent attack roughly half of them failing. i think it would be a mistake to say they are a paper tiger. they are not a paper tiger. do not be overconfident. they have a network of terrorist proxies that is formidable. they are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism so they are not to be dismissed lightly. but to suggest israel can dominate iran i think is inaccurate. my great now is what a major war with iran and israel would like when you have hezbollah with roughly 200,000 missiles, rockets, and mortars directly attacking israel. i worry that could overwhelm israel's air missile defense system. some of my israeli friends get

upset when i say that. my response is that israel's enemies know this. we need to make sure americans know it so we can do something about it. that is one of the wonderful things about the legislation that just passed in the house and that hopefully president biden will sign into law. it includes $4 billion to replenish iron dome, to build israel's defense capacity. not for the purpose of attacking labors but to defend innocent israeli lives. host: we will go to harvey in dallas, texas, calling on the republican line. good morning, harvey. caller: good morning. i would like to thank the speaker for clarifying the issues. the comment i would like to make is our problem is we do not understand the culture in the middle east. we are talking about countries of a tribal nature. there are multiple tribes in iran.

they do not like the regime. all they want is leadership to overtake it. my question is twofold. i would like him to clarify the united states did not give israel money, that there are strings attached where 80% of the investments in israel must be returned to develop businesses in the united states. the second question is we talk about the organization care which is an offshoot of hamas, and its role on college campuses implementing the arguments we have seen in the united states. thank you and appreciate you taking my call. guest: you made two important points. we provide military financing

according to the memorandum of understanding. most of the money is spent in the united states. it is israel using the money in the united states employing americans, building our defense base so it is stronger to arm our own forces for the conflict we may face. there is a carveout where they can spend a portion of the money in israel. cut is going away each year -- that is going away each year. even if none of it was spent in the united states, i still think it is a wise investment and a bargain for the united states. this is not charity. i would say the same thing about helping ukraine and taiwan. this is not some hand out to an ungrateful recipient. this is a wise american investment to help democratic partners. in ukraine, we are helping people defend their homes. we are bruising put in, the home invader, so he reconsiders his line of work or does not attack

our home next. we are passing the baseball bat over the back fence so he does not attack our home next. all of israel's enemies are america's enemies. in taiwan, you have the people's republic of china making it clear they are willing to use the terry force -- took military force -- military force to extinguish freedom. it is likely the u.s. military will need to intervene. instead of sending weapons, we will be sending american forces. i would say let's and send money and weapons now to prevent a war. history tells us time and again it is much cheaper to invest in deterrence than fighting a war that could have been prevented. host: let's go to robin in new york calling on the independent line. caller: yes. i am calling, i am very troubled

by what bradley is saying. israel is really our proxy. the money you send means we are backing the mass murder happening in gaza. they are steamrolling bodies in gaza. iran is like a third world country. what we are doing is pretty much what we did to the indians in this country, the native americans. we are going to end up with 100,000 dead in gaza that cannot leave, and we are hoping that happened. i want to remind him there is an international court. they already view it that way. they have arrested officers and other countries from south america and brought them to trial when they have traveled to england. while he may think of this as israel defending itself, if this were between two people in the street and one person outright murdered the other one, which is

what is happening in gaza, they would be in jail. this man knows it. he knows it is not defense anymore. they are literally wiping out an entire population. they are steamrolling people even while they are still alive it is suspected. iran is a third world country. our hands are bloody. we are paying for this. if you were to step back, maybe things would work out. guest: thank you for the call. a lot of strong words. i will try to be respectful in my response. i wonder whether you would bring the same outreach to the events of october 7. i did not hear you mention october 7. i did not hear you mention human shields or terror tunnels. i'm not sure how much you understand urban warfare. i'm not sure how much you understand those issues. i do not think you can talk about the horribly high death toll in gaza. every civilian tragedy, every

civilian killed, father, mother, child killed, is a genuine tragedy. everything must be done to avoid that. here is the point. i did not hear you mention this. one side and the conflict in gaza wants to minimize the casualties. the other wants them. you say that sounds kind of extreme. what is the point of human shields? why does hamas build its command and control structure, why do we have thousands of hamas fighters hiding in tunnels right now underneath 1.2 million civilians? because they are using those human shields. 24-year-old men with ak-47s are hiding underneath women and children like cowards hoping either the israelis will not attack them because they want to survive to conduct another october 7, and if the israelis do attack, that is many civilians will die as possible so that there is more concern in washington and washington cuts off the supply of weapons to israel for the purpose of

defending itself. is the death toll in gaza horrible? absolutely. i would like a temporary cease-fire, too. there was a cease-fire on october 6 and hamas chose to break it. you want a two-state solution? i want a two-state solution, too. there will be no two-state solution until you have the destruction of hamas. thank you for the call. host: there is this headline that asks, what about us? do you see a difference in how we are protecting our allies? guest: thanks for the question. i think one would have to look at each of these situations for their own part. i am empathetic to zelenskyy's comments. i am empathetic to ukraine's needs. the delay has been costly. the europeans are stepping up.

