tv Washington Journal 04152021 CSPAN April 15, 2021 7:00am-10:04am EDT
seth jones on international studies. at 9:00 a.m., washington, dc -- ♪ >> i have concluded it is time to end america's longest war. it is time for american troops to come home. ♪ host: four u.s. commanders in chief have overseen the war against the taliban in afghanistan since 2001. president joe biden yesterday announced he would bring to an end the american involvement in that war and bring home the 2500 u.s. troops there. it is thursday, april 15, 202 1. we will spend this first hour talking about the president's decision.
if you support the president's action, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose bringing u.s. troops out of afghanistan, (202) 748-8001, for afghanistan war veterans, your line is (202) 748-8002. we welcome your text at (202) 748-8003, just include your name and where you are texting from. send us tweets @cspanwj. we will look for your post on our facebook page. we will show you more and longer segments of president joe biden's comments late yesterday from the treaty room at the white house as well as the response from key leaders on capitol hill. this is the reporting of stars and stripes on the decision by the president. 9/11 attacks no longer justify u.s. military presence in afghanistan. they write that president joe
biden on wednesday said he would end american military involvement in the longest war by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack would do little to change the conflict in that country. we went to afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago biden said, that cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021. it is time for american troops to come home. stars & stripes said biden speech made formal the announcement that came tuesday that they reached a decision after a three-month review to remove the remaining 2500 or so u.s. troops from afghanistan by september 11 of this year. that is from stars & stripes. news this morning on the secretary of state, anthony blinken making an unannounced visit to afghanistan to sell president biden's troop withdrawal decision.
after the announcement yesterday the president visited arlington national cemetery where afghanistan war veterans are buried there and paid his respects. saying i'm immeasurably grateful for the bravery that members of our armed forces have shown with nearly two decades of combat deployments in afghanistan. they have never wavered in my resolve and paid a tremendous price on our behalf. the visit the president made after the speech yesterday from the white house. let's listen to a little bit more of what president biden had to say. president biden: i believe our presence in afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place. to make sure afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. we did that. we accomplish that objective. we said we would follow osama bin laden through the gates of
hell if need be. that's exactly what we did. we got him. it took us close to 10 years to put president obama's commitment to reform. osama bin laden is gone. that was 10 years ago. we stayed in afghanistan for a decade since. since then our reasons for remaining remain increasingly unclear. over the past 20 years the threat has become more dispersed, al-shabaab in somalia, al qaeda in the uranium peninsula, al-nusra in syria, isis attempting to create a caliphate in syria in iraq.
with the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated at the cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and our leaders. we cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result. i am the fourth united states president to preside over the war in afghanistan. i will not pass this responsibility. host: what you think of the announcement? if you support the decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001.
afghanistan war vets, your line is (202) 748-8002. the washington post writing about some of those vets, afghanistan veterans wrestle with purpose of the war. tyler burdick was on the mountaintop in utah training to compete in the paralympics when he heard about the biden administration plan. he lost both legs below the knee after surviving an explosion in 2010. he was injured in the back of an armored vehicle. she provided medical treatment as a medical hospital foreman and said he has a hardware implanted to stabilize his legs. his pain increased. he planned to pursue a career as a navy seal before he was injured. he said he thinks it is long overdue that the united states withdraw. we have outdated our usefulness,
even if we had it to begin with. he remains proud of those with whom he served and stays in touch with them. that is from the "washington post p or cow -- washington post." caller: i heard this report a number of years ago -- the afghan who met with americans and after the meeting was over [indiscernible] a couple of young officers brought military papers and
there with horrible thing . a senior officer told him to get out of there and said don't talk about this, this is just normal. don't tell anyone. [indiscernible] i know the are horrible people but how could you be involved with people doing that kind of thing? enough. host: how long ago was this? caller: at least three or four years ago.
host: thanks for your call this morning. richard is next up in nashville. caller: good morning, i oppose it for one reason. it is a yes or no situation. i don't want to be there. when they blew up the 9/11 towers and ever since september 11 i have seen things change in this country. it seems like we are running scared. i don't mean americans can't handle a battle. we have done everything in this country to try and appease everyone else in this world. if you go back in history, if it wasn't for the american troops, we would under it -- be under communist rule today. it is a strategic point. you've got afghanistan, pakistan, india, china, and russia right there. i hate to say this but if we are going to be in wars, i go back
to when i was a kid when we played cowboys and indians or cops and robbers, those games we used to play. if you took over someone's forte, you owned it. the british, the french, the french were in vietnam before we were. another political war. we need to own afghanistan. it needs to become a u.s. territory. same with iraq. they don't like americans. 22 years ago, his dad grew up in afghanistan. he said there would never be peace there. the best thing we could do is set up a military rule like we did when japan bombed pearl harbor. japan is better for it by the way. if we don't take control of this world you will have this radical religious zealots take over.
stay there, make it a better place for the afghan people. kill them, all of them. if you don't -- if you are not for america, we will take you out. let them look back at the wars, let them find out. thank you, have a good day. host: richard mentioned the strategic value. this is the reporting this morning on one of pakistan's major newspapers reporting on the president's decision. he announces afghan exit. they say that notably not naming iran. he says the countries in the region have a significant stake in the stable future of afghanistan. the chief of staff of pakistan in a conversation with the u.s. secretary of state will support
and afghan lead and afghan peace process on stakeholders. this is pakistan reporting this. including the latest development of the afghan peace process in various fields under discussion. asking you this morning your thoughts on the president's decision to withdraw u.s. troops. if you support, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose that, (202) 748-8001. afghan veterans, your line is (202) 748-8002. in wisconsin, michelle. michelle in wisconsin, you are on the air. caller: i do support it, thank you. we have been there long enough.
caller: we should not have gone into afghanistan in the first place. we should not have invaded them. host: mute your volume, we are getting a little confused with the feedback. go ahead with your comment. caller: we should not have gone into afghanistan in the first place. osama bin laden was not afghani, he was a saudi arabia and. he was a religious fanatic and wanted to destroy america. he brought people from saudi arabia to live on land he bought
in afghanistan from a farmer. host: are you concerned if we do leave doesn't leave a bit of a security vacuum in terms of u.s. national security value for al qaeda to regroup in afghanistan? caller: he was a fanatical muslim, we should not have been in there in the first place. host: roll calls jen donnelly reporting on the reaction of capitol hill. ayden's afghanistan decision triggers worries on capitol hill. he writes that the president pulled u.s. troops out of afghanistan by meas former president donald trump had planned under a february, 2020 agreement. groups will leave by september 11, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attract triggered. he said it fell along partisan lines. some security experts warn the
pullout of u.s. troops may not go smoothly. that is at roll call.com. here some of the reaction yesterday from republican senator lindsey graham of south carolina. sen. graham: al qaeda and isis will benefit quickly from this decision. i feel like i need to tell the american people why it is in our interest to keep the 2000 troops over there until conditions are right. i believe if we leave afghanistan under the past started by president biden the government will deteriorate fastly. the taliban will gain strength in the south. the central government will lose its ability to effectively manage the country. the terrorist organization made
by our state department to bas terrorist organization -- to be a terrorist organization's will reconstitute and for militias in the north and west. iranians will have major influence. what do we lose by pulling out? we lose the insurance policy against another 9/11. we lose listening post and some of the backyards of the most radical movements in the world. we could monitor what is going on in iran and other places. we lose all of that. what do we gain? we gain the idea that the war is now over. joe biden ended the longest war in american history. with all due respect president biden has not ended the war, he has extended it.
host: your thoughts on the president's decision? (202) 748-8000 if you support the announcement of the withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan. if you oppose that, (202) 748-8001. for afghan war vets the line is (202) 748-8002. more republican reaction from capitol hill on twitter. senator rand paul saying it is great when we can find places to agree. i'm grateful president biden is keeping president trump's plan to leave afghanistan. the time to bring our troops home is now or as soon as possible. enough endless wars. cynthia lupin saying after 20 years our troops will finally be living afghanistan. i wish divide the administration kept president trump's may 1 deadline. i'm pleased our troops are coming home. presented of duncan of south carolina, i'm trying to give credit where credit is due.
he will do so with my support and appreciation. president deserves tremendous credit for getting us to this point. dan sullivan from alaska saying 9/11, a day of immense tragedy celebrated by violent and extremist around the globe. the biden administration advances its goal to withdraw from afghanistan 20 years later on that same date. the same extremists will be celebrating again. afghan war vet adam kinzinger saying a grave mistake. here's why protecting stability in afghanistan helps protect american security and why believe this moment is more important than politics. let's go to calls. we will hear from robbie in fitzgerald, georgia on the oppose line. go ahead. i'm sorry, this is darnell in indianapolis. caller: i oppose the war because
we have a lot of contention here at home that we should clean up. that is my thoughts. host: to bobby in fitzgerald, georgia. caller: i just wanted to say i think they should come home. i don't know what line i called on. i hope you let me finish area could i say something? host: go ahead, please. caller: when the defense start putting on the derek chauvin trial you showed 12 days of prosecution and now none of the defense. it confuses me. host: i will answer that quickly. we are showing the trial at c-span.org every day live streaming it every day. the reason, the first two weeks
of the trial congress was out of session. our primary role, our mission here at c-span is to cover the deliberations of the u.s. congress, the house and senate. two key appropriations hearings happening on capitol hill. that is why c-span was created in 1979. we are covering the trial at c-span.org and reentering the entire day beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. host: james, next up in chattanooga, tennessee. caller: i don't think the troops should've ever been put in it is the result of george bush. i could not understand as a well decorated veteran of the vietnam
war, i could not understand what they are going to do. that makes absolutely no sense to me. there was no weapons of mass destruction found. osama bin laden has nothing to do with afghanistan. they cue so much, have a good day. host: james mentioned former president george w. bush, this is the front page of the "washington post." their headline says biden cycle could not continue in afghanistan. reporter greg whitlock on the announcement by the former president in 2001. he writes four days after the united states invaded afghanistan president george w. bush appeared for a primetime
news conference to address the nation gripped by fear and anger by the 9/11 attacks. most americans supported the decision to go to war, there was widespread uncertainty about how the conflict would unfold and how long it might last. he writes that bush had been in office less than nine months that evening on october 11, 2001. he sought to reassure the country that u.s. officials had learned lessons from the past and were determined not to get bogged down in a faraway land. here is some of that speech to the nation by the president. president bush: the united states military has begun strikes against the al qaeda terrorist training camps and the taliban regime in afghanistan. these actions are designed to reduce afghanistan as a terrorist base of operation.
we are joined in this operation by our friend, great britain. other close friends including canada, australia, germany, and france have pledged forces as the operation unfolds. they have granted landing rights. many more have shared -- we are supported by the collective will of the world. more than two weeks ago, i gave taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands. close terrorist training camps, handover leaders of the al qaeda network and return foreign nationals including american citizens in your country. none of these demands were met. now, the taliban will pay a price. by destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to find new
recruits. initially the terrorists went deeper into caves and other hiding places. our military action is designed to clear the way for relentless operations to drive them out. host: president george w. bush on october, 2001. back to the washington post piece by craig whitlock. he writes the united states president said it would help its afghan allies build a modernize nation with a stable democracy, strong national army, better medical care, and a new system of public education. we know the true peace will only be achieved what we give the afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirations. all of the goals were doable and hide minded -- high-minded. which offered no benchmarks.
