♪ rima: good -- host: good morning it is wednesday july 31, 2024. the senate is back in session

and we are with you for the next three hours. we will get your reaction the joint senate hearing on the assassination attempt on former president trump. the new head of the secret service said he was ashamed of the security lapses that allowed a gunman to access a nearby roof and fire on the former president. at this point we want to hear from you to discuss the latest details on that investigation from the fbi and secret service. the phone lines are split by political parties. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a text, that number, 202-748-8003. if you do please include your name and where you are from. otherwise catch up on us on social media on x and facebook. a very good wednesday morning to you, you can start calling in. having this conversation in the

first 30 minutes of the washington journal this morning, here is the headline on the topic from the front page of " the washington post." "the acting head of the secret service is ashamed" is the quote from ronald ro jr.. the acting head of the secret service ever since the former director resigned. he was before the joint committee meeting of the united states senate yesterday and this was part of his opening testimony yesterday. [video clip] >> as you are aware there are multiple ongoing investigations into the attack and security failures that occurred that day. i pledge my full support to those inquiries so that the secret service, your committees and the american people have a full accounting on what happened leading up to and during july 13. i will not wait for the results to assess where we failed.

i have taken and i will continue to take immediate steps to ensure that we do not repeat those failures. since my appointment as acting director one week ago i identified gaps in our security on july 13 and i've implemented corrective actions. one of my first actions as acting director was to travel to the site to better understand how our protection failed. i went to the roof of the building where the assailant fired shots and i laid in a prone position to evaluate his line of sight. what i saw made me ashamed. as a career law enforcement officer and 25 year veteran with the secret service, i cannot defend why that roof was not better secured. [end video clip] host: testifying yesterday before the senate. he talked about the position that he lay in to assess what the shooter saw. "the new york times" used 3d

technology and drone photography to build a model of what the shooter's line of sight was that day at that minute he fired on the former president. this is what they came up with an the new york times and also on their website. we will let you take a look at that as we share with you "the washington post" the rundown of the latest details of the fbi investigation. the fbi telling yesterday that the shooter registered to attend the trump rally on july 6, three days after the event was announced. on the morning of the rally he visited the butler site and later bought ammunition. 3:51 p.m. he flew a drone 200 yards from the rally grounds from about -- for about 11 minutes. the secret service did not detect drone because of cellular connectivity problems in the area that hobbled the agency's

aerial operations. "local law enforcement first noticed him at 4:26 p.m. and identified him as a's position as person at 5:10 p.m. and sent his photo to swat operators in a text message about 5:38 p.m. officers lies -- lost sight of him from 6:02 p.m. 6:08 p.m., and he climbed the top of the roof at 6:06 p.m., two minutes passed before local law enforcement spotted him them. at 6:11 p.m. a police officer was boosted by a ground by another officers to look at the roof. he saw the shooter and radio that he was armed. within the next 30 seconds shots were fired." from that position on top of the roof. there is a recreation from "the new york times." talking to you about the latest testimony and the exchanges with extender -- with members of

congress. you can watch it on c-span. if you did you watched a time firing meeting with exchanges between the fbi official, the secret service official, and members of the united states senate. there is the official hand raising and swearing in. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. we will do this about 30 minutes at the top the program, a lot going on so we will go to open for him at about 7:30 this morning. you can continue to talk about this topic at that point or any topic that you want to talk about. bruce, capitol heights, maryland. democrat. that morning. caller: please give me a chance to talk. i have been trying to get on this line ever since i looked at this action on tv. i think a lot of people forgot it was shown on tv and i will

say this. i am so glad that god woke me up this morning. this thing was rigged. the way they are announcing it now, we look at the man on the ground showing two officers that it was someone on the roof. he said it twice and when you said when you look back the shot was fired. this was a rigged thing. host: you are saying that the shooting did not actually happen? caller: would you let me talk, please? the way the thing was set up. that man, who used to be the president was not shot. one of the officers that fell when the bullet passed him, check that out. that man was not shot. he said it was not a shot, it was a scrape from the glass that was around him. play it back, i do not have to

make it up. i feel sorry for the 25-year-old -- 25 year officer. no one in the world because of this man named trump said he was shot. i never heard about a shot. he was shot even in that year he would have a graze and they would've done tests on it and it would've taken half of his head off. host: this is steve in missouri. independent. good morning. caller: i think anybody that watch this thing and at least looked up some of the information and everything, we know it is staged. everybody knows it was stage. he was not shot. they are all in on it. host: yesterday the fbi director said that there is no doubt that the former president was hit in that year by a bullet -- ear by a bullet. here is his sworn testimony

before the united states senate yesterday. [video clip] >> is there any doubt in your mind or in the collective mind of the fbi that president trump was shot in the year by a bullet -- ear in the bullet fired by the assassin, crooks? >> senator, there is no doubt in the fbi's mind whether former president trump was hit with a bullet and wounded in the ear. no doubt in their never has been. i have been part of this investigation since beginning and that has never been raised. >> you are sure? it was not a space laser? >> no. >> it was not a murder hornets? >> absolutely not. >> it was not sasquatch? >> no, senator. >> it was a bullet?

>> it was a bullet. >> fired by crooks that hit president trump in the year and almost killed him? >> 100%. [end video clip] host: that is paul abbate yesterday testifying that it was john kennedy asking the questions. getting your thoughts this morning. gilbert in california. independent. go-ahead. caller: good morning. i would just like to -- i watched the hearing yesterday and it is just like all of them. they are talking to the box -- to the fox guarding the hen house. thank you. host: what do you mean by that? we lost gilbert. this is peter in dallas. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am calling about all of this about donald trump. good morning. host: peter i am listening, what do you have to say? caller: i want to talk about this inquiry that they are having about donald trump and the secret service. did anyone ever think back about how many americans this man caused to live in fear in this country? so many americans in this country are looking over their shoulders, judges, prosecutors, court clerks, people who cannot go about their business. so donald trump posted barack obama's address.

and a good man was about two blocks -- a gunman was about two blocks away from his home and he could have been assassinated. host: peter in dallas. this is bill kennedy on facebook writing in about yesterday's hearing. "i would love to see the senators get half this upset when we have a shooting at a school or other places. but all that we get for that is thoughts and prayers." that topic also the topic of sarah's column in "usa today." "the trump shooting must prompt the republicans on the issue of guns. in the united states 327 people are shot every day. on july 13 former president donald trump became one of them. it -- you would think and assassination attempt would force the united states to take gun violence seriously? both the assailant in the park

and shooting in the gunman who shot donald trump used ar-style rifles that were obtained glee. the correct response would be to ban assault style weapons. that, in turn, requires a filibuster reform so it would no longer take a super majority to pass legislation that a majority of centers want -- senators want." that in "usa today." 202-748-8000 if you want to join the conversation this morning. 202-748-8000 for the democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. here is more from that hearing. it was senator josh hawley, the republican senator from missouri who was calling for more accountability of the secret service in the wake of the failures that led to the shooting. [video clip] >> i am trying to find someone who is accountable and you are saying that the person who made the decision not to include this

in the perimeter has not been relieved of duty. what about the person who is in charge of the inter-opportunity -- interoperability of radio frequencies. as that person been relieved of duty? >> no because interoperability is a greater challenge than just one person. on that day we had a counterpart system. it failed. >> so the person who made the decision to send donald trump on the stage knowing that you had a security situation, has that person been relieved of duty? has the person who decided not pull the former president off the stage when you knew that locals were working a serious security situation has that person been relieved to duty. >> i refer you back to my answer that we are investigating this through medicine assurance and opposed to zeroing in on what -- >> what more do you need to know, what more do you need to investigate to know that there were critical enough failures that some individuals ought to

be held accountable. what more do you need to know? >> exactly what happened and i need by investigators to do their job. >> a lot of people did not do their job. >> i cannot put my thumb on the scale. >> what do you mean? >> you are asking me to completely make a rush to judgment about somebody failing. i acknowledge that this was a failure. >> is it not part of the conversation that somebody failed. >> sir, this could have been our texas school book depository. i have lost sleep for the last 17 days. >> just fire somebody. >> i will tell you somebody -- senator that i will not rush to judgment and people will be held accountable and i will do so with integrity, and not rush to judgment and put people unfairly persecuted. >> unfairly persecuted? we have a person who is dead. >> we need to have a proper investigation into this. >> you said earlier that you have to make sure that protocols are followed and unless there is

a violation people would not be disciplined. i do not care that much about your protocols. if your protocols do not provide for the fact that when a former president is shot and when an american is killed and when other rally-goer's and innocent people when they are shot at and critically wounded, if that is not a protocol violation then you should revise your protocols. >> this is where you and i agree, this is a ale year and we will get to the bottom of it. >> i hope you will do something about it. [end video clip] host: if you want to watch that hearing in its entirety at c-span.org, that is where you can go. here is some of the responses to the exchange from your comments on social media. "the bottom line is whoever on the ground in pennsylvania approved the land for the rally even by the secret nervous or local police should be fired on the spot." tom saying "whenever i hear josh hawley trying to sound like a tough guy i remember him scurrying away from the january

6 insurrectionists." taking your comments on social media, this is tony and texas. -- in texas. morning. caller: i love c-span i cannot get it in hd. my question is did i miss a hearing? i have not heard anything from the butler county sheriff's department yet. do you know if there was a hearing or is there going to be? host: specifically with the sheriff? i know it has been with the fbi and secret service two hearings last week and one today. i do not know about future hearing scheduled. what information are you looking for? caller: to me it is sounding like a typical rural territorial dispute. the sheriffs department is the one saying do not need the feds in here and we have it. i would like to hear what the sheriffs department has to say. evidently there were two guys standing there and they left because they were too hot or

something like that. host: yesterday they moved inside and there were some reports that it might have been because of the heat and that was why they were not on the roof. caller: i know about the heat, i live in texas and it gets hot. bring water. anyway, i just wanted to say that. maybe i will just call cora and and see if they can -- cornyn and see if they can do something. host: you're going to call him? caller: and i will say maybe you can get the sheriffs office out there. they had the state police out there. but the part that the fed is not talking about, and the secret service and the fbi will not sell everybody out and said the sheriffs department was incompetent but come on host: this is from " the new york times," one of their 3d images. this is what local law enforcement counter snipers saw

from the window inside that building. a third group of three law enforcement counter snipers was stationed in the same warehouse complex that the gunman was on top of lead in an adjacent building according to local law enforcement. let me run through this for what is in the reporting so far. the building that they were in did have windows facing the side of the roof that mr. crooks climbed up but it was unknown if they were assigned to any of those windows that day. the law enforcement officials said that the counter snipers were tasked with watching over the other side of the building further from the gunman. here is that you from the building and the gunman would have been out of the line of sight. they go on to say that videos and photos reviewed by the time show that what was most likely a fourth team from a local law enforcement agency, roughly 1000 feet away on that roof, was visible several times in the

hours and minutes before trump again the speech. that is the latest reporting on that and you say we need to hear more. caller: there was not anybody in the water tower and that should've been the sheriffs department. that was their zone. it is cool. i'm just going to call cornyn. i want to hear from the sheriff department. host: tony and texas. norman in ohio, independent. good morning. caller: i am just wondering, can you show where trump was on fox news a couple of days ago defending his vice president about a statement that he made. because if you look at trump's ear, it looks perfectly fine. so he was either grazed or something. shot is a bit too much. i mean, agreed that someone attempted something.

