visit ncicap.org] >> the 117 congress includes over 60 new members in this diverse group includes first-generation immigrants, state representatives, television reporters and former college and professional athletes. watch our conversations with new members of congress tonight we feature freshmen members who served in the military including -- watch interviews with new members of congress tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at www.c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. >> coming up in an hour, the former 9/11 commission chair and former new jersey governor tom kane discusses the january 6 insurrection at the u.s. capitol. at 830 a.m., afghanistan's inspector general in his report

on efforts in the country to reconstruct. at 9:15 a.m., the founders of ben and jerry's on qualifying immunity♪ host: it is the washington journal for february 19. house have filed a bill that proposes that eight-your path to citizenship for certain undocumented workers. republicans have expressed concerns about the package and it would need the support of 10 republican senators to overcome a senate alabaster -- filibuster. we will get your thoughts specifically on this idea of a path of citizenship being proposed by house democrats. here is how you can let us know. (202) 748-8000 if you support the idea of a citizenship plan.

(202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on twitter, and on our facebook page. facebook.com/c-span -- facebook.com/c-span. it reflects the desire of the biden administration for the proposal. highlights include the eight-year path for a document democrats. it includes certain farmworkers in the mix. dreamers, as they are known. young people who have protection under the dream act. it would raise per country capital on legal immigration numbers. as elements of the bill, it would repeal the penalty for leaving the united states. it would expand the transnational forces in central

america, increase technology at the southern border, and replace the word " alien" with noncitizen. that is some elements of what is being proposed. the bill was filed yesterday. when asked at her weekly press briefing, speaker pelosi talked about the passage on the house side. [video] >> they will introduce legislation. what we did -- what we informed members of, this is the design. is frozen. -- it is frozen and it complies with the reconciliation. i don't see anything of that size. there are people advocating for that. the question is with that meet the rule and those other kind of things? did it would, that would be

wonderful, because then we wouldn't need 60 votes. i salute the president for putting forth the legislation he did. there are others who wanted to piecemeal. that may be a good approach too. that is up to congress to decide. host: wall street journal highlighting the possibility of a piecemeal approach in a story filed by michelle hackman about how elements of the bill might be split up. it quotes clay higgins, ranking member of the house border security subcommittee. "the administration made it less attractive to work with democrats on immigration by issuing numerous executive orders undoing many of president trump's policies. respectfully to our president and his base, i believe there is room in the middle to find bipartisan agreement. we are not going to give up core principles to get it.'

they are facing in april 1 deadline to bypass the committee process. democrats are looking at two bills they hope can win republican support. one require 60 votes to pass. one creates a citizenship path for dreamers who have lived in the country legally. the second passed last year with 30 republican votes would offer citizenship for about one million farmworkers. that is some of the proposals of what the democrats filed yesterday when it comes to the idea of a path to citizenship. here is how you can call us. if you support that, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . text us at (202) 748-8003. then you can post on twitter or post on facebook. on the senate side, senator bob menendez was a sponsor of this legislation and put out tweets

talking about it and what he sees as the need for it. "we know the path or will demand negotiations with the other side but we will never win an argument we don't have the courage to make. we must make our case." "this bill will bring 11 million out of the shadows and give them the opportunity to pass criminal background and national security checks and secure lawful status, eventually apply for green cards, and after eight years begin the naturalization process." " to those who preach xenophobia and hate, the status quo deprives us the economic benefits. enough that it is a loss for republicans and a win for america." when it comes to immigrants, they fall into several categories they highlighted last

year. naturalized citizens, 20.7 million. total number of lawful immigrants at 32.5 million. when you add lawful permanent residents. 10.5 million illegal immigrants. these are estimates going back to 2017. research done by pew. your idea for this path of citizenship. we will take your calls if you support the idea or oppose it. this is glenn. thanks for calling. caller: i've got a good idea for these immigrants. host: let me start with, do you support the past to citizenship part? caller: not really. let me tell you what i would like to say. host: you said you support it. take the line the best represents you. i invite you to call back.

