[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] >> mr. president, they are present and ready to present the articles of impeachment which

have been referred by the house of representatives against mayorkas. host: washington journal on april 17. mark green introducing the articles of impeachment against our hundred mayorkas. the senate will began its work today around 1:00. you can watch those proceedings. we will hearing your thoughts on the effort to impeach our hundred mayorkas. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent (202) 748-8002. if you preferred to text us, you can do that at (202) 748-8003. you can post on facebook, and

you can also post on x. the hill, the publication that covers capitol hill. i like that today's event marks the first time since 1876 that the house has said impeachment charges according to the senate historical office. when it comes to what more to expect, senators will be sworn in as jurors today to decide whether to hold a full trial on the senate floor, something that chuck schumer has said that he has no intention of doing. senator schumer saying and warning that holding a trial would set an awful precedent. that is some of what to watch out for today.

if you want to comment on this effort to impeach the homeland security secretary i hundred mayorkas. [video clip] >> impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement. we say that again. impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement. talk about awful precedents. this would set an awful precedent for congress. they send it over here. it is absurd and an abuse of the process. it is more chaos. host: that was fun yesterday. you can watch the proceedings on our act and our website.

it highlights the fact that you saw from mark green. abc highlighting who those others are. andy biggs of virginia. harriet from wyoming. august from texas and marjorie taylor greene of georgia. they have been assigned to be the impeachment managers should a trial take place today. that is one of the things to watch out for today. one of the print -- one of the people expressing skepticism is from louisiana. insisting on a full trial of alejandra mayorkas.

[video clip] >> we let both sides present their case and then we decide. but not this time. you know what? it has nothing to do with the evidence. it has nothing to do with what is right. this is raw, gut politics. you know it, i know it, and the american people know it. they are not stupid. they know a whitewash when they see it. and what senator schumer is going to do -- it is fraudulent

and it is an insult to the senate. it is a disservice to every american citizen who believes in the rule of law. host: that is a portion of what plays out on capitol hill. those proceedings at 1:00 this afternoon is where you can watch them. highlighting comments from mitch mcconnell saying -- saying it would defy history and precedent saying, i intend to give this my full attention. that is exactly what history and precedent did dates. never before has the senate agreed to table articles of impeachment, not for an officer of the party, not once, noting that every time the senate has

held or sent impeachment articles, the senate has referred the matter to a special committee to review accusations in depth. it is just a few things playing out on capitol hill. you can send us thoughts on facebook and x. mark, go ahead. caller: it is very simple, if you read the constitution. it goes to the senate for a trial. in this case, i am sympathetic with the fact that the republicans past articles of impeachment, but i do not think it is the purview of one senator to decide, i do not think we should have a trial. i do not like this idea of

impeaching this cabinet member. this is not his purview. he does not have the right to make that point. the constitution is crystal clear. the senate convenes as a jury. we have done it before. we have a procedure to do this. we have to follow the constitution. he can simply say, i do not agree with that constitutional procedure. we should follow the constitution. honestly, i am not that sympathetic with the whole idea of impeaching mayorkas. it is going to be thrown out.

so why not go through the motions of following the constitution. host: why are you not sympathetic to the effort itself? caller: i am not that it because i do think -- i do not disagree with schumer -- maybe this is more about carrying out the job of being the secretary of homeland security. but let's be clear. we do not really know what high crimes and misdemeanors are. all these situations. we have had trials and no one has ever been convicted. maybe the house wanted to make a political point here. but the procedure is crystal clear in the constitution. how can the senate say, i do not think what you did was

appropriate. i do not think that is right. host: all right. let's hear from ohio, independent line. let's hear about the effort when it comes to the impeachment trial. caller: hello. how are you today? i think it is stupid to even send it over there. they have been wasting more of our taxpayer money on stupid things. as long as they have jim jordan and marjorie taylor greene and listen to the big orange monster. why did they try to pass the bill on the border anyways? host: why do you think the effort itself is stupid? caller: the guy is not doing anything wrong.

people are coming here looking for better jobs. if they were mighty and coming from europe, they would love them. host: democratic line, you are next. go ahead. caller: i agree 100% with schumer. and no business impeaching him. they are full of it. the immigration law -- good. host: why do you think the effort is stupid? caller: republicans get away with every and anything that they do. he had no business being impeached from the beginning.

they need to stop it and go back to work. work for the people. host: maryland, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, sir. just kick them all out. they had looking at us and they are laughing. looking at the whole process, we are heading towards a civil war. host: as far as today's effort, why you think it is not worth the time? caller: it is a waste of a process. we have more important to do in this country.

host: 1:00 is the expected start you can follow along on c-span.org. we will show you everything that takes place. you can comment on the phone lines. independent -- secretary mayorkas was there yesterday as the process was playing out. he was testifying on the budget request and was asked about president biden's supplemental request across the border. here is part of that testimony from yesterday. [video clip] it would provide resources to hire more personnel across our

workforce that enforce the southern border and do so much more. the bipartisan senate legislation would not only resource our department as we are needed to address a broken immigration system, but also and importantly, actually change the law and authorize us to use tools that have long been needed to address that broken immigration system. it would take a multi-here asylum process and reduce it to as little as 90 days or less. that is a game changer. host: you can go to the website to see more there. this is fromoel in arkansas saying it does not matter if he

is impeached. it is our problem foreve this is noju a policy disagreement. breaking the law willfully and putting citizens at rate -- great risk. and then another poster from facebook, distraction period. as always, you can call about the trial tod. th they are. pickheine that best represents you. james in michigan. caller: this impeachment is just

a clown show high crimes and misdemeanors are supposed to be -- they are sick the way that they are doing things. i appreciate you taking my call. host: not does not rise to that level, you think? caller: no. trump has high crimes and misdemeanors. the republicans are following this guide. it is a cult. host: michael in california. go ahead. caller: this is a republican calling from the cult. you know, to flee, democrats need to wake up.

if you motive for biden, you do not have any common sense in your pocket anymore. and for the last three years chamoli had had how many people coming across the border that we did not know about. talk about having money after the election. nobody is going to have anything after the election. the democrats keep giving everything they want to anybody and everybody, as long as you are not american. host: the last caller said he was not convinced that the actions of the secretary were misdemeanors. caller: let me ask you a simple question. all these people who just called , if you do not believe it is a crime, then give me your passport. see if you can get in there without a passport and then see if you can get back into the u.s. without a passport.

you have to legally come into this country. host: ok. caller, i will stop you there. as far as language, watch your language if you call in. next step. go ahead. caller: i have a big problem with this impeachment. it seems that the republicans have latched onto that word. if there is going to be an impeachment, why is there an impeachment of the republican group in congress that refused to take the plan that they came up with the first reform of the immigration system and they turned it down. they do not want reform at the border war protection of the

border. no, they prefer to be on the air about impeached, impeached, impeach. can someone impeach them for not doing their job? they should do their job and protect their country. host: why not impeach him directly? caller: that is a policy thing. he is doing more at the border. we had trump under their and we had hundreds of children out there. they never know their biological parents anymore because he turned loose when he was in office. women were sent to different camps and sterilized.

let's get over it. the facts are that there was a bipartisan bill. mike johnson the rest said, no. we will not even take it up for in the. we will not consider it because we want to impeach. we get more mileage out of the news with an impeachment deal that we do to get our job done and settle problems at the border. host: let's hear from representative dan goldman. he criticized republicans because of their lack of effort to provide resources. [video clip] >> the problem is not the policy of asylum. the problem is that we do not

have the resources to process applications as expeditiously as is necessary. no one of aza is talking about throwing money at the problem. you're talking about solving the problem. they tried not just with appropriations but with a policy bill. unfortunately, the republicans have put politics over our order security. they want chaos in order to win an election rather than to solve problems. let's quote donald trump, who said that he sabotaged the bipartisan deal to secure the border because it made it much better for the opposing side and that he stated that he killed the deal. senator langford himself said that a top republican said, if i

tried to move a bill that solved the border crisis during the election year, he will do whatever he can to destroy me. he said, i do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. there was a policy bill. there was a policy change that would have significantly addressed the issues at the border but you on other side of the aisle sabotaged it, where you basically impeached secretary trying to solve our problems. you do not want to solve the problem. host: more from that hearing, not only on the impeachment efforts today but the larger effort of homeland security along the southern border. the website and the act is very can see more of that. i miss in michigan. thank you for waiting.

caller: looking good. pedro, we have to decide what it is for homeland defense. maybe he should be in charge of the national guard in times of crisis in january. he could have sent help. it might not have happened. but what is homeland defense is that within the homeland, can he call in the guard to help out the police officers when some much chaos is going on? you not see people walking around anymore. people are afraid to shop. seriously, maybe we need another secretary. maybe the person who hired him

in the first place should be brought into issue as to whether they are properly skilled enough for the particular jobs. we need to decide what the jobs are before we can place blame on someone. when they are brought up before a committee, they read their statements and then they say, give us a simple yes or no. it is impossible to do. why had a hearing? host: one of the things you might seem play out in a, courtesy of the hill, senator mike lee a leading conservative said he and his colleagues will attempt to protest the failure to hold a trial.

the house charging me mark esper repeatedly violating border security law. the story adding that they accused him for refusing to comply. instead unlawfully releasing migrants without establishing mechanisms. ray is in montana. republican line. you are on. caller: i will like to comment that the preamble to the constitution begins with we the people. we the people elect our people to do our wishes. that border has allowed thousands and thousands of people to come in here and we

are being aided. the only difference between a world war ii invasion and now is that -- all these illegals, that is what it means. they break the law and the need to pay for that. it needs to go to trial. we live under constitutional law . the democrats and republicans can each put their points across. this is our government in action and we need to hear both sides of the story. i have been listening to all the accusations. but he is not doing his job. he is allowing people to come across that border. they get their orders from him. host: let's hear from janice in

colorado. caller: i am very much against this. i am so upset right now. i had relatives that came through ellis island. they came through legally. this is one thing. why don't we put all these illegals and their towns, right where they live? that is what they need. the only way to stop it is to give them a taste of their own medicine. whatever his name is. host: why are you against impeaching him directly? caller: i am not. i'm just so upset right now. he should not be representing this country. he should have people dumped in his backyard. they are dumping them all over this country.

they could be dumping them in california or every state, including republican states. and democrats. if they do not get off their cases and really think about what kind of damage they are doing to this country -- we need legal immigration host: -- immigration. host: do you support them? caller: i do. there were six kids in boston. i was irate. they were children. six kids have been molested and may be killed. children. this is outrageous. what is wrong with this country. host: republican line. hello. hello? caller: yes, sir.

i'm all for impeaching him. i'm old school. if you cannot do your job, you need to find a new one. they keep saying the republicans did not want to change this or that, but we have laws to prevent this. it is not being upheld. everybody has a job. if they are not doing their job, get them out. it is just showing what needs to be done. it should be done on both sides. i am a republican and not everything we do is right. but we need to hold everybody accountable for their actions. they keep saying, they are trying to change this or that. bringing them in, letting them

walk in is not legal. we just need to make it right. host: this is paul in iowa. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is why i am an independent. do i think my has done a good job? no. he has been horrible. should he be impeached? probably. but it is a waste of time because there is no way the senate is going to impeach him. or throw him out of office. just like there was no way to get trump impeached.