but, if you can pull it up, look at his ear. host: out of curiosity, why do you think there has been so much focus on the terminology we use when it comes to his ear and the bullet grazed and shot? why has this become such an important part of the debate or one getting a lot of attention on social media? caller: i think it is because of the way that trump explained it. because he said it went through his ear and you know. and it grazed it, may be. it did not go through his ear. his ear, if you look at it, it is just fine. you cannot even tell there was a scratch on it. i mean can you pull that up on fox so everyone can see that. host: i do not have the clip at my fingertips. but does it make a difference whether it went through or grazed his ear, or are we

talking about how he described it? caller: well, with all of the rockets, you know -- ruckus, you know? i think the facts should be put out there. like, the head of the fbi said that it was scrap metal. and then the -- i guess it was the second set it was a bullet. all right. so, there are plenty of people out here with shotguns and they know what the damage a bullet does. so why can't we just instead of -- why can't we just put that fact along with other facts that you are talking about? host: bob in california. good morning. caller: first time caller.

i watched that investigation yesterday and i was so upset when they said they were not for sure if he had taken that ar-15 down and put it in the backpack. if you know the size of that backpack and the size of that weapon, either it water would not fit in there. if it would not, the witnesses that saw him climbing up there, they would see that on his back. there is no way he could climb up on that building holding and ar-15 in one hand and have the other hand able to get up. it is really simple. that weapon could not be in the backpack and the fbi did not know the size of the weapon and how he could have that fit inside the backpack. host: so your point is you are saying if he was holding it climbing up the building it is just one more obvious thing that was missed, is that what you are

saying? caller: yes because there is nowhere you climb up on a ladder or the being by the air conditioner with one hand holding your rifle and the other hand climbing up. so that ar-15, they know the size of that backpack and the size of a collapsible ar-15. i am so upset that they are still investigating that. anyone can look at the size of that backpack and the ar-15. you can either have it in their, or carry it up with a strap. because it takes one hand to grab the rope to get up. i was so upset that they had not found that out yet. host: in wisconsin, republican. that morning. caller: before i make any comments, i watch the entire hearing yesterday. you need another telephone on there because independents,

democrats, republicans and a text and nut jobs. the lady that called in the first time and said this was a hoax and the other gentlemen just disputing whether he got shot with a bullet or grazed or whatever. if you were in the military and you got shot in the year like trump got shot you would've gotten a medal for being wounded in action. it does not matter if you got shot through the year or if he was grazed, he was shot at and got hit. did you see the blood all over his face. tell me he did not get hit. host: same question as the other caller, why do you think there has been so much focus on the caller saying whether it was a grays are through his ear? why do you think that has become a flashpoint? caller: trump haters do not want to make it look like any sympathy for the man because he was shot at. you know?

you watch msnbc, cnn or the other channels they say that it was not a bullet, it was probably some shrapnel from some glass or plastic or whatever that hit him. they will not even acknowledge that the guy got hit by a bullet. they are all trying to spin it that this is no big deal. and you need another telephone number, call in here if you are a whack job trump aide her. that is what you need another telephone number. host: gordon in wisconsin. the acting secret service director testifying about conspiracy theories that have been lodged against the secret service in the wake of this shooting. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> i regret that information was not passed the congress and the public sooner with greater frequency and i fear that this lack of information has given rise to multiple false and dangerous conspiracy theories

about what took place that day. i want to debunk these theories. let me address one conspiracy directly. the secret service counter sniper neutralized the assailant within seconds after the assailant fired his weapon. that counter sniper had full discretion to use deadly force to stop an attacker and did not need authorization to fire. i am immensely proud of this senseless -- selfless dedication. every day, across the globe the men and women answer the call to protect our nation's leaders and the standard is no fail for a reason. during our current high operational tempo i want and need to ensure that the secret service workforce are uplifted so they can focus on carrying out the mission. they have my full support, and i am confident in their ability to ensure the safety and security

of the people that we protect. they are worthy of trust and confidence and they deserve your support as well as the support of the american people. [end video clip] host: yesterday, the acting secret service director. again, in the wake of his predecessor stepping down after the attack. time for a few more of the calls and you can continue to call on it in the next half-hour but we will switch to open for them because there is a lot going on so i wanted to give you a chance to talk about other topics as well. mike and pennsylvania, -- in pennsylvania. independent. caller: thank you. i just wanted to call and ask about the ones who said that the assassination was stage. i did hear that during the investigation that one of the officers we do not know if it was in fbi agent or law

enforcement agent was told that there was a gunman on the roof and i think they were told two or three times. to me, that is not an act of being staged. that is like, to me, that is like i do not care. they did not care. because of trump. it is -- he is like the most hated president in u.s. history. so that gunman fired at trump, you know, he missed the kill shot. but he got him a little bit in the ear. i am a man of faith. host: at that hearing yesterday, the secret service director was asked about the issue and said that the information about spotting the shooter was siloed and local law enforcement channels and did not get to the secret service protective detail

for the former president and that lack of moving that communication to the people who needed to know it was part of the failures. caller: right. so to me, that is not something that is stage. to me that is being neglectful. i could be wrong, or they did not care or they did not take it seriously. host: carolyn, texas. line for democrats. good morning. caller: wow, we are worried about trump lying. the billet did not do -- the bullet did not do what they should have done. host: when you say should have done i hope you are not calling for violence and death because that is not something we are going to tolerate. caller: he wants publicity. pray for the man's family was killed. he was not hurt. he is lying. host: melanie and south carolina

-- in south carolina. republican. caller: i am glad that it was hot that day because of the other folks had not gone under the tree limbs they may not have seen the shooter on the roof. and i believe those folks going out, they probably would have in him and they were able to say there is a guy on the roof with a gun. if it were not for the folks there paying attention, that information might not have gotten to the other folks. so that was just something that i wanted to bring up. you know, it is a shame that 100 people had to go to the hospital due to heat related problems, but there were a lot of people hot that day. and you have to look at all of the clothes that people were wearing when they work with the secret service. imagine how hot they were. host: is 7:30 so what we will do

is open it up to open forum. any public policy issue that you want to talk about or many political issues happening right now, you can go ahead and call in on that or you can continue to call in on yesterday's hearing with the deputy -- with the acting director of the secret service and the deputy director of the fbi. 202-748-8000 if you are a democrat. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. we will also look for your comments via social media on x @ cspanwj and facebook.com.cspan, and then text messages. one of the stories that we talked quite about the new information and new developments, the trump campaign seeking more distance from

project 2025 is the headline in "the washington times." that is coming after the head of project 2025 steps down this week following criticism from the trump campaign. this is "the wall street journal" reporting "the heritage official who leads project 2025, the conservative road map for the next republican administration is stepping down after president donald trump and his aides publicly criticized the group and democrats decried its proposals as radical and dangerous. paul dans informed the staff this week of his decision. reactions from senior advisors from susan wiles and chrysalis evita -- chris lacivitia says that reports of project 2025's demise would be greatly welcome and should serve as notice to any group trying to misinterpret their relationship to president trump's campaign that it will

not end well to you." this issue playing out on the op-ed pages of "the wall street journal," first in a form of a letter to the editor from the head of the heritage foundation, the group that started this project 2025. kevin roberts is his name. this is the letter to the editor today. he talks about the lies that were set about project 25 -- 2025 "such as the claim that it was created by both heritage -- by president donald trump. both heritage and donald trump have made their that it was not the case. the truth is that since ronald reagan took office in 1981 heritage foundation has published a new mandate for leadership every four years to serve as a stockpile of conservancy positive -- conservative policy recommendations that our leaders can pick and choose. then as now summaries more americans can find some puzzles that they like and they do not like and that's ok. the border czar, ms. harris and

her cronies continue to lie about project 2025, it will only underscore their own dishonestly and failure from our stagnating economy and the problem on the borders." and then, one of the lead editorials from the editorial board of "the wall street journal" takes on the topic. "donald trump various project 2025. you almost have to feel sorry for kevin roberts, the abbasid -- ambitious president of the heritage foundation. he steered the venerable think tank away from some of its longtime conservative principles to court donald trump only to be spurned by the temperamental former president that he and his institution had courted. the democratic attacks on project 2025 are laughable because mr. trump is never going to have a governing platform. anyone who becomes a political liability to mr. trump is also expendable. the lesson for heritage and other think tanks

is that it is better to stick to your principles rather than court the political flavor of the day. also never trust a politician." that is all about project 2025 in "the wall street journal" and other papers. paul dans who led project 2025 was on the program recently talking about the project. this is from that interview we had with him. [video clip] >> to what degree if any did the former president had these preparations or the development of the problem of the policy ideas? >> well, he was president for four years so many ideas are carry-ons from his original work. i would like to think a lot of it is spring from the first term of trump. but with respect to the actual project, little to none. we came together as 501(c)(3) groups, nonprofit and try to work together and make it a candidate agnostic project. it is really we tailored it to

be unapologetically conservative, but really also menu-driven realizing that there are divisions in the movement and where there are divisions we did not try to go one direction or the other. we put the ideas forward. that is ultimately the candidates and now president trump's job to set the policy. it is only recommendations but it is only president trump's team and he himself. >> you said little to numb so the former president had no direct hand. so that is what it means? >> ok. [end video clip] host: that was paul dans a month and a half ago sitting at this table and now he has out at the heritage foundation. taking your calls again, it is open forum. any public policy issue want to talk about. alexandria, virginia. democrat. that morning. caller: i have not talked to you

in a while. i want to take a second and talk about violence. and i really want to challenge the callers to to probably try to be more civil when having these discussions. unfortunately, someone shot at our former president. i do not care who that is, that should not happen in this country. it does happen, but it should not have happened. but what has spurned that is directly speech that he is known to give at his rallies. there are lots of types of violence. project 2025 is violent, taking away a woman's right for reproduction is violence. donald trump has been known to withhold money from people who have done work for him, which incurs violence for them because they are not able to support

themselves. i challenge everyone to be more civil and think about the things that you say on this network or in your personal life and ask yourself does this cause violence or help? most people who get shot at they change their tune a little bit. unfortunately donald trump has not changed his tune or tampered down his rhetoric. instead he has used that flare up a little bit more and get people more riled up. and we see this division. it is no longer between left and right but now between ideologies and such. and really doing damage to us. no matter what i do to my enemy, i will still be more damaged. think about that, callers. good to talk to you and i hope that everything is well. host: aaron and alexandria -- in alexandria, virginia. holly and d.c., -- in d.c., this morning. caller: that was quite a comment about violence.

it seems that the two major parties are vying for each other for which foreign country they can more enraged people about and demonize. and there is just so much going on that it is easy to be distracted. i was distracted, i called and originally to talk about the shooting and it seems like the local police had people stationed in the building at a window behind the roof and they were for some reason called away from their post. in that lapse of time when they left their post, that is when he climbed up on the roof. if they had stayed where they had been originally assigned, they would have had a perfect view of him right in front of them. right. host: holly.

this is rose in illinois. republican. good morning. caller: good morning, first i wrote down everything i want to say. so forgive me if i am talking faster than i should. thank you for your professionalism. you do a wonderful job on television. number two, the gentleman who called from wisconsin five or 10 minutes ago hit it on straight. his answers are perfect. also, trump was shot, that is the bottom line. he has the former president of the united states. no president is perfect. clinton and kennedy were womanizers. the secret service failed and there was not enough coverage for former president trump. yesterday i listened to the hearing all day. mr. cruz asked the director question, would you specifically have given biden the same coverage that you gave mr.

trump? and he was going around back and forth in the bottom line said the director said that president biden would have gotten more coverage. why? because he is the president and has control over the nuclear button. host: anything else you want to add? caller: i just think you are doing a wonderful job and thank you. you are the best news is forecast. host: las vegas, nevada. republican. caller: good morning and how are you? host: doing well. caller: i want to say about that hearing, i think that director rowe is very dishonest and he has not being forthcoming. at the end of the day he wanted to bring in the butler police and it was not their responsibility. the secret service, that is their job.