christian, who opposes the idea, phoenix, arizona. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is so interesting to me that black voters who voted for joe biden, for a black agenda. they were going to get all these wonderful things that the democrats promised. the number one thing on their agenda was not black people. it is about bringing in people who are not united states citizens into the country. legalizing their status. these people are going to take many resources from the black community. when these people come into the country they go into cities such as detroit, los angeles, st. louis, new orleans, charlotte. i can go on and on.

i can name of every democratic city. -- off every democratic city. as black people see over the course of time, and it will take time for joe biden's agenda to be completed, black people will see once again that the democratic party is not for you. they are not for the american worker. the only president in history of the united states that has ever stood up for the american worker and putting black people before foreigners has been donald trump. host: if you oppose the path to citizenship, what do you do with the numbers who are here? caller: those people need to follow protocol. they need to go to the federal authorities. find out what they need to do in

order to find a pathway to citizenship. we already have all these things in place. once again, as i pointed out on the show, every single immigration law on the books has been written by a democrat. host: frank in northport, new york, a supporter of this idea. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for taking my call. i support a path to citizenship. i live in new york. my parents were both immigrants. i have been to ellis island were so many came through at the turn-of-the-century and thereafter. it is a pretty interesting experience. there were exhibits where

certain immigrants were asked to write something. some of them had never held a pencil before. they could not write. they did not write anything. a lot of these people were discriminated against. the protocol back then probably got very detailed and i don't know it. i don't really know the issue currently as well. i will be very honest. host: why do you support it then? caller: because the country was originally inhabited by indigenous people for hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of years. it was their country to begin with. the dutch and english and the french and the spanish stole it and basically committed genocide against those people.

that is an issue that needs to be looked at by your prior caller who thinks this is his country. host: that is frank in new york. madison, wisconsin on the oppose line. jeremy. caller: what's going on, pedro? host: what do you think about this idea? caller: vote for pedro. this settlement was talking about the indigent and what is being stolen. i oppose. why is it always steel, steel, steel? -- steal, steal? we are talking about mars and the individuals who do what they who how? am i clear? host: why do you specifically oppose the eight-your path? caller: do we know what a citizen is in this country? what is a citizen in this country? host: jeremy in wisconsin.

the first caller talking about areas of the united states where they have large immigrant populations. this goes back to 2018. pew research says new york and washington, d.c., atlanta, orlando, miami, chicago in the mix as well. dallas-fort worth and houston. heading towards the west, several cities in california. phoenix, seattle in the mix. that's available at pew research. garth indicator, origin. -- in decatur, georgia. caller: 1492 says a lot. illegal immigration has been american as apple pie. all of a sudden we want to move the goalpost? people follow the money. when america gets resources around the world, making other

countries poor, then the people come here because they are poor and want to come whether resources go and we get upset. why i'm for it is because it is the human thing to do. humanity. where are the morals? people don't leave their country because they want to. they leave because they have to. americans, we travel from one state. i used to live in ohio. i moved south because the jobs moved south. if the economics moved to china, they will move to china. host: the first caller brought of the impact on american jobs. what do you think about that argument in the consideration of the path to citizenship? caller: that has nothing to do with taking away jobs from people, because a lot of the manufacturers shipped them to china. you cannot blame immigration for the jobs.

they shipped them to china, indonesia. let's his serious. host: richard, you are next up. caller: good morning. i do oppose it but let me state i'm not a republican and not a democrat. i'm an american citizen who believes everyone should have an opportunity to grow in this country in this world. what i don't understand is this. i'm 65 years old. i want people to come to this country. for economic reasons nothing else. when it comes to food, shelter, clothing, jobs, your politicians and corporate jobs are taking the jobs were ever there is cheap labor. people are going to follow the work. but the problem is there is so much work at a certain amount of work and a certain amount of people.

