♪ host: good morning, everyone. yesterday on capitol hill to irs whistleblowers testified publicly for the first time on

alleged bias by the justice department in their investigation of hunter biden and his associates, his family and their finances. we want to get your reaction to what you heard from these irs agent yesterday. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. join us in a text. include your first name, city, state, at (202) 748-8003, or at facebook.com/c-span and we will also take your comments in a tweet, include the handle @cspanwj. good morning on this thursday morning. we will get to your thoughts in a minute but that's begin with the opening statement from one of those irs agents. gary shapley, whose name became public this summer, arguing that

there was bias by the justice department hind the scenes, behind closed doors, recorded about in recent weeks, but this is the first time that he testified publicly. here is what he told the committee in his opening statement. [video clip] >> i worked directly with states attorneys and have had supervisory positions across the country. lead, planned, executed undercover operations and search warrants in a dozen countries. investigated and managed some of the largest cases in the history of the agent the, recovering $3.5 billion for the u.s. taxpayer. we believe in the rule of law and that it applies to everyone. it should not ba.2 track justice system depended on who you are in who you are connected to but in my experience i'm here to tell you the delaware attorney's office department of justice

handling the hunter biden investigation was different from any other case in my 14 years at the irs. decisions were made at every stage to benefit the subject of the investigation. for example, prosecutors unsealed contents of the laptop from investigators. doj slow walked executing search warrant 10 document request, warrants that were ready as early as april of 2020 but were delayed until after the november election and never pursued. investigators not allowed to follow up on the whatsapp messages from his apple icloud backup where he suggested he was sitting next to his father area leslie will side of the object of executing the search warrant at the biden residence for not allowing it even though she agreed probable cause existed. prosecutors instructed investigators not to ask about the guy or dad when inducting interviews. the transition team was tipped

off about interviews the night before the investigation went over, a fact that my fbi counterpart confirmed in recent testimony, resulting in only one witness speaking to investigators that day. these are just some examples of how our investigation was i need. host: "the washington times" this morning framed it this way on their front page, irs agent says justice department brass nixed felony charges against hunter biden. solid irs case against hunter biden, smash. listen to what democrats argued. the top democrat in maryland questioned the need of the hearing and how the investigation into his sons finances. [video clip]

>> one thing you will not here today, this is a total bust. the ongoing case we are invited to interfere with today is a striking illustration of the success of the american system of independent prosecutors operating under the rule of law outside the realm of political influence my colleagues are trying to exercise. what happened? the son of the sitting president of the united states lost his brother and lost his way badly back in 2015. as to many families around the country know, drug addiction is dark and powerfully like other addicts, hunter biden made foolish criminal choices including failing to pay his taxes and owning a firearm in

violation of federal law. he's now being held criminally accountable for it. the investigation began under the trump administration, conducted by the u.s. attorney for delaware, who donald trump appointed to office and to attorney general barr chose for this assignment to conduct the investigation. in his final press conference, attorney general barr expressed full confidence in the work, saying that it was being handled responsibly and professionally within the department. to this point i have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel and have no plan to do so before i leave. joe biden never publicly russian door challenged this prosecution. when it began he did not decry it as a witchhunt. he placed his trust in the fairness of the american justice system. when he became president not only did he not use power to halt the investigation, he kept in place the trump ham picked u.s. attorney even though

incoming presidents usually replace u.s. attorneys with their own appointees. his attorney general, merrick garland, made sure that mr. weiss had full authority and resources to pursue the probe and charge it however or wherever in any disc in the country and in the past hunter biden excepted a guilty plea and the president and the attorney general have done nothing to interfere with the case that is overseen by a federal judge appointed by donald trump. host: jamie raskin, democrat of maryland, top democrat in the committee, yesterday. he went on to argue in the lessening of the witnesses, casting whistleblower complaints as common disagreements between investigative staff and prosecutors who often have reservations about scoring convictions on evidence discovered by staff.

janice, deerfield beach, florida. republican. your turn to give us your take this morning on what you heard from these whistleblowers and this investigation into the biden family finances. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have two points to make. well, two comments. the first is that the democrat party is so very insulting to the american people. they really think that we are so stupid that we will believe what they say over what we see and hear. these are two professional men working for the irs over a decade and all of a sudden they don't know their job when it comes to hunter biden but no one else is being questioned. these same gentlemen could be speaking on trump and it would be blown up 100,000 times. my second comment is that the way they went there and all they had was trunk, trump, trump, so

old and so played out, so tired. it's like i said, it's insulting. hunter biden is as guilty as guilty can be. his own words have hung a noose around his father's neck. anybody, anybody who tries to put this up on trump, week, very weak. sad, very sad. just does not want to face fact. the biden family is as criminal as they come and they will go down in history as the most corrupt family ever to sit in the white house. it's disgusting. totally. thank you. host: washington, d.c., democratic caller. walter. your turn. caller: good morning. with the hearing yesterday, i am

disappointed with how the democrats, especially jamie raskin, they distracted, distorted, left out critical information. i agree with yes, there are issues with trump. but the whistleblowers that came down to give the information, mr. raskin, you know, his department said, pretty much everything his department said. dealing with, excuse me, dealing with january 6 and with russian collusion, pretty much the same thing. he did the same thing. also with david weiss, saying that he's a trump appointee. we forget president obama appointed him in 2009 as attorney general and the only reason trump picked him is because the democrat senators in delaware urged trump that he's a

good pick. trump is not good with picking people anyway. point being, they gave information about hunter biden and luck, joe biden himself january 23 of 2018 said you are not going to get the billion dollars to the son of the sob and got fired, and he bragged about that at the council. i watched the whole way he did that. both of these guys, trump and biden, they pretty much loath guilty of the same thing. republicans are guilty of it. democrats are guilty of it. both sides guilty of the same thing. we got to stop this picking sides stuff and stop trying to

make justifications for things. i'm not saying this because i hate. there's just too much evidence. russian collusion was nothing. i did believe that at one time, but we heard that for nearly three years. nothing. there's too much stuff coming out with this. host: walter i'm going to leave it there. john, florida, independent, what do you think? caller: the biden's have been corrupt for years and joe would have gotten away with it if he had stayed out of the spotlight. host: are you still there? we're listening. what did you think of the testimony yesterday? caller: i thought it was pretty damming for the bidens. they are doing everything they can to stop.