i do not know how people are keeping calling in and saying it is about the police and not about the police. they are there to assist and not there to be the snipers. so when they see something and they report it, and i am calling bs on the no communication, how do you not have communication. that is secret service 101 if you are protecting a former president or any person, i would. you have to have communication. you know, as far as them getting shot and people saying it was a graze or this, it does not matter. a person was shot at and other people were killed. and it is really the downfall of our society when people are emotionally void and not empathetic or sympathetic people when these things happen. think it is a shame. and all of these people want to say about trump's rhetoric.

i watch every single rally and i stay well-informed with everything because i like to see all sides. he does not say rhetoric. if you think that saying barkers country needs things like a closed border and we need to bring jobs back, that is not rhetoric, those things are facts. i do not know why everybody is against making america the way it is to be but i think it is foolish and people should do their research and really tried to do in word and asked themselves the questions why they feel they need to do instead of looking into media. host: if you are interested in border issues in the next hour we will be joined by andrew selee, president of the migration policy institute. new numbers that they have put out tracking border crossing and illegal migrants living in this country and we will talk about that in about 15 minutes. 15 minutes left of open forum. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans and

202-748-8002 for independents. kenneth in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. people might not understand what is fixing to happen. trump and them have states that will refuse to certify the election and they will cause so much chaos it is going to be a throwback to spring court -- to the supreme court and we already know they have been bought. no matter what happens come november, it looks like trump will take the office because the supreme court has been bought. they are just going to throw it back to the legislators of each state. and those legislatures in the gerrymandered states will name trump their candidate, you know? and we are going to have the first president that was not elected but stolen. thank you. host: in texas.

carla in missouri, good morning. caller: my goodness, some of these calls. i agree with the woman from illinois. i think you are doing a good job and you are very professional. you allow people to talk. i would like to call about the shooting. i am retired and 91 years old. so i watch the news most of the day, especially c-span. and the guy called in about the shooter could not have carried it in the backpack or whatever. one of the news report said that he carried a rifle that could be broken down, then it would have fit in the backpack. and the other thing, they show pictures of trump's ear close up. the bullet grazed just below the top of his ear and it showed pictures.

i do not know where people are getting their silly idea. i saw the whole thing. later when they showed the news reports, they showed pictures of his ear. of course it was shot and in the doctor's report he would have scar tissue forever because of that. anyway, i get so upset with people. everybody gets so upset over the silly things. they do not really listen to the news. they make up their own minds and then call in and say outrageous things. that is all i wanted to say. host: before you go, have you always been a big consumer of the news throughout your life? caller: always. my dad was -- worked for the government as a weathercaster, and he ran an airport weather station in missouri. and he really -- of course there

was no television back then. but we lived for the radio. and then we subscribed to the three newspapers and "life." my dad and i would sit down during world war ii and plot where the troops were. i have always been a news junkie and i was a news reporter for a while in college. and even after when i retired, i went back and wrote feature stories for a local newspaper. i have always been a news junkie and i love c-span. host: can i ask you about an incident from the vietnam war and what you remember about it. i ask because this obit on the front page of "the new york times." the face of the u.s. army's massacre at my lai willaim calley died. he was the only american convicted of the murder of

unarmed and unresisting vietnamese civilians. he died back in april and he was 80. his death at a hospice was confirmed just this week by the social security administration's records. the cause was not publicly disclosed and family members did not respond to a request for comment. it was "the washington post" that learned about it. do you remember that incident? caller: absolutely. host: what do you remember? caller: i think it was pronounced me lie. it was a terrible slaughtering of people and in a terrible way. it was in all of the newspapers. and the magazines. they showed the pictures in " life" and it was terrible and that was all i remember. i remember it was all over the country. host: do you remember the prosecution of william calley

and his being held responsible for this, the only one held responsible. a 24-year-old platoon leader who had been in vietnam for two months. caller: yes. he led his troops to do this slaughter. and i think photographers to actors that as it was do it -- pictures of it as they were doing it. and it was published. that is all i remember because i was, i think, in college at the time. host: thank you for making use of your 91 years. we will talk to you down the road. caller: thank you for doing a job. host: that obit in the new york times and "the washington post" first reported it. about 10 minutes left in the open forum and we will have open forum again a little bit later in the program as well. this is scott in hutchinson, kansas. democrat. good morning.

caller: good morning and like a lot of callers i appreciate c-span. i am calling for a couple of reasons. sunday there is a program with the heritage foundation and a labor leader and i honestly believe that the heritage foundation is not inaccurate -- not being accurate. earlier you mentioned that kamala harris was the czar, but there is no place in writing that makes that determination. she was given the responsibility to look for root cause. my bigger point is that the constitution is the supreme law of the united states. in the constitution it gives order security to congress. and i just find it weird that americans wanting to elect an executive who writes executive orders that are ephemeral and temporary. each time we get a president with -- they write executive

orders that do not last when it really should be congress that writes the laws that protect the border and labor rights and women's rights. but there are three things that i do believe. donald trump was shot by a bullet. climate change is real and man-made and influence. and that congress should be doing its job and that should be the focus of america's ire, more so than the president. i am on a walk this morning and it is a beautiful day. and i thank you for c-span and i hope everyone has a great day. host: why do you think that congress gets away with shirking their responsibility as you see it and we focus so much on the president? is it because there is one person versus 535? caller: yes. and i also believe that media is to blame. i think that a lot of the problems in america started with

the abolishment of the fairness doctrine. i listen to vitriol that rush limbaugh and the other people used to say and they said terrible things about democrats and called them names. and democrats call republicans names because there is not a balanced media that would actually talk about the constitution and who is responsible for what. it is easy to focus on one person, but it is really in our supreme law that congress is not doing its job. like mr. hawley said who should be fired? well, if i was on that stand i said you would because you have not done anything about gun violence and everybody in america knows that it is a problem. host: that is scott out for a walk in the sunflower state. this is lloyd in west virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. i would like to say that the woman that had the job of -- in

charge of the secret service, they fired her and how come they did not fire may arcus -- mayorkas, biden and kamala for not doing their jobs? host: she resigned her post. caller: she knew she knew she would lose her job. like i say, mayorkas has never done nothing. and biden and kamala let all of these people in here who have common done harm to other people. they should be impeached and lose their job. and as far as kamala those, she is going to want to be president. she ain't got nothing to offer. she did not even know who was our ally in korea. she said north korea was our ally, and she did not do

anything at the border, which was her job. what has she done? host: luise in chicago. good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i have a suggestion. we have so many problems in our country and in chicago. can people call in once a week to give ideas on how to solve some of these problems? we need to help the police and schoolteachers. they are overwhelmed. we need to help solve these problems by bringing them up and telling them what we think should be done. host: what is your suggestion? caller: number one, i was thinking we had 100 people shot over one of our weekends. and also, in america, there are millions of dollars being raised for fighting and hating on each other in the political arena.

why can't people raising all of this money and they have all of this money to raise and fight and hate each other, why can't they take the money and build some homes? build some businesses and set up some centers for these children out here, 12 or 13 tearing up businesses with hammers and robbing people and stealing cars? why can't we raise money to help the people who need the money? that is one of my suggestions. the second one is for people to call up and not say anything nasty about anyone. if you do not have any suggestions to solve problems do not call. we are looking stupid to the rest of the world. we have problems and we are sitting around calling, hating and putting people down. we are better than this. host: this is marcus in

hyattsville, maryland. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to know that c-span have any updates about the israeli soldiers caught raping and sodomizing detained palestinian civilians? caller: it is not like we have foreign correspondents at c-span. we go through the news each day, what are specifically focusing on, you want to focus more on foreign policy topics and the war on gaza? caller: right. so, i came across an article but other than that i have not heard anything on the mainstream news networks. so i was just wondering if c-span had more information on it. host: you are welcome to go to your new site and find the stories that you are interested in. this is clay in wisconsin. republican. good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, talking about policies, i was certainly disappointed and actually disgusted to see neither president biden or vice president harris showed up or vegan human -- for benjamin netanyahu's speech for congress. i feel like that was disrespectful for our most important ally. and we are finding out and we will find out more and more about vice president harris' extreme policies and radical direction that she will take this country. things like the open border just discriminate eyes -- decriminalize legal information. free health care for illegal immigrants. student loan cancellation.

and eliminate private health care. that is scary. the cost and changes that that will do to our country will be immense. she posed -- she opposes title ix for girls and women sports. just like we found with some of the candidates here in wisconsin for senate, she wants to defund the police and dismantle i.c.e. she support sanctuary cities. and opposes parental rights for kids in -- as far as sex education and gender affirmation. so i am really terrified of what direction she would take this country.

we are safer and more prosperous. we saw that with president trump, as a country. we are safer and more prosperous and we would be underneath -- we would not be under another harris-biden administration. because where this is going is not a good thing. host: how -- what are your thoughts about the latest polling that shows kamala harris doing better than joe biden wiso a statistical tie, in one of the latest poll she had a slight lead. caller: i think people, just like here for the senate race for ron johnson, we found out the candidate mandela barnes, when we found out his record that coronation for that honeymoon will be over. her record is the most radical socialized record that could ever come or has ever been seen.

people do not know her record and that is why she does not answer questions. that is wide and that is what we will find out. it is an extreme radical record. the polls will change. right now people are excited because joe biden was not in a good situation, we all saw that. this will change and it will change quickly. host: this is one beta in south carolina -- this is juanita in south carolina. good morning. caller: i hope this message will be heard by some members of congress. i watched a little bit of the senate hearing on the aftermath of the shooting of president trump. first of all, senator josh

hawley, stop with the phony grandstanding. where was all of this grandstanding after the uvalde children were shot? as tragic as it was, president trump did not die. if he had he is a 78-year-old man who has lived most of his life. those children in uvalde, texas did not have a chance to live their lives. who is to say there may not have been one who grew up and found the cure for cancer or one who grew up in composed great music? president trump had a chance to live 78 long years. those children's lives were cut short. i did not hear any of this phony outrage from congress. if they want to see who is to blame for shooting president

trump, look in the mirror. thank you for taking my call. host: our last caller in this first segment of the washington journal. more to talk about this morning. up next we will turn to the border and immigration issues. migration policy institute president andrew seeley joins us for that discussion. later two members on the commission of national defense strategy will discuss that new report on u.s. strategy and military readiness. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv features distort convention speeches. this saturday, jesse jackson

calls for party unity after losing the 1988 democratic nomination to michael dukakis. >> when we divide, we cannot win. we must find common ground as a basis for survival and development and change and growth. >> watches tort convention speeches saturdays on c-span2. -- watch historic convention speeches saturday on c-span2. you can watch the republican national convention any on our website. >> next up for c-span's coverage of political party conventions, we had to chicago for the democratic national convention. watch live beginning monday, august 19. here democratic leaders talk

about the administration's track record and their vision for the next four years as they fight to retain the white house most up the democratic national convention live monday, august 19 on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment. visit our website for the latest schedule updates and watch our full coverage of the republican national convention. you can also catch up on past conventions anytime at c-span.org/campaign or scanning the code. >> be up-to-date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: they focus on migration at the u.s. southern border. our guest is andrew selee, president of the migration policy institute. one thing mpi is known for is estimates on migrants living in the united states. guest: our numbers show there are 11.3 million people living in the united states. the number has gone up, it is probably close to 12 million. even when people arrive there are people leaving so the numbers do not move as much as they think. 11 million or 12 million people, our organizations check with other organizations like the department of homeland security. we have different methodologies but we all arrive at a very

similar number. host: where are people coming from when they're crossing the border today? guest: about a quarter of them are from central america. we were talking about this under the trump administration and the biden administration, we were talking about central americans. this was about guatemala and hundred or is. we have seen a lot of mexicans lately which is a new trend. the mexican numbers are overestimated but they tend to be the group that repeats. about half come from the rest of the world. the rest of the world is heavy on south america, especially venezuela, ecuador, south america. they get people from cameroon and senegal and nepal and india, all over the world. host: in terms of chinese unauthorized migrants, how has that number ballooned in recent years? what is that number compared to from other migrant groups from other countries?

