let's look at the provisions, the big ticket items in this $1.7 trillion spending bill. $772 billion for nondefense discretionary programs. $797 billion for the pentagon. ukraine will get an additional $45 billion in aid. there is $40 billion for disaster relief. breaking down that aid for ukraine, $12 billion for replenishing u.s. weapons stocks. $9 billion to train and support the ukrainian military. $7 billion to u.s.-european command support. $300 million for nuclear reactors and fuel. many more provisions in this bill. 120 $6 million to prepare for potential nuclear incidents. many provisions in the bill. we will try to break them down for you throughout this first hour of today's washington journal. before the senate voted yesterday, the final vote which was 68-29, 18 republicans joining the democrats to approve the spending bill, senators were allowed to offer amendments. senator rand paul offered an amendment to try to control the spending that happens in washington. listen to his argument, along with bernie sanders the budget chair pushing back on his proposal. [video] >> moments ago i made a point of order against a 4155 page bill spending $1.7 trillion that was given to us in the middle of the night at 1:30 in the morning. the point of order was waived, as it always has been by the senate. it has become far too easy for congress to escape its own rules designed to prevent reckless spending. there's been enough time for ace -- there has not been enough time for a single person to have read this bill. the building process ignores storing inflation, rising interest rates, and a ballooning debt of $31 trillion. enough is enough. i asked my colleagues to support my admin meant to raise the threshold to waive a budget point of order from 3/5 to two thirds. >> this amendment would require 67 senators to waive a budget point of order instead of 60. if this amendment were passed, a tiny minority of u.s. senators could prevent action on a national health care crisis, an economic crisis, or natural disaster. that would put the people of this country in a very dangerous position. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. host: from the senate yesterday. the admin that failed. 18 republicans joined the democrats to approve the bill 68-29. tweeting out the names of those 18 republicans. they included senators blunt, collins, cornyn, kotten, lindsey graham, emhoff, mcconnell, portman, romney, brown's, shelby, wicker and young. the 18th senators who voted with the democrats to approve this spending bill and avoid a government shutdown. joseph from virginia, good morning. over 60. what is your reaction to some of the provisions in the bill? caller: thank you for letting me come in. i can't give specifics right now. i read a lot in the last several days. a lot of excess spending. we have a $4000 people have it -- 4000 page bill people have not been able to read. i said $4000, not 4000 page. in the old days -- i'm old enough to remember committees actually reviewing what is supposed to be in a particular area. reviewing the budget, making recommendations. something called a 13 cardinals of the house, the 13 appropriation bills. today you don't have that anymore. nobody really knows what is in there except for a small minority of folks who put together the bill to be passed. i like to go back to regular order so we all understand what is in there. $1.7 trillion of discretionary funding. there is nondiscretionary funding. the actual amount of spending for the fiscal year 2023 is more than $1.7 trillion. it will include social security, medicare, medicaid, other entitlement programs that might be increased. this is just too much debt we will have. we are $31 trillion already. there's a lot of wasteful spending in the bill, both on the defense side and nondefense side in terms of what occurs. i think this is just -- in terms of people being able to actually do what they are supposed to do. host: what stood out to you as wasteful spending? caller: off the top of my head i can't recall. there was a number of things that came through. the new york post and the wall street journal had a listing of items that were in the bill. $15 billion i read about in terms of earmarks. to me it was a lot of money. in the old days earmarks were small items for particular senators. today they are larger. $15 billion. that would make the fortune 500 list. host: how do you respond to lawmakers who say we know our districts best? we should have earmarks. we know what our districts need. caller: having an earmark does not bother me so much as the dollar value of some of the earmarks. you have $600 million or $200 million. there is the hike trail in georgia, $3.6 million. there are a couple of others. nancy pelosi's district, $200 million being put there. i would like to see a dollar limit on the earmarks. if i congressperson wants to have an earmark, no more than $1 million. host: rory in california. also over 60. good morning to you. go ahead. caller: basically i would say they are kidding themselves. they are trying to spend more money at the border without closing it. from what i've heard -- i'm a republican. from what i'm hearing they may devote money -- maybe they will do a separate category for ins that takes care of people and lets the border patrol actually catch people. but what makes everybody think they will spend money for the aliens, even if they are appropriated? from what i'm hearing from my republican people they will argue. they will not spend anything for any alien or anything else until the border is secure. everything is built. host: you are hearing from your republicans -- house republicans are going to try to fight this? caller: yeah. the republicans in the house. they have a few democrats that he pelosi. -- hate hello see who may vote against it. today is her last day effectively until then. a lot of people say they will not spend it on aliens. like in new york, they were spending money on aliens over vets. host: this does go to the house this morning. they will gavel in at 9:00 a.m. eastern to consider this $1.7 trillion spending package. they also have to pass a short-term cr. current funding expires at midnight. they need to give the president enough time to sign the bill as well. house republicans are opposed to this, led by kevin mccarthy, republican of california who wants to be the next speaker in the 118th congress when the gop takes over. from the washington post, as mccarthy vibes for the speakership, hoping to run the house in january, he has held out for weeks against any negotiations with democrats. he's even signaled support for blocking bills written by his republican counterparts in the senate who supported the spending package. a position first endorsed by the most conservative members, some of whom opposed mccarthy's bids for speaker -- bid for speaker. until january 3, they retain the majority. the vote is likely to be sparsely attended as more than 220 members from both parties had indicated by thursday night they would be absent in part due to inclement weather, choosing instead to vote from afar by proxy. 