you can't be all things to all people. you have got to be the best you can be. but in this country -- i came across the grand canyon on a business trip years ago. they were building the new sky bridge across the hoover dam. they were following the jobs. in this country, and the south, everybody went north for the auto industry. they can't come back to the south that they loved. same thing goes for people with go west young man. here's the problem. you have them legal so we can make sure the corporations and the government are not getting them here for just the vote or the cheap labor. when you take a man or woman and you put them underground in america and make them work, people will abuse them. we have to get the laws right. make sure there are no girls coming across the federal borders and being raped and whatever. host: you are welcome to give your thoughts about this path to

citizenship proposal. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you can text, tweet or post on facebook. maria reports for the washington post and joins us for perspective on this proposal. thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. host: what came up in this number and how does it come to be? guest: about half the immigrants and possibly more than that -- we are talking about 11 million people who are undocumented. farmworkers, dreamers. they came to the united states as children, as babies, and people with temporary protected status. people who cannot go home because of an earthquake or hurricane or conflict in the country. those people will be on the fastest track.

they will immediately become eligible for green cards and then can apply for citizenship. that is faster than it is now. it is usually about five years to apply, unless you are married to a citizen. for the rest, we still don't know precisely how many would fall into these categories. they would be eligible to apply after eight years. we are trying to get the information about the reasoning behind it. usually it has to do with the meta-money it would cost -- the amount of money it would cost. host: when it comes to the political side and reactions from republicans in the house and senate side, how did they react and what is it mean as far as potential passage? guest: the senate is narrowly divided. that is a major hurdle in this case. you need 60 votes to pass it. that means you need 10 republicans. a lot of advocates for

immigrants and democrats just don't have those votes. they cautioned they are just starting. there is a process here. people should be patient. the last loss for nst were assigned 35 years ago, signed by ronald reagan and legalized 3 million people. despite strict laws passed in 1996 under president bill clinton, you have 11 million people now in that situation. some have been here for decades. people in high school seniors and needed a solution then, now they would be 40. it's incredible to have seen it go on this long. at the same time there are a lot of concerns about enforcement. that is what republicans are talking about.

they feel the bill is weak on enforcement. they are concerned we will be in the same situation. host: take us back in history. the previous administrations made attempts when it comes to immigration reform. what did history tell us about this process? specifically applied to what the democrats might try this time around? guest: president trump had his own brand of immigration reform that was different from president bush and president obama who were more similar. they wanted to legalize folks. if you look at the numbers, president trump named to deport people -- aimed to deport people and no one would be excluded from the list if you were here illegally. if you are eligible for deportation, you should not be accepted.

he never deported as many people as president obama did. he faced too much resistance. a lot of cities, towns and the state of california have tried not to -- have tried to protect people who have been here for a long time. there is a lot of support for passing a law that would legalized people who have been here for a long time. host: as far as going forward, a couple of stories -- the effort might be split up into smaller pieces. what might be seen as far as sectioning that out? guest: you are starting to see smaller pieces, such as the dream act which has been filed for so many years. people talk about support for it. it seems to face the same hurdles in the senate as any other bill. about 100 lawmakers, including

linda sanchez who sponsored it in the house, have signed a letter to president biden urging him to consider using budget reconciliation to pass some form of immigration. at least 5 million people, including essential workers, dreamers, people such as that who have been here a long time. a lot of advocates have great hopes for this bill but they don't see how they can pass it. they are really hoping he will use this mechanism. otherwise next year you were into the midterm elections. congress could change. they feel like this is their only hope. host: maria, there is a story in the washington post talking about this current administration and deportation. under the biden administration, a new memo on this. guest: it is similar to what we

have been reporting, which is that president biden said it was a big mistake to deport as many people as they did under the obama administration, which was more than president trump able to deport. they are trying to narrow the focus of people who are serious criminals and recent border crossers and national security threats. they are trying to bring it back with a narrower scope to what it was under the obama administration. host: maria, thank you for your time this morning. we appreciate it. back to your calls on this eight-your proposal that you heard our guest talk about. cory from california, you are next. caller: how are you doing? i'm a supporter of this

eight-year plan. this has been a nation of immigrants. there are people who came here lost, people who came for conquest, people who came for different reasons. it is the building of this country and of this nation, the diversity. i just believe people should be given a chance to make a life, legally and lawfully. it does not matter if they came here illegally or not. they should at least be given a chance to stand on the side of right and wrong that they what the stand on. the united states has so many different agendas.