guest: it is not as big as other groups but it has shot up in the past year and a half. i was in texas at a border patrol station on the week the chinese national started arriving in large numbers. we saw this happening in real time and no one was prepared. about three weeks after china relaxed its travel restrictions for chinese citizens, suddenly people started appearing at the border in the numbers have gone up since then. we are close to 100,000 this year. it is a number that has gone up. it is not one of the largest groups but it is in the top 10 now. that is a surprise, it is a country far away and hard to get here. host: are we talking about family units come individuals, unaccompanied minors in that group? certainly the subsection gets a lot of attention. guest: it seems to be mostly single adults, young adults,

overwhelmingly male but not exclusively. fewer families and fewer unaccompanied minors. they seem to be middle-class, not extremely successful, lower middle-class or middle-class where the families have gotten them money to get to the united states in the hopes they will be successful and help the family. host: migration policy institute is the organization. andrew selee is the president. for folks who do not know about the institute what should they know? guest: we are a policy research center and we are nonpartisan and we work around the world. our headquarters is in washington, d.c. we try to figure out what our sensible policies on migration that reasonable people of different political persuasions can get on board with and support. host: a lot of focus on the issue of borders are and kamala harris being a border czar. not an official title in the u.s. government. where did that come from.

guest: we've not had a border czar ever. the secretary of homeland security has been a de facto order czar. earlier in the biden administration there was an ambassador that how that role. vice president harris, i sensed she was not tasked with the border, she was tasked with diplomatic relations with central america, with private investment, which is something she leaned into and something she has let on, getting customers to an -- getting companies to invest in central america. she has never engaged on broader border issues. that is good or bad. on one side there are the accusations she is responsible for this mess, but she was not doing immigration. i think that is specious. you could say she had a chance to do more on these issues, she did not lead into it.

she did what she was asked to do which is a limited mandate on engaging on central america and seems to have done well. she has been consistent on the private sector part. host: in atlanta yesterday she was defending her record on immigration as part of her address to the rally-goer's there. this is about a minute and a half of what she had to say. [video clip] >> i was the attorney general of a border state and in that job i walked underground tunnels between united states and mexico with law enforcement officers. i went after transnational gangs, drug cartels, and human traffickers that came into our country illegally. i prosecuted them in case after case and i won. [applause] donald trump, on the other hand, has been talking a big game about securing our border, but

he does not walk the walk. or as my friend would say, he is not walk it like he talks it. [applause] our administration works on the most significant border security bill in decades. some of the most conservative republicans in washington, d.c. supported the bill. even the border patrol endorsed it. it was all set to pass. at the last minute, trump directed his allies in the senate to vote it down. host: andrew selee, she ended talking about that bipartisan border bill that never got a

vote. it never passed congress after a lot of discussion. remind viewers what was in that legislation. would it have been the most he didn't bill in decades? guest: probably. it was an important bill. we are likely to see something like it resurrected no matter who wins, whether it is vice president harris or former president trump. what it would have done is make the asylum system work at ports of entry so people have to present themselves and organized way but it is tougher to get asylum if you come between ports of entry and it would put resources into border agencies that are struggling, customs and border protection but also u.s. immigration services struggling under the weight of the caseload they have to deal with. we are researching agencies from a time and era where there were different people coming to the border. we have to be aware the policy

has a piece of this. the reality is the number of people on the move is going on globally. people have a lot more room to move thanks to technology. the reality is there's a great paper for the center of global development talking about how migration to the u.s. actually follows the economic cycles in the united states more than anything else. when there are jobs available is when you see large numbers of people coming in. obviously when you have a meltdown of a country, you have a major conflict, that drives people out. a lot of what we see at the u.s. border is about jobs and people knowing there's a job waiting them and if there is a job waiting there likely to try to come and if there is not they do not. host: how involved we know kamala harris was in the negotiations on the border bill? guest: i don't know if she was involved in the negotiation's.

they actually kept that under wraps. they did a good job of that. they try to keep those negotiations out of view. there are so few attempts to get real bipartisan negotiations done between real conservatives and real liberals. this was senator lankford, genuine conservative, and senator murphy from connecticut who is a genuine liberal. this reminds you of kennedy and mccain. these were not centrists trying to find out if they agreed on something. these were difficult negotiations to find areas of agreement and they found it which is admirable and i think we will see their efforts warded -- their efforts rewarded. host: andrew selee with us for the next 35 minutes or so on the washington journal. we are talking about migration on the southern border. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents (202) 748-8002, and

then a special line for folks from border states. (202) 748-8003. let me had to the garden state. thomas is a new jersey. democrat. caller: good morning. how are you doing? listen, i am 70 years old. i have been around a long time. border patrol -- border control, we call it border control. we do not collect border control when they were bringing all the slaves over to work for this country. now it is border control. the earth belongs to god and those that well upon it. god is the god of all nations. host: you have a question about border policy right now? caller: border policy.

i don't know too much about border policy but i know we have a bill that was sent out for donald trump and his republicans to sign to help fix the border, to help make the border better. they refused. then he wants to blame the vice president. host: back to the bipartisan border bill. guest: i will avoid the theology since we are on tv but i appreciate it. immigration has been good to this country. except for people who are fully native american we are all a product of immigration. slavery was forced immigration. people moving across borders as part of who we are as a country and is part of the secret sauce that made a successful. we know immigrants, a quarter of all patents have at least one immigrant innovator in the patent.

a lot of our invasion system is driven by immigration. immigrants are 90% more likely to start new business than nativeborn americans. they are much more entrepreneurial. there is a great book called "the truth about immigration" that ghosted economic stats and it is part of economic growth. it is a good thing. it is part of who we are. at the same time we know we do not have enough legal ways for people to go to the u.s. and so people are finding other ways. we also know we need to have people come legally. when people come across the border unchecked without a process, that will undermine the credibility of the immigration system and it will create legitimate concerns among americans that we do not know who is coming to this country or why or how. we figure out how we square this circle. how we make sure immigration continues in a way that is legal, that is a real challenge

and a challenge democrats and republicans should be facing. host: this is vincent in michigan. good morning. caller: he brought up the comment about senator coons and senator lankford. two people who came up with a bill that allows 5000 people a day to come into this country illegally. you tell me that is a bill? furthermore, talking about immigrants. how many more people have to be murdered? how many more people have to be raped before you get off of this kick and say do we need these illegal murderers? host: just for the point of fact, we know from multiple studies that immigrants are less likely to commit crime and when immigrants move into neighborhoods the crime rate goes down. we can find immigrants who are terminals and i think we should be worried that we are not fitting people well enough at the border to know when people come across who could have a criminal record. that is a real problem.

overall immigrants, including those are unauthorized have a much lower propensity for crime than nativeborn americans. we should be worried about those who are born here. on the bill that was out there, it would not allow 5000 people a day. once it hit 5000 a day it allowed them to implement much stricter measures to try to keep people out. the administration has done it anyway without the legislation and have put a series of measures in place that are making it harder to cross between ports of entry. they have de facto done much of the bill. they do not have the resources that only congress can appropriate, and this will be a problem if it is president trump or vice president harris. you need the resources to go to the agencies at the border. secondly, anything you do through executive orders is subject to litigation. it is on much less solid ground. there are questions that some of

the things they are doing could be enjoined in the courts and that is a risk. it was a pretty tough measure. it was humane and fair but also fairly tough. it would not have solved the border. it would have been a positive step forward. host: nicole brings up illegal migrants and has been a talking point for the trump campaign for a while, including in a new ad focused on the vice president. this is 30 seconds of the at. [video clip] >> this is america's border czar and she has failed us. under harris, over 10 million illegal year. a quarter of a million dead from fentanyl. isis now here. you have any plans to visit the border? >> i have not been to europe.

i do not understand the point you're making. >> kamala harris failed. host: your immediate reaction to that at? -- to that ad? guest: the charge that immigrants are committing crimes is erroneous overall. where i think there is a legitimate point is that when the numbers get really large we do not have a good vetting process for people who come to the border. this is a problem on national security as well as for people who may have gang related activities or other past crimes, there is a vetting process and border patrol has seen this in real time. the border patrol does a good job of pulling aside people they have some recent to believe could pose a threat. they have problems -- knowing who might be a threat. we do not have perfect information from countries abroad. when the people arriving or

large numbers in they end up having to release people, which is what happened under trump and president biden. when the numbers get big there's no real option but to let people go. you do not know who are letting in the country. host: sohost: far there've not been any major terrorist attacks. we should be worried and it is a point of debate and something we've not seen the biden administration acknowledge fully. what we know about the numbers of people on terror watch list? do they get released immediately or do they just get turned away and possibly try to come in through some other route? guest: if they are on a terror watch list they are usually pretty good. there is a filter in costa rica and panama where they fingerprint most people who come from that route. most people are coming through that route. they share their fingerprints with the u.s. in the u.s. runs a

check of the database. often people have been caught in costa rica and panama and deported back to those countries of origin. to get to the u.s. border, if they committed a crime the u.s. can prosecute they can be put in jail and prosecuted. most of the time if they are on a terror watch list they have not committed a crime under u.s. law, they are someone under observation, they are relative of a known terrorist. there is some reason to believe they participated or had ties in a terrorist group. their son a crime they can hold them for. they report them back to their country of origin. host: this is robert, independent. thanks for waiting. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a statement and a question. the statement is if you go to the border and you go through the process, welcome to america. that is how most of us got here to begin with. the question is i work in d.c.

and i do construction work and i go around and i see all day, every week. the workforce is all latin. there are tens of thousands of workers. there are major corporations that hire these guys. i find it hard to believe that all of these people are legally here and if they are not legally here how are they working for a major corporation? how are they getting away with doing this? guest: first of all, you are right. most americans agree with your point that we want to welcome people and we need more legal ways for people to come here and we want to welcome people who are fleeing persecution and would be in danger if they were returned to their country. otherwise people should be returned. we should not let people be in. the system has collapsed in the

past few years. it started collapsing probably in the bush administration, it started collapsing in the 1990's and a lot under obama and then under trump and more recently hunter biden much more noticeably. that is what we get back to. we want more legal ways for people to come in. people work in all sorts of ways. some people have temporary protection. when we talk about the 11 to 12 million people here illegally come of those there are 2 million that have some sort of temporary protection, either temporary protected status or dhaka deferred action -- or daca protected -- deferred action for people who came here and there you. they are legally here even though we count them as part of the illegal population. host: what is an example of

protected status? guest: in venezuela if you look at everything that is going on, the trump administration made the original decision to not deport venezuelans. the biden administration extended it and expanded it a bit. if you are in a city or washington dc a lot of people with motorcycles or venezuelans. they have temporary protections so they can work legally for up to 18 months and have renewed every 18 months. it is not a permanent status but they can work in the meantime. there are a lot of people in that category. other people are doing false social security numbers are being hired by contractors of contractors of contractors. i had a conversation with someone also in construction and congratulations for the work you do. important for all of us.