we will stay until the mission is done he said. they write the next two commanders in chief, barack obama and donald trump put themselves in the same bind. they vowed to win in afghanistan, raising expectations for a military victory over a vanquished enemy. they neglected to specify what that meant or what u.s. troops would have to do to accomplish this before they could come home. let's hear from james who supports the president's decision. james is in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: who give the terrorists visas to come in this country? who allowed them people to run all over this country? i wonder who allowed them to run all over this country without being monitored? thank you. host: in brooklyn, new york, lee
also supports that decision. caller: i just wanted to say that saudi arabia and osama bin laden funded the 9/11 attacks. i had family and friends in the towers. we knew they were coming after us in the air. nobody was trained in afghanistan. the pilots who flew into the towers, and in pennsylvania, and into the pentagon were trained in american schools. we knew they were coming. if we should've gone to war with anybody it would've been saudi arabia. it was the bin laden family that funded all of this. a lot of saudi charities.
i don't know where bush figure that out. host: you could send us the text as well, (202) 748-8003. a tweet hear from steve. i would think it is a good thing when a country could bring its military troops home. there will be naysayers no matter who is in office. dan says stand till the mission is done but there was no mission. it is 20 years overdue. governor gary johnson and dr. jill stein said -- talked about ending these wars in the 2012 and 2016 elections. nice that these parties recognize that. president biden also in his speech from that very same room george w. bush used in the white
house speech. here's more on what president biden had to say yesterday. president biden: i know many who loudly insist up lummis he cannot succeed without a robust military system to stand as leverage. we gave that argument a decade. it has never proved effective. not only have 98,000 troops in afghanistan. our diplomacy does not hinge on boots on the ground. we have to change that thinking. american troops should not be used as a bargaining chip between warring parties and other countries. i also know there are many argument that we should stay because withdrawal would weaken america's women fluent --
influence in the world. i believe the opposite is true. we went to afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. that cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021, rather than return to war with the taliban. we have to track and disrupt terrorist networks and operations that spread far beyond afghanistan since 9/11. to meet the stiff competition we are facing from an increasingly assertive china. we have to strengthen our alliances and work with like-minded partners to ensure the rules of international norms that govern cyber threats in emerging technologies that will shape our future are grounded in the democratic values. we have to defeat this pandemic. there will be another pandemic.
you know, it will be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors long-term if we fight the battle for the next 20 years, not the last 20. host: there certainly will be congressional inquiries and hearings on the president's decision to hear from military leaders, state department officials. secretary blinken is in afghanistan this morning, an unannounced visit. that is video of the newsroom setting, the podium where he is expected to speak to reporters. we will listen in on some of what he has to say after his meetings with afghan officials. on capitol hill, reaction from a number of members of congress. liz, whose father was vice president when the decision was made in -- liz cheney, whose father was vice president when the decision was made in 2001, said that president biden's
decision to withdraw from afghanistan is reckless and dangerous. after 20 is, casting my loan vote, we are finally on our way toward ending this costly forever war. thank you, president biden, for upholding your commitment to bring our troops home from afghanistan and pursue peace through diplomacy. chris comes from delaware, the former desk -- president biden has spoken at length with our nato allies and other partners and met with military, intelligence, and diplomatic advisors. congressman dean phillips saying strategic freedom will come at the cost of strategic reputation. it is not possible to simply walk away from a war one has been committed to and pay no penalty, even if the penalty is less than the cost of continuing to fight.
the truth about afghanistan. hendersonville, tennessee, we go to austin, next up. good morning. caller: good morning, sir, how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: my only contingency with bringing our troops out of the middle east is, i may not be an afghan vet, but i am a veteran. i have a big issue with bringing people out of the middle east, mainly due to the fact that just in recent news, it ended up being that russia was bringing a lot of mass troops to the ukraine border, and if we pull our troops out of the middle east, then anything that goes wrong with our allies, then it would take a significant longer
time to be able to assist anything that may or may not happen. and a lot of people that oppose bringing our troops out of the middle east, kind of share the same thoughts, and the people that a vast majority of people that end up seeing that we should bring our troops home, i agree with that because i have a lot of friends that are deployed over in the middle east. and they are on eight-month rotations and year-long rotations. so i think a happy medium is just a set of shorter rotations with our different bases and our different brigades. that is just my short thought on the issue. thank you, sir. host: we hear from jason in
tucson, arizona. caller: good morning, happy spring, happy spring. it was before the pandemic, c-span ran an interview with afghan president ashraf ghani, who in my opinion was of great reassurance that things were going to change under his -- over his power -- under his power, with the old tribalism, and they were going to get things more worldly accepted. or they were going to change things. i think at this point u.s. troops are just going to be in the way, seeing president bush's interview moments ago was really a good reminder of the starting point, the need of u.s. troops being there, and a lot of things that have come to pass -- i have to go with biden and understand deeply that things are not as
they seem, and things are changing over there. thank you. host: this is eddie, next up, who is opposed to the withdrawal. caller: i am not fully in support of the withdrawal, so i have opted to oppose it, generally because i feel that a lot of our strengths and afghanistan specifically is intelligence, and although terrorist cells can pop up anywhere, i just think that to announce a date gives the enemy a benefit. and i just think we put ourselves at a disadvantage. if the government says what would be the complete withdrawal, i think that we could see a resurgence, and a lot of what we did work towards go away. i am not pro-war, i just think
it is interesting how they fail to talk about all the other deployments that are currently going on, and they are kind of hyper focused on afghanistan at this point. really failing to mention the fact that the u.s. and afghanistan were not just all over the world. in a lot of ways it is good because we are the only country that goes out and helps other countries during natural disasters, the first on the scene to essentially everything. i don't support his decision fully, so i opted to oppose it. i did so because of intelligence and i think that pulling out will give the enemy a greater opportunity to strike the homeland. host: this is the reporting this morning, the headline, how biden's team overrode the brass on afghanistan.
they write that the military spent more than a decade urging three different american presidents to stay in afghanistan. president joe biden's decision this week to withdraw all u.s. forces by september 11, they finally lost the battle. they write as biden weighed the full exit from the country this spring, top military leaders advocated for keeping a small u.s. presence on the ground, made up primarily of special operations forces and paramilitary advisors, arguing a force of a few thousand troops is needed to keep the taliban and check and prevent afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorism, according to nine former and current u.s. officials. but in the end, writes politico, biden and his top executive's had done what no president has done successfully, they overrode the brass. in the politico story, they write that activist publication emily horn, a spokesperson for the national security council, said the following statement, saying, "politico did not reach
out to the white house or the national security council for comment on the story, despite having four reporters on the byline. had they done so, we would have said this was a completely inaccurate storyline coming from former officials who were not even part of the policy process. that the biden administration ran on afghanistan. cia director william burns was on capitol hill yesterday, testifying before the senate intelligence committee on global threats. here's what he had to say about the afghanistan decision. >> we have to be clear eyed about the reality, looking at the potential terrorism challenge that al qaeda and isis and afghanistan remain intent on the ability to attack u.s. targets, whether in the region in the west or ultimately in the homeland. after years of sustained counterterrorism pressure, the reality is that neither of them have that capacity today, and that there are terrorist groups come over the is al qaeda and
the arabian peninsula or other parts of the world who represent much more serious threats today. it is also clear that our ability to keep that threat in afghanistan in check from either al qaeda or isis and afghanistan come has benefited greatly from the presidents u.s. coalition and military in the air and on the ground and other intelligence -- fueled by other intelligence partners. when it comes time for the u.s. we military to withdraw, the ability to collect and act on threats will diminish. that is simply a fact. host: some comments on our morning topic, and on social media, saying it will never be stable, and if we want to leave that cannot be our criteria to leave. usa has homegrown terror cells. we saw that on january 6. they conform anywhere at a moments notice in a rally
calling for insurrection. they have to decide if they want to defend it or submit to taliban tyranny and cruelty. it is unrealistic to expect us to continue to fight for something they do not value enough to fight for. also, it's ironic and contrary that the republicans supported trump's policy to end endless wars, but opposed president biden's decision to do the same. brian in virginia. from facebook, if we are going to encourage democracy building, about two terrorism of -- about two decades of anti-terrorism whack a mole has unified the terrorist groups. and if anyone wants to bring them home, all allies have to be on the same page before it can be done. as for continued terror, it moved from explosions, culminated with a big implosion of behavior on one/six.
in nebraska, mercedes, supporting the president's decision. caller: thank you for having me this morning. i would like to first of all say i was 11 when bush gave that speech. i listened to it in my bathroom on the radio. so this war has been going on my entirely. -- my entire life. it defunded programs for our children. it totally drained money that would have been able to face up infrastructure in the last 20 years. so the decision to pull out is probably one of the best things any recent president has done. unfortunately, i am a little bit weary because -- leary because we have created a power vacuum with the taliban and isis, and i
see a type of warfare going on, obviously we all do. so the only thing i'm afraid of is that we are going to leave, is going to be things that whoever decides to come into power comes back into power and it is not who we want, so we end up going back anyway. so it is more of i believe it if i see it, kind of thing. host: appreciate the call. connie from tacoma washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i supported biden in general, but i think this might be a bad decision. i work for an international engineering firm, and we worked on infrastructure in afghanistan. they had built a new school for both boys and girls, and were going over to deliver books the day before the school was to open, and found that someone had
plans to blow up the school on opening day. so i know we cannot solve all the problems in the world, but i'm concerned about the young women and girls in afghanistan, the efforts that we started making over there, and i don't want to just leave them to their own devices. that is my concern. host: to jackson, california. hi there. caller: this is an occupation. there is no war in afghanistan. this is one of the only things i agree with biden on. barack obama, who said he was going to get all those troops out of the middle east, this is just an occupation there, and it is a curious timing for him, for biden to go and use afghanistan. there are domestic issues in the united states. you got problems on the southern border, you have rioting in
minnesota. they have police men shooting black's, all kinds of issues in the united states, and now biden is focusing his attention in afghanistan? it is a ridiculous notion. thank you for your program. host: let me show you reaction from mitch mcconnell, following the announcement yesterday. [video clip] >> in 2019, outrage was expressed that the previous the ministration considered hosting taliban officials for discussions around the date of september 11. but now the democratic administration has going to skip the negotiations and just surrender an entire country back to the tell mama on the very -- after the taliban on the very same date. our present should remember what happened when the obama administration rushed to retreat
from iraq. total chaos and bloodshed. and isis. two years ago i wrote a bipartisan amendment that warned a republican administration against recklessly withdrawing from afghanistan or syria, a super majority of senators right here voted for it. super majority of senators voted for it. warning the terrorist threat had not abated. where are the democratic voices today? i hope we will hear from some of them. host: mitch mcconnell on the floor of the u.s. senate yesterday. on his comments earlier there in that clip about senator schumer's reaction to the u.s. meeting with the tele-band. this is a headline from the daily news in new york, schumer slams trump for planning tele-band meeting on eve of
september 11 anniversary. that was a year to half -- planning taliban meeting on eve of september 11 anniversary. that was a year and a half ago. this is rich. caller: hi, how you doing? it seems like we need to learn the lessons from before. before 9/11, we had illegals coming in and we did not check, as they managed to get through our screens. now we have currently illegals coming in through the border, with a repeat of a leaking border. we have sanctuary cities. we look like we are setting up for problems. if we are going to do things, we should make sure our defenses are up, and i'm sure right now they are coming through our borders. i think when we do this, it's very good to get out of wars, but you still have to keep your
defenses up and not give them great game plans like in football, for how to blow up another building in our country, and believe me, they want to do it. i will hang up and listen to your answers. host: next is kindra, calling from rockville, connecticut. caller: good morning. where were they when trump wanted to do this? he already set a date of may 1. there was no reason to put it off. people need to remember, there is going to be a whole bunch of marks that are still over there because contracts have been signed and they are going for years forward. they don't have to worry that there is going to be nobody there. for all of our nato allies, why aren't today in afghanistan and they are not protecting it? they should be there instead of the americans. that is pretty much all i have to say. thank you for listening. host: headlines from around the
country on this story, starting with the south jersey times, as we continue with your calls and comments on the president's announcement on withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan by september 11. joe is in maryland. joe opposes the move. good morning morning, joe. caller: good morning, i do oppose the withdrawal because we need to keep a presence in these countries in order to maintain peace. and we should not give up all the time, treasure, and blood that we spent over there on an emotional decision. on what should or shouldn't be done. there is no conscious decision by a government, what we should or shouldn't do. it is all a reaction. what are we spending over there right now? we have a small troop deployment, a small expenditure compared to what used to be going on. this is not an endless war, this is an investment to prevent
terrorism. i would rather do it over there than here in the united states. host: silver spring, maryland, next up. go ahead. caller: i was in afghanistan when the russians were there. i was just visiting. when the russians were in afghanistan, a lot of the young men had to flee to the mountains to get away from the russians, and they became the tele-man. those are the people who are completely -- and they became the taliban. those are the people who are completely -- they are religious zealots. we have to remember that afghanistan is its own country. we cannot just stay there and get rid of their religious zealots. i think we have the same problem over here. if mitch mcconnell wants to talk about ending terrorism, let's start in the united states. all the people who have called -- i agree with a lot of what they are saying. this is a really complicated situation, but the afghans do
not want us there. they are their own country. host: i appreciate your call. other news, from the wall street journal, officer who killed daunte wright is charged. he former officer who killed 20-year-old daunte wright was taken into custody and charged with second-degree manslaughter wednesday, a day after she resigned from the brooklyn center police department. kim potter, a 26 year veteran of the force is in jail awaiting her first court appearance. the charge carries a sentence of 10 years in prison. police have described shooting of daunte wright as an accident. as body cameras show her shouting taser several times before firing her gun. the killing sparked protests and clashes with police on sunday, monday, and tuesday night, the additional unrest in brooklyn center last night as well. on our afghan vets line, this is just an up next. good morning.