in terms of total assistance, europeans have given more than the united states. that is important. they need our help in terms of weapons because so many european countries underfunded defense for so long that they do not have the arsenals they should have to share with ukraine and they do not have the robust industrial bases they need to produce weapons to share with ukraine. each country is different. overall, that is the situation. the good news is most of the european countries are moving in the right direction with defense spending that will allow them to help ukraine war in the future. the united states has unique role to play. what ukraine needs is more air defense capacity because the russians have been pulverizing ukraine's energy infrastructure. we have seen them on the move. ukrainians are doing their best to fight back.

they are trying to conduct some strikes into russia to raise the cost for putin. the united states has the means to help israel, ukraine, and taiwan at the same time with smart decisions. but we need to be building up our arsenal of democracy so we can continue to do that. that takes time and money. for too long, we have taken the walmart just in time model with our weapons so in a moment of crisis, the capacity is not there because we have been underfunding them. if you want a more robust defense industrial base, you have to buy more. you do not want to buy at the minimum sustainable rate. each situation is different. i think america has a fundamental difference in helping each of them. i hope we continue to do that. what happened on capitol hill this week i think is very positive. host: we have time for one more

call. we will go to ken in connecticut calling on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the gentleman mentioned what they are doing in our country and why we are allowing these terrorists in our country to have this organization. i have heard about this for three or four years now. i have not heard any more about it at all. i think they need to be eliminated. get them out of our country. why are we allowing these hamas supporters? if it was isis supporters, we would be arresting them in a second. these supporters for hamas are supporting terror against jewish people that have the right to defend themselves. if they were not attacked on october 7, none of this would be going on. i think we need to address those issues.

i think we need to get the facts out so people understand and stop the protesting in our streets. it is disgusting. it makes me sick to my stomach to see these people in our streets protesting for terrorists. we have a few of them going to school in our country. they are the ones out there. this has to be stopped. my last thing is what we need to do to build our military, i think we need to give more benefits to underprivileged families, especially moms raising children on their own. a lot of these kids are working to help support their mom and have a place to live because prices are so expensive that people cannot afford housing. it is just ridiculous the prices. those things, if you can address those for a few seconds, that would be great. thank you so much for representing america and helping our country. god bless. guest: thank you for the call.

two issues. on the first one, i will admit i have been troubled by some of the things we have seen in our own country in terms of the violence on our campuses and elsewhere. i am all for peaceful protests and the right of assembly, those constitutional rights, including for people who might disagree. that is one of the great things about the united states. express our opinions without fear. calling for violence or breaking the codes of conduct for universities, there has to be consequences. when there are not consequences, you will get more of it. i think students for justice in palestine is a big problem. you have american muslims for palestine, the parent organization. what seems clear to me is you

have money coming into a lot of college campuses from places like qatar. there seems to be an odd correlation between universities where there are the biggest problems with students for justice for palestine and money coming in from qatar. we might want to look at that. we need to establish between people expressing opinions and violence. if you have jewish students that feel unsafe and the destruction of the learning environment on college campuses being used as a weapon to provide israel with the means of defense by putting pressure on washington, that is a problem. the biden administration may have disagreements with israel. but when your friend is confronting one of the worst days of their lives, you do not gang up on your friend. i think the more public pressure the biden administration puts on israel, the more it is inadvertently empowering hamas,

extending the war in gaza, extending the nightmare for the hostages, and undermining u.s. interests. share those concerns behind closed doors. i would encourage them to think twice before you publicly jump on the bandwagon of those attempting to isolate and demonize israel unfairly. host: brad bowman, senior director at the foundation for defense of democracies, thank you. guest: really appreciate it. host: we are wrapping up today's show with more of your calls on our open forum. you can begin calling in now. we will be right back. ♪ >> matt drudge started his website called the drudge report