i can't hear you. host: we are listening to you. you don't have to hear me. caller: i think the bidens are guilty of everything that these people say. and they would have gotten away with it if he hadn't run for president. he thought he was getting out, they thought they were cashing in. this kind of stuff, they sold access and changed rules for foreigners. host: all right. stephen. in a text, gladstone, michigan, i tend to believe the attorney general over these so-called whistleblowers. the attorney general said that his investigation was not hampered in any way. let's take that point. jim jordan brought it up in the testimony in his exchange with gary shapley. take a listen to this. [video clip] >> the first letter on june 7,

said he was granted ultimate authority over the matter including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges. the same month he sent me the second letter that said no, i don't. i don't have the charging authority. june 7 he says i'm the boss, i can do whatever i darn well one in than june 30 he says i can't. what happened between those events? your testimony went public. he goes my goodness i've got to change my story because now the truth is coming out. sounds like this investigation to me, prosecutors and investigators were in agreement for month and then we get to october of 2020 two. i can see mr. ziglar nodding his head. that is where david weiss told you something. what did he say? >> that he was not the deciding person on whether or not charges were filed and that the d.c.

u.s. attorney declined to allow charges and that he had requested special counsel authority from the main doj and was denied. >> for you the only guy there? >> i was not. there were seven total people including me. >> you, mr. weiss, five others. >> correct. >> did any of them come forward to say that what you have just said is true? no one has disputed what you have said is not true. did you memorialize what took place in that meeting? >> i did. that day when i returned home i put it in an emailed to the two senior executives at my agency. >> in an email that day. contemporaneous from when it happened. it was in your testimony by the ways and means committee, october 7, friday evening, 6:09 p.m., that evening. sent to mr. walton and mr.

batchelor. >> that's the director of backdoor operations and darrell wobbler was the special chief officer. >> did mr. walton get back to you? >> he said thanks, gary, you covered it all. >> he didn't say thanks, but you are wrong, that's not what happened. he affirmed what you said. you laid it out. everything you told me a few minutes ago. what he told you in the meeting. when that goes public june 27 of last month he says i've got to change my story and i had better send a letter to the virginia committee where he says i stand by what i wrote, but i wish to expand, wish to fix it. then he had to further go further in july when he talked to and sent a letter to senator graham to say i clarify again,

they have changed the story. you guys haven't. host: republican jim jordan of ohio, the judiciary chairman at that member of the house oversight committee in the hearing yesterday with two irs whistleblowers. the u.s. attorney david weiss in a letter, as jim jordan was talking about, to senator graham, saying this. clarifying tarent misperception and to avoid future confusion i wisake one point clear. in this case i have not requtespecial counsel gnation, rather i had discussions with department ficials regarding potential appointments under u.s. code that would have allowed me to fire charges in a district outside my ownut the partnership of the local u.s. attorney. i was assur i would be granted thutrity if it proved necessary. this assurancee months before the october 7 22 meeting

referenced throughout the allegations and in this case i follow the process in my june 30 letter and have never been denied the authority to bring charges in any jurisdiction. steve, oklahoma city. democratic caller. what do you make of all of this? caller: i'm totally shocked. i'm a registered yellow dog democrat all my life. my party isn't investigating nothing. sitting there talking about things that don't even apply to what's going on around them. when are they going to start investigating and finding out what the truth is instead of griping. host: the truth about, the truth about hunter biden? truth about what? caller: everything from race to whatever. they are not talking about biden. not talking about the investigation. its trunk, trunk, trump.

i don't want to hear about that. what does that have to do with this investigation? none of them are doing it and i'm sick and tired. host: what do you think happened? caller: it's so obvious that biden is guilty. host: guilty of what? where's the evidence that he did something wrong? caller: it's simple. they are going to get it and they get down to the nitty-gritty. what do they do when they show all the money and go to all the family members. they are going to hide that? they are going to hide that. you know that. host: have you seen yet any evidence that the president did something wrong? caller: yes, i believe it. that's my honest opinion. host: that's my opinion does your opinion, but you can't point to any evidence? caller: not yet. thing is, the democrats aren't

talking about it and that's what makes me mad. they are not investigating. what does that gotta do with trump? this trumped arrangement in their brains, i'm tired of it. we are talking about hunter biden. take it a step at a time, listen to the evidence and then investigate the evidence. quit talking about everything else. that one guy brings up things in the past having to do with race. what does that have to do with this investigation? nothing. my party sounds like a bunch of dummies. raskin is the biggest joint -- joke in america. now i'm laughing. i said you got to be kidding me. he's not doing nothing. host: in the associated press article about the investigation by house republicans, the justice department, whistleblowers, crane -- claims

to congress about the slow walking of the hunter biden case . the associated press reporter said before the hearing began yesterday the chair, republican of kentucky, acknowledged it has been difficult for republicans to simply outline the hunter biden tangled financial affairs or provide convincing evidence of any specific wrongdoing by the president or his family. it is so hard to explain, hopefully these irs agents can do a better job explaining that i can. in a previous interview he described efforts to execute a search warrant of a storage facility where the younger biden documents were being stored and that the assistant u.s. attorney in the case reached out to lawyers in a move that is seen as customary. ruining our chance to get evidence before being destroyed, manipulated, or concealed. a similar occurrence with a

secret service detail in an effort to interview him in order to avoid a potential shoot off between law enforcement bodies. law enforcement officials describe these claims by pointing to the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding a criminal case into the subject who at the time was the son of a leading presidential candidate and department policy long warned prosecutors to take care in charging cases with potential political overtones around the time of election to avoid any possible influence on the outcome of the election. mike. cleveland, ohio. independent. let's hear from you next. caller: how are you? good morning. i want to say that you have got to ask the question to the democrats. do you actually believe that joe biden, the main question here to

sum up the whole thing, did he know about his son's dealings? you get your answer every time. if you say no, you are insulting everybody's intelligence. that's the main question, you ask about the proof. did he know about it? of course he know about it. how could you get that much money across without anybody knowing about it? how do you, how do you, how do you say that? insulting the intelligence of the whole country. is he a good guy? he's a nice guy but he got his hand caught in the cookie jar because he ran for president. be honest. host: if he knew about it, what do you think he should have done? does it make in -- make him guilty by association? caller: i don't want to say. it's all about how the law is done. it's not for us to decide.

he knew about it. he was vice president. is it good for that to happen? you know the answer to that. you don't have to ask me that. we all know the story. the democrats keep saying donald trump this, donald trump that. he's not even the president anymore. talk about, it's ridiculous. why do they keep blaming donald trump for everything. i'm going to be honest with you, donald trump had great policies. everybody loves donald trump, the way he operates the country. should he take a different tone? yes. that's the problem why the democrats don't like them, they don't like his tone. he needs to be more humble. if he came out humble, everybody is going to like him. why? simple, he has good policies. host: you don't want everybody else to talk about the former president, now you are. let's stick to the hearing and what we heard yesterday.

are you referring to the democratic line of argument in the hearing yesterday, bringing up the, that the former president was in office when the investigation into hunter biden began, is that what you are saying they should not have done, that they focused on that? caller: they always blame donald trump for everything and it's getting to be old already like the other gentleman said. host: ok, all right. let's take a moment from the hearing yesterday, an illinois democrat questioned both interfere -- both witnesses on the interference in the lead up to the election when president trump was in the white house. [video clip] >> mr. ziegler and you shared concerns about delays related to the election cycle but at that time joe biden was not the president. >> i believe it that time he was the nominee.