caller: hi. i partially agree with minimizing some of the troops from afghanistan, but i think it would be -- it would not be smart to pull out all our troops. host: how long did you serve in afghanistan? caller: i was in afghanistan for two and a half years. two tours back to back. host: back to back. is it your sense -- several things have been written about this. we reported and read some of this. the mission in afghanistan was ill-defined? u.s. a soldier, what was your feeling? caller: i don't think it was ill-defined. i think what we were doing was, we were trying to help protect the citizens who live there, and prevent them from having any more strongholds protects the
united states more than anything. host: thanks for your call and for your service as well. up next, seneca, south carolina. go ahead. caller: yeah, i served during the vietnam war. those were the same kind of problems that we've got now. i support them, thank you. host: from oklahoma. go ahead. good morning. caller: that is hackworth. i am a retired reservist. i had 37 years, three years marine corps, sniper. transferred in special forces reserve as an ill tell -- as an intel surgeon. stayed there for a little over a year, promoted e5 and letter e
-- and e6. then i served in the pentagon, bosnia. i was the national intelligence support team chief in bosnia. i had a lot of experience at the national level. when i was deployed i was working for the joint chiefs of staff. so for all the way down to -- i find it -- i find that the grouping, the inability of politicians or anybody else to adequately describe what's going over there as a war, it is not
the longest war. even if it was a war, the longest war in the united states was ever directly involved, that requires a declaration of war against the country, or in this case the indian nation, the seminoles in the early 1800s. they never ended that with a peace treaty or anything because they arrested all the chiefs, devised a truce to talk about things. they were imprisoned and they never resolved the "war" in till the 1960's when they finally signed a peace treaty. host: in terms of the u.s. withdrawal, do you feel like there is a lot of unfinished business on our part in afghanistan? caller: i'm not sure it is unfinished. it is a continuation of the
strategy and tactics that i think -- i'm just not privy to the war councils anymore. i have not given an intel briefing in 20 years. but the point is that the misspeaking of what is going on, if you pull out over there and you do not reach the support function, just like in vietnam, the place will collapse. there will be anarchy. it would be horrible. there would be public disorder and destruction, no respect for the police. excuse me, that was last year up in oregon in our own country. so what we really have over there is -- they are lacking
certain fixed milestones because it is hard to have a milestone. a counterinsurgency guerrilla operation like that. i was told that the -- what was it called -- the 1960's. anyway, they keep changing the terminology to describe what they call a limited warfare or a non-formal melinda harry -- military organization, although they deployed military organizations over there. it was in pursuit of an enemy that in some stages was nothing more than a guerrilla operation, you could call it a terrorist operation, or a drug cartel operation, or whatever. the enemy's name changes
depending on the activity they were trying to support. host: appreciate you calling in as well. memphis, tennessee, you are next up. caller: most americans don't study ancient history. afghanistan has been called for a very long time, where empires go to die. we can go all the way back to alexander the great. one of the greatest generals in ancient history. that is where he met his match and ended up having to retreat. there is nothing for us in afghanistan. afghanistan would be like the attacking of the mojave desert in this country. it support country, an uneducated country. did some terrorists come out of there? yes. but we have the capability, our technology today, to follow
these terrorists. we do not need to be sending our young men and women over there to battle a fierce people with lots of pride. host: you seem to be breaking up a little bit. appreciate your call. i was there, and we turned a blind eye. couple has and hasn't -- kabul has always been a -- had mr. clinton not vetoed aid for afghanistan, the taliban would not have taken over fulton we attacked the taliban even though bin laden was not there. it is time to end the war we should not have started. sandy says it is time for them to come home. we do not need to work on our problems here. we need to -- bakersfield, california, general petraeus
argues that our true presence in afghanistan, inflicting sharia law, we have had troops in south korea and germany forever. it has been a politically stabilizing result. the biggest problem in afghanistan is that it is culturally interwoven with pakistan. it is complicated. in tampa, florida. caller: a couple of things about afghanistan. first off, we need to get there. we have probably been there longer than the russians were in the 1970's. even representative wilson knew, back when they were sending missiles there, and fired launchers over there. we had no business staying. i wonder if the motivation to stay there for things like the poppy fields or the lithium deposits sitting underneath the afghan streets that have been largely left untouched.
i am happy to hear what other people think about that as well. host: next is mike in new haven, connecticut. good morning. mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. mike, you are on the air. make sure you mute your television. guest: good morning. host: make sure you mute your volume. you are feeding back on us. i apologize. more ahead on washington journal. we will be joined by louisiana representative garret graves who serves on the select committee on the climate crisis. he met with the president and the administration on their infrastructure plan. later, center for strategic and international studies' seth
jones will talk about their latest report issued on domestic terrorism in the u.s. ♪ >> today, the trial for derek chauvin, the former minneapolis police officer charged in the death of george floyd, enters its fourth day with the defense team continuing to call witnesses -- it 14th day. if you missed any live coverage, watch it at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> c-span's long-running series is back as a podcast. look notes plus. here in-depth interviews with historians and authors. new episodes are available every tuesday morning. the latest episode, best and worst writing from u.s.
presidents. a new weekly podcast from c-span. subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and get information at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: next up, we are joined by congressman garret graves from the louisiana. he is also a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee and sits on the select committee on the climate crisis and took part in the discussions at the white house the other day with the president and members of the administration on the president's plan. congressman graves, good morning. guest: thank you for having us. host: you were in on the meeting at the white house. we see these gatherings of republicans and democrats, bipartisan. did it feel productive or just
for show? guest: i have to be honest, going in, i was somewhat skeptical based on how the coronavirus went down a few weeks ago, a bipartisan group of members went in and ended up railroading a partisan bill. the president said he wanted this to be different, he wanted this to be bipartisan. the president said he was open to negotiation on size, scope, definition of infrastructure. i could not have asked for anything different. the next step is where we will see how that ultimately unfolds. are they going to truly sit down with us and have these negotiations? the president sent his team over to meet with us. if they follow through, i will remain optimistic. host: our conversation this morning centers largely on two
issues -- we will get to infrastructure more in a minute. louisiana is an important energy state. the administration has made a number of different moves from the trump administration. to remind you and the audience about some of those the president has announced since he was sworn in on january 20, he has rejoined the paris climate agreement, he has revote the keystone -- accelerated the transmission of clean energy and conserving at least 30% of federal land and oceans, trying to double the offshore wind production by 2030. these announcements and decisions made so far by the president. what has been your reaction so far? guest: it is sort of a mixed bag. some of the things to promote
renewable energy, absolutely. some of the efforts to distort or intentionally sandbag our conventional energy resources is a big mistake. there is one country in the world that has reduced emissions more than the next 12 emission reducing countries combined. let me say that again. there is one country in the world that has reduced emissions more than the next 12 combined. it is the united states. we are the global leader in reducing emissions. it was continued under the obama administration, trump administration and hopefully continues today. if you are a global leader, is it time to say, we are doing a 180? president biden's strategy is not doubling and tripling down. they are doing a 180.
that will end up being a mistake. the paris climate accord led to a net increase in global emissions. folks do not understand that. you will have a net increase under the paris climate accord. china has increased under the paris climate accord and will continue increasing through 2030. why would you celebrate, why in the world would you celebrate signing on -- supposed to be addressing global climate issues and then do something that goes in the opposite direction. this is not anything to celebrate. we have to hold china accountable. justice we, they said they were a rival of the united states. under the paris accord, they try to slide under as a developing nation. i support renewable energy technology when it makes sense
as a part of our portfolio, but they do have restrictions and limitations. if we are going to move in this direction of aggressive renewable energy, who makes 90% of the solar energy -- china. who is refusing to produce domestically? the battery technology, they have it. we cannot play into china's hands, resulting in losing american jobs, increasing our trade deficit. have all sorts of limitations. the clear success and strategy we have had in the united states. host: you come to the energy issue with a lot of background at the national level, serving on capitol hill, and the local level in louisiana. as the president came in,
general motors announced their goal of changing over their entire fleet to alternative electrical vehicles by 2050. there were major energy companies sing we will reduce our carbon emissions. do you think that is driven more by business reality or the political reality and the change in the administration, it is better business for them to make those decisions now? guest: you have to let innovators innovate. all of these statistics about the united states reducing emissions, the china comparison, this was all done in the united states without a single restriction mandated. any type of government force or technology. this was allowing markets to do what they do, allowing innovators to do what they do. we do not need to have government coming in and forcing solutions or picking technology.