there are so many different socializations subscribe to america's makeup. thickest race, economics, republicans, democrats. there are so many different agendas. i feel like morality, which a lot of people have strayed from -- host: this is greg in ohio who opposes it. caller: yeah. this is only going to hurt the black community. that guy that was on the earlier said it exactly right. if it was my way, they should have gone by the trump rule. merritt-based. this illegal crap has got to stop. it is overrun in ohio. round them all up and deport them. host: jim in georgia saying illegal immigrants always send

50% to 75% of their earnings their countries of origin. -- back to their countries of origin. william says, how is this a benefit for me and my fellow americans? carol in panama city, florida. it's about time. they deserve to be recognized as they work and pay taxes and join the military, etc. republicans use it at election time for the number one topic. immigration should be sorted out once and for all. text us at (202) 748-8003. twitter available, and our facebook page. you can also call us on the lines. sean in sterling heights, michigan, a supporter of this path to citizenship. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm definitely in favor

of it. i used to be in the military. we had people from the philippines, central america and the military. it was like their path to citizenship. but we changed the rules and a lot of them did not get to qualify at the end of their service. it is like dreamers. people talk of the economics, but didn't they pay money to become a dreamer? i thought they had a deal and all of a sudden it was held up in the house of representatives. who really owns the country? it is a nebulous thing. it's a big hunk of land. does the pharaohs own the pyramis? host: zach in mississippi. caller: jaeger hoover -- j. edgar hoover thought it was

about keeping the black culture discombobulated. they depend on us and $2 trillion to spend 99% of it on white america and immigrants, which are invading all the small businesses. they take a little menial jobs that kids used to have. nothing against the world. i'm not xenophobic but give them your car. these people have a place to stay when they get here. where do you think they are going? they are going to the black committee. host: if they are here, why not give them a path to become a citizen? caller: are you gonna have them in your house? are you going to open up your refrigerator? host: not the question as far as the federal government's effort. why not offer a path to

citizenship? caller: are you going to let all seve billion? offer your refrigerator to all 7 billion? host: george from pennsylvania. caller: i do support this because in our world, our existence, it's about labor. labor is what creates capital gains. everybody is confused about capital gains. there is a level of rich people who make money without going to work. i'm from pennsylvania before the emancipation, the founders of pennsylvania, they set up law where slaves were the labor who

created who was born in pennsylvania was free. host: how does labor change if a path to citizenship is offered? what changes to the labor force compared to what is happening now? caller: what is happening now is because the labor force has totally been wiped out. everything is driven from that. we are talking about the slaves. immigrants exist in their country because wealth used them for labor. we went to clear that up. we need to clear that up where labor -- superior bias of wealth that trump represents needs to recognize the morality for the rule of law that existed.

host: that is george in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. earlier this week, president biden appeared on a town hall. had questions about a lot of topics. one was this idea of what to do with immigrants who are not supposed to be here and the path to citizenship idea. here is a portion of what he had to say. [video] >> there is a range of things that relate to immigration, including the whole idea of how you deal with -- what confuses people as you talk about refugees. you talk about undocumented. you talk about people who are seeking asylum. and he talked about people who are coming from camps or held around the world. there are four different criteria for being able to come to the united states. the vast majority of the people

of the 11 million undocumented, they are not hispanics. they came on a visa and were able to buy a ticket and get on a plane and go home. they did not come across the rio grande. -- sorry. it is the irish in me. all kidding aside, there are a lot of things that relate. but i think we can no longer -- look. even if you are not involved with politics at all, you have probably heard me say this 1000 times. everyone is entitled to be treated with decency -- dignity. everyone is entitled to that. we don't do that now. for the first time in american history. host: president biden from this week on efforts on immigration. you can comment as well. (202) 748-8000 for those who support the idea of a path to citizenship. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001