they are saying i never thought of this, how are people working through the projects we do? the reality is construction companies hire a contractor who is often hiring gunther contractors and down the road -- he was often hiring other contractors and down the road they may not be checking the way large company is doing. host: to walter in mississippi. thanks for waiting. caller: how are you doing? my question is this bill they keep talking about how great it is, when you pass a bill, we need a bill on this border that does not let anybody in. it shuts the border down. 5000 a day, that does not make sense. another thing. biden, when he takes the oath of office, doesn't he say he will protect the united states from all foreign this and that? i know he does.

why is that not in impeachable offense? why haven't they made him shut the border down? host: andrew selee on shutting down the border completely. is it possible and what would happen if it were possible? guest: i don't think it is possible to shut down the border entirely. even north korea has tried to shut down their border and have not been able to do it. it is hard to control a large border, especially one that is our biggest trade corridor. mexico is our biggest trade partner so there is legal movement all the time. you can bring numbers down. what this bill would have done it sharply break down the numbers. we have seen the administration do some of the same members in the bill and the numbers are coming down significantly and they could come down more. it is unlikely we will get to zero. one of the things we have seen that the numbers have come down, critically in the past three months. last month was notable -- once

you see the numbers come down they start to be able to do things that dissuade people from coming. before they were a lot of people on the street giving them what is called a notice to appear. they do not have time to process them. now they begin to do some of the things that lead to returning people to their countries if they do not have a legal way in or find out they have illegally staying. that begins to create a reinforcing process of bringing the numbers down. i think you can do things that bring numbers down but there is no magic let. the other side of this is when the job market is tight in the u.s., when there are lots of jobs, we defined a legal wafer importers to hire people from abroad when they are not enough american workers in those sectors. we do not have legal pathways for construction work. a lot of immigrants in construction work.

many who do not have papers. a lot of immigrants in care work. we do not have legal pathways for that. we need to think about how we bring in the people we need. last time we changed our visa system was 1990, that was way before ai, way before the internet revolution, way before the economy we have today. this is something republicans and democrats should be talking about. how to create legal pathways that lead people in? we can argue about people that came in the last couple of years but it has only been here 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. host: on legal immigration, how many legal immigrants to we allow into the country each year? guest: a million that come in for permanent residence give or take every year. there is another million to 1.5 million that come in legally on

student visas or temporary work visas or intercompany transfers. there are a lot that will allow people to work. i usually say between 2 million and 2.5 million. host: to the question about border security, we have heard the border so -- we've heard the border described as a balloon, if you tightknit here come the air moves over here. right now where are we squeezing and where illegal migrants moving to to get through the border? guest: the squeezing we did this time was smart. they created a process for people to come in legally at ports of entry. it needs to be fixed. it needs to be resourced and done better. it is a good start. it is an incentive for people who cross at ports of entry to come to the border. they made it harder if you go between points of entry they made it harder to get asylum and made it easier for them to put you on the airline and send you

back home. then they opened these mobility offices, which has been part of the biden thing. it is the kind of thing you could to the trump administration do when their joint event people ahead of time their countries origin, so people along the route can apply for protection in the u.s. where they can apply for a job if there is legal pathway they qualify for. host: they still forget themselves there. guest: they can only get themselves there if they qualify. before they start a journey, before they hire a smuggler, they find out if they can legally enter the united states. a lot of people are doing the offices and appointment system and stuff going between points of entry and that is a big start. if you can make the balloon go further south so people know their options before they go, we know some people can find out they have no legal options that

they will still hire a smuggler. we have to be honest about that. some people will say i got my chance and i will stay where i am. that seems to be paying off. it needs to be done better. it is the kind of thing that needs a republican or democratic administration to build on it. host: line for democrats. richard in georgia. caller: good morning. i participated in the human boatlift as a military assignment back in 1980 when they came in under president carter. that is where i learned about the immigration policy -- the immigration problem. now over the years we have had one for cuba, we had one for haiti, we had one for the northeast, we have one for the northwest people coming into the

country and the northern border is not secure. my thinking is how we can go along with another years of trump who separate parents from their children and we are still trying to locate who the mothers of the children that belongs to those children. i like parts of the rolling or section 42, but we have to tell corporate graces that hire them to make sure they do 1099 forms to show they can legally work in the country and also have green cards. we have five different immigration policies and the only one that gets to come in with no problem is the cubans. host: richard brings up a lot of different topics. guest: the thing that has been created recently is a program

for cubans, haitians, venezuelans, nicaraguans. these are countries under enormous stress that have communist governments that sate -- that are really authoritarian. haiti is a country that has been on the edge for a long time. if people have a family member in the u.s. that family member can apply for them to common get to the united states. they are responsible for them it is limited numbers. there were pretty big numbers. about 30,000 a month. i looked at the numbers just to make sure things are as they have been. therapeutic cubans, haitians, nicaraguans through points of entry -- venezuela's have gone way down. we will see what happens now it

looks like there's been fraud in the election. numbers from venezuela have gone down because they have gone down because they of this alternate legal pathway. thinking about how we push decisions away from the border. you can bet people when they apply. the good thing is before they get to the u.s. you can run them through the databases. the more we can do that, we cannot make decisions at the border. the border is a last resort. we will take people in extreme danger, but other than that we will return you. we are opening other options along the way so you can come earlier. we are much more likely to see the numbers go down on the border. there is a real danger when we are making spot positions at the border about people and we are not fully venting them. we do not have the tools because the border patrol does not want to do it or the u.s. government does not want to do it. it is because the tools are not there and the timing is not there to allow people to do this

with what is needed to actually check people out. host: my phone lines are lit up. i will keep taking calls. tie in connecticut, good morning. caller: i don't know a lot about immigration in this country but i son interview with trump and he said he wanted to get rid of the asylum status that our country has. they are lumping people who are seeking asylum with people illegally crossing the borders. how do we speed up the asylum process and legal immigration process so these people are not lumped in with people illegally crossing? guest: that is a great point. this is what the legislation was trying to fix. this legislation, trump tainted but so did groups more on the left. this was a lot of people on both sides to not like this. a lot of the immigrant advocacy groups whose job is to advocate

for people, but there also groups really skeptical. we saw one of the senators from california, few senators that opposed this from the left as well this was both sides, probably president trump's opposition was more important but ultimately there was pushback on both sides. asylum is something we under international law -- anyone who gets to our borders or gets into the united states, this is true of any country that signed the refugee convention which is all democratic countries in the world -- if everyone comes to our border and they are in danger persecution we have to offer them legal entry. the problem is the system for making that decision has become so clunky that it takes four to five years to make that decision.

that becomes an incentive for everyone at the border to apply for asylum because they know they can stay four or five years. not everyone does. what they try to do is speed that process up. how did you last in, first out. as they come in -- is a higher standard for asylum. they need to hire a lot more asylum officers and let asylum officers make the final decisions. we have been moving in that direction the last couple of years but there is a lot more that needs done and then needs resources. you need a fast, fair, and final process that lets people in who are running for their lives. we should do that. that is part of our moral obligation as a democratic society to protect people running away from authoritarian governments or from governments will not protect them but does not create an incentive for people to apply to asylum.

host: this is alex in dillon county, republican. good morning. caller: good morning and thanks c-span radio and tv for educating the world. when it comes to casa, that cosigned for pieces -- for visas for the work visa aliens -- the problem i'm having with casa? host: what is casa? caller: they advocate for and recruit from other countries. you are not familiar with casa? guest: i am not.

caller: is a catholic organization that gives out these work visas for these people in foreign countries to work. host: you're are talking about recruiting for work visas. caller: you're familiar with it? host: i am not familiar with it but what is your question? caller: my question is when it comes to hiring, why can't we just hire here and save all of the rhetoric from hiring around the world? why can't we just hire our own? that is all i am saying. it is to a point now where police officers are being recruited from other countries to work our police departments. guest: i don't think police officers but we are seeing

nurses and doctors certainly. the u.s. is getting older. we are below replacement rate. people have fewer than two children per family on average. the number of people in the u.s. labor force is going down. the number of people paying taxes is going down. the only way we are keeping up is by having a certain number of immigrant workers. we can argue how many and what sectors. those are things politician should be arguing about. how do we set this up? we need people to come into certain sectors where we do not have american workers. until recently there were about two jobs. unemployment is down to about 4.1%, which is historically low. we have had anywhere from eight to 10 million jobs open in a given month. americans are not taking most of those jobs. the numbers have gone down.

the number of open jobs is down. that may also be linked to the numbers of immigrants at the border going down also. we are going to need to bring in immigrant workers from some sectors because we do not have enough americans moving there. i do not think it has happened with police departments but we are seeing it in agriculture come in service industries and hospitality industries. we are seeing it in medicine. it is only doctors and nurses in medicine we need a broad set of people involved in the medical industry and the health-care industry and in care work that go beyond this and we do not have visas beyond doctors and nurses. we need to figure this out, not replace american workers but to complement american workers. i recommend "the truth about immigration" on this. he is a good economist and he shows you all sides of the picture. you see immigrant workers mostly

complement american workers and they tend to increase employment and a lot of the sectors. if you bring people into the right sectors for the complement american workers it tends to help all of us. host: who is the author? guest: z current and as. -- zeke hernandez. host: we will show at that book looks like. alicia in maryland. independent. caller: good morning. i would like to make two points please. please don't hang up on me and i thank you for it -- i thank you for letting me speak. when the majority in the house and the senate -- when speaker pelosi was the speaker mr. trump

wanted to build the wall. he said to ms. pelosi would you give me the money to build the wall and i will give you daca? ms. pelosi never answered. she just went on vacation. host: i'm running short on time. what is your other point you want to make quickly? caller: the other is i think they call it the r2 from the house. speaker johnson said that they had a very comprehensive bill about the border he sent to chuck schumer and schumer just sat on it for a year. host: that is alicia in

maryland. guest: hr2 was really popular with republicans and not so with democrats and never really got any traction on the senate side. it did on the house side, on the senate side it never got a vote because democrats were opposed. it was a wish list of enforcement measures that went beyond where democrats were willing to go and it did not have anything about expanding legal immigration which a lot of republicans would like to see in the senate as well. i think there been mistakes made on both sides politically. democrats have overplayed their hands, republicans have overplayed their hands. if you want me to be an all-purpose curmudgeon i would say -- there's a lot of goodwill. if you could get most republicans and democrats in a room away from cameras and no social media and a promise no

one would tweet anything out, you could actually get to some pretty reasonable agreement in the way that senator lankford and senator murphy and senator kyrsten sinema did because people know this. we did not want people coming across the border without documents. we want to protect people coming from authoritarian countries, but we do not want people coming illegally. we can argue about which sectors and how many but we could hash this out. the problem is the optics and symbolism in politics. both sides overplay. republicans overplayed thinking it is all about the border and if you shut it down that will solve everything. democrats tend not to worry about the border, they forget that matters and it creates a lack of confidence in the system if you do not have an orderly process and they think it is about taking care of people who are undocumented in this country, which is a noble effort. republicans are right that the border needs more control, but

you cannot just do that. you have to think about how you have sensible measures at the border that are doable. what you do about the legal immigration system that allows people to come and legally? if you make it harder to come in legally -- that is what takes pressure off. that is to push the border out, have people apply legally way before rather than right of the border. let's see that and let's figure out what people -- what to do with people of been here a long time. it will be good for all of us, they will be more productive, they will move up professionally, it will help all of us. this is the thing that gets lost by both sides. democrats talk about a humanitarian issue, republicans talk about it as a national security issue. it really is an economic issue. it is an element of national security and an element of fairness, but it is also a

question of how we make this country successful, how we continue to be innovative. immigration is a big part of how we do that. we just need to figure out how to manage it and away we are talking about legal immigration going forward. host: a good place to go if you want facts and figures on migration policy analysis. migrationpolicy.org. andrew selee is the president of the migration policy institute. always appreciate your time. guest: good being with you and thanks to all of the guests. host: coming up, more of your phone calls, and in about 25 minutes we will discuss national defense strategy. two members of the commission on the national defense strategy join us for that panel's report on u.s. defense strategy, military readiness. stick around for that conversation in about 25 minutes. we will be right back. ♪