in 1995. in the early beginnings, he had just 1000 emailed subscribers. within a short time, that number jumped to hundreds of thousands. until the mid-2000's, mr. drudge was very visible. without notice to his public, he disappeared from public view. chris moody just finished hosting a podcast series called "finding matt drudge." we asked him to tell us what he found. >> chris moody on this episode of book notes -- booknotes +. weekends bring you book tv featuring leading authors discussing their lest nonfiction books. she talks about her upbringing and why young adults are leaving the evangelical church wither

book. then, the princeton university professor shares his views on black politics and how the black communy moves forward in america's democracy. he is interviewed by the harvard professor. watch every weekend on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime. >> browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we are in open forum for the remainder of today's show. we will start with chris calling from boston on the democrats' line. caller: my thinking is when we talk about how the exchange between israel and iran was a big thing for us, and i think the brief exchange may have been because they used hundreds of missiles to strike israel and the airbase were israel was able to use a few and hit iran, i think what is getting lost is i read in bloomberg repelling the attack from iran cost something like over $1 billion for nato, israel combined. where they spent a small fraction of that amount. it is a reminder of our tendency

to declare victory and in the long term we end up hemorrhaging money in the region and nothing changes or regresses. if exchanges like this continue, what is the price tag for us getting dragged into the conflict? is it really worth it for us when we are told we cannot fix basic things in the u.s.? host: we will go to diane in arkansas only republican line. diane? diane, are you there? we will give diane one more chance. caller: i am here. thank you for taking my call. i would like to touch on a few issues this morning.

one, the conflict in israel. israel has been attacked in 1947 when britain pulled out and they were declared a nation in 1948. they were attacked may 13. they were attacked in 1956. they was attacked in 1967. four countries. they got jerusalem back. they were attacked on october 7. those people came in and raped every single woman that was taken hospital -- hostage was raped. they burned people alive. they cut children out of mothers' bellies. they dragged old people out in the street behind cars. people do not know the truth.

israel has given land away during the carter administration, during the clinton administration. they were in gaza until 2005. in the george bush junior administration, they pulled out. for 18 years, the money given to them, they have not used it to build their own infrastructure, they depend on israel for their electricity, water, they have took that money and built tunnels and bought weapons underneath their schools and hospitals and they have got a huge amount of money from iran. iran is a huge country. they could easily go into syria and iran, but they do not want

them. they want them only to be there ponds -- their pawns and fight their war for them. same thing with syria and jordan. we have a lot of problems in the east because of our own decisionhis country. during the obama administration to congress and pleaded with the american congress not to enter into the iran nuclear accord. he flushed in syria -- he flushed israel under the bus. host: thank you, diane. let's go to s.j. in albany on the independent on. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an iranian american men slip for 40 years and am a

proud american. the jewish people were free and lived in iran for 2500 years. the persian king supported the building of the temple in jerusalem 2500 years ago. the jewish people lived in iran peacefully and 45 years ago when the islamic republic took power in iran ousting the shaw of iran. for 45 years, that cancerous entity has infected not only the middle east but the world. the time has come for regime change in iran. not by military intervention by western powers but by giving voice to the iranian people inside the country who face these brutes every day in the streets of iran. please, i suggest you call in

some of the opposition leaders to the islamic regime, starting with the late shah's son. people are calling for the return of the monarchy because the expand with the brutal regime for 45 years, and all they have done is poverty, sickness, war, and everything from all over this regime in iraq must go. when that is gone, everything will calm down. the influence of the cancerous tumor in the middle east any form of the islamic republic government who has little support amongst the iranian people inside, but they have all the power. please, c-span, invite opposition leaders, especially the late shah's son who lives in the maryland area.

that is all i have to say pretty thank you. host: from "the new york times, " an article that focuses on homelessness. it highlights a woman talking about how she became homeless. it says i never expected it to come to this. she is one of several hundred homeless people in the city in oregon, a town of about 4000, at the center of a major case before the supreme court with broad ramifications for the nationwide struggle with homelessness after grants pass stepped up enforcement of local ordinances that banned sleeping and camping in public spaces by jailing and finding the homeless . many states and cities are