it is the same thing but they were trying to do with jill biden. what happened to all the exposure of the biting crime family that did not happen? it is part of the democratic party. host: giving his thoughts on this impeachment trial set for today. 1:00 is the expected start time of activity. what plays out is anybody's guest. you can follow along. or you go to the app you can do that as well. you can give your thoughts during the course of the morning . (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independent is (202) 748-8002. a letter declining the invitation to testify before a panel. republicans have struggled to uncover evidence linking the president's business dealings. he invited pre-. other messages are going on. again, those were resettled yesterday. you heard from the lead investigators and saw them walk them over. they presented their case yesterday. those in the senate. lots play out there. more on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning, everybody.

pedro, i hope you give me a chance to talk about things. i want to say this. i do not know why people do not educate himself. there is a law that says if you come to this country and you seek asylum, you have to be heard in court for a judge to tell you that -- they are saying he is letting people in, but these people are seeking asylum. a judge must hear them. if you do not have enough judges -- that bill would have had it down to 90 days to hear those cases. those people would have been exported just tested and they got heard. so he is following a policy. that is the law. host: what do you think about impeachment? caller: why would you impeach that man?

he is not letting people in. people are coming in, saying that they want asylum. they have to be heard by a judge. that is the law. they still have to be heard by a judge to say that they cannot stay. the republicans do not want that bill. it would have been 90 days instead of 90 years. you let other people talk. i never heard a case where they named everybody in the biden family except for joe biden. making any kind of deal with anybody or anything. they keep talking about hunter. host: thank you for commenting on the impeachment trial today. north carolina, republican line, you are next. caller: pedro, it does speak to

impeachable offenses. misdemeanors -- here is what i think. he is complicit in the crime. he is an accessory to the crime. he knows that they are coming across illegally. you are basically complicit. that is my take on it. he is guilty of misdemeanor. if you know somebody committed a crime or even if you know a crime is being committed and do

not report it, as far as this, i can personally vouch for this. they live -- when crimes are committed, they do not report it. they know they will be deported. they did a good job. the guy wanted to be be -- the guy wanted to be paid cash. pedro, i'm not even sure they were 79. host: ok. we will go to new jersey,

independent line. caller: this is why i am independent. this is a ridiculous discussion. trump talked about the border. everyone said it was not a problem. now biden is president and at the 11th hour, it is a problem. the problem is being used by both parties to garner votes. i fly internationally alive. it is more difficult for me to get back into my own country when these people can get into the country. i think people are stopped at the border because they bought an apple from another country. an apple. host: what about the homeland secretary? caller: should he be impeached? yes, but he cannot be impeached alone because he is following orders from someone. he is not working alone.

none of these people are working alone. is he not doing his job? no. but he is also getting order not to do his job because he is told to do his job the way he is doing it, not working alone. host: steve in new jersey. keep calling on the lines. one of the things happening behind-the-scenes reported by punch bowl news saying that senators were unable to strike at the outline. they said there were several gmp objections that would have allowed a debate on two republican motions. another to create a trial committee. chuck schumer would have moved to dismiss both impeachment

articles. as far as republicans and what to expect today, they can expect to make a point of order inquiries. the expectation is that they will eventually deem and recognize she were to dismiss the charges. you can follow along as it plays out on a lot of different platforms. michael endo virginia, you are next up on this impeachment trial. caller: good morning. i have one comment and one question. how did everybody come to the country? everybody came to the country through the border. a lot of people were born in the country, but the people who came to the country as ancestors.

why does everybody complain about people coming across the border now, when they came across the border when they arrived to this country. they talk about the biden crime family echo the biggest crime family in the u.s. is donald trump. host: to the first point, you talked about immigration overall, but why not impeached the secretary directly? caller: because he works for the president. he is not doing this on his own. he is following the law that they have out there now. he cannot make up his own law or do any policies. congress has to do that. they can suggest things that he wants to do, but he can do an executive order. that is really nothing and nowhere. all they have to do is come in and tear it up. they are just doing this for

political gain, to get votes. you -- they always talk about let the people decide. let them decide in november, who we want for secretary. host: all right. alejandra marcus is the center of attention. michigan is. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. they are letting 10 million people come over here willy-nilly. they put them on the welfare role. my grandparents came over to make a life and these people have no incentive. i think they should go for the head of the snake and impeach joe biden. host: why impeach him

specifically? caller: it is hard to impeach biden. he is the president. but start taking down his minions and maybe we can straighten this country. caller: i agree with the guy from new jersey a couple calls back. this was an issue along time ago. although i voted for biden and obama and will continue to support candidates, we are not stupid. i think that republican congressman -- people are not stupid. even though i support democrats, this was an issue when joe biden came in. why was it not addressed here in

? 24 months in? you are going to try to pass something election year? that is ridiculous. this needs to be stopped. it should have been stopped within six months if you thought it was such a crisis. we can see the political ploys that these stupid politicians think the stupid americans cannot see. i think that he should be impeached. i agree with some of the callers. he is taking orders from the administration. that is true, but guess what? his job title is to deal with the immigration issue and he has not done that. i hate republicans, but go ahead and impeach them. host: on facebook, sing they have rightfully charged me orca'for not doing his job. this is happening in the business world.

time to get people to do their jobs again some of the background stories and things you might see play out the have highlighted this already. it will raise a series of objections if senator schumer calls to dismiss the effort. democrats control the senate and appeared to be united against the impeachment effort. most republicans oppose quick dismissal by senator mitt romney said last week he was not sure what they would do if there are moves to dismiss the trial. i think it is certain at there will not be a conviction when it has not been met.

let's hear about the impeachment trial. good morning. caller: i went to canada with my wife a couple months ago. we pulled into the canadian border and everyone had to get off the bus. they checked our luggage. there was a sign that there was a $500 fine. if you hire a person, we will find you $5,000 per day per employee. no one-man can stop -- can fix this problem when we have the u.s. congress and the u.s. senate representing the country.

people are trying to say that this one-man is responsible for everything that is wrong with our immigration and border policy. that is a joke. host: is it fair to say that he is the head of immigration and border policy? caller: yes, he is. if i file a policy and procedure and it calls -- costs millions of dollars because i follow policy and procedures, it would be nothing to me, but if i did not follow policy and procedure and something went wrong, they would fire me. host: giving his perspective. you can do the same on the lines and the various platforms that we have as well. if you are on x saying, i digr with senator schumer initially dismissing this.

and then dion highlighting another thing ing on, on e house side. secretary may work is worth speaker mike johnson. one of the things playing out in the house. speaker johnson attempting to bring foreign aid bills to the floor. tonya in maryland. hello. caller: really quick and then i will get off the line. i think you need to get back to common vents as a nation. i believe we should impeach, but i do not believe we need to put somebody else in there to follow suit with what he is doing. we live in a more volatile world than we have ever lived in and we are understanding the fact that we have nations that have -- that hate us. everybody is not seeking asylum.

we need to show some common vents and we need heroes the government. it is not republican or democrat. it is not about politics. it is about the humanity of the citizens of the u.s. host: are you saying and impeachment effort is a common sense movement? caller: we need to not only impeach him, we need to take care from the top down of everyone in charge of what is going on. we need to not only wait it out, we need to -- no matter what party line you are, we need to get back to common sense. there is a lot wrong. people are dying. we have to step up and be heroes now. we need men and women of character and integrity. we need honesty. we do not need to be a puppet on

someone else's straighten. it is time for us to stand up as americans who want to be saved and love the lord. host: maryland, republican line. you can do the same on the line. kathleen in pennsylvania, independent line, your next. caller: good morning, pedro. i watched yesterday as the republicans marched through the hall with the articles of impeachment. to me, it is just a payback for the trumpet impeachment. they are changing their orders from the ex-president. it is just amazing to me that republican jim langford worked with democrats to write a bill for border security that would

provide more border officers, new technology to help weed out people with weapons and they will not pass it. on the one hand, they are blaming it all on one man. however, they are blaming one man, but they are saying, we cannot do anything about this. it is incredible. it is political theater. to me, that is all it is. they can impeach him, but does it solve the problem? it is just theater. host: let you watch today? caller: -- will you watch today? caller: yes, probably. host: walking through the halls of the house over to the senate to deliver yesterday.

delivering those impeachment articles there. again, you can watch that play out today on the senate side as the jury is selected. you can watch on c-span two, c-span.org and on our at that span now. danny is in south carolina. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] thank you. host: charlie and minnesota. independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i hope you give me time on here. i'm going to use up my 30 day pass here. can you tell me who opened up this immigration the way it is? host: it seems like a rhetorical question on your part. you can go ahead and answer it. caller: we all know it was

biden. i'm so upset and hurt for this country. it is hard to even talk because of how upset i am. let's talk about nancy pelosi. she is tied into this as well. host: let's go back to the event at hand when it comes to secretary may organize. -- secretary alejandra mayorkas. caller: those people have destroyed this country. i'm a man and i do not cry, but i'm ready to cry. they have destroyed this country. why? why did they do this? tell me one good answer, please. why did they open up this country and do this to us? they made the whole country against each other by doing this, in many ways.

nancy pelosi, cutting up document. host: the event at hand, do you think the impeachment trial should take place against the secretary? caller: 100%. because that is joe biden's puppet. joe biden is doing all this. he opened up the country. i'm sorry. the guy had a stuttering problem. we gave him the chance to be president and now he has a mental issue. host: ok. we are going to leave it there. caller: pedro, nice to talk to you. thank you for taking my call. i'm going to get to this impeachment thing, but i wanted to say a few things first. recently in new york, three weeks ago was a rally for joe biden. it included obama, the puppetmaster, and clinton.

wake up, america. this proves that former and current democratic presidents are in agreement that traders and wide open borders will keep their treasonous party in control of this nation. this will prevent republicans from ever being able to have a conservative attorney general. this is high treason against our current constitution. host: as far as the impeachment articles against the secretary, how would you make that case? caller: that case is he is a collaborator with acts of treason against the united states of america. many of these people should be behind bars. if we get trump behind -- back and president, -- back as president, many of them are

going behind bars. they are derelict in their duties. they are allowing them into this country. without proper process. host: ok. tom there in ohio. the impeachment trial starts today. michigan is next on the democrat line. caller: good morning. we have a fiery subject for the republicans. i think president biden is doing a great job. when it comes to that border, i believe the republicans have really got their people all excited and hysterical, bringing this up every day and talking about it for the entire eight hours, 24 hours about the border. i think the border could be

settled, if they would have passed the bill. i live in flint, michigan and i do not see any immigrant. i do not see any immigrants. we need people. if they can speak english at work a job, we need them in flint, michigan. there is nice housing appear going to waste. host: sec. mayorkas himself, how would you rate how he is doing his job? caller: well, i do not think he is doing the greatest of jobs, to be honest. i do think the border should be a little bit more controlled. i do not think that is one of the top issues in the country. we have top issues that is way more important life social security. if the republicans get in, we

will have to wait for a we are 75. host: david from michigan calling and giving us his thoughts this morning. a call from independent from vermont. hello. caller: good morning. i'm calling in regards to what the gentleman from georgia said about working at the gm factory and how he said he followed policy, and they lost money, he would keep his job and if they did not follow policy and lost money, he would lose his job. policy needs to change. but if he is doing his job and they are losing money, there is something wrong with the policy causing them to lose money. we are seeing what the policy is causing come of they have no will to look at how to change and make it better. host: if policy is the issue,

does the secretary play into that? caller: he is not doing his job well, but he is taking orders and following the policy that he is been handed. that is the problem. host: gentleman from vermont giving us his thoughts. 1:00 is when you can looking for that on the various platforms, if you are interested in following along. you might want to follow along with what is happening in the house as well. house speaker mike johnson pushed back against mounting anger over a proposed aid package for ukraine, israel and other allies. saying, i am not resigning after a meeting of fellow house republicans at the capital. jonathan report -- a strong

self-defense, he would push forward with the security aid package. a situation that would force them to rely on democrat to pass it. that is on the house side. those initial packages, they are expected to be released this week. those bills have yet to be determined on when they will vote on them. geraldine is in missouri, republican line. thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: i am originally from louisiana. host: you are from maryland. i apologize. caller: i am a transplant from louisiana. i am french and i was raised to take care of home first.