the government does not have a big track record with desperate i commend companies that continue to strive to have a cleaner environmental footprint. it is good to continue progressing with technology. i think in some cases, you have companies that are setting targets and goals without a technological basis to actually land there. it will be interesting when the current ceo is gone and the next ceo inherits some of these. i will absolutely commend any company that works to move in a cleaner direction, but i think it is important to have a technology strategy that actually supports that. since the united states spends more money on energy resource and development than every other country in the world combined, we have to make sure -- our research and develop strategy in a way that helps realize some of
these goals but are being set. host: congressman garret graves with us up until 8:30. we welcome your comments at (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats, it is (202) 748-8000. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. you serve as the ranking member to the select committee on the climate crisis. what is its purpose? guest: climate is such a crosscutting issue. transportation, energy, natural resources and science. this is designed to be a committee that transcends across all these jurisdictions and comes up with a comprehensive climate strategy that we then pass on to these other committees to implement portions relevant to the agenda. we have spent a good bit of time looking at adaptation. today, we will be having a
hearing on that, looking at research and development. where are there opportunities for us to build on to help transform america's clean energy future. based on america's resources, rather than playing into the hands of china. that is our main charge. we have been working together, trying to come up with some of those and we believe there is a good list of areas where we all agree we can becoming together, making financial sense, making environmental sense and not playing into the hands of china and other countries, sacrificing american jobs. host: on infrastructure, we will get the numbers in a minute. the meeting on monday with the president, i am going to play for our viewers some comments from the president on the structure and get your thoughts after. [video clip] pres. biden: the american jobs plan i put forward is dealing with american manufacturing and
securing our supply chance, investing in research and development as we used to in a healthy manner. it is also about more than that. it is about investing in infrastructure not through the 20th century but through the 21st century. it is not just roads and bridges, we are investing in water systems so americans can have clean water infrastructure. we are investing in high-speed rail infrastructure. we are building charging stations for america's electric vehicle future. and building out american supply chains so we never again are at the mercy of another country or any other nation for critical needs. that is what we mean by investing in infrastructure. we are investing in the more resilient grid. investing, as well, in asbestos free schools for our kids.
building a support system to take care of our elderly parents and kids with disabilities at home, so people can go to work. that is investing in infrastructure. these chips, batteries, broadband, it is all infrastructure. so, look, we need to build infrastructure today, not repair the one of yesterday. the plan i propose will create millions of jobs, rebuild america, protect our supply chains and revitalize american manufacturing. host: an extensive list, congressman graves. what do you think? guest: i think it is an expensive list. we passed the most expensive legislation in the history of congress -- $1.9 trillion. it comes out to an average of
$13,200 per taxpayer in the united states. we just dumped hundreds of billions of dollars on state and local governments. if i remember right, there was around $1.7 billion in state government revenue losses, yet we put $190 billion -- local municipal governments were up in excess of $29 billion, yet we dumped $130 million. in regard to the categories the president talked about, obviously, our schools, roads, bridges, these are things all americans are supportive of. we have to remember we have three different levels of government -- federal, state, local. all of these things are not federal government responsibilities. why do we have a state or local government if the federal
government is going to dump money and try to cover everything. the federal government is an awful partner in regard to federal infrastructure programs. think about your community. the project our ideas your parents and grandparents came up with. we are building a today. we are cutting ribbons and doing shovel ceremonies. this is ridiculous. this is america. we need to build projects that should be in place for 2030 and 2040 and not be as far behind as we are. why in the world are you expanding the federal role with trying to implement infrastructure? we have to focus on these core areas of infrastructure were the federal government has a responsibility and we have to get ahead. we have to build bridges for the future and be ready for that rather non-continuing to be reactive and responding. -- rather than continuing to be
reactive and responding. roads, schools do not do any good underwater. some of these core federal obligations, schools are a state and local responsibility. families are responsible for some of the infrastructure that the president laid out. you cannot add the term infrastructure to every single phrase and then suddenly it becomes a federal obligation, or a true infrastructure category. you have to remember, the federal government cannot be everything to everyone -- it certainly cannot be parents to children and take on these things. there are certain responsibilities for the federal government, there are certain responsibilities for state and local government and there are certain responsibilities for families to allow the united states to be the greatest nation in the world and we cannot do
these things that do not make sense. host: before get to mccall's, reminding -- before get to the calls, $621 billion proposed for bridges, roads and transportation, $580 billion -- $300 billion for drinking water improvement, broadband access, $300 billion for building retrofitting affordable housing. $400 billion for improved home health care for the elderly and disabled americans. congressman garret graves with us. we go first to leavenworth, kansas, and hear from margaret. good morning. guest: what a hypocrite. jesus. did he watch the workers drown yesterday in front of our country? the expendable people you keep sticking out on those oil --
what is wrong with you? you are the worst. you think it is funny that people drown out there? host: margaret, you criticize our guest, we will give our guest a chance to respond. guest: margaret, first of all, i was laughing because you called me a hypocrite. number two, let me be very clear about what happened over the past few days and our efforts to try to make sure the coast guard and our local first responders had every resource available. there were 75 mile-per-hour winds, caught everybody offguard, all sorts of impacts. yes, there was a jacket break, they are still searching. there is nothing funny about that. that is why we fought to make sure the coast guard has every
bit of resource it needs, not just now for the -- search-and-rescue mission. that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. people are out there on a recreational boat, commercial fishing boat, this kind of weather system was not predicted. your comments, while i appreciate them and i appreciate your sensitivity, it simply is not applicable to the conversation we are having. host: let's go to rj in oklahoma, independent line. caller: margaret, we need to pray for you. i think that is your name. what i would like to add his we are being taken over by china. china will own us in less than 10 years spread we want to make electric cars, we won't even open up the mines.
what kind of joke is this? what do you think? guest: you are exactly right. when i was at the white house, i talked about major concerns over climate strategy. i will go through it again, 90% of solar panels made in the world today are made in china. the more you force things in that direction, you play into china's hands. what is required for renewable energy or batteries, those are monopolized by china, 90% of those materials are imported by china. the battery technology, manufacturing, it is another area where they are the top manufacturer. every road leads to china. you can say, let's develop the technologies here. we can do that, but every time we develop high-technology items
in the u.s., because of the labor and lack of respect for the environment and cheaper prices, coal fire power plants -- it does not make sense. you cannot compete. the strategy the administration is putting out on climate, it plays into china's hands, it is not based on our resources. i agree with you 100%. we have some of the best environmental regulations in the world and if we have these resources, we should be producing them here so we are not dependent on china for those critical minerals for a clean u.s. energy future. host: a question on twitter -- representative graves should understand we need to be working with companies on infrastructure. some companies are moving
forward with all electrical vehicles. guest: i agree we should be working with them. it will require changes in the way our roads and bridges and other infrastructure is actually put in place, to make sure sensors on vehicles are able to read traffic lights. you are absolutely right. i also think it is a mistake for the united states to choose the technology winners and losers. let me give you an example -- in the white house's infrastructure proposal, they want to put more money into electronic vehicle technology then into roads and bridges. new vehicle technology to go beyond electric, keep in mind, i have two electric vehicles. there are limitations on the vehicles.
have you ever heard of the federal government building a gas station summer? no. why are we addressing handicaps with electronic vehicle technology. the federal government has never been good at selecting winners and losers with regard to technology. that is what the innovators do. america is the best country in the world at doing that. it is a mistake for us to come in and force vehicle technology to go in one direction when you have limitations that you do, it plays into china's hands. when it plays into china's hands with batteries. we need to be working with auto manufacturers, we need to make sure research and development in the united states helps address some of these restrictions on the technology, but also helps to make sure we develop that next breakthrough technology, whether it is hydrogen fuel
cells or others. host: your position may be bolstered a bit by an editorial piece in the washington post this morning with the headline -- a risky climate bet: biden's spending package lacks elements. a piece of the plan is a mandate, energy efficiency and clean electric standard that would require utilities to derive increasing percentages of their electricity from not emitting sources such as renewable or nuclear power. the biden plan, they write, has no -- two private companies to make greener choices. the spending is needed for research but the government might invest massively in projects that flop. an electronic vehicle charging station that might be outdated
by the time it is installed. what then? the post writes the best answer is to price greenhouse gas emissions which is most efficiently done through a carbon tax. guest: let's break that down a little bit. number one, you saw what happened when the federal government tried to pick winners and losers. hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds given to a company to develop renewable energy technology that totally flop. number two, when you look at president obama, a clean power plan target, established a 32% reduction in emissions for power companies, by 2030. during the trump administration, even though president trump with through the requirement, we hit the target for 2030 in 2019.
obama had been aggressive with his target, it was set for 2030. donald trump hit the target in 2019. this was done without mandates, without the government taking technological winners and losers -- the government picking technological winners and losers. we have to be very thoughtful about how we are moving forward and setting these goals and objectives. i also think -- we have been able to prove that you could have emissions reductions by letting innovators innovate. there is a concept about -- it is incredibly flawed. they made the same point i did about electric vehicle charging stations and technologies. you have all kinds of challenges ahead of you.
we are going to electrify the entire vehicle fleet, it will triple or quadruple the amount of electricity today, that is a challenging task. the grid cannot handle it. why are we forcing these incredibly expensive and challenging technologies, when there might be other technologies that are promising, which is why we should go back to the united states spending more money on research and development than any other country in the world. let's be strategic to address some of these challenges before us now to allow the united states to continue to be the global leader in decreasing missions without resulting in skyhigh energy crisis, or carpooling prices, or heating and cooling of your home prices, like this current white house trends you will. host: brentwood, maryland, it is richard on the democrats line. caller: good morning.
listening to the congressman speak, republicans disparaged everything the democrats tried to do that are good things,. they never complete the task. jobs bill, infrastructure, 2010 it never came to pass. biden is trying to recover america as being dependent. we are dependent for too many things from other countries. he is trying to consolidate that and get us back to where we can have a better position. scare the people with calls for socialism and all those other things that are not true. no way america will ever be a socialist country. medicare, social security, all those elements of socialism, we are already there with regard to
social upkeep. host: congress appointed 2010 and the efforts to get a jobs bill done. they have tried to get infrastructure done in the past? what are the chances of getting something done this time? guest: i came out talking about how appreciative i was about the comments the president made. i talked about the areas where we agreed. i also presented some facts i think are important. he said republicans failed to produce a jobs bill. i will remind you, with republican control of congress and a republican white house, we have some of the lowest unemployment rates in history, including for women, african-americans, asian americans, hispanic americans, these are wins for all americans. when you are trying to do something only for a certain
demographic -- this is something that benefits everyone. we are not a socialist country, we are not even kind of one. when you look back in america's history, socialism played no role in our ability to become this exceptional nation we are today. programs -- funded. i have been paid since i was a teenager in the form of payroll taxes. it is a safety net for when i am a senior. through the medicare program. those bills come during senior years. this is different. not this broad concept of socialism. you made the point that republicans have forced us to become dependent on other
countries. it is this administration that is laying out a climate strategy. those areas where we agree with the president, -- bipartisan policy center legislative laughter because of the bipartisan work that i do. i am not going to be ignorant to facts and data and evidence that shows if we are going to go a certain direction and make mistakes that challenges america's future, i am going to fight that. >> he is a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee. your grades, tongass men from louisiana. 94 being with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will focus on a new report from the mystic terrorism, our guest is seth jones from the center for strategic & international studies. they report just out this week, and later, as congress is poised
were a full house vote on making the district of columbia
the 51st state, eleanor holmes norton will join us -- join us to tell us why she thinks that should happen. ♪ >> coming up today, dr. anthony fauci and cdc director dr. rochelle well testified before that house subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis live at 10:30 a.m. on c-span. at noon, the house returns four debate on an equal pay bill that will allow women to potential wage discrimination by their employers. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span2, the senate works on legislation to address recent hate crimes against asian americans and pacific islanders. on c-span3, health and human services -- and transportation secretary pete buttigieg appear at separate hearings to testify on the president of to 2022 budget request. i coverage begins at 10:00 eastern.