increasingly overwhelmed by homelessness. they are hoping the supreme court overturns the decision or severely limits it. they argue it cripples their efforts to address the encampment's, rampant drug use, and fearful constituents who say they cannot use public spaces. tomorrow, the supreme court will be hearing that. c-span is planning to show those oral arguments live tomorrow at 10:00. we will go to tim in kentucky on the democrat line. caller: yes, ma'am. i would like to commend mr. bowman. he evidently has done a lot more research than all of these people calling standing up for palestine. it is a bad thing, i agree. but israel still has a right to

defend their salves -- selves. i just wish people paid a little more attention to what he is saying. thank you. host: we will go to eddie in plano, texas, on the independent line. caller: yes. is it possible perhaps israel's military has been stretched thin between such a small gap between these attacks recently? host: i am not sure, eddie. i will let you go and we will go to larry in oregon on the independent line. larry, are you there? caller: yes, i am here. hello. mr. bowman was very correct in

his statements. i appreciated that. my thinking on the problems facing our country and the world today emanates from a lack of influence from the federal government. that starts with a compromised federal judicial system. we need to reform the federal judicial system at the top. my thinking would be if we had a republican administration, the democrats in the senate would appoint an independent counsel to observe and make investigations into anything that had a potential compromising the federal

administration, and vice versa. we would have an independent counsel as opposed to a special counsel when there is a potential conflict. there has been many conflicts, especially around one of the reported offenses with the current administration with the taking of documents while the person was a senator and vice president and was not supposed to be taking those and turned it over to a journalist for the price of $8 million. we have a special counsel assigned to investigate that out of the attorney general's office that had been appointed by the president. that is not right. we need to have independent councils -- independent

counsels, not special counsels, independent of the attorney general's office when those occur. and then to have those two factions of the a.g.'s office and independent counsel debate that in open news conferences and let the public in the country become the grand jurors and make their own opinions. i think we could expose a lot of the problems in the country and get back on neutral ground. anyway, thank you for your time. host: we will go to lori in ohio calling on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is something i rarely hear on any station. the three words trump said about the big lie and all the money

being spent on security around this country to protect every single person that is a poll worker, a politician. and then, they complain about the money being spent to protect nato. it is just crazy. it is an absolute cult. if he gets immunity, god help us all. all the guy does is lie. he is right. he could [indiscernible] and get away with it. he is too much. he has got to go. thank you for my call. host: we will go to david in vancouver, washington, calling on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. for israel to have the right to defend itself, every nation

does, but killing innocent civilians and massacring so many innocent lives and thousands of people dying, that is not protection. that is genocide. and also, for the aid to israel and ukraine, we are piling up so much debt for our kids, our grandkids, in the trillions. we are bankrupt. we cannot borrow money to give it to other allies. it does not make sense. host: we will go to terry in north carolina on the independent line. terry, are you there? caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: i want to talk about e. jean carroll. anderson cooper, this is all

news, all the stuff they are doing to donald trump, this is before the other election. they interviewed e. jean carroll. anderson cooper interviewed her. she started saying, talking about and fantasizing. he totally got off the air and went to break. she was not on there when he got back on. did she lie to the judge? i think cnn, because she has been on there much, cnn should be accountable to that being on there air, and they aired it. you see that she is lying. the other thing, ukraine, i believe they are voting in our elections because a woman from chicago, african american lady, said that all the people she

talked to in chicago did not vote for johnson. the teachers unions elected him. i would like to know what they are talking about. randy bumgarner did go over to ukraine numerous times. i believe that has something to do with our election and our schools. host: one more call today. we will go to bruce in illinois calling on the democrats line. caller: good morning. listening to the discussion about israel and what is going on in gaza, this situation over there is so absolutely complicated. the history goes way back. just starting with prior to the formation of the state of israel, at that time, people who would become the state of israel were committing terrorist acts

against the british soldiers and administrators in that area. they were bombing things. they blew up jails. they blew up hotels to try to get the british to allow more jewish people in. after the state of israel was formed, suddenly, all of the arab nations in the area saying we do not agree with what the u.n. just voted on and we are just going to destroy this state. and they come in and attack them, and are surprised the people that comprised the state of israel at the beginning could defend themselves and keep them from overwriting the country. it goes on from there. there is blame on both sides. the israelis have done horrible things to the palestinians. the palestinians have done horrible things to the israelis.

the palestinians in the guises of hamas and hezbollah just launched missiles on a regular basis into israel. the iron dome was created because these organizations just randomly decided we are going to launch a bunch of missiles at them. host: that is it for today's "washington journal." thank you to everyone who called in and to our guests. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