. bill from patriot, ohio on the oppose line. caller: how are you doing today? i'm opposed to this. i remember when reagan gave us other people amnesty. they said that was going to be the end of it. they were going to start enforcing our immigration laws. they have not done that. neither party. as far as i'm concerned, i'm an independent now. i used to be a democrat. they went away from me. i believe if we get rid of these immigrants, there will be some shortages in the labor market. but like you said with the green card stuff and for the farmworkers, we can have those people come in like they used to do. they came here and they worked.

at the end of their season, they went back home and they came back the next year. it was a family group. i remember. we worked in the foreign ministry, my family -- farm industry. we have seen immigrants coming here and they were good people. they came in and they worked and they got their money in at the end of the season they went back home. the next year they came back. that was ok. i don't have no trouble with that. now these people that snuck in here and are taking jobs. they say, we have a right to be here. no, they don't have a right to be here. host: what makes you think mass deportation is possible? caller: we could deport them. we could set up -- private citizens can set up in their neighborhoods.

if they know there is illegals, they can call the ice people for the border protection and have them come and pick those people up and take them out of here. we can do mass deportation. there is no trouble with that. i don't have any trouble with it. host: mark from san diego. caller: my question i have is, everyone keeps talking about this and i want to know, from a republican or independent, what's to prevent this from happening 5, 10, 20 years from now? we have x amount of people coming to the country and all of a sudden they shove it aside and we are back to the situation 20 years from now. is there any enforcement in the law? i still don't understand all this. host: you are calling in support of a citizenship path. caller: i think there should be because they have been here. you have to look at it carefully.

all i am saying is what prevents this from happening again? i don't understand the bill. nobody ever asks that question to a politician. host: mark from san diego. democrats have filed this path to citizenship plan. a couple of pieces of news out of texas. the star-telegram reporting the governor said when it comes to the power plant in texas, they should have been able to handle the freezing temperatures seen across the state. it prompted him to announce two emergency items for lawmakers to consider. calling measures demanding the winterization of power generators, and providing funding to make sure operations occur -- preparations occur. here in washington, the hill reporting the senate energy and natural resources committee is planning to hold a hearing on

electric grid reliability and resilience. millions were left without power. joe mentioned -- the committee intends to hold a hearing to examine grid reliability with resilience and affordability to assess how to best prevent this from happening in the future. you can find it in the hell. if you go -- the hill. ted cruz highlighted in several stories. the senator returned to texas thursday and expressed regret for his trip to cancun after being chastised by republicans and democrats. "it was obviously a mistake. in hindsight i would not have done it." senator cruz is known to double down. he was contrite in an interview where he acknowledged the gravity of criticism coming his way from the state and beyond.

we go back on an eight-year citizenship path. george in clarksville, tennessee. you are next. caller: good morning. i oppose it because it does not sound like any kind of a future immigration plan but a plan for those who are already here. it sounds like an idea or a plan to allow illegal activity to eventually benefit them. i certainly oppose that. host: what does future aspects -- what future things have to be considered? caller: secure the border, number one. make sure people to come here illegally. this plan is about those who are already here. the future. they are not talking about the future. they are talking about what they can do for those already here. how that illegal activity will

eventually benefit them. if they want to come up with a future one, tell me what that is. they are talking about the one currently for those who are here and how they can benefit. host: murfreesboro, tennessee. jeffrey, hello. caller: i support it because we all come from -- most of us in the united states, unless you are a native indian, come from immigrants. i think the majority of americans are compassionate and understand daca recipients are in essence americans. i am forward for that. the broader bill has major flaws. i think this will hurt joe biden in the long run because we are in the time of a pandemic. there is high and employment. college students are trying to find jobs that they have $50,000 in debt. there are a lot of provisions in this bill for doing away with the per country cap over