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings, and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruptions, and completely unfiltered.

c-span. your unfiltered view of government. >> the c-span bookshelf podcast feed makes it easy to listen to all of c-span's podcasts that feature nonfiction books in one place so you can discover new authors and ideas. we are making it convenient to listen to multiple episodes with critically acclaimed authors discussing history, biography, current events, and culture from our signature programs about books come afterwards, book notes plus come in q&a. listen to the bookshelf podcast feed today. you can find all of our podcasts on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts or at our website c-span.org/podcasts. >> the house will be in order. >> this year c-span celebrates

45 years of covering congress like no other. since 1979 we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced and unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policy is debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the senate is in at 11:00 eastern on c-span two. just after our program on c-span at 10:00 eastern we will be taking you to a senate hearing on infrastructure investments, examining investments made in public transit over the years. that is happening on c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. at 1:00 eastern our campaign 2024 coverage includes former

president donald trump speaking to reporters at this years national association of black journalists convention in chicago. that is airing here on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span now video app. 2:30 jerome powell is said to give an update on interest rates , monetary policy following his meeting with the federal open markets committee. you can watch live on the c-span video app and on c-span.org. a lot going on in the c-span networks. i recommend you get the c-span now video app. always very helpful to stay on top of our coverage. for now on washington journal and for the next 20 minutes, open forum. in a political issue you want to talk about. now's the time for you to lead the discussion. ed is up first in chicago. line for democrats. good morning. are you with us edna?

what is on your mind? caller: i would like to know why so many people are so upset about people crossing the border. we need help. we want it legally. why don't people stay and fight for their country? we are fighting for our country and we intend to keep our democracy. why don't they stay home and fight? host: this is dj in texas. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i am a resident of two different border states, i was born and raised in california and i just moved to texas about five years ago. my father was lieutenant for los angeles county sheriff's department and i remember in the early 1970's him coming home pretty upset about something and he never brought work from.

this was one issue he brought home i never forgot about. it was solidified by the removal of logistics and has to do with the border and the immigration. my father was down in lakewood at the time. one day he would come home and talked about a memo that was sent out to every law enforcement agency in the country, and a lot of people do not remember this. back then green buses were coming and going, deporting people on a regular basis. that day he came home and was upset that this memo was released to all of the law enforcement agencies in the country by the federal government telling him they no longer had the authorization to arrest and deport people. if anybody remembers those green buses, it was almost like

overnight those buses disappeared completely. then when donald trump came in he was running on the platform of building a wall. people seem to be upset about building a wall. it did not make any sense not to secure our border when the population of the world can't to the point it was at, when migration started going where it was at. this problem did not just happen. this problem goes way back to when we stop the program of deportation. host: that is dj in texas. rasheed is in virginia. democrat. good morning. caller: i want to say i truly appreciate the conversation about immigration. i am an immigrant from senegal who came to this country 41 years ago with a visa. i finished my schooling, i served in the army for 34 years,

from a private to achieve for an officer. i also retired from the civil service. my oldest son served eight years in the army it is now a police chief at an army base in germany. my youngest son did eight years in the army and right now he is finishing his law degree at howard university. my daughter just graduated. i think the focus needs to be on what can immigrants bring to this country? regarding mr. selee, when you sate we need to know the sectors we want to bring people in, one at also box individuals who want to come to this country and they all have potential? this country should not be in the business of saying we need

laborers, therefore we are only going to bring people in those sectors. people's potential cannot be defined today. only god knows. host: why did you come to this country from senegal? caller: i came to pursue my education, which i did. i got a bachelors degree, a masters degree, and i also went to the federal executive institute of the federal government. my next step would have been a senior executive service. i just retired from the army and retired from the civil service. i am a survivor of 9/11 at the pentagon. i am also -- i also served in afghanistan as a senior advisor at nato. from an immigrant perspective, that is what we need to focus on. host: you mind talking about

your experience on 9/11 at the pentagon? what you remember? caller: yes. i had just left the g1 section, which is the side that was hit. i was working on some stuff. what he minutes later my wife called me and said i am watching newthe airplanes hit the world trade center. as i was speaking to my wife, all of a sudden the plane hit the pentagon. everything pretty much collapsed in my office. i am a survivor of 9/11 and an immigrant who proudly served this country in uniform and in civil service. host: thank you for sharing your

story. caller: thank you. host: chris from florida, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, america. this is chris. i went to miami to the justin timberlake concert. as i was leaving i asked the police officer how to get to bright line. he did not speaking wish. he pointed to the metro and got me lost. i think that the immigrants work for $12 an hour. americans don't want to do it for that kind of wage. after taxes you not really making any money -- you are not making anyway. let's crackdown on people who hire immigrants and don't pay the taxes. in the sugarcane fields they are making like two dollars an hour from what i hear. host: this is sandy in torrance, california.

republican. what is on your mind? caller: i have a few things on my mind. i will run through them real quick. i think your guest was a bit disingenuous. i think he was a fast talking liberal. every time they do they go right after every -- no. he's not right. the people fleeing oppression are supposed to go to the first safe country. that is not our country. our first border is mexico. all these migrants coming from all these other places, they are to go to the first safe country. the 14th amendment, when it was passed or put in to be an amendment was meant for the chinese people that were here to make them legal. not to be best realized --

bastardized for everyone who jumps over the border and has a baby. reagan. the reasons why republicans are so cautious now is because when reagan agreed to grant and dusty to 3 million illegals in exchange for the border, the liberals did not do it. they betrayed him. also, i feel bad. slavery was wrong. the kings and africa who brought the slave -- in africa who brought the slaves over to america -- host: tony in arizona. good morning. caller: good show. i have lived all over in every region of this country.

i have a dual citizenship with italy. i like to deal in reality. if you compare us with canada and australia, they have twice the number of immigrants as we do. i think anybody that studies immigration, whether you're talking about ancient rome to modern america, the american border has been wide-open for 400 years. the reason is it is usually about economics. people move around the world for usually money. to pack up and leave your hometown, most people don't want to do that unless they are a little desperate or they want to make 10 times the wage. a buddy of mine, when i did move to arizona, i hired lots of

mexican fellas down there. they are great people. my buddy said, look, i grew up in new york. back when i was 16 years old, if you're an unskilled 16-year-old person and all i had to do was get to canada and be around tons of people, english-speaking sort of thing, i could make 10 times the wage. that's a lucrative situation, right? think about back when you were 16 years old or 18. all you had to do was go to canada. looking at it from an american man's perspective. there are a million people that speaking wish. they are like you. they are from america. you are making 10 times, 20 times your wage. you will be working seven days a week smiling. host: this is clarence in upper marlboro, maryland.

caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am worried about the american people, the way they vote. looking at trying to put donald trump back in office. i think about january 6. that was a despicable day. four or five people died because of donald trump. officers got beat down, sprayed with all kinds of stuff. some had to retire. can you imagine what they went through? the rioters got locked up. the video shows them assaulting police officers. now they are in jail. all because of donald trump. if it wasn't for him all those people would be home with their families, going to graduations, watching their kids grow up, paying for their colleges. donald trump only pays attention to those people that are in

jail. he never called and apologized to the families of these officers who were doing their jobs and got beat down like dogs. all he cares about was who committed the crime on his behalf. host: jerry in pittsburgh, texas . republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am pushing 89. on the immigration, after world war ii in 1945 to 1965, there were displaced persons in europe brought over here. the ukrainian family had to work for me in year indentured and then they could leave. in 1965, the johnson administration passed an act that changed the priority from europe to mexico to the middle east, africa and asia, india and

china. after that we did not see the effects of it until -- a win in effect in 1968. you saw the effects in 1971 the doors on hospitals had entrance on it and they changed it to spanish. this has been going on for years. the first effects of immigration from the middle east was 1993. the first time they tried to bomb the world trade center. they were successful in 2001. they brought down two buildings. host: this is robert in tuscaloosa, alabama. democrat. caller: can you hear me? i have been around the world 87 years. never been drunk or high and i have observed a lot of things.

everybody in this land is an immigrant except maybe the african-americans. that lady said they were brought as slaves. they didn't bring our people and enslaved them. they were people who were sold whether people maybe. my grandmother said -- i have to argue with those people. when i got drafted for the army i would not have been a soldier until i had basic training. they did not call me soldier when i got there. african people were not slaves. they were enslaved. their names were taken away from them. their origin was taken away from them. they were the only people disconnected from families. we have names of caucasians. no offense but there are no certain thing is why people. you can't be white with blood in your veins. look at your shirtsleeve and see if you know of anybody that

color. there are some african-americans with a color that is black. my father is black as a black walled tire but there are no white people. there are red, europeans, many different ethnic groups of europeans. you put together all of them because they are coming from everyone. there are some good people there, don't give me wrong. they call themselves white. look at yourselves. no offense. i'm brown. i'm not black. thank you, sir. you are a patient person. host: just a few minutes left in open forum. if there is a public policy issue you want to talk about, the lines as usual. democrats, republicans, independents. leon in louisiana, independent. caller: i appreciate the show. i have a scenario and a solution.

if a family has somebody that comes and says we don't have nowhere to go, can we stay with you? you don't really have funds. you say yeah. you have to feed them, clothe them, how some. by the way, i have to go to college. by the way, i have to have hospitalization. physically and financially it is -- what i want to say is if i had the answer -- if people were to support people coming across the border, let's put a fund together, a government fund. all the money from the government -- the government doesn't make money. it comes out of working people's pockets. every year everybody that's been calling in that supports these illegal aliens coming in, they can put $500, one thousand dollars, $2000 a year into this pot. that would put some skin in the game. everybody is talking.

there is no skin in the game. thanks john. host: edward, mount vernon, new york. democrat. caller: good morning, john. thank you for taking my call. i don't want to harp on the incident involving too much. the question i have -- in butler too much. there were eight bullet shells on the roof. the shooter was killed amelia after the shots. -- immediately after the shots. how many shots were really fired? those are questions i would love the senators to ask and get those answers. i would hope they would have those answers. host: did you watch the hearing yesterday? caller: i watched the whole hearing and the two before that. someone else asked the question of where are the butler sheriff department.

there are some questions that need to be answered. i think until we get some real answers there's going to be a lot of speculation and suspicion about what really happened there. host: what do you think about the creation of the house task force on that rally shooting? it was approved later last week. the membership to that task force appointed yesterday. what do you think? caller: there has got to be a serious investigation. simple questions have to be answered. hl casings on the roof. -- eight shell casings on the roof. the shooter was killed immediately after he shot former president trump. where did those other seven bullets go? where did the shell casings come from? there are too many questions

that are unanswered that would make the average citizen like myself suspicious. host: the congressional task force that is going to investigate the shooting. you can watch the congressional hearings. this will be a 13-member task force. the membership was named earlier this week. mike kelly who represents butler county has ties to law enforcement in the area. the republican from pennsylvania will be the chair of the panel. he is joined by martin greene of tennessee, david joyce of ohio, laura lee of florida, mike walls of florida, clay higgins of louisiana, all republicans. from the democratic side, congressman jason crow of colorado, a former army ranger. he was the ranking member -- will be the wrecking number. natalie dena pennsylvania, glenn ivey of maryland, jared moskowitz of florida. the other members of that panel.