-- live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. at 9:30,
the senate finance committee holds a bite -- a hearing four deputy holes and -- at 1:00 p.m., u.s. capitol police delta michael bolton testified before the house administration committee about his report on the january six attack on the u.s. capitol. those are all live at c-span.org. >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is seth jones, senior vice president four international security at the center for strategic & international studies and they have a brand-new report out this week on domestic terrorism. he also served in afghanistan, special operations command in afghanistan. i thought we would start their -- there and get your thoughts
on the announcement yesterday by president biden on that withdrawal of u.s. troops by september 11th. guest: i know there are different views and plausible views from all sides. the one concern i have would be that it means we saw this yesterday that european countries are also going to withdraw their oscar -- there i -- their forces. if a chest the balance of power dramatically on the battlefield to the taliban and its backers from iran, russia, and particularly pakistan. i think the issue is that the taliban is a group that has treated women really barbaric lee, it has conducted multiple human rights abuses, virtually every non-governmental organization has noted it. the u.n. noted that the taliban continue to establish and keep links with al qaeda. they are a risk with withdrawal,
especially if the taliban overthrows the government, it will not look great. it will be a huge setback or women's rights. host: secretary blinken is there as we speak. after the withdrawal, how safe you think afghanistan is four aus diplomatic -- guest: the withdrawal of the soviet union from afghanistan in the late 1980's is a good indicator. afghanistan exploded into a civil war in the early 1990's. i think it will be a very, very dangerous place for any foreigner as afghanistan deteriorates into a multi-sited civil war. -- a multi-sided civil war. host: the report at the center for strategic & international studies, the rise in terrorism in the united states, it is at csis.org. how do they define domestic terrorism. guest: we look at terrorism per
se and it involves the deliberate use or the threat of violence by nonstate actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad, psychological impact. it is a pretty standard definition in much of the terrorism literature and what we have been differentiated, from regular riots or active shooter situations where someone is conducting attacks based on, you know, business related issues or family related issues. there has to be a political motivation to conduct the violence. host: what has been the political motivation according to your report? guest: we looked at several types, generally terrorism is broken out into violence, far-right, bylund far-left, religious, which in the u.s., has been jihadist, ideology
inspired by al qaeda and aetna last list. what we found -- and ethno nationalists. they were perpetrated by white supremacists, antigovernment militias, and then a growing percentage, about the final third, is coming from anarchists and anti-fascists. and get a sense, what we are seeing -- in a sense, what we are seeing is opposing sides escalating against each other. it is a disturbing trend we see in american cities. host: did your report look at how federal law-enforcement officials and local law enforcement officials are counteracting these groups? guest: we primarily focus on incidents, attacks or plots by individuals and what i think was
most important, different from what we have done in past iterations of the data set as we look at what percentage and number of perpetrators of these attacks and plots were active duty, reservists, veterans in some cases, current law enforcement, police, or former police. that is really what we looked at. we obviously have something to say about steps they can take in reducing it, and one of the concerning trends is not just an increase in the numbers of active duty and reservists, as well as police involved in attacks, but we also see them as victims as well, increasingly targeted, especially police by extremists from all sides. they are the center of this, getting hit from multiple directions. host: the washington report -- the washington post reports on the release of your report, the
domestic rise of extremism in america, data shows a surge in homegrown incidents not seen in a quarter of a century. are those incidents becoming more sophisticated or planned? guest: not really. what the post reported is what our data suggested is that we see more terrorists, domestic terrorism, plot and attack then we have seen since we started the data set, it goes back to the mid-1990's. it is a disturbing trend. it is probably noteworthy that the number of fatalities from attacks is relatively low right now and certainly low compared to the high numbers that we saw in 2001, the attacks against washington, d.c., new york, the 9/11 attacks, which were significant numbers of casualties. we are seeing very low numbers right now, what it probably suggests that individuals are connecting attacks more for
symbolism right now, but they kill large numbers of people. that obviously could change. that is what appears to be going on. host: the corresponded with frontline, producer of their documentary was our guest a couple of days ago and their peace starts with -- piece starts with protest that turned violent in charlottesville in 2017 to incidents like that -- do other incidents like that inspire other incidents? guest: they do. they also show that the nature of extremism is intertwined. charlottesville was a good case of individuals from multiple sides of the political spectrum engaged in hand-to-hand combat in charlottesville. i spoke to one of the senior
police officials from charlottesville the other day, their policy is in place are different today than what they were during those riots. we have seen the charlottesville kind of play out in kenosha, minneapolis, portland, oregon, seattle, in other locations where people are in close proximity and what it does is escalates the tension and you know what we call a security -- that is a bit concerning. host: i will ask you in terms of your report focusing on homegrown extremist violence, right wing extremist violence, did you look at all in reports by groups like antifa and leftist violence? guest: absolutely, we noticed a rise over the past two or three years, certainly the highest numbers we have seen a violence from anti-fascist and anarchists. what i will briefly say is that
people should not in any way shape or form confuse forms of terrorism whether conservatives or liberals, with republicans or democrats, there is no overlap at all. in a political party in the u.s., -- what we are talking about our fringe organizations and individuals that support violence. illegal acts. the terms i know can be polarizing, which is why i generally try to stay away from turns -- from terms like right or left and focus on the types within the white supremacists or the anti-fascists involved. host: the attack on the capitol on january 6th raised concerns or exposed to concerns military officials of some military members being involved in white supremacist groups. the u.s. today is reporting on that this morning, navy, marine corps discharge white supremacists. they write that they had kicked
out white supremacist in their ranks, offering administrative discharges that leave no public record of their activities. the documents obtained by a public record -- records request by the open government advocacy group america oversight detailed 13 major investigations into white supremacist activity in the navy and marine corps over 20 years. they show a pattern in which military leaders chose to deal with personnel involved in extremism by dismissing them in ways that would not attract public attention. your thoughts? guest: that certainly may have been the case. i have not seen the report. what i will say is that the department of defense in the right direction. it has conducted multiple investigations into the extremist threat within the department of defense. there are a number of efforts to start to evolve the form that individuals have to fill out to get a security clearance, which asked questions that extremism
and other illegal activities. i think the bigger problem is not with the military, which is an organized structure, it is with law enforcement agency and the reality in the u.s. is that there is not a national police force. it becomes difficult to make changes in the police force of the u.s. because we have thousands of them and they are different across states and unlike canada, which has a royal canadian mounted police, there is not one organization. with the police, it is going to be more difficult. host: sets jones with the center for strategic & international studies, michigan, first up, christina. caller: good morning, gentlemen. before the last year and a half, we have been hearing about white supremacy, white supremacy. meanwhile, cities are being
burned, police stations are being blown up, police are being killed by blm, black lives matter, and antifa. yet, you turn around every day saying, white supremacy is on the rise, meanwhile, on the news, we see every cities being burnt down by black lives matters -- matter and antifa. yet, republicans, independents who believe in national news and freedom are being called white supremacists. this is entertaining and what you are doing is creating a horrible situation for this country. this is a project mockingbird in full force. host: seth jones, any comments? guest: let me go back to what i said earlier. people cannot confuse terrorism and violence with conservatism or liberalism or liberalism, democrats, what we are talking about our terrorists. individuals that are committing
violent acts against the u.s. again, we have to set aside political views. what we are talking about here are individuals committed to violence. again, what the data shows, take a look at u.s. code defines what terrorism is in the u.s. we find a rise in individuals that sympathize with white supremacy and with antigovernment militias as well as, and it is important to note this as well as anti-fascists and anarchists views. we see a rise of attacks associated with these ideologies. we absolutely looked at violence from all sides. and the data does show rises in all sides from all types of activities. this is not one or the other, this is not liberals blaming conservatives, these are about
fringe elements committed to violence. we have to get away from pointing fingers and recognizing that these are not -- these are people committing illegal acts. i would go back to that, this data is consistent with what the fbi has put out as well as the department of homeland security, including during the trump administration for that matter. host: this is a graph from your report that graphically shows that. this is one of the fingers that shows the percentage of u.s. terrorist attacks and plots perpetrated by active duty or reserve service members from 2015-2020 note that though the number is almost 0 -- and that the number is almost zero. it goes back to near zero at 2018 and skyrockets above nearly 6% in 2020. guest: we are not talking about large numbers of active duty or
reservists involved in attacks. the vast majority, military officials, soldiers, and ones that i have deployed with when i was in afghanistan or in other countries along those lines. the vast majority are upstanding american citizens. in fact, they have done an incredible duty for the u.s.. what we have seen is a very small percentage, and an uptick in them, and increase involved in plots and attacks. why this is important is those from a military or law enforcement background are different from most other individuals and of the sense that they have gone -- in the sense that they have gone through combat training. they are able to shoot weapons better than most americans if they have been involved in explosives, they can do explosives. they have got -- that they have been trained in small units tactics.
they can do logistics and communications, they are better on operational security. so, it means these kinds of individuals are dangerous and the quintessential historical example from the 1980 -- 1990's as timothy mcveigh, who took his experience in the military and detonated a massive bomb in oklahoma city against the murray building. that is the problem when you're talking about individuals committed to violence with a background that allows them to do it easier than most americans. host: mike in white plains, new york. guest: are you there? --caller: are you there? can i make my comment? the comment is this. what i am going to use is very strong language. so do not cut me off please. can you promise me that? host: i cannot. caller: these are the equivalent
of stormtroopers in germany in the 1930's before the fall of the weimar republic. they are dangerous, deadly, and believe it or not, they are equivalent to the stormtroopers and guess what? donald trump is just like mussolini, but the next one who comes over is going to be far more dangerous. that is all i have to say. host: any response to that? guest: what i would say, he mentioned germany. what i would say, shifting to germany in the present tense, the u.s. is not the only country today that hasn't had to deal with -- that has had to deal with these challenges. the british have, the germans have. this is one we highlight in the report, in november of 2020, a
german government investigation identified 26 soldiers and nine police officers who organized and participated in online chat rooms and other kinds of networks that supported anti-semitic and neo-nazi content. the germans had to take down, disassemble an elite special forces unit cold -- a commando unit because i have a -- because of a significant white supremacists involvement in the unit. there have been multiple countries that have had to struggle along these lines. the u.s. is not alone in this. that is a big theme from the data. host: next up, ned. caller: how are you doing this morning? i have interacted with some of the three presenters --
presenters -- percenters and they have been scattered well after being caught with gun violations. they cannot possess guns anymore. what i am actually seeing as a bigger problem are the infiltration of the transnational terminal groups, specifically the cartels, pushing all the drugs across the border, every community now. you know, the human smuggling i am seeing, agricultural industries and places -- i would say that the transnational threat is where we should be focusing and that is my thinking. one more thing i want to ask, is
it possible fort meade to contribute to your organization with white papers -- possible for me to contribute to your organization with a white papers or things i see from where i operate out here in the west? and help to contribute to better security of our country? host: i will let you go there, till let sen. jones: respond. -- to let sen. jones: respond -- seth jones respond. guest: lots of other organizations have events that encourage people to participate across the u.s.. one of the great things about the covid period we are in is that there is a massive uptick in virtual seminars, webinars, and those kinds of activities. it does bring together individuals from across, not
just the u.s., but the world. the second issue, which goes to your point, is that there has been and continues to be a concern from all kinds of activities, transnational drug trafficking organizations. what we were focused on in the report is not all of these other threats, there are human traffickers, drug traffickers, lots of other kinds, we are focused on individuals committed to terrorism, the use of violence for political motivations. when you look more broadly, at threats inside the u.s., there is a broader array of organizations. if we were focused on one major one. host: do you have a report on domestic terrorism, the incidence charlie of -- incidents of domestic violence. finally someone who sees the truth, he says, what is being done, this seems like a problem that has no answer.