expanding visas which directly impacts american workers. the majority of visas get paid less. college students will have to compete. in the broader sense it is a bad bill. it is too big and too comprehensive. it is going to hurt american workers at a time of a pandemic when the president should be focusing on employment and helping americans get jobs. it hurts college students with debt. he doesn't want to help them there. host: jim in new york on the oppose line. caller: i usually get hung up on but i will try again. this time i've got some stuff here. i have the paper in front of me. it is a liberal rag but they have numbers for the cor --

corunna cases -- corona cases. brentwood has almost 10,000 cases. central islip has about 5000 cases. d go to a town north of here -- you go to a town north of here -- host: when it comes to the citizenship path, what are your thoughts? caller: houses are packed with people like sardines. you can't compete with that kind of labor. if you have five people to a room and they are paying the same tax i am on a single-family house, you have to leave the area. if you are a roofer or you frame houses, you can't compete with a the labor. they are working cheap because they live five to a room. host: do you know that for a

fact? caller: yes, a lot of these guys at the gym talk about how their businesses are devastated by this. host: scottsdale, arizona. supporter of this effort. caller: hello? thank you. it's incredible how government has this bureaucracy that was to extend this complex problem, which is a simple problem. i was a teacher in the title i school district, over half hispanic. many students were illegal aliens. i can tell you these are decent people. we made the mistakes and we have to move on from this and have a quick program. host: you call it a simple problem. three previous administrations have try to tackle this problem. caller: it is based in racism.

they turned the people away. in st. louis before world war ii. people have this racial attitude on letting other people in. they are afraid of change. 11 million people are here now. let them be citizens. they are working here. they are decent people. i saw the families. i talked to the families. these are people who need help. yes, they came in illegally because they are running away from things. the same way they ran away from russia and places in europe. but they are not white. the racism is terrible. host: the previous caller made this a jobs issue. caller: i don't think it is a jobs problem. most people who are coming in came in the low-end jobs. the low-end jobs -- i thought we

had an economy that was capitalism. we like competition. i don't know where they don't what to have this competition. they are working here anyway now. host: that is seymour in arizona. this is a viewer who texted. "how many times is congress going to ignore it? it is not the immigrants' fault. it is the representatives." that is robert in virginia. sam says, "they are the jobs americans will never do. americans are spoilt at even the poorest of americans are living in better conditions than the people who come here out of desperation." >> in cleveland. "-- greg in cleveland. "what jobs are you referring to?

most have jobs people don't want." you can make your views known via text. several making their views known via twitter, including kevin mccarthy who sent out a tweet. "democrats have a plan to open america's borders but not america's schools. tells you everything you need to know." this is senator tom cotton. "millions are struggling to make ends meet. give them a raise by increasing bit of a ensuring businesses can't hire illegal immigrants to protect american workers. today americans have to compete against millions of illegal immigrants who illegally take low wages under the table. we can require employees to verify status so they can't undercut americans on the black market." a couple of headlines when it comes to covid matters.

cnbc reporting, and this is coming from speaker pelosi's weekly briefing that you can find online at c-span, a vote on the relief bill should take place by the end of next week. roll call has a story taking a look at president biden conservative money to help the global relief effort. he plans to announce the u.s. will be contributed to billion dollars to the global effort -- $2 billion to the global effort. he plans to make the announcement at the g7 meeting. the funds will flow to the vaccine alliance, an organization aimed at increasing immunization rates. the global effort -- that is from roll call.