home for me is people born here and people who came here legally. these are our people. if there is anything left over, we can take care of somebody else. that is the way i was raised and i think that is the way -- that is what we should be doing. host: what about the efforts towards the homeland secretary? caller: letting them overeat illegally is just wrong. there is nothing else to say about it. it is just wrong. host: larry is in florida. caller: how are you doing, pedro? thank you for taking my call. i love c-span. keep doing what you are doing. i do believe he is doing the best job she can based on the policies on the hand he has been dealt. c-span has shown that several

times the senate and the house and he is asking and begging and pleading for help and they refused to give it to him. there was a bill put up and the republicans still refuse to put up and yet they are screaming about the border and the border is to be secured. yet they want to impeach him for doing the job and he is asking for help. this is why i don't understand why people say he needs to be impeached when he doesn't have the friends to do the job he needs to do and is constantly going to the house and republicans who have the power of the purse in order to help them secure the border. in my opinion what i think i need to do is they need to put -- put that bill up and pass the border bill and see what happens from there. i don't think the republicans want to pass the bill because they want to run on it which is sad for america because you took

an oath to do's -- support and defend the constitution. if doing your job is securing the border, let's secure the border and let mayorkas do the best job he have -- has and give him what he needs. host: if you are interested in finding out the appearances from secretary mayorkas, years ago we launched our video library. if you go to our website and type in the search box, they will pull up and give you access to hearings and hours upon hours of those taking a look at immigration, going back for several administrations and how the issue of immigration has been handled. that is available by just typing his name in and seeing the various things he said even in recent days when it comes to

immigration policy. that is all available to our -- to you from our website. maryland, independent line. caller: the one word that comes to my mind is they are disingenuous. this is an election year. issues have been immigration, the economy and abortion. we don't say much about the economy because that seems to be working itself out. the issues are immigration. so i don't think it is right to impeach mayorkas. he is not responsible for fixing the problem.

congress is responsible for fixing the problem. put some laws on the books that he can enforce. right now i believe he is doing the best that he can with what he has. when i said fear, we look at what the has done. let's take the infrastructure bill. i don't see a lot of americans work in the construction jobs. so many has to do it. host: ohio, line for republicans. caller: good morning the thing is, they are letting these people in for the democratic party so they get more of these the people in the sanctuary

places so they can get more senators. that is what this is all about. once you get more democrat senators, the republicans don't have anything to say because i won't be able to do anything. it is like new york. that is what they wanted. they've got so many people now they can't take care of them. host: so this trial of the homeland security secretary, what do you think about that specifically? caller: he needed to be impeached along time ago because he is just a puppet of joe biden. i cannot believe joe biden gets a pass on everything because he's old. host: joe is next in texas, democrats line. caller: hello?

let's go to robert in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: how are you doing. good morning. host: fine. thank you. caller: in pennsylvania, i live in the poconos. we don't have a lot of the illegal immigrants coming up here. we are produce secluded up here. so why impeach him? why can't we just fire him? if you're doing a bad job you get fired. that's like everyday people. joe biden signed in his first 100 days, he opened title 42 and opened the borders. he could stop it himself. a herd -- i heard a couple people before you -- before this gentleman spoke of saying congress has to do it. that is not true.

he signed 100 executive documents or alluring -- opening the border. i love people coming to this country. i feel like it is good for our country. we were built on immigrants. my grandfather came from italy. but there is a wait to do it and there is a process. to attack our national guard, that is not right. host: final call on this topic. on c-span two, if you are interested in watching the senate impeachment trial of the homeland security sec., one :00 is the expected start time. joining us to talk about matters on the house side, up next, delicate stacey plaskett

discusses the conflicts in the middle east, aid to ukraine and other congressional news of the day. and later in the program a political defense reporter on the fallout from the iran attack on israel and the response from washington and talking about u.s. troops in the middle east. at that is coming up on washington journal. >> this year at c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress. since 1979 a, we have been your primary source from capitol hill with unfiltered coverage, taking you are the policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable company. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> cspanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse products, apparel, home decor and accessories.

there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at cspanshop.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span 2, telling the american story. martin luther king the third commemorates the 56th anniversary of his father's assassination in memphis at the national civil rights museum. at 7:00 p.m. eastern, congress investigates with historic congressional investigations that led to changes in policy. this weekend, we look back at the mccarthy hearings which explored whether communists that infiltrated the state department, army and other federal agencies. at 8:00, north carolina central

university history professor jazmine howard suggests yes discusses historically black colleges and universities in north carolina. watch american history tv saturday on c-span 2. findable scheduling -- find a full schedule on our website. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest of the morning is del. stacey plaskett who also served on the committee for weaponization the federal government. thank you for giving us your time. guest: you for having me here. host: one thing decided on a series of bills taking a look at ukraine and israel and other things. what do you think is the

likelihood of that happening? guest: i am trying to be optimistic about this. this beaker is finally bringing these to the floor and i'm pleased. this is something that in the case of ukraine, the ukrainian people have been fighting valiantly but they need our support. we have committed ourselves to supporting them many years ago and america has got to keep its word. bringing it to the floor will be great. it would be wonderful if these were the senate bills that have already passed what we will see what happens. host: remind with the senate has proposed for its version of funding versus what the house might propose. guest: in the senate you're seeing legislation that fits within the scope of what we have promised ukraine that the president has requested. we are talking about $10 million to support them. much of that is to try to

reinvigorate what we have already done to replenish our own u.s. stock of military aid as well as an increased participation on the part of the ukrainian armed forces and their ability to fight. so we are matching that with the supplies that they need to take this fight to russia. we are not sure what is in the house bill. that language has not been put out. we will see what the speaker has. he will have 72 hours at the language is drafted for members to look at that and then come to the floor. host: when it comes to democrats you align yourself with, you talked about the ukraine aid but what about aid to israel? what do you think about that and should more money go to israel? guest: there is a huge debate into not just the amount but the how when it comes to israel and continued support for the war

against hamas. while all of us want hamas to be destroyed, we are also aware that humanitarian aid must be a part of that. there is frustration on the part of many members of congress in terms of the netanyahu government and they are weighing this and the ability to allow the humanitarian aid to come through. we know that before the war there were 100 trucks coming in which would be regular for humanitarian aid. it dropped to 50 and then decreased less. the fact that the united states and president biden has committed to building a port, a moving marine port for us to get that humanitarian aid speaks to the difficulties we are having with the israeli government to get that through. we continually want to say that our support for israel remains

but our frustration with the government of israel is something we are working against. host: would you say any future support needed to be conditioned by a set of terms? guest: there is language in place with regard to any foreign aid, military aid we give that aligns humanitarian aid and we don't need to put additional language in. it is a matter of enforcement of those provisions that many of us are looking at and requesting that not just the president but the administration, whether that is the state department, defense department and all of the apparatus that reviews that. i know that is something we have been talking about and the intelligence committee that we have a carrot that we have given to israel and we stand with them in their fight against not just

hamas been out against iran but the execution is one that we have grown increasingly frustrated with and we hope we do not have to pull back any of that and hope the israeli government will come to the table and will bend in terms of their use of how they are using that aid. host: if you might ask questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. could you elaborate on the word that you use it bend. guest: we have seen recalcitrance on the part of benjamin netanyahu, even before the october attack when we look at what he has done and the

legislation proposed in the judiciary. other pieces of legislation he has tried to push through, that is a problem for the american people as well as most of the israelis themselves. i think october 7 was a cataclysmic event in the middle east, particularly in the state of israel, horrific attacks on the state of israel. in some respects, a pause on many of the protests going on in that state prior to the attack. i don't think the foundation of that concern is -- of netanyahu has gone away. and reports of the failures of the intelligence community in israel to anticipate the attack, the conditions at which hamas operated in gaza are ones that are causing many people to be

concerned with the prime minister. and calling for a change in government. and then there is also what happens after this. we as americans recognize while we stand with israel, we also stand with the palestinian people and recognize there must be a two state solution. it is evident that netanyahu is not in favor of a two state solution. that goes against what the american policy has been through multiple administrations, both republicans and democrats. there has got to be a way for people to live in peace and live together. host: when it comes to the message that the biden administration should be ascending to the government of israel and to netanyahu himself, what should that message be? guest: that we stand with you and we support you and trying to

get the hostages back and ensuring that hamas does not have the ability to engage in these kinds of attacks moving forward, but also that they need to be humanitarian aid to the palestinian people, not just those living in gaza but the violence occurring in the west bank. we can do multiple things at the same time. we need to have discussions on creating a two state solution, a palestinian government that is effective but also move to develop the economic growth of the people of palestine and their own ability to prosper. host: we saw the united states be part of the effort to push back on iran and the attacks of last weekend. how does that complicate the relationship with israel? guest: i think that not just

israel but even its neighbors, jordan, who supported israel in ensuring the iranian missiles did not make it into the state of israel and were not effective. all of the neighboring middle eastern countries as well as israel and the united states and the european nato allies all have issues and are against the iranian regime. also they have listed hezbollah and others as terrorists. we also recognize it needs to be what they do next and what happens next needs to be modulated and need to ensure there is not an escalation of violence that goes on. i am sure the administration,

the president and secretary blinken are sharing those beliefs that we as americans have that the administration has and we will see what happens next. that is also a message that is being shared with the allies in the region as well. host: let's hear from mark in oklahoma, democrats line. caller: want to know why we are not taking and supporting ukraine more, because it would be a blow to china if russia took a major meeting right now and we supported ukraine against iran and the rest of these countries would take a major blow especially if russia would follow.