220 members will vote by proxy on this $1.7 trillion spending bill. ron in texas, good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. i am a 59-year-old. i'm disabled. i depend on social security. i don't understand -- i don't believe the senators understand the bill. i don't know what it means when someone says they will shut down the government. is that the military? social security? to me there are all forms of terrorism. that is terrifying to hear the government will shut down. i don't know if it is more of a ploy to get their bills passed. i don't think the government can literally shut down. that is where i am at in the situation. i appreciate you letting me call in. host: as we talk about -- talked about with the first color, $15 billion in earmarks. 7200 earmarks for lawmakers in this bill. from the new york times reporting, lawmakers from both parties stuck earmarks into the bill, including republicans who secured funding for hometown projects. they will now not vote for the package. the bill contains more than 7200 earmarks, up from 4962 in the last spending package, which passed in april. an increase that could be the result of congressional numbers learning how to navigate a practice that was resurrected earlier this year with the passage of the last spending bill after a decade in which funding for the projects often derided as pork was banned. it is no longer banned. i think it is a wonderful opportunity for members to get back to their states, said senator patty murray of washington, who secured over $280 million for her state. she will chair the appropriations committee in the senate and the 118th congress. molly reynolds at the booking institution set the process allows members to have a stake in a legislative process typically governed by senior leadership. the increase in the last spending bill could reflect the fact that many members have never experienced the earmark process given they were elected after lawmakers concerned about the abuse of the practice put a moratorium on earmarks in 2011. jb from pop springs, arkansas. -- hot springs, arkansas. caller: how are you doing? i was going to comment on the money we are spending in ukraine. i noticed the speech when zelenskyy spoke. a lot of republicans just sat there. i thought that was kinda shameful. the way i see it, we are not sending money to ukraine. we are sending armaments, tanks, planes, whatever. these armaments are laid -- made right here in america. we are spending money on ourselves. we are not sending boatloads of money over there. we are sending things they can use and are built by american workers here in america. so, i just kind of cringe every time i hear these republicans calling in here and talking about all the money we are giving ukraine. we are spending money here in this country and giving them arguments which they need. i heard this morning that north korea has kicked in with russia. they are starting to send things to russia. also helping with people, sending mercenaries in there. iran is giving them drones. it is getting into a bad situation. i've said it before. the best way ukraine can end this thing is if we would give them back their nuclear weapons that they gave up. if russia knew they had those weapons, they would not be doing what they are doing over there. host: john and clarksville, arkansas. what is your reaction to some of these -- how congress is spending money in 2023? caller: good morning. i'm delighted to be the second caller in a row from arkansas. appreciate the comments from jb. proud to see the vote. it was somewhat close to being bipartisan. 18 republicans voted for the bill. i think that is a good indication the bill is moving in the right direction. very proud of senator cotton, senator bozeman. glad to see they both voted for it. they are our senators and arkansas. -- in arkansas. it's important we support ukraine. the united states needs to be a leader when it comes to leadership of this nature. we need ukraine to succeed. if ukraine fails, we will pay more in the long run and we will lose in the long run. we need ukraine to be successful. happy to see the spending bill move in that direction. host: rick from sioux city, iowa. over 60. caller: good morning. hi. i don't have a lot on this. i'm looking at this reaction to what is in the bill. i have heard several politicians say they are not certain what is in the bill. i don't know how you can go through $1.7 trillion worth of stuff in the meta-time they had -- and the amount of time they had and cast a vote on it. that concerns me. i can't get my head around that. i don't know how we run a country that way where it has such a short fuse to spend that kind of money. that is pretty much my reaction. i -- like i said, to go through everything they are spending would take a lot more than a few days to do that. host: it is 4155 pages for late-night reading if you're interested. you can find it on a website, c-span.org. david in north carolina. caller: hi. they are so much garbage in this bill. i heard yesterday where they got a million and a half dollars over a $2.5 million michelle obama trail. what do you need something like that for? you'll need to focus on -- we can't even get into hospitals because that got people like that. freaking democrats. i have a right to be mad, ma'am. host: from the debate on the senate floor yesterday, senator ron johnson attempted to pass an amendment that would take all the earmarks out of the omnibus bill. here is a portion of that debate, including a response from the appropriations committee chair patrick lakey of vermont who is retiring -- patrick lahey of vermont. [video] >> report issued says we are sitting on a surplus of $250 billion. in addition, they have rainy day funds approaching over $130 billion. that totals about $380 billion. this omnibus is going to spend somewhere around $1.7 trillion. it is still not enough. here is the 625 pages of earmarks. almost 10 alien dollars worth of additional money going to the states when they're sitting on close to $400 billion of surpluses. this is grotesque. earmarks are the gateway drug to the morgue in our