>> he was not the president, was he? it's a simple question, sir. joe biden was not the president? in the presidential primaries in 2020? >> correct. >> finally, mr. shapley, you said that warrants were ready as soon as april of 2022 begin searching for records. but that actions weren't with regard to the warrants. again, joe biden was not the president in april of 2020, was he? >> i'm confused by the line of questioning. we are talking about an election. he didn't have to have the president -- be the president to have the election meddling. >> the question is was he the president in 2020? >> asked and answered. >> the answer is? yes or no. >> no.

>> thank you. i go back. >> mr. chairman, may i finish? >> you may answer the question. >> it's clear he was not the president but the election is for the purpose of electing a president and joe biden at the time was the nominee for president of the united states. therefore the election clauses with doj policy took place were in effect in it wasn't until september 4 of 2020 that the department of integrity said that we couldn't take actions on the case and as early as -- >> [inaudible] >> as early as april to june of 2020 the department of justice and delaware u.s. attorney's office was invoking the election as a reason not to perform the search warrants. host: gary shapley with another irs whistleblower on capitol hill yesterday testifying. the article from "the wall

street journal," doj hampered, irs employees say republicans have accused the justice department of giving hunter biden leading treatment by allowing him to plead guilty to misdemeanor chat -- tax charges in a chance to avoid prosecution on a separate offense around a gun. a judge is set to decide whether to sanction the deal that would likely mean no prison time for hunter biden at a july 26 hearing and delaware. july 26, coming up here shortly. ted, north carolina, republican. ted, your turn. caller: i believe in donald trump. he's not guilty. they don't tell that biden with alzheimer's. his wife uses it. it comes out. telling john kennedy. host: what about the hearing yesterday? caller: it's one-sided.

they want to blaine trump but trump had nothing to do with it. joe biden is guilty of all this. host: guilty of what? caller: money. host: money? taking money? how do you know? where's the evidence? caller: forgiveness sake, it's all over 12 different countries. host: ok. carly, philadelphia. democratic caller. your take on this? caller: high, good morning. just want to say that. what's insane to me about all of this is that so much has been proven and there's no evidence of corruption the biden family has done regarding joe biden. talking about joe biden comparing trump, right, joe biden yes had classified

documents. as did trump. the difference is joe biden was asked for -- host: we are focusing on yesterday's hearing about the justice department investigation into hunter biden. caller: right, ok, let's talk about that. there's something else i want to say around that. let's talk about specifically how marjorie taylor greene has, we all know, on-screen, and i want to know in general why -- republican conservatives and fascists alike are so think about what other people do in their spare time. they can do whatever they want in their spare time. it is ridiculous to access about this at all -- obsessed about

this at all and it does not matter. host: do you think that what hunter biden did was wrong? caller: i don't care. i am unemployed right now i care about having health care -- making ends meet. i do not care about what hunter biden did. i don't care what trump did. it doesn't matter. it is not the bottom line. people need help right now. what i care about is trans people having access to care, gay people having the right to marry who they want to marry. that -- it just doesn't matter what are doing in their free time. is not hurting anybody, who cares? host: ok in the white house yesterday, -- despite years of

obsession and dollars on the wild goose chase, the house has not offered a credible piece of evidence of wrongdoing by the president. this reflects the misplaced priorities of the house republicans. new york, independent, let's hear from you clyde. caller: ok thank you very much. [indiscernible] theater and it was shameful that they tried to take something and make -- take nothing and make it into something. this is been going on since the last -- having control over the house. this is garbage. host: why do you think nothing if they avoided paying taxes? caller: how many people forget and mess up paying taxes?

the irs makes them pay it back. period. is that misdemeanor -- it is a misdemeanor. host: how did he make that money? caller: it had nothing to do with his father. plain and simple. and you try to put things onto the father and it does not work that way. it does not work that way. and i would like to say this, [indiscernible] here it is a bunch of trump supporters calling up on every line. it is nonsense. they are not even making sense at all. they think it is spaghetti and throwing it on the wall and hoping it sticks together. it is garbage. host: if i can ask you did president biden address what his son allegedly did? and talk about it public the? caller: he already has.

how many times does he have to apologize what his -- for what his son did? [indiscernible] i still don't. everybody has somebody who is crack heed or you ow something in their family. you can't -- that person is not really by curiously in your life. -- vicariously in your life. if you want to take the guy down, look at something else look at something that is deep. host: we got to run on that point. we will take a short break and we return to this conversation at the top of our at 8:00 a.m. eastern time. if you want to join us we will take a break now and then we have members of congress, we have republican click clock -- republican tom mcclintock

joining us. and more coming up. stay with us. ♪ announcer: sunday on q&a, felix fanon the author of the felix economy talks about the long-term social and economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. some of it surprisingly positive. the pandemic gave us this yolo theme throughout the economy. and people are really embracing their dreams and following their dreams. and this creates not just art, it creates companies and wealth. i think that is one of the big reasons why i am so optimistic area i see -- optimistic.

i see the opportunity for things to be more broad than it's ever been. people in the world as long as they have an internet connection really they can really change the planet in a way they have not been able to before. i think we are only at the beginning of seeing the huge opportunities that were engendered by us being forced to take a look at our lives and say how do you want to live this? announcer: felix salmon with his book the phoenix economy on q&a. you can listen to q&a on all of our -- an owl of our podcasts on our free c-span now at. announcer: healthy democracy doesn't look like this, it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work. where citizens are truly

informed. a republic it -- a republic can thrive. get informed. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. your opinion is what matters the most. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us is tom mcclintock. let's start with the budget. where are we in the budget process? give us an overview for our viewers and explain what needs to happen in the coming weeks and but. months. caller: we are -- guest: we are very late. the administration was supposed to reveal its numbers to us.