guest: thank you. i agree with you and this is something that not only the biden administration and house and senate democrats and a number of republicans have repeatedly requested. you saw a joint statement go out by both the republican share and the democrat ranking member of the house intelligence committee together saying we have to continue to stand with ukraine. we have long needed to give them a funding and to support them in their fight against russia. we know that russia is receiving support from iran and china, but they are continuing to arm themselves and build up their military industrial complex and they are doing that with the support of the people's republic

of china. our ability to support ukraine and nato allies are going to be not just a fight in push for his support for ukraine but would be a blow against russia, china, iran and many other terrorist organizations. i wanted to bring up something we did not talk about which is another conflict closer to home and that is what is happening in haiti right now. we are seeing a complete breakdown of government in haiti. we are seeing the people of haiti absolutely being terrorized in their own homes by gangs. there is support we could be giving them. they have put together what would be a transitional government and they need the support of the united states,

specifically funding that is available that congress needs to release by the chair of foreign affairs in the house and the ranking member in the senate as well as releasing funds so troops, not u.s. troops, but so others can go in and ensure they can get stabilization and dissipation of gang of the transitional government can take place and we can restore order in haiti. without that, we know there will be continued chaos, increasing people dying. there will not be the ability to get supplies to haiti and for those individuals who are concerned about our borders, a-hady is so close to the united states that there will be individuals that are going to make that treacherous boat ride -- haiti is so close to the

united states that there will be individuals that are going to make the treacherous boat ride. so we could help our ally. we have to remember that haiti when we were becoming independent sent troops to fight against the british alongside us for our own independence. they have been fractured for many many centuries being burdened by payments they had to make to france for their own freedom and we've got to provide support. host: how use -- how do you say that that support will go where it needs to go? guest: it will be utilized not by the haitian government itself because there isn't one but to support a coalition of outside countries, specifically kenya, who have agreed to send their and neighbors we have worked

with and areas before and they are good partners for us and we can ensure the money would be utilized to ensure there is military support so the gangs can be removed from the critical areas in the capi of port-au-prince so the transitional government can begin. host: let's hear from james in west virginia. independent line. caller: i support's funding going to haiti. i also wanted to say to the people of the united states of america, get your values up and pay attention to who you are voting for.

don't forget to get your values up. host: let's hear from wayne in south carolina, democrats line. caller: i just want to know, do you receive any aipac funding? guest: i have not received aipac funding. caller: does genocide -- guest: i think many of us are concerned with the people of the palestinian people. i have repeatedly said we have

got to continue to bring humanitarian aid and support a two state solution. i have been to the region multiple times and met with organizers and leaders of the palestinian liberation organization as well as individuals living in palestine. in my own district i have a large palestinian and jordanian community and have stood with them and their cries for support for the temporary cease-fire to allow humanitarian aid to come in and i will continue to speak on that. one of the things i remind people is i understand the displacement of people and what that feels like. my family has been in the virgin islands for over 300 years. they did not come here and are

not part of the united states because they were displaced and removed from their own homeland. so i empathize with what is happening in palestine. i stand with the palestinian people while at the same time i stand with israel and their ability to defend themselves and ensure it at the end of the day that they are both living in peace and a two state solution. i have called on individuals for the israeli government to stop what is happening and stop trying to take land from the palestinians who have the right to live there. host: kevin, in georgia on the democrats line. caller: i will try to be as respectful as i can. i don't think we should be listening to aipac and we

shouldn't beat listening to none of these people. we need to stop israel and what they are doing. they are killing babies every day of the week. we are tired of this. if the democrats do not do something, they think we will just put our tail between our legs and vote for these people again and they are crazy. there are thousands of us that are not going to vote. so you people need to get it together. guest: thank you for your passion and sentiment. i agree with you that there is unnecessary deaths that are happening in palestine right now. you can be assured that i am making an effort to express that. i think our president as well is walking a line where he is pushing back on netanyahu, pushing back on the unnecessary killing but at the same time

working for a two state solution. i would remember my fellow democrats what happened under republican administration. one of the first things that president trump did was to try to criminalize individuals for being muslim in this country. he was the one who moved the embassy in tel aviv and brought it to jerusalem. i listen to everyone, both my fellow democrats, aipac and my own assessment of what should and should not be done. i listen to my constituents at home, both jewish as well as those who are muslim and palestinian and individuals who have dual citizenship with israel. i think we are trying to do the best that we can.

many democrats should remember what was happening in the middle east and what was the position of the former president when it came to the palestinian people. there was no support of the palestinian people and i think president biden is doing a much better job at that. host: from patricia in virginia, republican mine. . caller: i want to make a comment about israel. it wasn't only october 7 that they were being attacked. they have had missiles fired at them all along. i don't think america has any right to tell israel what they can to -- do for their country. if they have a cease fire, they will just come at them harder than ever

they hate israel and america and they want to destroy them. guest: thank you so much for your opinion and thoughts. i think we need to distinguish hamas from the palestinian people. hamas is a terrorist organization that needs to be stopped, but hamas is not the palestinian people and there are many palestinians, the vast majority who also hate hamas. i think we need to protect those individuals who are trying to live their lives, trying to have families and trying to have their own economic development but are also being terrorized by hamas in their own homes and used as shields against hamas. we in america have a responsibility throughout the

world to speak truth, on both sides. speaking out against hamas but also ensuring that our partner israel is a fighting hamas and does not become the enemy by unnecessarily killing palestinian people. host: do you think the sentiment is changing in the united states with the closeness we show with israel? guest: the american people very much feel close to israel. but i think just like many of us have a criticisms of our own country, we have criticisms of the israeli government itself and i think we are coming to a place where more and more americans are very disappointed and frustrated with the current leadership in israel,

particularly netanyahu and his coalition government. i think we will all be very happy when an election to replace him in israel and hopefully that government be replaced. until then, he is the head of government and we have to be respectful of that in the decision of the israeli people to have him as such and work with him. removing ourselves entirely from the situation is not the solution. host: let me ask you about leadership in the united states. when you see the events with the speaker mike johnson and the possibility that some may try to oust him. where do you think democrats are in helping the speaker keep his job? guest: i think the democrats are looking forward to the day when jeffries can be the speaker of the house and order can be restored to the house of

representatives and we can get back to doing the people's business rather than engaging in extremist politics and letting extremes of the base of the republican control the operations and processes of the u.s. house of representatives. i am not clear whether individuals who are attempting to oust mike johnson are doing so merely for performative politics themselves, whether in fact they are actually going to bring a resolution to the floor. if they do the next steps necessary for a vote for a speaker to occur again and the democrats will weigh our options. right now the republicans have a very thin margin and i think republicans want real order to occur in the house if there is a vote. a couple of them need to be

coming over to those who have been making the house function and that is hakeem jeffries. host: this is eric, independent mind. caller: i am calling regarding the representative's conduct and comments a year ago on the committee. i frick the name of the exact committee that was parroting shellenberger. two of the reporters that were investigating the twitter files and i make the comment because i hear the refrain from the representative about this election being about restoring democracy and i found her comments and the conduct of the democrats on that panel to be so revealing about their contempt

for the first amendment and contempt for the constitution and rule of all. that was representative to me about the threat to democracy more than any of the rhetoric that they are attempting to weave. guest: i think that what was revealed in that hearing to me and to many others is that there are individuals who are doing the bidding of elon musk as well as president trump and making sure that there are fractures for foreign adversaries to utilize our social media against the people of the united states when it comes to our elections. there is a need for us to call out misinformation, disinformation and ensure that social media sites that are run privately work with our government when our government

shares with them the possibility of instances where misinformation, disinformation are being put into a system to try and get to american people and misinform them as we come closer to an election. we know iran, china, and russia are doing this and will continue to do it as we move to a presidential election. that should frighten most americans. while we want to have free speech, wet to ensure that americans are not receiving false information from foreign adversaries that may keep them from voting and may give them false information of the most critical decisions and responsibilities that americans have. host: she says on the select

committee on weaponization and is from the u.s. virgin islands. at thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: we will talk about efforts not only from the attack and -- from iran but first it is open forum. if you want to comment (202) 748-8001 (202) 748-8001, for republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. we will take calls when "washington journal" continues. >> do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give up will be the truth come the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> quach american history's tv,

congress investigates as we explore investigations by the u.s. and senate. each week stories with the historic footage and examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings. the mccarthy hearings among the first televised, they explored whether communists had infiltrated government agencies. it was held in congress. watch congress investigates, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing nonfiction books. at nine :00 p.m. eastern, a journalist talks about her upbringing and why young adults like herself are leaving the evangelical church. at 10:00 p.m. on afterwards,

princeton university, author of we are the leaders we have been looking for, shares views on black politics and how the black politicians move forward. watch book tv every sunday on c-span 2 and find a full schedule online or watch on book tv.org. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcasts about books with nonfiction book releases as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is open forum time.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. breaking down the dur process for the trump trial. the foreperson and works in sales and get news from new york times, daily mail and fox news and msnbc will serve as the foreperson. the second juror is a woman, a native new yorker, an oncology nurse who spends free time with family and friends and taking her dog to new york -- to the park. the third is a man who grew up in oregon, corporate attorney. the fourth is a man born in puerto rico and has lived in the lower east side and told the court he has no spare time for

hobbies. his wife works in sales. the fifth is a harlem native who taught english language and has for eight years and never been married with no children and said she considers herself a creative at hearth. the seventh juror lives in the upper east side from north carolina, civil litigator married with two children. that is just the first six. moore decided as it plays out. the former president after the day in court visiting a local convenience store talking about his impressions of what he has seen so far. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> i heard 78% think it is a rigged deal. it is a rigged deal. everything is screwed up in new york and the whole world is watching. this judge is so conflicted. there has never been a judge so

conflicted. it is ridiculous. and also there is no crime. the crime is in the bodegas where they are robbed every week. >> are you going to be in court every day? >> we are appealing. if you take a look, every legal scholar and legal pungent said there should be no trial. there was nothing done wrong. this is all politics coming out of the white house. [yelling] [chanting] >> we are doing better now than we've ever done. host: that was from yesterday.

let's start off with paige in minnesota, democrats line. caller: good morning. i was calling to talk about the genocide in palestine and wondering why the u.s. continues to support israel when palestinians are dying. the u.s. is the biggest military complex in the world. host: let's hear from jonathan in new york, republican line. caller: good morning.

to israel, we should lend them the money willingly to help them defend themselves. at the democrats have abandoned israel. as far as ukraine, lend them the money. a couple years back they were the fifth most corrupt nation on earth and now all the sudden the whole world hinges on ukraine. not sure why. the delicate -- delegate this morning, your country has destroyed this country in four years, record inflation. we can't afford in this country the things we could do it for years ago. you guys on that. when the republicans finally get a platform on abortion, the democratic party will cease to exist because of woke mania. host: we are done with the segment with the delegate.

you can watch it on line. let's hear from howell in south carolina, independent line. caller: as far as our economy and our borders, they seem to be connected. we have a democratic party and republican party that are both to blame. we can't shake a finger at one person. there is a third player and that is the u.s. chamber of commerce. they want cheap labor and outsourcing. that has hurt this nation greatly. they love seeing -- i love seeing people coming to that country but would like to see them come legally. the u.s. people do not have a voice in government anymore. it seems to be businesses willing to do illegal deeds.

i am nervous. i am thanking you for your time. caller: let's go to maryland in new jersey. caller: i have a comment about israel's behavior and the world's response to their behavior. for many years they have violated iran and the palestinian people and never held accountable. when the victims, the palestinians and iranians respond and retaliate, they are suddenly called the aggressor when actually they were the victim.