that will do it for our open forum. 45 minutes left this morning. in that time and discussion on the national defense strategy in this country. two members of the commission on the national defense strategy joining us for that discussion on a report on military readiness. stick around for that discussion. we will be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 3:30 p.m. eastern, bendy university professor jessica quentin on the rise of public polling on political issues. from 19th-century to modern times. at 4:30 p.m. eastern, the july 4 celebration featuring a reading of the declaration of

independence by actors portraying historical characters, including abigail adams, benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson. it's hosted by the national archives. 7:00 p.m. eastern, watch the series is to were convention speeches featuring remark by presidential nominees and other political figures from the past several decades. this week, rainbow push coalition founder jessie jackson spoke at the 1988 democratic national convention in atlanta after losing the party's nomination to governor michael dukakis. explore the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> tv, every sunday on -- book tv features leading authors

discussing their latest nonfiction books. coverage of the 2024 roosevelt reading festival from the franklin d roosevelt presidential library and museum in hyde park. authors discuss franklin and eleanor roosevelt, american during world war ii, new deal programs in the jazz age in new york. at 6:30 p.m. eastern, the macon enterprise institute with his book american cabinet talks about the power the u.s. constitution and its ability to bring americans together. at 8:00 eastern, gretchen whitmer with her book talks about her life, leadership and journey in politics. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered

view of what's happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of forefoot seedings -- floor proceedings and events for the was congress, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus compelling podcastss. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website at c-span.org/c-spannow. c-span now. your front row seat of washington anytime, anywhere. >> next up for c-span's coverage of the summer's political party conventions we head to chicago for the democratic national convention. watch live beginning monday, august 19, as the party puts

forward their presidential nominee. hear democratic leaders talk about the administration's track record in their vision for the next four years as a fight to retain the white house. the democratic national convention, live monday, august 19 come on c-span, c-span now, for online at c-span.org. don't miss a moment. visit our website for the latest scheduled updates and watch the full coverage of the 2024 republican national convention. you can catch up on past conventions anytime on demand at c-span.org/campaign, or by scanning the code. >> washington journal continues. host: our conversation on military readiness. two guests in studio. it is mara rudman and eric edelman, two members of the commission on the national defense strategy. ambassador edelman is chair of the commission. jean harmon testified yesterday

before the senate armed services committee. she says he thinks he macon public has no idea how grave the national defense threats are in today's world. can you start by putting those threats in perspective for viewers? guest: sure. thanks for having us. it was good to be able to testify yesterday before the senate armed services committee what we had a good turnout of members who are concerned about these set of threats we are concerned about. i think the main thing is that the united states over the last 20 years has been decreasing the resources for defense while accumulating challenges have gathered around the world. we first saw some of that with the russian seizure of crimea and 2014 -- in 2014 and the renewal of the war in ukraine in 20 by vladimir putin. in october, we heather renders

hamas -- we had the horrendous hamas attack on israel and the subsequent fighting in gaza. we also have had an intensifying strategic competition in the indo pacific with the people's republic of china and concerns about not just taiwan but also the south china sea, the east china sea. all of these have been accumulating over a period of time. since 2022 when pruden invaded ukraine we have seen an intensifying collaboration among not just russia and the people's republic of china but also iran which has supplied russia with drones and a drone factory in russia to help it prosecute its work in ukraine, but also the shipment of millions and millions of rounds of artillery ammunition for russia to sustain its work in ukraine from north korea. we are seeing intensifying

cooperation among these four countries, all of which are presented in the past security challenges for the united states. host: the mecca public is not aware of the threats or does not appreciate all those challenges happening at the same time? guest: it's the intensifying collaboration, the potential of spontaneity, potential of conflict in more than one theater where we traditionally have been present and provided crucial resources for strategic stability in the regions. it is also a lack of appreciation for the degree to which america's qualitative military edge, which people have seen on display in the gulf war and subsequently in operation iraqi freedom, which has eroded significantly over time. host: the hearing yesterday, you are in the room. -- were in the room.

what is the national defense strategy for viewers who are unaware of how the policy works? guest: the national defense strategy is a document that is put forward every four years at the beginning of an administration. it generally follows the national security strategy that has been put out. our commission is appointed by congress with an independent commission that are tasked by congress to review that national defense strategy. in this case the 2022 national defense strategy. i should note that eric has among his many aspects of public service has served on what iteration or another of this kind of commission for the last 30 years -- 20 years. that perspective, while perhaps painful for eric has been important for the rest of the commission to have, to see what has been happening over that period of time, some of which he just laid out and the increasing

challenges and the increasing challenges the ad states faces and the challenges administrations have had in being able to meet those challenges effectively. host: two years ago, did he predict -- it predict we are moving in the direction of the threats that they foresaw back then? or are things changing so quickly that we can't wait another two years? guest: there is a challenge. we put together the strategy at a moment in time. you want to be flexible -- it to be flecks of over give you a strategic plan going forward. in some instances the strategy did predict where we are and it was continuous into the 2018 strategy tentative president trump when jim matus was secretary of defense. it established clearly the kind of fast the net states is facing

and the need to focus on china and russia. china put emily and russia to a slightly lesser degree. i think neither strategy fully anticipated the degree of cooperation that would occur leveraging each other between china and russia and also iran and north korea. the other thing i think both strategies have missed, even though they got the big targets right was the degree of non-kinetic threat and challenge the nsa's faces from what china has been doing quite intensively all over the world, particularly on the african continent and latin america along with rest that compromises the united states's ability or requires more from us and positioning ourselves around the world. host: you talk about getting the big threats correctly. i want to focus on china. the use of the term about the

pacing challenge. what is that term mean? guest: it comes out of national defense strategy itself. that is away the department of defense characterized the competition between the united states strategic -- the strategic competition between united states and china. it was in the 2018 trump strategy that mara made reference to. it basically was an indication to the folks of the department of defense that as you are developing new capabilities you need to be aiming at the problems, the operational problems that the prc military buildup over the last 25 years has presented to american military planners. you should be looking to develop capabilities that help us overcome some of those challenges. that is what the pacing challenge is. host: you talk about focus.

is it focusing resources? is it spending more money on these problems? is that the main message here? guest: i think there are two messages here. the scope of the challenge is sufficiently large that we do need to spend more. in the previous commission i cochaired in 2018 we concluded there needed to be three to five -- 3% to 5% annual real growth. that came from secretary mattis who testified when he was confirmed that he needed that kind of growth in the budget to execute the strategy he inherited from the obama administration. our view and the commission was if that was required to execute existing strategy and the 2018 strategy was more ambitious, you require at least a level of effort. i want to stress that just

increasing the resources for defense in our view collectively is not enough. i want to stress this was a bipartisan panel that restate unanimous consensus conclusion. it was that not only are more resources needed -- we would disagree among ourselves about exacting with the right level of resources is but it has to be spent on different things. the department of defense has been optimized for exquisite, hard to replace, high-end platforms that are very expensive. in order to deal with the challenges we face from russia, china and other actors like north korea, iran and the ongoing threat of terrorism we need large numbers of smaller systems and we need to be moving in general away from focusing on hardware and more on software. munitions that can be upgraded

easily and produced in a relatively inexpensive way. host: defense readiness. join the conversation. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a special line for active and former numbers of the military. we want to hear your thoughts on this particular topic. (202) 748-8003. we will have this conversation until the end of the program at 10:00 a.m. eastern today. mara rudman, let me anticipate one of the questions from the callers. why would we want to spend more on the u.s. military and defense spending at the pentagon cannot pass an audit of what it is spending his money on now? guest: one thing i want if a size is we are talking about putting resources, much needed

resources not only into the department of defense. we talked about national security writ large, which includes defense and nondefense discretionary money. everything came up in the hearing yesterday. we have workforce challenges that are defense industry needs, as well as our commercial industry. all of which will help us in this effort. the funding and resource question is across our government, not only in the pentagon. we also talked about the need to raise revenue to do that and spend more smartly and more wisely. that means oversight is needed. audits are important. there is a lot of complexity in the defense audit issue and situation. the report does not say everything is perfect and how the -- in how the pentagon is running. it says where we need to be in the world and what we need to do to keep americans safe and secure.

give requires all elements of national power and requires more funding and more resources across our national security agencies. again, the nondefense agencies as well. host: another term from the report, multiple theater force construct. what is that mean? guest: both the 2018 trump national defense strategy and the 2022 biden national defense strategy moved away from a concept we adopted after the end of the cold war that we would be prepared to fight two major regional conflicts at the same time. those essentially were the korean peninsula and essentially iraq. over the years, in particular after ois and oef, the department moved away from the notion of being able to fight

two conflict at the same time in part because of budgetary stringencies. we have to plan a force that will be able to defeat one adversary, essentially the prc and the end of pacific, and -- indo pacific, and hold others at bay with the nuclear deterrent. then we can deal with them if we have to. the problem is, because of what we discussed at the top of the show, the intensifying collaboration between our advertise it's hard to imagine a conflict either in europe or the indo pacific that does not ultimately expand and become a global conflict. we propose the united states need to be able to essentially have a force that is sufficient that it can be able to hopefully deter conflict in all these three theaters that we have been present in in the past, indo

pacific, europe and the middle east. if necessary, working with allies to provide the framework for defeating adversaries if we have a simultaneous conflict. host: if we have 11 aircraft carriers and china has three, shouldn't we be able to do that? why can't we do both things if we have that many more of the biggest tool in the defense game? guest: that's a great question. part of the answer is that when we get within 1000 miles of the chinese mainland, because of the investments china has made in a variety of different military capabilities that are usually called anti-access area denial capabilities, antiship ballistic missiles, antiship cruise missiles, it is harder for those

big, very defensive platforms like aircraft carriers to actually operate and to be able to sustain a forward fight. we have global responsibilities. china can concentrate his military assets in the in the pacific and make life very difficult for us. host: eric edelman and mara rudman are guests on the national defense strategy and the vice chair, former u.s. ambassador to finland and turkey as well. callers lined up for you. independent line first. gene in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you, ambassador. i follow you closely. while we are talking i'm wondering how much you work with the state department, because china is moving all around. i wonder if anyone has looked into -- if you work with the state department.

it has come to my attention that we are landlocked, have china and everyone else moving in down there, that are state department released some other people. they lifted all their oil sanctions. with what's going on there now i'm as concerned about landlocked problems as i am overseas. thank you all. god bless and thank you. guest: i think the situation in venezuela is very serious. it has all the earmarks of a stolen election. it looks like at least the beginnings potentially of a popular revolution. i suspect -- i have not been working with the state department directly and

certainly not on venezuela. it's an important issue because it's right in our hemisphere. the major energy producer. i suspect there is a lot of discussion right now inside the biden administration, although i don't know, about re-imposing a number of sanctions that the caller mentioned that have been lifted. i think that is almost certainly where things are going to be headed in the near future. host: threats in the hemisphere? guest: it's a good example of the caller has raised. she seemed aware of what we were talking about earlier, china's infiltration in the region and russia's as well. there are none of the situations that play out as just the united states posturing towards a country in the region. almost anywhere you go multiple players are involved with multiple goals and interests. many of those interests are

aligned against the united states. host: hayden in maryland on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. i wanted to ask about the role of public research and development and development aid in u.s. policy. the primary think china is doing is africa is industrial development. the primary ways they are competing with the net sites or in terms of research and development, stem education. where in the strategy is increasing public r&d? where is supporting you in peacekeeping in africa? it seems it focuses on the defense budget and not peace for the whole world. guest: sure. eric and i, your conversation is about a lot of the discussion we had leading to the final recommendations. it is part of why what we recommend are increases in national security resources across the government.