guest: i think it has an answer. the u.s. military has started to take steps to relatively centralized organization. it take steps in conducting standdown, encouraging individuals to better identify symbols of extremism among their ranks. everything from tattoos, specific tattoos of extremist organizations to language. i think improving both at the beginning and the end of military service to better identify -- there was an interesting fbi report that came out a few years ago that indicated that with that military in particular, more extensive vetting of individuals that wanted to join the service, the more extensive the vetting, the more it deterred people who recognize that they would be looked at closely. it deterred them from even
continuing to attempt to join. these practices -- one area where there probably -- needs to be probably more thought as one people leave. we have seen -- is when people leave. part of the question is whether it is the v.a. in general or when people leave the military, what services are being done to limit their willingness to find extremist organizations and if they do, what are the penalties involved, particularly regarding their ability to get assistance from the v.a.. the other thing we found more generally is a much more serious need to collect data on how serious the problem is. we looked at terrorist incidents and a percentage of military involvement and that is one step. we do need to get a better handle on the problem and to let americans know across the board
that there is so little data on this that it needs to become -- and needs to be gathered and pushed out publicly. host: to charlotte, north carolina, zach, good morning. caller: good morning. two issues that i have concern with and yet are resulting these problems is, one, it seemed like our political parties and leaders need to be willing to call out their own fringe elements. i realized that the parties do not support these radical elements, but i noticed in the media that it never tends to be elderly willingness to call out their sides on tv. these people listen to the leaders on their side. if there was more of a willingness there, it would be more helpful. technically, there should be more punitive measures in place
for foreign powers that are meddling in our social media and influence operations here in the u.s. we should be more aggressive in punishing other countries that are putting out false information. host: before you answer, a headline about one of those foreign countries, this is axios, -- seth jones? guest: that is a really interesting, especially the second point. let me start there. we noticed this in the report that the russian government has recognized that extremist groups in the u.s. may be vulnerable to extremist ideology. the targeted active-duty personnel, reservists, veterans, particularly online through aggressive disinformation, these can be the russian g are you, --
russian gru, various russian agencies. the russians have gone online and expanded on the ideology from some of these extremist groups. they used both lots, -- bots, robots, trolls, to widen the reach of extremist views, they have helped build front organizations and front websites, front twitter accounts , so step is easily accessible to individuals. the russians have been among the most concerning along these lines. on your first point, i will say briefly that i think on subjects like domestic terrorism, the political polarization in our country is not helpful. i think what people have to recognize again is that we need to come together to push back
against any extremists that wants to conduct violence in this country and maybe that means we stop using terms like far-right and far-left it is not helpful, it pulls people into those categories where they become very defensive and they look at the situation through their political ends. -- political lens. host: the report is available on your website. one of the authors, senator jones: and his colleagues at csis, he is the international -- thank you for with us this morning. we turn our attention to d.c. delegate, eleanor holmes norton and her push to make these see 51st state. we talk about it next. to make d.c. the 51st state.
>> c-span is your untruth -- and filtered view of government, created by america's cable company in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies, who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend, 60 years ago this weekend, more than 1400 cia trained cuban exiles launched a failed invasion to overthrow fidel castro's communist country -- government in cuba. life saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv and washington journal, we look back at the invasion and its consequences with former cia historian, nicholas and sunday
at 4:00 p.m. eastern on a real america, four films on the u.s.-cuba relations, an edited version of the nbc report, cuba, bay of pigs, president john f. kennedy's speech after the failed invasion. a compilation of universal news reels from 1959-1961 when the cuban revolution -- and the 1960 broadcast, cuba: the battle of america, exploring the american story. watch american history tv on c-span3 this weekend. >> washington journal continues. host: our guest is the elected representative, the delegate or the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you. great to be with you this morning. host: your bill on d.c. statehood is hr 51.
it is likely ready for a vote, possibly early next week in the u.s. house. tell us why d.c. should be a state. guest: yes. 54 -- 54% of the u.s. people believe that d.c. should be a state. your nation's capital should be a state because it is in every way like every state. in some ways, it is more of a state than many states. it pays the residents -- residents pay that highest federal tax per capita in the united states. that makes us overqualified for statehood. the district pays -- the district enjoys the
expansiveness -- we have more residents than two states. we pay more to support the federal government and yet -- then 21 states. -- than 21 states. there is no reason to take them more than 700,000 residents of the district of columbia and denied them the full benefit of statehood, which would mean that the congress could no longer interfere in the local affairs of the district of columbia, many may not know unless they see me fighting it, that some members try to overturn laws, because they do not agree with them.
if we are a state, that would no longer be possible. that is a few of the reasons why we wish to become the 51st state. host: without getting into the constitutional weeds, on your hr 51, how does the proposed getting around the constitutional stipulations about a district, a federal district, for the seat of government? how do you address that? guest: there is nothing in the constitution that prevents us from becoming a state. we will preserve the area that most people think of as the capital, the monument, the monument, the capital, demo -- the mall, that area will remain what we call capital.
the neighborhoods of the district of columbia will become the 51st state. host: our guest is eleanor holmes norton and we are talking about the place to make d.c. a state. we welcome your calls, (202) 748-8001 is for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats and four independents and others, (202) 748-8002. it gets a little easier to pass the house when you have a democratic majority, but you now have received support from the president on this matter. and the senate is now democrat-controlled. what is different this time of -- this time round in terms of your optimism to get this bill passed? guest: it helps that democrats control the house, senate -- the senate is always a more difficult body. we have the support of virtually all democratic senders --
democratic senators. far more than 90% of the democratic senators. the chief obstacle is the filibuster. but the filibuster appears to be on its last leg. the senate was later organizing this time. it finally did organize and the filibuster is intact. the filibuster -- you cannot filibuster nominees as he used to be able to do. -- as you used to be able to do. the fact that the senate was held up speaks well for d.c. statehood. that would eliminate the filibuster four everything. -- for everything. the point there was not statehood. at the filibuster is eliminated, it would bode well for statehood
fur the district of columbia. host: you represent nearly three quarters of a million of people. you are the representative from the district of columbia. tell our viewers how that role differs from being an actual representative from a state? guest: that is an important question. there is one difference. actually two differences. we do not have senators. when a bill passes in the house, it has defined senate allies. -- it has to find senate allies. my role is like the roles of every other member. i have voted committee, -- i am presently chairing the subcommittee that is working on one of the few bills we expect to get passed this time, the
transportation and infrastructure bill. when it comes to the final vote, i cannot cast that out on the house floor. that is what would have informed me in the house, -- what would happen for me and the house. we would have two senators to make sure that bills get passed. i actually -- that vote -- that the member was able to get passed. however, if the vote has to be upon the senate, i could not have been declared the vote effective, -- we need senators so that i do not have to go over to the senate and do what i do every time i pass a bill in the
house and although that is find senate allies. fortunately, we have many senate allies. that is why i'm able to get anything done before the district of columbia. host: you serve on the oversight committee, so does the ranking member, james comer of kentucky. i know you responded to him in his hearing, the review of the bill a couple of weeks ago that we aired on the c-span networks. i wanted to play that fur the viewers and get your response to the criticism of the bill and the move to make d.c. a state. congressman culver. >> d.c. statehood is a key part of that radical, leftist agenda to reshape america along with a green new deal, defunding the police, and packing the u.s. supreme court. many problems exist with hr 51. the first is that it is flatly unconstitutional. not take my word forward. take the word of several lights
champion robert f kennedy who said 60 years ago that granting d.c. statehood was inconceivable and would produce an absurdity, take the word of all of the justice department's and president kennedy to president obama. take the word of john dingell, the longest serving member of congress who supported every single civil-rights measure that passed before congress for 40 years. take the word of the late senator ted kennedy, who dismissed what he called the statehood fallacy. take the word of the former delegates from d.c., my colleague eleanor holmes norton's predecessor who opposed statehood and recognized the constitutional problem. take the word of the democratic-controlled congress in 1960, which explicitly rejected statehood delta instead passed the 23rd amendment -- statehood and instead passed the
23rd amendment. democrats even acknowledge the unconstitutionality of the bill by inserting language trying to fix it. the language is meaningless because the only way to fix it is by a constitutional amendment. host: eleanor holmes norton, your response to the unconstitutional argument? guest: we have had constitutional experts and congress to testify on this bill as to its constitutionality. there is nothing in the constitution that says that the district cannot become a state. to be sure it was not set up as a state, in fact, the framers did not quite know what to call the district or make the district, so they left that in the constitution without
indicating what the final status of the district would be. they say, look, if the capital is the district, that is where we will leave it, that is a way that framers left many things. -- the way the framers left many things. constitutional experts may differ on that there is no doubt that this matter is unconstitutional note that this is what i would suggest. of course the republicans will shoot this bill if the bill passes the house. the supreme court will not take it up because it will be considered a political question and that is a question not for the court. it is too fraught with politics to be considered. host: our guest with her legal
degree and masters degree from yale, eleanor holmes norton on d.c. statehood. your call, andrew in new york, independent line. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes we can. caller: thank you fur your time, ms. norton. i understand the premise and why you are pushing four statehood, but the framers really did point out that they did not want d.c. to ever become a state because it would centralize hours -- -- centralize power. you have how many senators are living in washington, d.c.? maybe not full-time, but they do maintain residences, both the speaker, as well as congress, by doing that, you are centralizing power even more than it already is, giving statehood does that
tenfold, hundredfold, however much -- host: congresswoman norton? guest: i am not sure what he was saying, senators live in d.c. when they are here, they will maintain their residence where they are. these he does not get more power because the seat of government is here and people come here and they take up residence charlie fur the time -- residence fur the time they are in congress. that does not give d.c. more power. that simply means that while they are here, they often vote against d.c. d.c. has never been -- never gained anything from the fact that members come here, congregate here, and often have second homes here. that has not helped us in any
way. i regarded it as entirely a blend. host: -- as entirely irrelevant. caller: my question is, -- she is saying that the supreme court would not take this up. it is not a political matter. it is a constitutional matter. and it kind of makes us believe that this is why all of a sudden they want to pass the supreme court is because it could come up. as for -- i do not believe it should be a state. it was written by our founders as a place of our government, where our government is. so, i do not understand why they think it is not unkind -- unconstitutional. host: your bill would create a federal district that would be the seat of government, correct? guest: that is right.