there is a lot of dishonesty going around. no one is acknowledging the truth of what is happening. host: cornell in florida, republican line. caller: first of all, ukraine, stop the war. do the peace talks and whatever necessary to stop the war. as far as israel and gaza, israel needs to move the whole country. there are 12 million of them in move the whole country and leave that alone.

as far as trump goes, there shouldn't be a trial because it is past the statute of limitations with the misdemeanors and felonies. all his attorney has to do is file the motions and fill it out. there shouldn't be a trial. another thing where trump is concerned, not only should there not be a trial, but they shouldn't even be trying him whatsoever. it is not even necessary. host: that is cornell in ohio. the president in pennsylvania yesterday kicking off three days of campaigning across pennsylvania calling for higher taxes on the rich and ousting former president trump as an out of touch elitist. [video clip] >> trickle-down economics failed

the middle class and america. the truth is donald trump bodies that failure. he wants to double down on trickle-down. the failure starts with his to trillion dollars tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest and biggest corporations and exploded her hope that when he was president. donald trump added more to the national debt than any president in any term. meanwhile, when the pandemic hit, trump failed the most basic duty any president owed is a duty to care and respond. remember when he told us don't worry this will all be over by easter. remember when he told us literally inject bleach. bless me father. think about it.

think about it. because he failed to care, not only did people die but many americans lost their jobs, homes, livelihoods. in the four years he was president we lost 3 million jobs . 275 thousand jobs lost right here in pennsylvania. in the scranton area, jobs lost. 100 80,000 manufacturing jobs lost nationwide, including 37 thousand manufacturing jobs right here in pennsylvania. only two presidents on record in all of american history left office with fewer jobs than when they entered office, herbert hoover and yes, donald "herbert hoover" trump. host: if you want to see that,

go to the website. florida, independent line, this is scott. caller: biden is the biggest liar and has been lying since he got in. there is that section, article three section three of the constitution says we must guard the united states at the border. otherwise it is treason. we have asked mayorkas for three and a half years and he said the border is closed. are we stupid or what? the fentanyl depths, carjackings, rapes, murders. if that is why is going to be treason. elon musk owns twitter or x and now that he owns the messages, you are in host: trouble.

-- in trouble. caller: i don't know why they keep on -- host: if you don't mind, don't listen to the television. you have to finish a thought and not listen to the television. host: let's hear from kurt in florida, independent line. caller: i would like to discuss the palestinian support that i am seeing. i did some research about how much money the united states has given to the palestinians over the last few years.

in 2022, $343 million. i was alright with that but i wonder why people when they hear death to america think it is justifiable for us to send taxpayer dollars to a country that says that. i read member them during september 11 cheering in the streets. i am all for humanitarian aid but when do we start and stop that? i would like to mention haiti. haiti is in our hemisphere and is a country that needs our help. i don't think humanitarian financial aid is the answer. i would like to see 20,000 u.s. marines go to haiti and help those people get fed. host: the new york times reports that senator robert menendez may

blame his wife for the bribery charges by claiming she had information from him and led him to believe that nothing unlawful was taking place according to papers filed tuesday. it was in a legal brief filed by his lawyers and asked the judge to keep the information secret because it detailed trial strategy but if it was made public it would garner significant media attention and bias the jury pool. the story also adding the senator and his wife are accused of expecting cash, gold and electric cars in exchange for his willingness to use his political will and aid the governments of egypt and qatar. michael in west virginia, republican line. caller: i just want to keep it short and sweet. i know we have been on the topic of sending aid to israel or gaza

and people are on the edge about that. i would really like to say for anybody listening, i feel like the main concern should be america first regardless of your party lines. it is very difficult. host: jill from ohio, columbus, democrat line. caller: i want to give a shout out to the u.s. military who did a fabulous job saturday keeping people from dying when iran struck israel with over 300 missiles and drones. i am so impressed. i can't believe they intercepted everyone. i want to say i am ashamed of the democratic wing of the party that supports hamas. i was terrified after the october 7 attacks. people taking the streets cheering on the rape and

dismemberment and torture and killing of people in israel. it was just disgusting. i do not want to see innocent palestinians die but israel has to do something about hamas and they have to be eradicated. it won't present -- i want to prevent deaths from happening. i will would support -- not support biden for president but if trump gets elected, i don't want to have our foreign policy deferred to putin for what we should have in the future. host: burning from ohio, independent line. caller: i will try to be as brief as i can. three things, number one, every republican administration that has turned over to the

democratic administrations, and economy messed up. you saw it between bush and obama, bush and clinton. number two, the border, the republicans have blocked any help mayorkas needed to make the border at high tech wall instead of a physical wall which is the same thing china did many years ago. i tried to call it yesterday because the economist from the wall street journal, i wanted to ask him if he could do some research on what companies are doing greedflation instead of inflation and do a boycott of those companies and i think we could stop the inflation in its tracks overnight.

it is really greed. corporations are making record profits and there is no question that some of that is actually greed. thank you so much. host: thanks to all who participated. we will hear from a defense reporter who examines the fall from the iran attacks on israel. that is coming up next. it later we will hear from a texas republican who will discuss conflicts in the middle east, a to ukraine, the state of house leadership and other congressional news of the day. those segments are coming up on "washington journal."

>> they say i'm over the hill. don lemon would say that's a man in his prime. >> c-span's coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner, live, saturday, april 27, with "saturday night live" weekend update co-host colin jost as the featured entertainer, as well as president biden is expected to give remarks. our coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on cspan.org and c-span now, as journalists and celebrities walk the red carpet into the event. and then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom where the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday, april 27, on the c-span networks. >> c-span has been delivering coverage for years.

here's a highlight. >> racial profiling has to stop, mr. speaker. just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlumism the bible teaches us, mr. speaker -- >> the member will suspend -- >> these words -- the member will suspend. >> these words, he has shown you a man -- >> the member will suspend. the chair must remind -- >> require you, but to do justly as you love mercy, as you walk humbly with your god. and in the new testament, luke teaches us these words. the spirit of the lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. he has sent notice proclaim freedom for the prison.

>> c-span, powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: lara seligman joins us. she's with politico, talking about the event concerning the middle east, particular until light of last week's attacks on iran. good morning, thanks for joining us. guest: good morning. host: what have we learned since those attacks, particularly not only about the u.s. response, but how we go forward from there? guest: israeli open officials on monday said they were going to respond to the attack. but since then, the war cabinet has still been debating what exactly that response is going to look like. at this point the biden administration is really urging restraint by israel, especially since the attacks did not cause any casualties. there's some question over whether iran actually sent a message ahead of time, telling partners where exactly they were going to attack. the white house is saying that is not true. about the the biden administration really wants to avoid any kind of regional escalation into some kind of conflict. that's what they've been trying

to avoid since october 7. they do have multiple options in terms of a response, all the way from a direct hit on iran itself, but that would be extremelyesque l.a.er to, down to a hit on iranian forces elsewhere, in syria or iraq, for example. the problem with that is that's really a continuation of the shadow war that we've been seeing between israel and iran for so long, and it wouldn't have the symmetry that maybe the israeli government thinks is required after a direct attack on israel. host: what does it mean then, especially for those from the u.s. stationed in the middle east, as far as their security is as of today? are there concerns there? guest: definitely there are concerns. so far there's not a new threat to u.s. troops. open officials i'm talking to think that things are holding steady. iran has said there have been messages passed back and forth, and iran knows the u.s. was not

involved in the israeli air strike in damascus that start this whole thing. u.s. troops are not being targeted right now, but certainly they're vulnerable. there are troops in iraq, syria, and jordan. we saw earlier this year that three soldiers were killed after a drone strike by iranian militia groups. those attacks could certainly restart. there are also forces aboard ships in the red sea that are helping shoot down the houthi missiles resee regularly. they are vulnerable as well, as well as u.s. forces in places like bahrain and qatar. this is really a dangerous time. u.s. troops could be collateral. they could be targeted accidentally, or they could be targeted directly by iran. it all really depends what happens next. host: you said the biden administration's message was restraint. how is that message being received by the powers that be in israel? guest: the line i'm told is the israeli officials are listening. they've heard us. they're not necessarily listening. we don't know that quite yet. but it does seem like behind the

scenes u.s. officials are saying that israel wants to respond in a way that is limited, potentially send a message but not cause casualties or damage that would spark this another, another escalation. i think it's really important to say this was an unprecedented attack we haven't really seen yet. iran is kind of setting a new standard, a new precedent. previously there have been this long, drawn-out shadow war where iran and israel would attack each other, either covertly, using assassinations or cyberstrikes, attacks on the nuclear power plant. but this is the first time in certainly my lifetime that iran has launched an attack on israel itself, especially one of this size and scope. i mean, 300 missiles and drones, that's huge, and it's really incredible that none of them actually got through. so i think the concern is that iran is setting a new precedent in this shadow war in which

every time there is an israeli strike on iranian forces, they're counting the strike in damascus at a consulate facility on iranian soil. every time there's a strike that iran will fight back and hit israel itself, and they really want to prevent anything like that, because that is extremely risky. host: does this tie to events with gaza, or are there other factors to consider too? guest: i certainly think it's happening against the back drop of gaza. where previously i think iran wouldn't have the gall to strike israel itself, now it sees, especially two weeks ago, the week before the strike, international community had really almost turned on israel after the strike that killed the aid workers, and you have this uprising of public condemnation across international community of what israel is doing in gaza. so i think that iran was sort of seizing on that opportunity. perhaps they miscalculated.