from what i understand there is a plan to take a this budget in the community -- committee in a few weeks. and i think because of some unrealistic revenue growth assumptions we will see. the reforms in it enacted a think work for the growth rate that the chances of getting serious reforms enacted given a split between democrats and republicans in the house and senate is a little more sketchy. host: you're talking about a republican proposal. so when a house committee taken up by a republican proposal this is what you are looking at. guest: that is true and how serious republicans are. they rejected -- a program in the entire federal budget. they call it the error service --air service that is $30 billion of your money to fly

near empty airplanes to areas that are about an hours drive away. they were rejected by a vote yesterday so i cannot tell you that the congress is serious about cutting host: spending yet. host:-- cutting spending yet. host: is that a rural versus urban spending issue? guest: -- this helps rural communities. they do well but the rest of the country does poorly by this measure. i have an airport in my district it is about 45 minute to the regional airport. host: that is the faa reauthorization. guest: yes but i use the faa

test as to whether the congress has summoned the will to start restraining ending. i have to tell you once again they failed the test. host: the house committee budget takes up the overall budget. explain how that -- what is that versus the 12 appropriations bills that have to make their way through congress to fund federal agency. guest: there's a bunch of resolutions that do not go to the president. it is a spending plan that establishes overall parameters for spending levels. the way it has worked most of the time is not the way it is designed to work. usually the budget resolution is simply ignored and we go ahead and appropriate the money anyway. most recently through continuing resolution. but the way it is supposed to work -- host: let me jump in quick. you think appropriators do not listen to what the budget committee says? guest: when the budget is passed

of a do listen, but if it is not past for go on the base of past spending. many appropriators that we send money to their authorizations last years or decades ago. they are reauthorizing this even though there is a rule in the house that is been there since the 1830's saying you and not approach the eight money except for authorized purposes -- cannot appropriate money for authorized purposes. this sets overall parameters for budget spending. if that budget is agreed to by the house it unlocks powerful tools to bring spending back under control. each of the committees and jurisdictions sent instructions and this is what you have to set spending levels at.

then they produce changes in law and they have a mandatory spending which is the most difficult because they spend most growth -- they have to spend specific reforms to the budget committee and the budget committee drops them into a reconciliation bill. the bill is expedited with consideration. simple vote in the house. if it is signed by the president you now have a lead -- a lid on spending. i've been here 15 years and it's never been used as it was designed. host: where are we in the appropriations process right now? what is the deadline for congress? guest: we have to have spending bills in place by the end of the fiscal year, september 30. i know the appropriations committees are meetings right now in the absence of the budget and setting spending levels. i do not know what the exact

deadline is for their work. host: what if the congress does not pass 12 separate spending bills? then what happens? guest: we have a continuing resolution of one kind or the other. we kick the can down the road and that would be a terrible tragedy given the historic levels of debt we now incurred. and that would impact the future of the country. host: if you have continued resolutions to keep the government open and running, what happens if you cannot. if you run out of time? guest: you end up with the type of government shutdowns we see from time to time. you no longer operate -- if the administration wants to make the budget easier for people, there is not much disruption in a person's life. if the administration wants to make it difficult for people the obama ministration -- administration did.

that is where you see the national parks closed and a lot of painful things that is a political tool and it is unfortunate because it hurts a lot of people. you have to appropriate funds for the coming year and until you do, the government does not have legal authority to spend the money. host: what omnibus is likely this year? guest: it is an appropriations bill. i think -- i cannot tell the future, but i am still hopeful we will see all 12 appropriations bills passed. given what we saw last night, i just discussed this also, i am not sure i am optimistic about it. host: before we get to phone calls, how do you think this shakes out between speaker kevin mccarthy and the president and conservatives in the house that -- if they do not like what the speaker negotiated. spending levels. guest: we got a pretty good bill out of the house with the

responsibility act. that did move spending trajectories down by several trillion dollars over a decade. i hope we see that kind of coalition reemerge in the final process. but again, i am not overly optimistic. host: california, independent. good morning to you. caller: thank you. hello. the question i wanted to ask you was have you -- dwight eisenhower was one of my favorite presidents. he understood that you have to also raise money to balance a budget. when i was -- what i was wondering was do you think maybe this is the time to maybe recognize the $32 trillion debt will require a raising revenue as well as means testing benefits? i was wondering if you guys

would maybe consider actually looking at some of these huge tax cuts we have created from bush forward and maybe resending some of them and using some of that money as a way to pay down some of the debt or show good faith impair -- in paying down the debt. the other question i wanted to ask you is what did you think of congresswoman greene's presentation yesterday at the committee hearing that we saw on hunter biden's taxes? whether or not hunter biden's name could be replaced with any other rich and famous person. and that is the two-tier tax system we are talking about. the rich and famous would not be called out on felony charges, but people like hunter biden or anyone else who is rich and famous will get a pass and

misdemeanors. anyway, thank you so much. brian lamb you are my hero. guest: i frankly don't care about the hunter biden deal and his lifestyle and for that matter even his taxes. i do care very much as to whether he was acting as a bagman in a bribery scheme that was going on for years trading on the influence of the vice president and his -- vice president, his father, or millions of dollars going into their pockets. in particular that money ended up benefiting abided -- joe biden. i do care very much about that and i care about like cases being treated the same. when i see the double standard of justice applied in hunter biden's case i am infuriated and i think americans wherever they are should be. with respect to your question overall, let's raise taxes to reduce the debt you can raise text -- tax rates but that does

not necessarily raise tax revenues. we discover that with the trump administration. we cut taxes dramatically and the average american paid about $3500 of their earnings. that did so much good for the economy. there was an expansion of the economy as a result of those tax cuts. we ended up tech -- collecting more tax revenues. that is the secret of taxation. we have seen rates as high as 90% that can represent the eisenhower administration. wesee low rates in the 30% and 40% range. but anywhere between 13-20%. we are about maxed out on our revenues right now. 19-20% on gdp is what we are bringing in on taxes. what we are discovering is with the -- productivity. the increase in this ultimately

brings you revenue. don't forget, taxes are not a remedy to debt. taxes and debt are the ways you pay for spending. if you use the old [indiscernible] it is the spending, stupid. when you are -- once you spend one dollar you have already decided to tax that dollar. the government cannot put a dollar into the economy that it first does not take out of the same economy. it takes out as taxes that were -- reduces your current standard of living or it arose that money -- borrows that money. and you end up having to pay it back less enormous interest cost at the meantime. and tax that would be available for the consumer or borrower. taxes and debt are the two ways

you should papers -- you are paying for spending. it is the spending, stupid. that is what we have to bring under control. host: next caller, republican. caller: i have a couple comments about the hearing yesterday. one, i would like to know if the committee plans on 17 and -- subpoenaing -- those who on how they will charge hunter biden. secondly, all these collars are saying there is no evidence here no evidence --caller are saying there is no evidence here or there. it is a -- biden with ukraine with a billion dollars. whether they do or do not fire the prosecutor.