that federal district would be the district that most americans and most people in the world think of as the capital. that is the square-miles between monument and the capitol and including all of the federal sites. host: what about the attack on the capitol on january 6th, how did this focus your views on that d.c. statehood? what about that made you even more convinced that these he should be a state? guest: the january 6th insurrection did focus on statehood because the district was not able to even call its own national guard. one of the reasons that the guard it was so late in getting to the capitol and the insurrection lasted so long was that the matter was in the hands
of the president of the united states. i should add though that i have a bill that would give the district control of its national guard because that can be done by simple statute. although it does point out one of the infirmities of not having full control over everything that every other state controls. host: carol in massachusetts. caller: are you talking to me? host: future volume on your television. -- mute your volume on your television. caller: i think we were in college together. ok, one second. host: carol in massachusetts. did you mute the volume there? caller: i did. eleanor, were you at antioch
college in ohio? guest: that is right. caller: i think we were there at the same time. great to see you. guest: thank you. host: we will go to california. hi, there. caller: good morning. a question i have is, as someone -- the land was donated by a different state to make the district of columbia. why don't use the other place at the district and get the land back to the states that own it. the original capital was in philadelphia. that is my comment. guest: the land was donated by virginia and maryland, virginia took back his land -- its land
and the constitution of the supreme court refused to take it up. the maryland land remains and now forms the district of columbia. it is important to note that every single member of the maryland delegation supports statehood, except the one republican member. one of the strongest supporters for statehood, in the congress, as majority leader -- is majority leader horner. host: north carolina, democrats line, go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that d.c. statehood is long overdue and i want to thank ms. norton four her hard work on d.c. statehood. my question regarding yesterday, what would the republicans -- what were the republicans talking about regarding the legislation? caller: regarding the elections. host: regarding the election?
caller: they said there would not be any elections in the new state. host: do you know anything about that? guest: i am not sure what the caller means. host: let me ask you about the timing on this. i have read that the bill is likely to come up in the house next week. guest: that is right, we expected to come next week, near the middle of the week. host: and just as a reminder, this passed in a similar bill -- a similar bill passed in the 116th congress, is that right? guest: that is right. host: the senate was controlled by republicans and the president was president trump. have you gotten any indication from leader schumer on how soon the send -- that it will take up the bill once it passes the house? guest: the senate had not
decided when they will take up the bill. they are working on getting rid of the filibuster. but we do have a very strong supporting in there. host: nelson in hollywood, florida, republican line. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i just want to stipulate that once again, this is a move on the part of the democratic party to change the meaning of the constitution in order to gain more raw, political party or -- power. that is all that really is. you cannot take a city and make part of it a state and allow another part of it to continue to be the district of columbia, that would be a violation of the constitution in of itself. -- in and of itself. the constitution made it clear that washington, d.c. cannot
become a state unless of course there is a new constitutional amendment accordingly. the democratic party, of which i used to be a member, is increasingly becoming un-american in the way it is conducting business. i am becoming afraid that the greatest threat to american liberty in this country is the democratic party. host: congresswoman norton, any response? guest: it is hard from me to respond. he said he used to be a democrat. now, he is a republican and therefore has the view of his party. it perhaps does not make me explain that typically, when
states have come into the union as states, and to the union as states, one has been democratic and one has been republican. the district suffers from the fact that we are coming in our own. we have 54% of the american people supporting statehood. but we do not have something to counter what that last viewer just said. that was a huge, partisan remark because he is a republican, he said so. in order to counter that kind of response, states have come in two by two. we got that 54% even though we do not have a republican -- host: democrats line, alyssa in
vienna, virginia. caller: hi, yes. hi, miss norton. my comment is that in instead of making it 51st state, why not if we are all four hours states, have it be a part -- all for our states, have it be a part of maryland and run under those state laws and keep it like a district, the neighborhood, whatever you want to call it, but the problem is that you are not able to administer it like a state. i love virginia, i am from virginia, and maryland is great too. host: end of the oversight committee, you talk about how d.c. is different from maryland, on the culture of the people, the types of things that have been and state, expand on that a bit. guest: first thing about
maryland is that maryland gave the land that now forms the district of columbia. in a way that would not allow it to even take it back. it was in perpetuity that gave the land -- the capital of the u.s. as i mentioned before, marilyn supports the district of columbia. -- maryland supports the district of columbia. those who talk about maryland, that is called retro session. forget that maryland has, in fact, given the land for -- to
become the district of columbia and that they could not have given the terms that it offered the land, to take the land back. four better or worse, we are left with maryland, including its entire delegation, except 41 public -- republican better -- republican member. retro session is an impossibility because the land was given in perpetuity. host: michael, go ahead. caller: i am one of your constituents, i want to thank your tireless act on d.c. statehood. i have a separate question about the american rescue plan. i know that when the cares act was classed, -- was passed, d.c. lost out on money because d.c. treated us like a territory instead of a state. i know that was remedied in the u.s. rescue plan.
are there any outstanding issues that still need to be remedied and is there any focus on remedying that engine the american jobs plan? guest: i appreciate you asking that question because it points out the fact that the district is treated as a state and gets all of this -- the same benefits on such legislation. that did not have been in the cares act. it has been remedied -- that did not happen in the cares act. it has been remedied. in the american rescue plan, the district has been treated in the same way as every state. that goes back to the fact that the district pays federal taxes. number one per capita in federal taxes. host: another d.c. color in a moment, anthony furst of west palm beach. independent line. -- anthony furst -- first of
west palm beach, independent line. caller: i was a federal police officer, i lived -- i live in west palm. i was a chairman for federal officers and i came to you and i once had, i thank you so much and you are one of the most brilliant people i have ever met in my time of meeting you had been a great experience. i want to say that i support having -- d.c. being a statehood. i believe that the constitution is a living document and four that reason, should be extended -- and for that reason, should be extended. guest: thank you. host: one more caller. caller: thank you so much for your tireless work.
i get so tired of these arguments. one gentleman said the land was donated by maryland and virginia, yet the other states, their land was stolen. he says the solution is, why don't we give the land back to maryland and virginia? why don't you give the land back to the native americans? that is really ridiculous. this country was founded or started from no taxation without representation. we are paying more taxes than most other states. if people don't want us to have a state, then why can't we? why can't we hit them in the pocketbook and not pay federal taxes since we are not a state? host: final thoughts? guest: in fact, there have been some people who say, why not pay no taxes?
the residents of the district have voted overwhelmingly for statehood. that shows you we are willing to pay for our citizenship. yes, even if it means paying federal taxes and being number one per capita in federal taxes paid to support our country. host: delegate eleanor holmes norton from the district of columbia. your bill comes up on the house for next week. live coverage of that vote and all the others here on c-span. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure, always. host: ahead, we will ask you about your topic political issues, some of the ones we are following particular. republicans, one line. democrats, one line. independents, one line. we talked earlier about the president announcing a withdrawal from afghanistan. we talk about that. the inspector general testified today on the preparedness of the capitol police.
more about the johnson & johnson vaccine still on hold by the fda and cdc due to blood clot issues. your calls are next. ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former general electric ceo jeff reflects on the challenges he faced after 9/11 and during the 2008 financial crisis in his book "hot seat." sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern, on afterwards, in her book "remember," a neuroscientist discusses how our memory works. she is interviewed by david shank. sunday at 11:00 p.m. eastern, an
argument that racism has a foothold in white evangelical religion from slavery to current day in her book, "white evangelical racism." watch "book tv" this weekend. be sure to watch "in-depth" in may on c-span2. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's new online store. order your copy of the binder at c-spanshop.org. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. host: up until 10:00 eastern,
the end of the program, asking you your top political issue. we are particularly focusing on some things we are covering today. we spent the first hour talking about the president's announcement yesterday on the withdrawal of troops, and this morning, his announcement on sanctions on russia for election interference. the inspector general testified today after the capitol attack on january 6 on future preparedness. we will be covering that on the c-span networks. also, the johnson & johnson vaccine as that is still on hold after reports of blood clots. the lines for you, one for republicans, one for democrats and one for independents and all others. we will start first with robert in virginia beach on our democrats line. caller: good morning. my top political issue is labor. we need to pass the proactive --
pro act to build the union movement. that is how we will recover and get the middle class back on track. i know a lot of jobs are having issues being filled right now. i frankly believe workers are tired of working for eight dollars and nine dollars an hour, not having benefits and time off. by getting rid of persecution of workers that are trying to organize unions, that is how we will get this back on track. many in the democratic party are opposed to more unions with more power and raising the minimum wage. we need to really get behind -- host: why do you think the union vote failed in that vote in that amazon facility, i believe in mississippi? why do you think they voted not to unionize? caller: at those wages that
amazon is reportedly offering, $14, $15 an hour, i guess a lot of people do not want to pay their dues. i think it is sad that people do not see the value in what they have received from dues paying union members. i like to basically think of it as job security. people pay for car and health insurance. paying your union dues is basically like paying to make sure that someone has your back in the workplace in case you are ever accused of any misconduct or any wrongdoing. here in virginia, you can basically be fired for anything. a lot of businesses do actually use that to fire people for illegal reasons such as being black, gay, spanish and covered up and say, you were late two times and that is why you are out of here. host: appreciate your call this
morning. a headline about the report on the inspector general. capitol police's riot failures are revealed. more about that story from reuters and testimonies happening today. they write that congress's probe and security failures that allow the january assault on the u.s. capitol by trump supporters turns on thursday to the inspector general. the police department charged with securing the seed of democracy. the house of representatives administration committee will hear testimony from the u.s. capitol police inspector general leading the investigation into the department's preparation for and response to the january 6 violence. your top political stories. we are going to little rock next. this is alan. caller: good morning. wow. let me correct that, it is from the state of little rock. we want to make little rock a
state also while we are at it. just to say, i tried to get in on a call on d.c. city. let me just say real quick, i have been looking at this for quite a while. there has been several others trying to. norton referred to it as retro seat as if that were some ethereal process. there has been several bills, house resolution 810, 318, 1858, 1013, 3732, those have all been bills to retro seat back this neighborhood back to maryland. i wanted to remind everyone, this all started in the 1970's when the swamp was forming and they wanted to make this a grand payola.
virginia's little neighborhood was returned back. we need to return this portion back to maryland. or let's start making states, city states all around the country. two other things. the red-blue map. i want to change the colors back to the way they were for conservatives. i am an independent, but conservatives being the blue part of the map. i just looked it up recently. this is an npr article, 2014, where they did a quick history on it so we can be sure everybody can accept that on the other side, that all through the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, when it started. the conservatives and republicans were the blue on the maps for election coverage. they note in that article that it changed back in the 1980's on
the abc network, cbs and nbc were both blue for conservatives until that election. and then, it changed completely as we know it today during the bush-gore election, of all things. and i keep asking everybody, did you know that? they just look at me like, no. host: did that article say why it was changed? caller: they did not speculate on why, they just said it was during the bush-gore extended dispute of the coverage, which of course, if gore had carried his own home state, it would never have been an issue. the media started using red referring to bush during that election. it went on for so long after
they agreed, kind of like the media is doing now, leaving us around with all the controversy. host: i could sit here and talk to you for half an hour on that because it is a real rabbit hole of a topic, but it is fascinating and i appreciate you bringing that up. i was not aware of that, but now i'm going to spend my free hours searching for that article. you said it was a 2014 npr article? caller: that's right. i am saying canada is blue conservatives. i noticed last week and the week before, you began putting on guests with similar points of view at the same time. that is such a crucial fair-minded way to offer the issues. host: i appreciate that. it has gotten a little easier. technology has improved, both zoom and everything else and we
have some use of our studio here. i appreciate that and our producers well as well, i am sure. thanks for your insight. we hear from ben next -- i'm sorry, we will get to you. sandra in florida, you are on. caller: hi. i am a democrat. a lot of my friends are democrats. a lot of them are republican also. i see both sides of this. i just don't seem -- i am starting to turn because we were promised unity. we were promised compromise. these democrats that we got now seem to be dictating things. i am a little bit scared for that. there is a lot of us out here scared because, like the lady earlier on the d.c. thing, she quoted a 54% people went along with that. i don't believe that, and i am a democrat. i just don't understand why they
are not working with or compromising with the republicans like they promised us. all these bills they are passing, from what i am watching on tv, democrats are not letting republicans help with bills. i don't like the way the democrats are going, it seems that oriole -- dictorial. i am concerned for our party. is there anybody out there concerned also? am i the only democrat worried about the way they are running the country? it's crazy. host: following up to our caller from little rock. here is that article. the color of politics, how did red and blue states come to be? i'm sure you can find it by searching at npr.org. we spent the first hour talking about the president's decision to withdraw u.s. troops from afghanistan by september 11 of this year.