many of the areas you are pointing to we talked about the need for a greater economic investment, smart investments by the united states. i agree that that is some of the work that aid is doing and the state department is doing. also be on that, our commerce department leading business relationships through out the world and the treasury department -- we talked about the department of education on workforce. it takes a whole of nation, national power, and as you pointed out, it's exactly what china is doing. they certainly use across their country -- they are not a democracy. they use the authoritarian means to control the private sector as well. that is how they get to the belt and wrote initiative and have exploited it as they have throughout africa and latin america. the united states needs to significantly up our game and

how we compete with that. i appreciate those points. host: ambassador, can you explain the belt and wrote initiative? death road initiative -- ro ad and if you did? -- initiative? guest: kinko's the building of ports, tying commerce together through these infrastructure projects. it has not been totally successful. a lot of these projects are white elephants that end up being a real drain on the countries. the terms on which the chinese loan the money is not sometimes advantageous for the countries and leaves them burdened with a lot of debt. it has not been totally successful but it has been a problem. host: frank from north carolina, republican.

caller: go ahead. host: you go ahead, frank. you are on the air. caller: i was trying to put this thing in. i got the answer to this problem they have with trump's assassination attempt. host: we talked about that in the first half-hour today. we are focusing on the defense strategy and military readiness. we only have about 20 minutes left on the show. this is bruce in new york, democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i have a question. i have been following the ukraine were relatively closely. it seems like there's an explosion in terms of drone warfare technology. with the advent of ai and machine learning are we potentially fooling ourselves in terms of where the nature of warfare will go where you will be able to produce cheap drones with ai and they are able to be

unmanned and just operate indefinitely? what does that look like for the u.s. platform and for the horizon? guest: thank you. that's a great question. we wrestled a lot with the future changing character of work. one of the things that's going on in ukraine is an enormous event of innovation and adaptation by both ukrainian military and the russian military. we should not sleep on that. the russians have not done as much adaptation as the ukrainians have for they have done some. we absolutely agree the future of war is going to rest heavily on autonomy, on ai and other key technologies. i think our general sense was the department of defense's only slowly begun to adapt to this itself. you have the replicator initiative which has been led by

deputy secretary of defense hicks. it is seeking to rapidly acquire a number of uavs that can be put into the fight if we have to. the problem we have found is that with replicator and various other efforts the department of defense has undertaken like the diu, the unit created in silicon valley, the defense innovation unit. these are things that are working around the very cumbersome, not to say bison team processes we used to procure -- bizantine processes we used two procure them. -- to procure them. host: having enough munitions both from our own potential

needs in some sort of future conflict and to supply allies like ukraine or taiwan. where are we at that point? what is the national defense strategy and what does your report say about munitions readiness? guest: we are not in a great place. our industrial base needs to move more rapidly and have the provisions and structure to be able to move more rapidly. our report calls that out. one thing i should mention is an important part of the national defense strategy and the national security strategy references integrated deterrents. yet the ability to clement on that, what does that mean? take us back to all elements of national power. you need to be able to work with the private sector in partnership. you need to work with allies and partners and their private sectors in partnership to be

able to serve theinterests. munitions is one place that's a prime example of that. host: rick. independent. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. whoever controls outerspace is going to control the military. if china in five, 10 years has 20 space stations in outerspace and a lot more capability up there than us, we are worried about whoever controls the skies will control everything. host: space force? guest: space is a huge important domain of warfare now, as the caller correctly suggests. china has become over the last decade of major spacefaring nation. we have some assets. we created space force. that's an important development. we also have an incredibly

innovative commercial space launch industry and satellite industry. we need to facilitate the public-private cooperation in that regard to allow us to continue to maintain the kind of resilience and robustness in space we will need in warfare. one of the more troubling and worrisome developments in the last few months has been this revelation that the russians are considering putting a nuclear weapon in space. the fact that the united states -- there's a question about what he would do. before i get to that i wanted to say they vetoed a resolution in the un security council to reaffirm their obligations under the outerspace tree that was

reached in the 1960's -- treaty that was reached in the 1960's to prevent the militarization of space. it is not clear what exploding a nuclear weapon in space would do other than to make it difficult for everybody to operating space. because we are so much more reliant on space to operate our forces the russians are, they might see that in extremist as a potential option and a comparative advantage. host: a question from a viewer who tweeted at our two guests. aren't most current threats right now digital and require a different sort of military? guest: i agree that many threats are digital. we have talked about needing a different kind of military for a whole host of reasons. the challenges we need our military to be able to do what they were trained to do and participate in kinetic conflict and deter others.

at the same time we need to recognize the challenges of the world not just in conflict but how information gets received, the challenges of inaccurate information, the challenges of misinformation. it also goes to what we talk about elements of national power, why it is so important to communicate across the country. it is why shows like this are critically important. to have conversations with people and explain the threats that are there, expended different ways people are trying to control the information that goes to them. the digital space is a tremendous challenge, one i'm not sure fully belongs on the military but is more part of the core needed cross government and society we need to work on. host: less than 15 minutes left this morning. if you stay here on c-span we will take you to a senate hearing on infrastructure investment. they will be filing and in the

next 15 minutes. we will continue to talk about military readiness at the national defense strategy and take your calls. shane in baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two comments. the first is we may need need to adjust our former -- current form of capitalism because it requires dominance on the global stage. we can't be going on the road trying to control people based on our policies we cannot maintain. our military. we spend double with the russians and chinese and north koreans and around spent together. maybe we need to reconsider what we are doing. the chinese are not fighting wars or building gary kelly -- military cancer installations.

they are doing trade deals. why can't we do the same? 20 to readjust our capitalist system overall. he cannot compete with an equitable system. guest: the caller raises a number of important points. one, it is very difficult to compare military budgets, not least because in the case of the p.r.c. not everything they spent on the military is actually accounted for in their official budget. host: that happens with authoritarian regimes. guest: in general. the chinese budget, if you price it accurately comparative what we are doing, if he tried to make an apples to apples comparison they would be spending north of $700 billion. not too far off from our own budgetary numbers. host: we are up to about $1 trillion?

guest:guest: like $850 billion. something like that. guest: and russia's numbers are also high. guest: it is not to complete apples to apples comparison. the caller makes an important point. we are operating getting more complicated world. on this or it is ashley multipolar. -- actually multipolar. we have adversaries working more closely together than they have in the past, which is something we talked about earlier. let us require us to work by, with and through our allies. that is one of our competitive strategic advantages since the end of world war ii really. the multilateral military alliance with our nato allies in europe, bilateral relationship treaties with japan, the philippines, australia and the public of -- republic of korea.

and special relationships we have with israel, egypt, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates and the kingdom of jordan. all those relationships are ones that we have to leverage in order to not dominate other countries -- these countries are willing allies of the united states. it's important to make that point. i think i'll point i would like to underline here, mara and i are not here to say we have to build up the defense budget and build of the department of defense to wage war. quite the opposite. we think united states needs to do the things we recommended in order to deter war and prevent adversaries from making miscalculations about what kind of actions they can take that we would find acceptable and can live with. host: the line for current and

former members of the military. it is (202) 748-8003. we will take your calls on that line. this is richard on that line. go ahead. are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: yes. hello? host: i think we lost the caller. multiple callers on that line. kathleen in ohio. go ahead. caller: thanks. could you talk about your role in the bush-cheney administration with iraq and with iran? number two, we know israel likely killed the hamas leader

in iran. ken both guests talk about we know israel has nuclear weapons, refuses to clear them, refuses to sign the nonproliferation treaty, refuses to open up to international inspections. iran does not have nuclear weapons, as far as we know. they have opened up to sign the nonproliferation treaty and opened up to international actions. ken both of you talk about the possibility of israel using nuclear weapons and the was being pulled into that fight with iran? we know israel has been trying to do that for years. host: you have some big questions and we are running short on time. guest: let me start with iran and where it stands in the nuclear area. it is true that iran is a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty but iran has engaged in activities that violate the npt and has not been

transparent about what it's doing, including most recently. if you look at the most recent reports of the executive director of the iaea the agency that essentially monitors the nonproliferation treaty. he found that iran is number one been engaged in enriching large amounts of uranium up to 60% enrichment, which is essentially a step away from having weapons grade fuel for nuclear weapon. david albright, a former inspector has estimated if the level of activity iran is engaged with continues they could make a weapon within 60 days. the director pointed out that

iran has refused to be transparent about some of the past military activities they have engaged in, militarization activities to weaponize the uranium the are enriching into a nuclear weapon. the situation is very serious with regard to iran. we have tended to lose track of that because of the other things we have been discussing this morning that are going on in the world. that is an issue i think whoever wins the election in the fall will have to address very urgently. there's the question of the assassination of the hamas leader. mara and i were talking about this before we came on. there will be a very interesting question about how iran decides to respond.

obviously, both secretary acosta and secretary blinken -- secretary austin have urged both sides not to escalate this further. we have an active effort to negotiate an agreement of the so-called blue line that separates lebanon from israel and across which hezbollah and israel have been changing fire. hopefully those efforts will succeed. the actors will step back from a war which i think right now neither side really wants for a variety of reasons. host: mara rudman, your thoughts on all of this as well? guest: i largely agree with what eric said. i think it's incredibly volatile time in the region and the world. it is a region that is a tinderbox. has long been and now exacerbated that in the last -- since october 7. not only is there ongoing

negotiations on the border issues between lebanon and israel because of hezbollah, but there is active cease fire discussions going on to bring back hostages from gaza, hamas hostages and to bring an end to the conflict. i hope that what has happened in the last couple of days does not deter people from what is an incredibly pardon task. -- important task. host: i think we have a caller on the line for veterans who are active -- or are active military. valdes? that's you. caller: yes. i think the acclamation czar t -- explanations are too academic.

i believe the note states has been caught and the chinese are embracing the whole world. we messed around with all kinds of different words, setting up bases in syria, iraq and such. i think that china is way stronger than we tell people. we don't have a chance with them. they are a very disciplined people and their history shows that will not take anything sitting down. as far as iran having nuclear weapons, my philosophy is if we have them, everybody should have them. maybe we will not use them if everybody afraid of each other. i think building up the military is absolutely not the way to go. host: let me give you the last minute or two here before we had to the hearing. guest: i agree that china has been building up its military power. i think one of the things we try to highlight in a report is the danger of a conflict that might break out in the indo pacific

and what it would cost. although we are advocating for increased resources for defense, that means probably higher taxes which nobody likes but also reform of entitlements which people also don't like. the cost we are talking about is essentially an insurance policy for against having a war, the cost of which would be easily 10 times what we are talking about if not much more. i think the whole point about deterring conflict and preventing it from happening. host: for viewers who want to read the report. mara rudman served as a commissioner. eric edelman, vice chair the commission on the national defense strategy. you can watch yesterday's hearing of the armed services committee at c-span.org in its entirety.

thank you for your time on a wednesday. guest: thank you. host: that will do it for our program today. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we take you over to the senate side of capitol hill, a hearing on public transit and infrastructure investments. that is set to begin in just a few minutes as senators start arriving in the room. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024]

>> this morning, transportation officials are testifying on public transit investments in the impact of the bipartisan infrastructure law. they are appearing before the urban affairs committee. you are watching live coverage on c-span.

[indistinct conversations]

>> this morning, transportation officials are testifying on public transit investments and the impact of the bipartisan infrastructure law. they are appearing before the senate banking, and urban affairs committee hearing. you are watching live coverage on c-span.