it's not clear quite yet. but it's certainly a very dangerous time in the middle east. host: the middle east tensions and the u.s. response, the topic with our guest. if you want to ask her questions, it's 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us too at 202-748-8003. talk about the coalition. not only israel being at the front lines, but the partners there, including the u.s., what they contributed to what we saw last weekend. guest: absolutely. it was really an unprecedented effort. going back, the u.s. and its partners in the middle east have been working on some defensive effort like this for quite some time. they call it an integrated air and missile defense system. it was the u.s., it was france, the u.k. some reports that saudi was involved, jordan certainly. you have all these partners in the middle east that previously hadn't necessarily always worked together. now working together to create

this defensive shield against iranian missiles and drones. and u.s. officials, particularly in the pentagon, have been working on something like this for years, but there was the first real test that it would work, and clearly it was very effective. there have been a lot of challenges along the way. one is that all these different countries operate very different systems, and they don't necessarily operate together. so there's logical challenges. and then there's also differences in different companies' level of comfort with sharing information, so you have israel and the other arab partners don't necessarily trust each other and want to share this very sensitive intelligence information. so you have to get across all those challenges, and clearly there was some sort of breakthrough, because they knocked down 99% of the missiles and drones that almost none got through. so clearly this was a big success. host: did it start with this administration? was it tied to past administrations? guest: certainly past administrations. it was definitely happening in the trump administration, but i think it kind of crosses

administrations, because it's very much a military effort. at least in the beginning. certainly in the trump administration, with the abraham accords, that helped strengthen ties between israel and other arab countries, and i think that helped speed things along a little bit. but certainly this is something the military has been working on for years. host: one of the things we saw president biden talk about especially after october 7 is the building of that platform to bring supplies into gaza. where does that stand, and what are some of the hurdles that have to be crossed to make that happen? guest: certainly. this is a very complex operation. the pentagon, everyone is talking about it. the idea is to use army ships and some smaller navy vessels to build a pier. actually there's two platforms they have to build. they have to build a pier, which the ship will come in and off load aid on to the pier. and then the navy vessels are going to take that from the pier to a causeway, which is anchored

to the shore, and then that will be off load by trucks and distributed to the people of gaza. the problem right now, army ships are already on the way, some of them are almost there. i think they're slowing their speed a little bit, so they don't get there quite as soon, because there is no plan for the distribution of the aid. you'll notice from the pentagon podium, the press secretary has been saying, ok, third week of april, ok, maybe it's slipping to april 30, and now yesterday you just hard them say maybe the beginning of may. clearly there's some delay there, because they have not gotten an n.g.o. partner to agree to distribute the aid. the i.d.f. has agreed to provide security, but the security situation is certainly one of the reasons that there's this tension here and reluctance on behalf of some of the n.g.o.'s. host: literally an open target in building it. guest: exactly, it's extremely vulnerable. not only the aid workers, but u.s. troops as well. it's very dangerous. they could be hit by hamas. they're targets for iran-backed

militias if they decide to strike. and also they could be collateral from an israeli air strike. clearly there's a lot of danger there for everybody. host: is there a timeline when it comes to completion or start, or what's been said at the pentagon? guest: so far the ships are en route. they haven't actually arrived yet, but they're going to arrive as soon as the coming days. from there, they can construct the pier and the causeway pretty quickly is my understanding. but again, that timeline of operational capability has shifted now till the beginning of may probably. and i think, i believe that could shift again as you see the security environment evolve. host: politico's lara seligman joining us for this conversation. our first call is from jess knee albuquerque, republican line for our guest. jesse, good morning. caller: good morning. ms. seligman, i'm really glad to be able to talk to you. i just wanted to bring up, like

remember 9-11, 2001, i hope we all do. that was a rhetorical question. i'm just saying who attacked us? was it the israel or muslims? it was muslim people. muslim terrorists. i just wonder, what would have happened if those missiles had hit israel? would there have been any innocent people that died? absolutely, i'm sure. and so that makes all the innocent deaths that are happening in gaza, think about it, what does that mean? it's like, this is just ludicrous. let's be american. let's support our president. let's support our allies. let's get back to being great americans. i see some american history, i'm going work, let's go. host: ok, that's jesse there. let's hear from anthony. anthony in chicago, independent line, hi. caller: hi, good morning. lara, i wanted to get some clarity from you on a statement you had made just a little bit

earlier that iran is claiming that the attack on their consulate was an attack on their soil. and i want to better understand why this is kind of being brushed aside almost, or almost refuted, when the united states has used that as a pretext for a lot of very involved military action in the last century. why is that iran cannot claim and defend itself when it was first attacked and had civilians killed in that attack, why is that not an attack on their soil when the united states has used that as a pretext for a very long time? thank you. guest: well, certainly i think that there is a question over whether or not this was a legitimate military target. the issue, as i understand it, is the building that was attacked was attached to the diplomatic facility. so iran is claiming that this was a diplomatic building, but

israel is claiming that it was actually a military command post, and they did kill seven members of iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps. clearly there were military members stationed there. i think it's an open question whether or not this does violate the law of war and whether or not israel is at fault here. i do think it was an unprecedented attack. israel typically does not target anything related to diplomatic posts in syria or elsewhere. so i do think this was perhaps another level, and i think there is really an easy -- there isn't really an easy answer over who's right and who's wrong, but it is a continuation of the shadow war we talked about where israel and iran have been trading attacks sort of covertly and clearly with the situation in gaza as a back drop, it has the potential to escalate, as you saw it did on saturday. host: one of the things that came out of that was the use of article 51 of the u.n. charter

as far as the justification. how did that play out at the pentagon and here in washington? guest: i think it's a really, really tricky situation. israel is obviously our top ally in the middle east. the pentagon especially wants to work with the israelis every day in all different theaters. i think the pentagon wants to support israel, but at the same time, it's a really tricky spot, because israel did what it did and it did attack what looks like and can be claimed as a diplomatic facility, at least attached to a diplomatic facility. so it's really dicey there, and i don't think it's black and white. host: we heard from the pentagon spokesperson, major general pat rider, yesterday talking about those events. i wanted to play that and get your comments on it. >> the u.s. support for the defense of israel is robust, and it also demonstrates the long-standing security cooperation relationship that the united states has not only with israel, but with countries throughout the region when it

comes to addressing regional threats. and those kinds of things don't happen overnight. those kinds of relationships and the ability to work together, to interoperate together all played out and saved many lives. it's pretty telling that iran launched over 300 air threats as i highlighted, and 99% of those were knocked down. so it is demonstrative of that close coordination and synchronization between the united states and partners when it comes to addressing air defense threats in the region. again, we'll obviously continue to look at this and study this importantly. we'll continue to work closely with israel when it comes to the defense of israel and threats from countries like iran going forward. i'm sure we'll have much more to learn. host: can you elaborate on the closeness as far as what man power is involved, information sharing is involved, how would you describe that?

guest: the u.s. and israel are very, very close. there's a lot of intelligence sharing. there's a lot of sharing of at least aspects of military plans behind the scenes. the u.s. doesn't always get a heads up when israel is going to do one of its strikes, and we shouldn't expect to. but certainly they're talking every day, especially right now. there is a lot of intelligence sharing. israel still flies and, in fact, manufacturers parts of the f-35, which is the most advanced fighter jet that the u.s. also makes. so those jets also can share information very easily together since they're the same type. so clearly very, very close, and no other partner in the middle east is as close in terms of military sharing as israel is. host: this is andy on our line for democrats in new hampshire. caller: hi, can you hear me? host: you're on, go ahead. caller: so i'm not really a religious person. but it's the holy land, and

there's a lot of religions that believe in that place being very important. my idea, and i know there's a lot of logistics that would go into it, would be, can we just make it so that it's a preserve, like a nature preserve or national park, but a lot of -- i don't know. that's just my idea. because the whole idea of there always being fighting over this small piece of area makes no sense to me. thank you. host: from margie, unless you want to talk about that. we'll hear from margie in pennsylvania, republican line, hi. caller: good morning. i just thought, i just feel that there's just not enough emphasis from the white house, from the press, every discussion should begin with hamas could end the suffering for the palestinians

today if they would just come out of their holes. and, you know, we all are seeing this suffering, but it all seems to be pressure on israel, and those tunnels didn't build themselves. and all the materials for the tunnels, everybody knew where they were going. and the children are being taught to hate the israelis. so there's a lot of blame to go around, but hamas should be the first thing they say before they even talk about this situation. and, you know, the gall, the unmitigated audacity of the president to say, oh, don't get too excited, don't fight back. nobody said that to us after 9/11. that's my comment for today, and thank you. host: i think i'm referencing take the win, i think you'd

character isles the message to the israelis. guest: yes, absolutely. i think that's true. i think the concern with the war in gaza is just that it looks disproportionate, right? you have tens of thousands of palestinians that have now been killed. i think upwards of 30,000. and they're innocent civilians. and although hamas is hiding within the civilians, and they're hiding in tunnels under civilians, infrastructure, like hospitals, so it is really hamas that israel wants, but you also have to factor in the fact that israel is killing tens of thousands of people. i think the broader issue here is iran, and iran has been funding hamas, and iran is the reason that hamas was able to launch the attack that they did on october 7. and iran wants to eliminate israel, and everyone knows that, they've been saying that. they also want the u.s. out of the middle east. so i think israel in this case after saturday's attack feels like it must respond, because

iran wants a direct attack against israel, and israel, again, iran, the battle between iran and israel and the united states in the region is really the underpinning issue, and the lens of this all should be viewed through, and i think unfortunately innocent israelis and innocent palestinians have been killed as a result. host: there's a debate on capitol hill about future funding for israel. what does that mean for the defense department as they look at that debate play out? guest: what's been happening for the past several months is that president biden sends a supplemental package to the hill that would include tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid for taiwan, israel, and ukraine. that has been stalled for many reasons. initially republicans wanted to attach border security. now miker mike johnson is refusing to bring the senate-passed version to the floor. that's been since november it's been held up. what's happening now is peeker johnson has -- speaker johnson has decided on a new path

forward that would split this aid into four different bills that lawmakers could vote on individually. this is already getting some conservative backlash. marjorie taylor greene, for example, is taking she doesn't like this plan, she thinks that speaker johnson should be removed from his post. so it's really a tricky position for speaker johnson right now. you also add in trump to the mix, and behind the scenes president trump has been whispering in the ear of many republicans, and that's part of the reason that they don't want to vote for aid for ukraine specifically. but speaker johnson's plan to separate the bills allows lawmakers to vote on aid to ukraine without voting on aid to israel, and vice versa, so they can make their votes known that way. not clear yet, the devil will be in the details. the biden administration has not said whether they would support this plan, so i think it really depends on what is actually in the bill. host: sylvia is next up in pennsylvania, democrats line, hello. caller: hello.

i want to call about the -- united states and hawaii -- alaska to block to attack us? host: just to clarify, you mean the iron dome? caller: yes. host: ok, sylvia, thank you for the question. we'll let our guest respond. guest: i didn't quite hear the question. host: the iron dome we saw in israel, is there a similar defense system elsewhere? guest: indeed, in alaska, there is a ground base. u.s. northern command is responsible for operating that system. and certainly if the u.s. is attacked, then we have ways of defending ourselves and the military has that very much under control. host: we supply the iron dome

direct until any way? guest: we do send interceptors for the iron dome to israel, so yes, we do. host: from the republican line, mike in michigan, hi. caller: good morning. i have a statement. when did the united states start funding terrorism? sending all this money for iran, what did we expect was going to happen? sending that you will money to ukraine, leaving stuff in afghanistan for the terrorists, when did we substantiate funding terrorism? start funding terrorism? guest: i think the idea was not to fund terrorism. i think the idea behind sending funds to ukraine in particular is because ukraine is being attacked by russia. the u.s. and its partners as well, germany, the u.k., for example, many europeans, they have been sending aid to ukraine as well. we're not directly sending aid to hamas, which attacked israel. we did leave equipment behind in afghanistan, but that's because we left, we had to leave so

quickly, so we did have to leave equipment on the ground, unfortunately. but i don't think the u.s. is purposefully supplying terrorists. host: when the pentagon decides they're going to assist early israel or ukraine or elsewhere, there's always concerned about the slippery slope happening. how does the pentagon hold back against that? what's their plan to keep that from happening? guest: it also has -- the state department is the main agency that's actually giving the green light in terms of what we send to places like israel. and it's very bureaucrat i can process, filled with red tape, and many of our allies will say they're frustrated by the slowness of this process. when it comes to ukraine, it's sort of a unique situation, because the president has authorized a drawdown pocket of money essentially by which the pentagon can send parts of its own arsenal. so we're directly sending missiles and artillery and that kind of thing to ukraine. but there's many, many

mechanisms in place to make sure that what we're sending are things that ukraine, for example, needs and can use and will not be able to be used against us. host: lara seligman along with us for this conversation. this is steve in massachusetts, democrats line. caller: hello. i have two questions. one is that you mentioned 30-plus thousand civilians were killed in gaza. my understanding is that includes, the 30,000-plus figure includes combatants, about 13,000. but more to the point, i read somewhere that the general that was, the lead general that was killed in the israeli strike in damascus was directly involved in planning the hamas assault of october 7. so i'd like to know if you have any information on that, and i'll take the answer offline,

thank you. guest: i'm not sure what he means by taking the answer offline, but the senior general that was killed in the damascus strike, he was, in fact, the senior most iranian general in syria, and so they believe that he was potentially involved in the october 7 attack, yes. that is true. although i think there's some question of the intelligence there and what exactly we know and what exactly the israelis know. but yes, that's true. and more to the point, more broadly, iran has been funding and supplying weapons to hamas for years and to proxies across the region, the houthis in yemen. we're seeing them launch missiles at the u.s. and other commercial and military vessels in the red sea. they fund proxies in syria and iraq that have been attacking u.s. troops. they attacked u.s. troops more than 170 times between october 17 and february 4. so they're cause ago lot of damage in the region certainly.