his secretary of state is in afghanistan after meeting with leaders there. he held a news conference. [video clip] >> our security partnership will indoor. -- endure. there is strong bipartisan support for that commitment to the afghan security forces. we will intensify our diplomacy with the government of afghanistan, the taliban, countries in the region and around the world that have a stake in afghanistan's future. we will stand with the afghan people, including through economic investment and development assistance as they work toward a more prosperous future. we will continue to support civil society and to advocate for equal rights for women, including their meaningful participation in the ongoing negotiations and equal representation throughout society. we will maintain the american tradition of providing humanitarian assistance for those most in need, including
women, girls and refugees. i shared that message in all my meetings today with the president, the chairman, representatives from civil society who are working for change every single day in their communities throughout the country. the united states will remain afghanistan's steadfast partner. we want the afghan people, countries in the region and the international community to know that fact. it is also a very important message for the taliban to hear. host: antony blinken, this morning afghanistan. your top political story. one line for republicans, one for democrats, one for independents and others. on the johnson & johnson vaccine, a couple of stories from the new york times. the positive johnson & johnson shot could last a week.
they say the pause could be an effect for a week to 10 days after experts, advisors at the centers for disease control and prevention determined on wednesday they needed more time to assess the possible link to a rare but serious blood clotting disorder. also writing about it in the times this morning, david with his column. will halting use of a shot do more harm than good, is the headline of his peace. he writes that some experts praised the move, anytime there is a possible serious side effect, a former cdc head wrote, it is time to stop, listen and learn. other experts believe the national pause may do more harm than good even if the vaccine did cause the clots, it did so in a tiny fraction of cases. almost 7 million americans have received the vaccine, including more than one million women between 18 and 48. one way to think about those numbers. while the chances of a fatal
blood clot from the vaccine may be something like one million, roughly 125 out of every one million americans between 18 and 48 have died of covid since early last year. to new york city and ben is up next. caller: the most important political issue is the death penalty. the death penalty is nazism. every person on death row is a jew at auschwitz. prosecutors have gestapo powers. they can prosecute someone they know is an essay and get away with it. if the prosecutor or any member of the prosecution team learns that the defendant is not guilty, they should be prosecuted for committing a first-degree felony just for not revealing that fact. thank you. host: brad in hazards bay, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been waiting.
i have the dog in the car. i'm going to pull over. host: do that safely, please. go ahead with your comment. caller: you are talking about washington, d.c. and the citizens all there are not able to vote. i live in massachusetts and i am affected by the people in wyoming through their senator because of the disparity in them getting a senator for so few people and what have you. i think the people in d.c. and perhaps puerto rico and guam may be in the same boat, i don't know. they should all be able to vote in any federal election in the country. if they want to vote as a block
in d.c. to get somebody, that would be interesting and fun for the rest of the country. if they want to vote for a senator in massachusetts, for or against the senator, they can. if they want to vote in florida -- do you understand what i am saying? host: i do. the line from the district of columbia is taxation without representation. their argument is they are not represented in congress. they don't have the full representation of a full house member and of two senators. caller: right. instead of getting the vote for somebody from their own district, because tradition has made it so that they don't get that right, i propose that instead, they should be able to vote for any senator in any senate race in the country, but they only get to vote one time each time it comes up.
host: how would that representative represent somebody in d.c.? caller: they would be a price to pay if they didn't. did people vote for -- in this last presidential election, where the results because they were voting for somebody or against somebody? host: ok, brad in massachusetts. i suite here, my top political -- a tweet here, my top political issue is always get dark money out of funding elections and we will have the government we deserve unlevel playing field of candidates who can run for office. palmdale, california. caller: good morning. my biggest thing right now in terms of the government is tyranny and gross government overreach. i live in california and i live just about 50 miles away from burbank.
i watched the burbank city council not only shut down and force a business to stay closed, they are doing everything they can do to keep the business closed, including using city resources to build a fence, using city resources to protect offense with police. we saw it with mayor bowser in d.c. when we saw the rally support donald trump at the end of december, beginning of january. mayor bowser shutdown restaurants, hotels, basically pressure to the local businesses into following whatever it is the mayor wanted. the mayor is flexing way too much power. you even have governors, governor whitmer stopped the sale of seeds at hardware store during the pandemic because seeds were seen as something that was dangerous. i think we are seeing a very large gross overreach by our government. this is something that everyone needs to be talking about. i happened to be a republican, a
child of immigrants, and gay. i go out there and try to bring awareness to these issues because these businesses are not having the interest of people at heart because if they really did, they would be shutting down the illegal businesses that are popping up selling fruit, selling corn on the cob, and they don't have a business license, a public health permit, yet the business and the city will try to shut down a person who pays health permits, who pays public health fines and ignores illegal person selling food on the corner, basically poisoning the community. host: we mentioned earlier, the inspector general of the capitol police testifying on his report on that attack. from the washington times, parents of capital writer now see lies -- rioter now see lies in trump's stop the steal. a christian family is renouncing the campaign for which they tracked as supporters with their
teenage son to washington on january 6. "we see now that it was all lies." in milton, their son bruno fished at a nearby pond, builds tree houses and fed families animals while completing a high school degree from home. in washington, he became the youngest person arrested for invading the u.s. capitol and spent weeks in jail. he was assaulted in jail and contracted covid-19, leading a judge to reluctantly order his release on march 16 to home confinement. on monday, the judge handed down new release guidelines for employment. read more at washingtontimes.co m. oregon, diana on our democrats line. caller: hi, there. of course, our leading thing in this nation should be voting rights for all americans. i would also like to remind everybody, i remember when compromise became a dirty word
for the republicans. it was the tea party. republicans don't compromise with anything. they say it is my way or the highway. they are just basically saying no to everything. i have two kids that live in portland, oregon. they both went to the black lives matter protests, and they were peaceful protests during the day. late at night, the white supremacist nazis showed up and it destruction to the stores and burned the town to discredit the movement, just like they did to our antiwar protest when i was a kid 50 years ago. host: the u.s. house comes in today for legislative work at noon eastern. this is usa today, their headline, democrats to introduce legislation to expand supreme court by four seats. democrats will introduce a bill to expand the supreme court from nine to 13 justices.
representative jones of new york said he is introducing the judiciary act of 2021 with representative jerry nadler, eddie johnson and senator markey. "our democracy is under assault and the supreme court has dealt the sharpest blows. to restore power to the people, we must expand the court." to tennessee on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span. i watch it all the time. the last couple of callers, i am with of lady earlier that said we were promised some kind of balance between each other. we are not seeing that. the democrat party, from the way it was when i was a kid, is not even close to it now.
they are from some other country. it scares me, makes me wonder where this country is going to be tomorrow. the lady that just called and said about her kids going to black lives matter and white supremacy, that is all lies. there is no white supremacists in seattle. that is all i have to say. host: from the usa today, intel agencies call china on paralyzed -- unparalleled threat to u.s.. top intelligence officials appear before lawmakers to outline a daunting global threat to landscape that included fallout from the deadly coronavirus pandemic and russia's continuing campaign to undermine u.s. influence. that same group will be back before a house committee today, the intelligence committee.
our coverage of committees today on the c-span networks includes the health and human services secretary on the budget for 2022. that is coming up this morning at 10:00 on c-span3. we will hear more about the johnson & johnson situation this morning at 10:30 here on c-span as the cdc director and dr. anthony found she will testify -- fauci will testify. transportation secretary pete buttigieg, later on his proposed budget for his department coming up at 2:00 eastern. that will be over on c-span3. you can follow online at c-span.org. also, available on the free c-span radio app. because we had somebody mentioned in earlier today, the derek chauvin trial is airing on c-span.org as well. the day session will air in its entirety coming up at 8:00 eastern. this is tom in connecticut. caller: good morning.
thanks for taking my call. i just wish the woman that called in, the elderly hippie would dry her tears. the young gentleman who called from california is exactly the type of citizen that i admire. my dream ticket for 2024 would be ron desantis for president and hopefully donald trump for vice president so we would have two copresidents. it could be the other way around, which would be fine with me. the cable news and fake news, you see it with johnson & johnson and the democratic governors locking everybody down. i have my covid shots. i am immune, i will be transferring it to anybody and what be getting it.
i have the moderna from the v.a. i am a proud veteran. thanks for taking my call and everyone have a good day. host: to texas. let's see. i lost de soto, texas. there we go. anna. caller: i am not an afraid democrat, from the lady from south carolina. voter suppression is my topic because texas and georgia both have one of the most egregious voter suppression laws going on in these states. when mrs. holmes was on, california, texas, new mexico, arizona and nevada needs to give their states back to mexico. and for the people who talk about democrats, democrats worthy dixiecrats.
when they became -- when they became republican, they took over the republican party because of the civil rights bill. mr. tennessee, you know, because you are probably my age, about 72 or older, these were dixiecrats and they were brutal and that is what the republican party is. george bush, all of them, were george bush, all of them were dixiecrats. you talk about being aafraid? i was afraid four years ago especially for my grandson. i never thought anyone would suppress the vote. host: the tweet on the sanctions announced by the administration, the hill tweets this russia vows response to any quote illegal u.s. sanctions. we'll hear more later from the
press secretary in her news briefing. look for coverage on the c-span networks, we'll be back here tomorrow 7:00 a.m. eastern. hope you are, too. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> dr. fauci and c.d.c. director
dr. rochelle walensky testify before the coronavirus subcommittee on how best to bring an end to the pandemic. watch live coverage this morning starting at 10:30 eastern here on c-span. at noon eastern, the u.s. house meets to debate pay equity. the bill changes the 1963 equal pay act to eliminate justifications businesses have for paying women at a different rate than men doing the same job. members will consider six amendments. we'll have that debate live for you. also, you can find both events online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin, charged in the death of george floyd, is in its third week. the prosecution has finished presenting its case and now the defense is calling witnesses. you can follow the trial live today online at c-span.org. tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. you also go back to watch any of the prior court activities any
time at our website, c-span.org >> c-span's long running series book notes is back as a podcast. book notes plus. hear compelling in-depth interviews with authors and historians. new episodes are available every tuesday morning on the latest episode, writings by u.s. presidents. journalist and historian craig fairman share collections from his book, the best presidential writing. subscribe wherever you get your podcast and get information about all the c-span podcasts at c-span.org slash podcasts. >> high school students participated in c-span's student cam competition. all month we are featuring the