secondly, they key whistleblowers have said they have received -- receipts for rooms with joe biden's name on them. and thirdly, the fact that they did not or were not able to interview hunter biden, the primary suspect that they are investigating, that is purely an admission of guilt. this is by whoever told them they could not interview hunter biden. it makes no sense that they are not allowed to interview the individual they are investigating. to me that is a sign of guilt. the bidens are guilty. he needs to be impeached. host: let's get the congressman's reaction. should the attorney general be impeached over this? guest: impeachment requires seizing, bribery or other high crimes of misdemeanors.

the constitution waging war against the united states or -- it is not that. bribery is clearly defined and what has been alleged certainly fits that definition but that is not the conduct of the attorney general that is a conduct of the president. it has to be prime and related to the american founders -- they are clear on those weights. -- those points. to me merrick garland does not have anything impeachable that he has been charged with but it is beginning to surmount a systematic bribery effort within the biden family involving joe biden and his official duties. that is true because the greatest -- scandal in american history. and i do think the truth will go out. i hope it is not true, but the evidence shows that it is. host: what is the evidence?

guest: it starts with a hunter biden laptop with the complaint in the emails he made to his sister -- and how he was going to his father. 10% being held for the guy with the china influence meddling. those are clear admissions. and i have another note, as a public servant, i have been in congress for 15 years. i can guarantee you you cannot get rich in congress unless you are a crook. that is actually something harry truman wants said area you cannot get caught up in wealth and politics in less you are dishonest. he has become fabulously wealthy and it is unclear how he can do that on that salary area host: callers have brought up what former vice president joe biden said on the ukraine frontier.

you can look this up yourself in averaged $1 million in aid to ukraine to out prosecutors to not help his son. former vice president over the policy in ukraine his son hunter biden served on the board. they concluded with the investigation that they found no wrongdoing by the bidens and they claim that this continues to circulate in social media. it is true that biden -- leveraged this to oust the top prosecutor in march 2016. it was not because the prosecutor was investigating burisma it is because the prosecutor was not pursuing corruption among the countries politician. guest: he was investigating burisma. burisma hired hunter biden. they have extraordinary fees and joe biden admitted that he took that action.

we have to wait to see on the details, but the ukrainian prosecutor, i heard that before but i'm not seeing any details to support that. host: do you see details that there was evidence that the prosecutor was investigating burisma? guest: absolutely that is very clearly documented. the prosecutor himself said so. host: homer, shreveport, louisiana. democratic caller. caller: i am a disabled vet. i don't understand why we are raising so much jane about -- cane about hunter biden. he doesn't know nothing about the border and [indiscernible] trump got a whole bunch of [indiscernible]

the republicans got a whole bunch of it to. they are not running for nothing. they ought to deal with the people. why with all this money just -- for something that is not necessary. and they will find something to deal with the public. host: ok congressman? guest: again, it is about hunter biden's activities with the vice president activities with his official duties. that is the question. was money being passed to the biden family and specifically to joe biden through the biden family in exchange for official acts involving his office? that, if proven, is going to be one of the great historic tragedies of american history

that a public official, high public official, let alone the president of the united states involved in such activities, we have a process that will set the facts out and the american people need to make a did to -- make a decision. host: independent color, joe. --caller, joe. guest: i was caller: -- i was going to ask you what is the biggest lie you told this morning. i was a private investigator and i went 20 years being lied to by criminals. you said the only reason to going to all it takes is to get rich. host: pause for one second because i do not think you will hold -- you heard the congressman correctly. and i will have him repeat it. guest: i said you cannot get rich in politics in less you are

dishonest. joe biden is getting rich and we are starting to learn to why that has happened. some of that is a shout out to abraham leak in -- abraham lincoln and he said liar, and his response was you cannot prove in geometry by calling -- a liar. caller: you're a math expert now? i asked you a simple question, i did you get into politics? host: ok let's have him answer that. go ahead. guest: i got into politics because i believe freedom creates the most prosperous and happy society in human civilization. i think -- i believe in the principles that america was founded in and they have been guiding me my entire career. host: caller -- scholar, republican.

caller: if you go back to history and look at scandals and watergate then you look at the hunter biden joe biden connection that the fbi totally ignored. in by opinion, this is a much -- you have a president that is as a president or a fifty-year government official is being an adversary of the united states for -- that should rank of their higher to people [indiscernible] watergate. you see all of this interviewing of hunter biden and trump saying do not interview the dad. the juice is not worth the squeeze. you have comments in the hearing where the fbi and high-ranking officials are trying to check -- but if donald trump had the

papers and documents that he had -- you had him paying at the drop of the hat we go after trump with both barrels and get peter navarro and we do fbi swats in airports. it is clear to the american public, there is a two-tiered system of johnson -- justice. guest: this doesn't happen in a vacuum. they are assessing the facts and making their own decisions. it might leave something to desired but that's where you see the process of democracy.

the c-span audience has always been there and now it has been driven by a lot of folks realizing that the country has gone in the wrong direction. they are seeing signs of corruption within their government and they are beginning to engage. i have great confidence that all will come well because the american people will assure that. they began the debate over the declaration of independence, i know the people of these colonies. i don't think that has changed in the american spirit. we are seeing that democratic process come alive. our institutions can bring forward all of the facts to the american people to assess those

facts and decide which direction to take our country. those are discussions that go on over the family dinner table. host: before we let you go, your reaction to the revelation that former president trump faces an indictment to the attack on the capital. guest: if you are going to break those kind of norms and prosecute a candidate for president you better have a strong case and it better be equally applied to all candidates similarly situated. i was critical of the president's speech that day and his conduct and i said so at the time. however, he was very clear when he said you will not march

peacefully and make your views known. host: what about his other comments? guest: the tone of the speech was not responsible but it is still protected speech. you can't have discussions that we have been talking about with the american people and at the same time punish speech and that's what i see happening here. host: we will take a short break and coming up, congressman adam smith from armed services committee will talk about the spending bill but first, we want to hear from you on this investigation into hunter biden. we heard from those whistleblowe that we will pick up on this conversation when we

come bk. those are the numbers for you on the screen. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 6:30 p.m. jim tompkins shares his book about the life and career of tom montez who was a spy in cuba. pulitzer prize winner moments moments of progressere met with acts of violence in america whitelash. watch big tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule anytime on

book.org. -- booktv.org. >> since 1979 c-span has provided complete coverage of congress, party briefings, committee meanings. c-span gives a behind-the-scenes coverage without interruption. c-span your unfiltered view of government. if you ever missed c-span coverage you can find at any time at c-span.org. videos of hearings, debates and events future markers that

appear on select videos. it makes it easy to get an idea of what was debated and decided on washington. scroll through and find those points of interest. host: welcome back to washington journal. we pick up where we began with that testimony by two irs whistleblowers before the house oversight committee hearing yesterday. it centered around david weiss and his authority to investigate and prosecute the president's son hunter biden. joseph ziegler who testified behind doors appeared before the committee with gary shapley. he had this to say about the powers given to the u.s.