host: allen in maryland, independent line. caller: i'm just calling to add a fact. the attacking of embassies between the iranians and the israelis is a long-standing practice. they did it in argentina over 30 years ago. to great effect. that was an iranian hezbollah sort of thing. i'm not sure what the groups were, but i just remember it's another one of these proxy activities. that's all. just a fact. host: matt from new york, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. you know, i get a little tired of hearing about how innocent the palestinian and gaza people are. everybody recalls 9/11. and there's actually news clips out there of the palestinians out in the streets cheering when 9/11 happened. then you look at the sophisticated tunnels, they're

not just holes in the ground, they're concrete lines. they have lighting, all this stuff. all this construction going on, and these so-called innocent palestinians didn't know all this was going on at that time. it's kind of ridiculous to claim that they're all just innocent when they're not. and another thing, the abraham accords, jordan, an arab country, actually helped protect israel, but does trump get any credit for the abraham accords? no. it's ridiculous. and another thing, when they shot the missiles, they actually shot some at jerusalem. now, what's in jerusalem? the dome on the rock, a very holy, muslim shrine. what if one of those missiles hit that? host: all that being said, what would you like to direct to our guest? caller: i would just like to say, just make those points.

the u.s. needs to back off on trying to tell israel how to defend itself. host: ok. we'll leave it there, especially as we wait to see what type of responses there are. where's the u.s. as far as waiting for that to happen, and what are things to watch? guest: certainly i think that an israeli response will probably come soon. behind the scenes, they haven't said to the u.s. officials what exactly they're going to do, what exactly the plan is, or even that they decided on a plan. so until we see what that response is going to be, whether it's on the low end, hitting a covert operation, or hitting iranian forces in iraq or syria, or the high end, which would be a direct strike on iran itself, those are very, very different scenarios that pose very different problems. i think if we do see a high-understand strike on iran itself, then we could get into a shooting war, which everyone has been worried about since october 7 and that could be a big problem for the biden administration. host: our guest's work can be

found at politico.com. lara seligman is the defense reporter for them. thanks for being here. our next guest, texas republican pat fallon will talk about events on capitol hill when it comes to the future of speaker johnson and other topics too. that's coming up on "washington journal." >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington, live and on demand. keep one the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house event, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for the tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts.

c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the q.r. code to download it for free today, or visit our website, cspan.org/cspannow. it's your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. >> celebrating the 20th anniversary of our annual student cam documentary competition, this year c-span has middle and high school students across the country to look forward while considering the past. participants were gin the option to look 20 years into the future or 20 years into the past. and in response, we received inspiring and thought-provoking documentaries from over 3,200 students from across had 2 states. our top award of $5,000 goes to nate coleman and jonah, 10th grader in connecticut. their compelling documentary, "innocence held hostage," navigating past and future

conflicts with iran. >> and it is evident that in the next 20 years the united states must make more policy that places restriction on all americans traveling to iran, because not only will we see a hostage, but united states will no longer participate in such consideration negotiations with iran. >> congratulations to our winners, and be sure to watch the top 21 winning documentaries on c-span every day this month, starting at 6:50 a.m. eastern, or any time online at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our last guest of the morning is representative pat fallon. he's with our armed services committee, a member there, republican from texas, also serves on the oversight and accountability committee. representative, thanks forgiving us your time. guest: thanks for having me. host: can you tell us what the status is as far as those bills we're expected to see when it comes to future funding of ukraine and israel and other things? guest: the plan is, at least for the republican conference, is to

separate these out and make them single subject bills. in other words, have a separate vote on israel, separate vote on ukraine, and a separate vote on the indo-pacific. what i would love to see is a separate vote on border security and securing the southern border. joe biden has prune over three years that he's not a priority, he's simply not going to do t. the only way is to elect a new president. host: to what degree do you think the addition of that kind of language is going to be a sticking point to the effort to get these bills passed? guest: i think it's a separate bill -- what i actually would really like to see is a very good idea that came out of conference that said we will take an up or down vote on ukraine. that's what the democrats have been asking for. we'll do that in the house. it's going pass if there's an up or down vote. and then all we ask is the senate take an up or down vote on h.r. 2, the omnibus border security bill. and check schumer won't do that, but we can craft it in such a way as to in the legislation

itself say we will hold the paperwork, and it will be transmitted the senate once they take an up or down vote on h.r. 2. we just want them to take a up or down vote. host: do you think that's a realistic effort? guest: it definitely is. i don't know what chuck schumer would do, but then the impetus is on him if -- i don't want to see ukraine lose, let me make that very clear. but my constituents say over and over again, why are we securing ukraine's borders when we won't even secure our own? they have a valid point. and i'm very sympathetic to that being from texas. i do think this administration has made every state a border state. we need to address this. we can do both things at once. it's just that joe biden refuses to do so. host: you talked about ukraine. where do you think support for the funding of israel will stand in the house? guest: the house has already passed a stand-alone bill for israeli funding. it just wasn't taken up in the senate. and then joe biden just came out this past week and said he would

not accept a stand-alone bill for israel. that was really befuddling. it baffles me. i don't understand why. but that's political gamesmanship, really. israel is under attack. not only from hamas, which, of course, is an iran proxy. but the motherland itself, iran directly attacked this past week. so i think that that should shake the bushes and get this thing done. but the democrats, again, are stalling on that as well. host: is it democrats or some republicans too as far as that philosophy of concerns about future funding of israel? guest: well, if there's some republicans in the house that are talking about that, i haven't heard it. there certainly may be. there's almost 220 of us. but the overmajority, 99% of republicans want to support israel. host: the house comes in at 10:00, and if up to the ask our guest questions, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002.

you can text us at 202-748-8003. separate bills, representative, has speaker johnson said when the text will be released yet? guest: i'm hoping today. we have a 72-hour rule, which would mean a saturday vote. when you have this thin of a majority, you really want to make sure everybody is there. host: speaking of speaker johnson, what do you think his future is as speaker? guest: i fully support speaker johnson as speaker. he's the best and most talented speaker we've had in tech aids, number one. number two, i think he's the most conservative speaker we've ever had. and any talk of doing a motion to vacate is self-defeating. it's not helpful for the country. certainly not helpful for the conservative cause at all. it just causes mayhem and confusion, and quite frankly, misery. so i would hope that does not come to pass. but if it does, i'm going to support mike 100%. host: what do you think is fueling the animus? guest: pardon? host: what do you think is

fueling the effort? guest: well, unfortunately, every member of the house is one of 435. we're not the speaker, and we're not the president either. so you have to understand and play your role. you certainly should speak your mind, but we don't want to get, devolve into the italian parliament, where you're speaking prime ministers four, five times a year. you need some continuity, and you need stability. mike was elected, let's let him -- he's only been serving for six months. let's let him serve the rest of the congress, give the guy a chance. what's fueling it may be my way or the highway, which, again, doesn't do anybody any good. host: do you think that goes back to ukraine financing, issues of border security as part of that fueling of that? guest: i think that we passed a comprehensive border security bill out of the house. that was h.r. 2, as i mentioned earlier. we had to be cog any fact of tht we're a divided government.

we cannot dictate to the president or senate. having said that, in divided government there should be compromise. when we have a very important bill, there should be some give and take. joe biden doesn't want to do anything like that. they are very tough negotiators. and they want to pretend as if the democrats have the majority in the house. they do not. so we need to work together to move the ball forward. host: you're on the armed services, and you serve on the subcommittee for tactical air and land forces. when it comes to that ukraine funding, when it comes to weapons and equipment, where do you think the emphasis should be on what we're sending to ukraine? guest: harpoons, things, javelins, the weapons systems that have proven to be very effective and highly accurate, and quite frankly, lethal and deadly to the russians. we've now had a war going on for over two years. listen to our ukrainian allies and what are they asking for, what do they need. what are the things that we can

help hold the line and maybe even help them gain some ground? host: this is from marilyn in washington state, republican line, for our guest, representative pat fallon. good morning. you're on with our guest. caller: good morning. i got to take a water here. it's 6:00 out here. anyways, the reason why i'm calling, and i appreciate representative fallon being on the air here, my comments are i prefer stand-alone bills on everything. i prefer stand-alone bills for any issue. i do believe that we should support ukraine. i do believe we should support israel. i do believe we should have some more money for different policies for our southern border. my question is, when the war began between hamas and israel, president biden went on tv and

said if anyone else is figuring out attacking israel, the president of the united states says don't. well, iran did. it sounded like our president has put the honor of the united states on the line. do you believe that we should have a military response to iran because of president biden's statement, don't, and iran did? guest: first of all, good morning, and thank you for being up so early. pedro, she asked a great question. your job might be in jeopardy. marilyn might take it. marilyn, when the president of the united states says things, words matter for all of us. but particularly when the president says something. and joe biden made a very bold statement, as you just so adeptly shared with us. he said don't. and then iran attacks.

and then if the united states doesn't do anything, what does that tell the world? don't listen to what the president of the united states says, because he's all bluster. much like when barack obama said there's a red line in syria, and then that red line was crossed, and there was no action. so you have to be very careful. i don't want the united states involved in a hot war with iran if we can avoid it, but the president really did get out over his skis. what i don't like to see is two things. one, the president at the state of the union quoting casualty figures for gaza that are from hamas that we know are inflated. that is a propaganda arm, the ministry of health, of hamas. let's not do that. and let's also not dictate to israel as to how they're going to defend themselves. we need to give them leeway. they're obviously a strong enough ally in the region, but they have a right to defend themself, so let them do that. let's not speak out of turn. let's stay in our lane. host: another early riser from california, brandon, democrats

line. caller: how's it going? my name is brandon. am i on? host: you're on, go ahead. caller: great. i just wanted to say that i work with a group of veterans from the left. from my experience, i see a lot of stuff from human rights groups international and even israeli human rights groups that say what's going on in israel is an international crime, and my question just revolves around, do you think it's ok to sell weapons, pass laws for a country that's in violation of human rights? guest: brandon, first of all, thank you for your service and also for being up this early. when there's a conflict, innocent civilians are going to be harmed and, unfortunately of course killed, and that's absolutely tragic. i think really the responsibility for the current conflict in gaza lays at the feet of hamas and not israel. hamas attacked israel, murdered