children's future. my minute eliminates all the -- my amendment eliminates all the earmarks from this grotesque bill. >> senator johnson one sister cede the power of the purse to the public servants and exec new branch. they are unaccountable to the voters. we are asking we should be able to reflect the borders of our state. the senator from vermont, i speak with community members, business owners across my state everyday. i have done this for 48 years. i understand what they need. i try to reflect it. under rule xliv, rule 44, additional rules by established last year, we have unprecedented transparency and accountability in the congressionally directed spending bill. far more transparency than they've had at any time in my 48 years in the senate. i asked the rest of the remarks be included in the record. i oppose the johnson eminent. host: from yesterday. the senate approving the bill with bipartisan support, 68-29. it now goes to the house. they gavel and at 9:00 a.m. here on c-span to the package. we want to know what your thoughts are on these spending provisions. also included in this legislation is proposals like the electoral cap act that sent -- count act that senators have been working on. congress poised to overhaul the electoral count act. the new legislation would make it clear the vice president's role is merely to count the votes publicly and he or she has no power to alter the results. it would dramatically raise the threshold to sustain an objection to a state's electors to 1/5 of both chambers, up from one house member and one senator now. the proposal would provide for an expedited federal court challenge if the state attempt to delay or tamper with election results. this comes on the heels of the january 6 committee in the house making their final report public yesterday. in it it included one recommendation to pass the electoral count act. it also recommended that the former president should be barred from holding office again, pointing to the 14th amendment. there's a headline in the washington post on that. we will talk about that in the second hour of today's washington journal. back to this discussion about the spending bill. we divided the lines by age this morning. rich in danvers, massachusetts. ov 60. caller: how are you doing today? i like your red for christmas. i called my congress meant and they could not tell me have any zeros are and $1.7 trillion. -- in 1.7 trillion. host: you are opposed? caller: we will be borrowing money from other countries in 10 years. yes. they call it a depression. host: what stands out as the most egregious spending in your opinion? caller: all these earmarks and things like that. joe biden can't count to 10. he's absolutely gone. he does not care about anything. we are spending so much money on the border and so forth. the guy is a complete failure. host: brenda from pendergrass, georgia. good morning to you. do you want to share hold you are this morning? caller: i have an opinion. i think the white house is a -- mitch mcconnell needs to be thrown out. host: because he voted for this? caller: they don't want to help our border. like that man said, they killed us. they are killing our people. they want to kill our babies. they want us all dead this year. i don't understand that. host: what you mean -- caller: i don't believe in that, ma'am. we need god back in our lives. host: what do you mean about the border, that they do with the help on the border? caller: they need to have the border closed. they keep coming over. they are waiting on it to be open. joe biden don't care. mitch mcconnell don't care. all the republicans and democrats, they don't care. host: i think she's referring to the debate over title 42. washington times front page. migrants gathered to wait for foreign policy's to end. title 42 allowed the government to send migrants back into mexico, back to their home countries. it is set to expire next week. this became part of the debate over the $1.7 trillion spending bill in the spent yesterday. listen to republican mike lee attending to add an immigration related amendment to the bill. here's a portion from what he said and the opposing view from judiciary committee chair dick durbin. [video] >> during the recent border crisis title 42 began the only sustain control we have over illegal immigration. an 2022, this year alone we've had over 2.7 million undocumented immigrants at our southern border. that doesn't include those who came across, sneaking through undetected. the biden administration is expelling people from the border exclusively under title 42. that's it. that is always got. it's been used help expel 2.5 million illegal immigrants. in the last seven days alone the border patrol in arizona showed it is not just the people coming across illegally. it's also dangerous drugs. in the last seven days alone, porter patrol agents have confiscated one point 5 million fentanyl tablets. more than 14,000 pounds in total was intercepted at the border in 2022. that's enough to kill america's entire population nine times over. we have no business passing this bill unless it is in here. >> the logic of title 42 is a public health response to a crisis. it was determined for coming into the u.s. could be turned away under title 42. more than a million were last year. what has happened to the public health crisis? in june of this year our government announced it would no longer require covid tests for foreigners entering the united states. we have 22 million international visitors each year. now there is no longer a requirement for testing. let's be honest. this is not about public health anymore. it's our excuse for not tackling the very real challenge of coming up with a border policy on a bipartisan basis. host: you can watch more of the senate debate on c-span.org, or wait for the house to take up this $1.7 trillion spending bill when they gavel in this morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. they are up against the clock. current funding expires at midnight tonight. they will have to take of a short-term continuing resolution to allow time for them to debate and vote on the spending bill. we are taking phone calls on what is in this package. we are taking your text messages, facebook posts, and tweets as well. here is john, 75 years old. $1.7 trillion equals higher inflation. that will be the real crisis. past the cr without the bill and let republicans fix the mess, he says. gail in rockville center, new york. how old are you? caller: good morning. 60. this bill is an outrage. the reason why it is, you have 21 republicans that promised to get our financial bus