attorney david weiss. >> while the impression has been conveyed that he has similar powers to that of the special counsel, that was not the case. it appeared to me based on what i experience that the u.s. attorney in delaware was hamstrung, limited and marginalized by doj officials. i still think the special counsel is necessary for this investigation to further handle ancillary investigations that are spun off but may not have been you in delaware. i would like to conclude again by encouraging congress to consider establishing an official channel to pull the emergency cord and raise the issue of an appointment of

special counsel. i don't want my colleagues at the irs to go through my frustrating journey. and that of our team. host: that was from one of the whistleblowers on the hill yesterday. i want to show you what marek garlic had to say when he was asked several questions about the scope and the power that delaware u.s. attorney had in this investigation. [video clip] >> yesterday testimony came out from an irs special agent who insist he was in a meeting with david weiss who claimed that he was told not to pursue the hunter biden investigation or bring charges in 2022. you said you stayed out of the investigation can you once and

for all shed a little light because there seems to be confusion on what's going on. >> mr. weiss was appointed by president trump as the u.s. attorney in delaware and assigned this matter and would be allowed to continue his investigation and make a decision is -- to prosecute he has since sent a letter to the house judiciary committee saying he has sought authority. i don't know how it would be possible for anyone to block him from bringing this prosecution. he was given authority to make all decisions on his own. >> just a follow-up on that. one of the allegations by the irs supervisor that mr. weiss

wanted to have the power on the special counsel. it was our request ever made and if so, did you reject it? >> it was not the only person with the authority to make someone or a special counsel. he never made the request to me. >> can you explain the rationale for not appointing a special counsel. >> he has complete authority to bring a case anywhere he wants in his discretion. host: that was the attorney general back in june. now we turn to you to get your take on the hearing. in kalamazoo, michigan a democratic lawyer.

caller. caller: this is been investigated for four-five years now. rudy giuliani used a bribe to get information about the bidens and this is nonsense. the republican party is dead. host: in grand junction, colorado. everett, a republican. caller: i don't think i am dead yet, i am a republican. lady justice is supposed to have a blindfold on in the scales of justice is not supposed to be waived one way or another until

evidence is on one side or another. the truth on this matter with hunter and president biden will balance out one way or another. i did like representative mcclintock's comment when you asked him about speech and he said that freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. no matter how we like or dislike what people are saying and of course former president trump is tough to swallow. i appreciate being able to make my comments i wish everyone a great day. host: if people want to listen to the former president, you can find that in our archives. go to c-span.org, go into our

search engine at the top of our website and you can find the speech there. listen to people in their own words so you can make your own decision. david and myrtle beach, south carolina, and independent. caller: i am an independent which means i hold both parties at equal disdain and i am a conservative. after watching the events yesterday, i am sick of these racial innuendos. everything has to do with race. they even bring up a case from 50 years ago that has no bearing on the case. very liberal people have an emotional religion and when you are emotional you can't let the facts get in the way.

i have been in financial services most of my life in these suspicious activity reports are taken very seriously except in this case and i've been very fortunate to be very successful and made more money than the standard 180,000 a congressman makes and i have not been able to amass the porch in the bidens have. host: lance and fort lauderdale, florida, a democratic caller. caller: good morning greta. i would like to ask a question of all of my fellow americans. when has the irs not gone after someone who owes millions of dollars of tax and let the statute of limitations run out?

i made $900 one year. they wanted to know when i owed $30,000. it took me two years to get them to admit they made that mistake and then they said i don't owe them 30,000 but i do owe them $14. they went after me for two years for $14. how can anyone believe they would let a case involving thousands of dollars of tax fraud allowing the statute of limitations run out. the idea that biden flew to china, romania and ukraine and asked him what he planned to do in china considering the

diplomatic implications, is ludicrous. i am ashamed of my party. baskin is a disgrace and every democrat that can't open their eyes and see was going on. this is a disgrace, this is a sham and anyone with a half of sense knows that. these guys from the irs are risking their livelihood. they will be ostracized by the media and they still had the nerve encouraged to come forward and say the truth. how many of us would have the courage? host: i just did a quick search on joe biden and his income and

there have been several articles you have seen or read from how he went to middle class joe to making a lot of money after he left the white house the first time. when biden left the west wing the big money started to come in. in 2016 they took in $10 million that floated through as corporations. they explained in a press release that the money in those entities came from book payments and speaking engagements and chill memoir. the couple's book deal with flat iron books was valued at 8

million. he was also in the presidential press schedule. depending on where he would speak his payouts would vary dramatically. the bidens's earnings which included payments from pension and social security total 4.6 one million and a 2019, he and chill earned one million. biden took a leave of absence from you penn -- upenn. lance from fort lauderdale, florida.

what'd you make of the hearing on capitol hill yesterday? caller: i stayed on the line because i wasn't sure if you had anything more to say. host: russell from virginia, a republican. caller: i served under janet reno in 1994. i served under john ashcroft at the department of justice. i have a very specific comment. the survival of the fittest and the politicians are spending a lot of time doing investigations that are not fruitful. we need to get back to common sense legislation and let the

american people have a right to live in pursuit of justice and peace. the feud going on in this country right now are not suitable for regular, ordinary people. we live in the most litigious society in human history. host: tie this specs of the testimony you heard jack -- tie this back to the testimony you heard? caller: perjury is a criminal offense and there's no consequence for lying. host: mary is next. caller: despite what you hear on

fox news. they want to cut the irs until it is time to use the irs. they only needed when it comes to people they don't like. i am more worried about what is going on with ron desantis and what he is going to do. the hunter biden stuff, it is total nonsense. we all make mistakes,e is not his dad. host: he is 50 years old. caller: he will always be in his father's son. he has his own man. host: we will go to louisiana,

lydia a democratic caller. caller: the hearing yesterday was a sham. they had no definitive proof, it's all accusation. they are just putting accusations out there to see what will stick on the wall. irs agents complaining about the fact they were trying to do the right thing and they had been traumatized because people were threatening them. look at the people who were threatened with impeachment by donald trump both times? all of these people had to leave their positions, career people had to leave positions. marjorie taylor greene showing nude bodies of prostitutes and hunter biden and him paying for