1,200 innocent civilians, and then took over 200 hostages. the way in which hamas fights, they use innocent civilians as human shields. you can see that, and, of course, they misappropriated funds from the international community when you see the complex, very complex network of tunnels as well. so, you know, i'm kind of an every a student of history, and the united states, when we invaded france in 1944, we bombed normandy. 19,000 french civilians were killed in that bombing. and i don't believe that was the united states' fault. it was nazi germany and hitler germany's fault. one thing i hope we can all agree on is the i.d.f. is not purposely targeting civilians. they're taking all due care not to harm civilians. it's the way in which hamas fights that really drives those figures up. so i don't think little a crime for israel to defend themselves. and then the other question is

random that i would really be curious to know what your thoughts were, what would you have israel do after october 7? what would you have them do on october 8? we have a lot of gaza protesters in the capital, and i ask that question, and i don't get a response. host: representative, the senate starts up its impeachment proceedings when it comes to alejandro mayorkas. how did you vote on that? guest: i was the first representative to file the charges, and my good friend mark green got it across the finish line. i definitely think he should be impeached and i hope he's revolved. host: what do you think will happen in the senate? guest: at this juncture, chuck schumer has made it very clear the chances of alejandro mayorkas being removed are zero to nil, and nil is going to win. what we don't really know is how they're going to proceed. i think they have a constitutional duty to hear the arguments for and against, and they should have a trial. but chuck schumer doesn't want

that, because that's not good for the administration. any time you talk about the border, that's not good for joe biden. he's very under water on it. not only republicans and independents are overwhelmingly in favor of a secure border, but lots of democrats are too. it's not a topic that they want in the news. so that's why he'll probably move to dismiss. the problem is his margin. if you just have one democrat vote with the republicans, you're going looking at a tie, and it's really unclear ads to what happens if there's a tie in the senate, because the vice president doesn't vote on impeachment matters. and senator murray from washington will be overseeing the proceedings, and she's the senator, and she's already voted. so it's really uncharted territory over there. host: was the whole effort messaging at the end of the day? guest: not at all. in fact, i think we have to do our constitutional duty. the house can only control what the house does. we felt that he should be impeached. it was never likely that a chuck schumer senate was going to convict him, but you also don't

know if you discover new evidence that may compel them and force them. just like with nixon, he probably wouldn't have resigned, because impeachment was inevitable, but impeachment probably wasn't going to be ineighthable unless they found the tapes and that was the smoking gun. that doesn't seem to have happened, any new evidence, so it's going to fall along party lines. but it's very important to do our duty and let the chips fall where they may be. host: sabrina joins us from north carolina, independent line. caller: hi, i actually was commenting on the israel thing. as far as the impeachment goes, there are tons of you guys up there that i'd like to see replaced, because my people are suffering and y'all ain't doing nothing about it. but as far as israel goes, why are we going to send our hard-earned money over to israel when it is the biggest tourist attraction in the world? and gaza is the world's largest

ghetto. so if you can convince me that this isn't just a land grab for israel, then i might consider sending my tax dollars over there. but my question is, highway patrol revenue does israel get out of its tourist industry, and why should we be sending any money over there? guest: thank you for your question. one, i don't think it's a land grab at all, and i think i can prove it, as much as the israelis left gaza in 2005 and haven't been back for 19 years. so i don't think they're interested at all in occupying gaza or being in any part of it. the problem is the folks in gaza elected hamas, which is an arm of iran. they are clearly a terrorist organization, not only our country, but many countries have designated it as such, and you can see with their actions, and certainly i hope you can agree on october 7 was atrocious. israel is surrounded by enemies. it's a small country, only eight million people.

it is a first-world nation. but we help them because of the fact that they are surrounded by threats, and we do want to see democracy not only flourish in the middle east, where it's not really, it doesn't have roots in the middle east, successful roots anyway, because there is never in human history been two true functioning democracies that have had a pro tracted war. it just doesn't happen. so it's good for not only the region, but the international community as a whole to see democracy take root. it's been a very difficult region for that to have success. host: chris in illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a quick comment and a question. the comment is in regard to the question that congress posed about what should israel do. i think they can consider stopping the occupation to the extent that they continue it and they are taking more land than

was ever a lot to them legally. so that would be something for them to consider and maybe you can comment on that. my question is about what you said earlier about your constituents being worried about funding ukraine. i would like for you to comment on why are your constituents not worried about aid to israel in the same way, and if so, what's the issue? guest: let's take the first part of your question. thank you for it. it's about occupation. there's a lot of talking points that folks from some political quarters just repeat over and over again, and it starts to take a little hold. the west bank is administered by the palestinian authority, and gaza hasn't had israeli presence since 2005. hamas can't keep their water

clean, and they can't keep the lights on, so they to ask israel for help, but i think it's very interesting as well that gaza has a border with egypt, and you should see that border wall. egypt has sealed it as well, because what hamas has fostered over the last 19 years is mayhem and tyranny. the egyptians don't want it in their country, and israel doesn't want it either, because they chose the wrong leaders. they chose revolutionaries and agitators and not folks that can actually rule and govern and create prosperity and opportunity. it should be a successful state. it's not. i do support personally a two-state solution. but israel clearly has a right to exist. israel has been a success story. israel also has a right to defend themselves. as to your question about ukraine and funding and why would some people be opposed to ukrainian funding, but support israel, israel has been a traditional ally. ukraine has had issues in the past over the 30-year journey of

democracy with corruption and russian undermining their flourishing democracy. it's starting to bud. if you look at history, taiwan was an authoritarian regime. it took 50 years for democracy to take hold there. south korea, the same amount of time, about 50 years. ukraine was about 30 years into that journey. so they had a few decades left. what putin has done is forged a national identity with ukraine. once the war is over, i'm going make a prediction, 10 years after the conflict and the hot war ends between ukraine and russia, i think ukraine is going to be another eastern european success story, but time will tell. but the reason why a lot of our constituents support israeli funding is it's a lot less. it's usually about $3 billion a year. and it's something that we've been doing for many years now. and it goes because israel is surrounded by such threats, and they have an overwhelming disadvantage as far as population goes, vis-a-vis nations that want to do them harm. with ukraine, it's been $130

billion of authorized fund sog far, of which i've voted most times against the funding, because it was just too much. i think it's a radical position to do absolutely nothing and not help ukraine. but i also think it's a radical position to give them, open the checkbook and give them a blank check. and that's what joe biden has done. we need to have discernment. we need to find the common ground and thread that needle. host: how much includes an end game strategy to conclude this conflict? guest: that's a great question, and that's something we talk about in open committee hearings and also in classified settings. we do need an end game, a strategy. i've been very clear about this, it is unrealistic for anyone, including president zelenskyy, to think he's going reclaim all of the territory that putin has stolen, including crimea. i think that a solution that may have some legs eventually is crimea has a referendum.

i believe that they will vote to remain with russia. and then there's going to be a negotiated settlement in the east. putin cannot keep all the territory that's under his control. at the same time he's probably not going to go back to pre-2014 boredders, or at least lines to control. so that's going to be a sticking point. also, i'm sure putin is going to insist that ukraine never join nato. that will be a negotiating point where is it a moratorium of five years, 10 years, 15 years. i think ukraine eventually should have that right. we did sign, the united states did sign the budapest memory dumb, where we -- memorandum, where we promised to come to their aid if they were invaded. they did that. again, as one of your previous callers mentioned, word mean things. we have to be a nation of our words, so we can be trusted in the international community. host: representative pat fallon with us. the house is coming in in about

five minutes. caller: good morning, congressman. i have a statement first. you made a statement about schumer not willing to bring the bill that congress sent to the senate concerning the border. what about the bill that the senate sent to congress about the border? the senator from i think oklahoma lankford put together with democrats. if you take me out to breakfast and i want bacon, eggs, pancakes and walls, but you only give me bacon, eggs, and sausage, i'm good with that. but you criticize the democrats for not willing to compromise the bill that was sent and not taken to the floor that congress sent to them, but you're not even willing to take the bill to congress and look at that and compromise on that. what is it? is this the political ploy that you're trying to impeach somebody that has no power but only taking orders and he needs money?

that bill would have provided judges, more security guards, technology. it would have provided a lot of things that it doesn't have now. something is better than nothing. the bill should have been compromised in the senate that you sent to them, and that bill to the senate sent to you should have been compromised. neither one of you are willing to work with the american people. you're only willing to work for votes. host: larry, we'll leave it there. guest: i live in denton, county, pedro. the problem with the senate bill was, first, there was absolutely no discussion whatsoever with house republicans on it. i understand it's a senate bill. but they can certainly take the temperature of the other chamber. and what house republicans have been saying all along is wait in mexico, the policy that president trump put in place, works. if you talk to anyone along the border, they will tell you that, and this is customs and border patrol, that if we reinstitute

wait in mexico, where folks who make asylum claims will have to wait in mexico while it's adjudicated, that would reduce this flood by 70%. that was not in the senate "compromise" bill. furthermore, it normalized 5,000 illegal border crossings on a daily basis. that's not something that i want to normalize at all. if we really want to talk about a true border fix, then you have to have the four quart, which would be the house, speaker, and the minority leader, and the senate majority leader to really discuss something in a bicameral fashion, so when the senate shoves something down our throat that we had no input on whatsoever, i don't think that's healthy. i think when we do something in the house, we should negotiate at least back channel with the other chamber to see what the temperature is there. so the way in which to fix the border is, number one, wait in mexico. number two, we have to build a

border wall. we have to have -- i can't even believe that's controversial. a nation state doesn't have bored either, then they don't -- you don't have a nation state. there was a border wall that was funded that joe biden just stopped the construction on. that didn't make any sense at all. we need verify. there's a solution to the border crisis. it's simply that, unfortunately, the vast majority of democrats don't want to do it. host: dan is in indiana, independent line. dan, you got about less than a minute, go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm concerned about the border also. we live in arizona sometimes and indiana also sometimes. we're snow birds. but i've been living in arizona long enough to understand, and i talk with a lot of border patrol people, and i talk to a lot of people that lived there all their lives, and agree with the pree caller. that was -- with the previous caller. that was a bill that senator

lankford, who i respect highly, put together with a lot of work from a lot of people, and when it was sent over there, it was already dead on arrival, according to your speaker. i just don't understand why, since most of my friends in the border patrol liked it. host: got you, caller, thank you. we have a few seconds, representative, go ahead. guest: i haven't talked to any border patrol agents that commented on the senate bill. not to say there were some that were supportive of it. if you really want to take the border seriously, wait in mexico needs to be reinstituted. it was not a part of that package. really, that's why it was dead on arrival. that's something joe biden can do. he just simply refuses to do so. if that's not a part of the package, it's window dressing. host: republican active pat fallon, thank you. guest: thanks, pedro. host: we now take you to the house of representatives.