prostitutes. where are the recriminations of donald trump with stormy daniels? look at what he is done disrespecting women. then the double standard of justice. is not equal for everybody. it has never been equal to everybody. there is a different standard for rich, poor, different standard for white, black. that is not going to change. freedom of speech, you have freedom of speech but what about lying? if you lie under oath there

should be some recrimination for that. everybody goes on tv and constantly lies. they could be republicans and democrats. host: let's hear from willie from katy, texas. caller: i have some criticism for c-span. in the past, you had people like malcolm nance, kim whaley, and this is with the russian collusion was all the rage among democrats and rinos and put trump through hell. you asked for evidence for the bidens and mcclintic stated it and you dismissed it. if you want evidence, here is

the thing. try to get miranda devine, peter schweizer any of those people and they will give you all the evidence. the bottom line is this, you never ask people like malcolm nance and kim whaley for evidence. the media needs to be straightforward on all of those in c-span should lead that charge and we need to get real investigators on their instead of the political people you have on or the wall street general or washington post. that would solve a lot of issues because the evidence would be put forward and everyone would understand what's going on. host: thank you for the feedback.

diane in indiana, a republican. caller: thank you for showing this hearing. i have been watching it for four hours and i just love it. james comer is doing a great job in the whistleblowers, i really admire them so much. we need that honesty so bad. i believe if they saw the money trail, this would be the biggest corruption we have ever seen. facebook locked me out because i shared hunter biden's laptop information and they want me to use additional key to get back

in and i'm never seen anything like that before. they are taking my freedom of speech away. facebook took that away. host: you said you watch the hearings last night? caller: i was too busy yesterday so i watched it on c-span. host: if you don't have four hours you can go to our website and click on the video player for yesterday's hearing. you will see gold stars that appear that did note key

moments, interesting moments in the hearing and you could click through those and get an idea of what was asked and how it was answered by the two irs whistleblowers. kathleen, a democratic caller. caller: i saw what you did when you brought up joe biden's income after he left the white house. you had several callers saying joe biden has gotten rich. bring up what donald trump and the money has family acquired. his son in law got two saudi arabians? why haven't they had a hearing on that?

why are they so fixed on hunter biden. and his daughter. host: you have to mute your television because it's annoying for people to hear you twice. jason from wake forest, north carolina. do you have your television muted? caller: does everybody know what cnn does to people's brains. maybe you can help me out a little bit. i have watched the show for eight years and i have watched every single person that works for the show say donald trump stole the election and donald trump was a russian spy, a white supremacist.

no one ever asked where is your evidence? then you asked with the evidence is on joe biden? it says right here, i am sitting here with my father waiting for your call. the chinese spy guy that biden worked for he says i am sitting here with my father and i demand you pay me. i demand that i get my money. i know the leftists like to make wordplay. i am sure that they will say father mean something different and you go along with it.

i am curious, have you ever seen that quote? i am sitting here with my father? host: that was brought up yesterday in the hearing. that message was brought up in the two irs whistleblowers said they were not allowed to investigate that conversation. what do you make of that? caller: i just gave you direct evidence. how many more times will you ask the same people, these brainwashed democrats that talk about donald trump. where is the evidence of any of that? everything the democrats are saying are lies. but anyone who brings up joe biden you say where is the evidence?

where is the evidence that these people are americans? this is the jury pool. these people are the jury pool. all of these indictments on donald trump why do you think they want to bring him to d.c. for january 6? they know the case in florida had zero chance. the jury pool will not convict donald trump on this bullcrap want to perpetrate on this country. if they can get him on the greatest state in history what do you think will happen? do you think the american people will let this happen to our country because the media says so?

host: we are going to take a break when we come back we will speak with the top democrat on armed services committee. we will talk about defense spending. the upcoming authorization bill and upcoming spending deadlines. stay with us this morning, we are coming right back.

host: i am here with adam smith the top democrat on armed services committee let's talk about the defense authorization

act something congress needs to do. what is it? guest: as the congressional oversight bill for the department of defense and the spending they do and everything that goes on within the pentagon. it's our oversight bill to derive policy. the biggest issue we deal with are the support of men and women of the military. military construction and all things policy at the department of defense. host: let's talk about the details, 886 billion, precision missiles for warships, artificial intelligence, 5.2% base pay, broader access to

child care, health care and education benefits. did you agree with what past? guest: it was bipartisan coming out of committee. it did all of those things and focused on the threats we face. their support of ukraine, the defense initiative and the and pacific defense initiative to build up the alliances we need to deal with china. we got into the house floor it became a cultural or were vehicle and a number of provisions were added that made reproductive health care for women and possible and it attacked the trends community and attacked diversity and inclusion. it will make it much more difficult for women, people of

color to serve. it will make us less safe and our recruitment needs. we have been taken over by a small group of right-wing members who wanted to push the culture war and i oppose the bill. host: what do you think the senate version looks like? guest: i think this senate version will look much better. we will see what comes out. i suspect there bill will look a lot more like the bill we sent out of committee. i am confident we will resolve this. host: how does the spending compared to recent years? guest: is a 3% increase from last year. we have seen significant increases in the defense budget over the president's budget. we went 45 billion over the

president's budget last year. that is where i think it ought to be. traditionally, republicans object and wanted up. this year, we have the republican house that wants to control spending saying they are not willing to allow that. host: what are their attempts to not fund military aid to ukraine? guest: on the floor there were 4, 5 amendments to cut off ukraine and a variety of forms. i think there were 75, 80 votes in favor and 350 against. host: does this include an auditing of pentagon spending? guest: not a total audit.

what we are doing is building toward site complete audit. there has been no effort through any kind of auditing, 800 86 billion spread out all over the place and it has gone to the point where it's difficult to keep track of the spending. we put provisions into the defense bill to require an audit. to get to a complete and total audit takes a lot of time. we are doing it in pieces and instructing to do regular audits to get us to a point where we can audit. with the pentagon, all the equipment they own, the people they employ, the buildings they own, the programs center ongoing. can you get those organized in

one place? software contract with palantir that has to do with human resources. if you're in the army you will know everyone who works in the army and where they are. there were a thousand different systems that did not interconnect. we did a contract with the company that does all of that. that is what we are doing, slowly. it is the ultimate goal to get to a full audit. host: how long will it take to get to the full audit? guest: it is years not months. host: what you think of that? guest: i think it makes more sense than most people realize. this was built up over the course of 75 years.

there are software problems all over the place. it is not easy to pull it back together again. they had to go to every single human resources system and integrate them. there was a woman who ran it, fort campbell may be, who had done it for 40 years. she had her own personal system and no one else knew how it worked. i do like to point out to people , it is more difficult when you're doing it within the military. it's complicated to make an airplane for military use because nobody will be shooting

at a commercial airplane. it is not designed to defend itself against that. all of that is more difficult than it looks. we are pushing hard on that to get more transparency and accountability. host: we are talking about defense spending with rep. adam smith, let's hear from chris, a republican from washington. caller: i am from port louis originally. and in the meantime, i was born in 1988, i have worked in cost transparency modeling i am wondering if the guest has any relationship with auditing

software? guest: i am not familiar with that specific company. i will be contacting you. it's exactly what the software does, it drives defensible spending. you have to understand. things like headcount, down to whether you are paying for a license for software there will be a whole pile of data. host: sorry, you trailed off. caller: my question is, why not do that? i have been trying to get access to the c-span api so i

appreciate the answer from the guest and have a nice morning. guest: i mentioned palantir and a whole lot of companies do to and that's exactly what we need to do. we have the ability to integrate all of this data. there are a number of companies, ai can be helpful, software can be helpful and we are working to integrate it. it is untangling 50 years of fires. we are better than we were 10 years ago. caller: good morning c-span. i shake my head when i see this come up every year and the worldview that the congressman shows that we are the biggest and baddest.

it is hubris and hypocrisy. we can spend $1 trillion and have 800 military bases. the iraq invasion, afghanistan invasion. this is why our country is in decline because the military-industrial complex. guest: you had to look at the history here. is not hubris to think the united states has an important role to play in global security. it's what came out of world war ii. a number of decisions were made that we could not trust europe to rearm after 500, 600 years of

trying to kill each other so they went the peaceful route. meanwhile, the soviet was crawling across eastern europe. we spent a lot of money that germany, france did not spend. it worked. peace was captain europe and we benefited enormously from that. we did not get dragged into another war in europe. the global economy boomed and nobody benefited more than the united states. we were responsible for 20% of consumption. meanwhile, we have the same concerns about japan. they did not rearm and we guaranteed their security. we guaranteed security and south korea.

without that kim jong-un would be ruling all of korea. it paid off in a stable global economy. we underestimated the benefit of all of that. the cost is enormous and as the cold war ended what is our role now? how do we integrate with other countries in the world? is more appropriate to have those responsibilities shared more broadly. we were on the old model with a rock, but the idea that the u.s. can step out of the business of being concerned with global security is one i don't support. i don't think that is the way that the world is working. there are threats out there.

what i support, we need much stronger partnerships. it can't just be us. countries are getting above 2% for their defense spending. we can't be as overwhelmingly dominant as before and we should not be. we will not be in the better position if we step aside. host: next, a democrat from virginia. caller: i want to thank you for your work on the bill. i am former active duty. your bill has a 5.2% entries for pay but the appropriators have

appropriated a much larger increase for enlisted people. i was wondering what you think about that and procedurally, if the appropriators appropriate more than five .2%, how much do active-duty actually get paid in the end? guest: the appropriators would control that. i have not looked at what has come out of the appropriations committee. i think what you are saying is there are differentiated and she ions in pay. we focused on the basic housing alliance and geared that towards the people at the lower end of the pay scale. that is the real challenge that

if you're just coming into the air force or army giving the increased cost of living, we want to make sure we are giving sufficient compensation. some of that is bonuses, and incentives. we all want to bring that up. i am happy to get to a bigger number if they get there. host: from pensacola, florida, a republican. caller: i have a question, he just said that more nato countries are starting to pay their 2% of gdp. that is not happening. when chuck tried to make them pay 2% they said trump is trying to destroy nato. japan pays 1%.

what makes you think my federal tax money to pay someone where they can travel to get an abortion and have their travel paid for? they don't have to use leave when people can't take leave if a relative dies. how can you have pornographic books in schools do you think american people are going for all of this? guest: what was your first point here? there are a number of countries that are coming close. but more countries have hit 2%, 6, 7 out of 30. what i said was not false. the number of countries have not gotten there.

when we decided when we were worried about trump and nato trump said he wanted to pull out of nato. it wasn't about the 2%. there was ample reason to be concerned about it. as far as the travel policy, if you had health care that you need that you can't go where you are they pay for people to travel to get that health care. outside of reproductive health care they pay for the health itself. the travel policy says if you can't get reproductive health care you could travel to a place where you can. we are not paying for the abortion. it is the travel that allows service members to get health care that they need or want. the reason this is important is because women will not serve in the military if they can't get

access to health care. but there was a particular case of a woman who had a miscarriage and had to have a procedure performed by the number of states are not allowing it. one person because she did not get that procedure done when into sepsis. that is why those policies do in fact make sense. host: the third point was pornographic books? guest: i think there should be work between military families on what book should be in there. we have seen that any books that mention gay people is pornographic. we saw that in florida where we had a teacher suspended who showed a movie that was not

advocating for anything but it had a gay person and it and that was considered something children should not see. the republican position is that we can pretend that gay people don't exist. they do exist and they deserve the same rights as the rest of us. the definition we are getting from the right wing is the one that believes that trans people and gay people and people they disagree with should not exist. the devil is in the definition on the last point. host: in bloomfield, iowa, and independent. caller: to reiterate what the previous caller stated. when it comes to reproductive

health you were referring to a dnc. that procedure would be down on base and she would need to travel. guest: that is not the case anymore. caller: let me finish. guest: when it cap said that woman in florida. she showed a movie that was not part of the approved curriculum. you have to approve your curriculum with your school board and the teachers association of what you are going to teach a class and what you're going to show. guest: i doubt seriously that every teacher and every school in florida doesn't do anything outside of approved curriculum. that's a daily occurrence but schools don't prescribe everything a teacher does or says. i think you are kidding yourself

on that one. the teacher was specifically targeted because she showed a movie with the gay person and it. as far as the dnc is concerned, stays don't allow that procedure in many cases. if you are doing that on the military base year in violation of the law. that has stopped happening. state after state after state has outlawed those types of procedures and that is why we have the travel policy we have. host: miriam in texas, a democratic collar. caller: here in texas, the republican governor has taken women's rights away. about 20 years ago people could

choose. my question is, in the military, [inaudible] guest: viagra is a medication that insurance will pay for. host: tony, the houses gaveling in early today. caller: i will keep it brief. you have taken over half a million dollars from defense contractors. you represent imperialism at its finest.

guest: i will address, i take legal contributions and vote against defense companies. i talk about programs we need to cut and not continue to fund. i hope people will look at the policies and legal ways to raise money. we have passed laws on what you can raise and where can come from. i vote for my district and what's best for my country. host: what are your predictions for continuing appropriations? guest: i think we will be able to pass this act. we have a reasonable bill. on the appropriations side the divides are great.