it is a canadian newspaper. they have a story you can read. health experts are suggesting studying evidence that one dose of pfizer's covid-19 vaccine is as good as two. you can see that at their website. out of new york state, assembly republicans in new york officially started the impeachment process against governor cuomo, adding to announce the resolution to create an impeachment commission consisting of eight bipartisan numbers. the panel will have 60 days to submit his findings and recommendations to the state legislature. that's according to newsweek from the nursing home information and what was going on between the governor and the attorney general in new york. livingston in randolph, massachusetts on the oppose line. caller: yes.

who were the first illegal immigrants that came to this country? the europeans. they almost tried to destroy the original people on this land. now they are opposed. they made laws. up to today, those original people are -- host: you say you opposes citizenship path. why is that? i think you dropped off. cindy in wisconsin, support line. caller: how are you? i support immigration for a multitude of reasons. can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: i don't have the tv on. host: thank you for that. go ahead. caller: many of the previous

callers said they oppose immigration because it takes good jobs in construction. i work in construction. iona building company. it is not easy to find people willing to dig in the dirt. it is hard labor. whether they are hispanic or white or black, we have tried -- it is difficult to find anybody to work hard in this soil and dirt for low wages. i'm not sure what they are talking about. citizenship should be available to everybody in this country that has a dream, that has hope and plans. that is how you renew a country, bringing in new ideas, new blood, new thoughts. we are stagnant as americans. we have taken 10 things to eat -- things too easily.

we have made these promises since the 1980's. one final thought. everybody thinks world war ii was won by rosie the riveter. they forget about jose who built ships and engines that saved world war ii. hispanics did that. host: you said you run a horse farm? caller: they horse fence building company. host: have you hired and document a workers? caller: i hire anybody that wants to work for me. host: several people said employers have a role in this as well as far as the illegal immigration problem. i want to get your thoughts as an employer on that front. caller: anybody that wants to work hard -- i have to hire daily were depend on where i'm working -- depending on where i'm working. host: finish your thought. caller: i paid $15 to $20 an

hour and i have a hard time finding people to do the hard labor regardless of where they are from and what their background is. host: cindy giving her perspective. thank you for that perspective. thanks for turning down your television. sometimes it causes feedback. texas, david. hello. caller: if she is having a hard time, she needs to pay $25 to $30. i'm a small business owner. i'm not against immigration. the united states is as successful as it is because we had over one million people coming in legally every year. it is not just about illegal immigration. we have a lot of people coming in. i think the next closest country to us is probably 200,000 to 250,000. it used to be britain.

we have a lot of immigration in this country. it is the only reason we have a positive population growth as compared to other countries. we keep leaving out the word "illegal." trump wasn't the best position to get this off. he had the answer. he had the deal to be made on daca and a path to citizenship. we don't have a problem even with the citizenship for the people who are here. yale says 20 million to 25 million. host: what do you find wrong with the proposal? caller: the problem that has been wrong since reagan. they will not build the wall. they will not enforce the laws. the reason is like the ranch lady. she said i can't get people to work at the price of offering.

it's capitalism. you offer more. you asked the question to the roofer guy. my godson is a roofer, a roofing contractor. my son is a high-level manager in the lubbock area. you can't get -- the crews are all hispanic. we need them. in an age where they are talking about it as part of a new covid bill raising the nineveh wasted $15, if you have gone to -- raising the minimum wage to $15, if you have gone to mcdonald's lately, you have to go to a kiosk inside. host: are you impacted by the ice storms? where is dennis and in relationship to every thing else? caller: the governor better get

his butt in gear on this one. i grew up in florida, through some of the worst hurricanes. i have never had my lights and power out as long as this. we were mostly down for two days. the third day it was getting better. i was celebrating when the outage was only for an hour. in the beginning we were never out solid but we would have the lights on for an hour in the middle of the night. i had a friend whose house burned down because they had their hvac left on and it jolted. my wife went to a place where they had power because they were on the same grid as a hospital. i babysat the house and the animals. just the most miserable weather issue i've dealt with. i'm 70 years old. i grew up on the east coast.

i have seen plenty of hurricanes, plenty of bad weather. this is going to be an interesting one. host: hope you fair well. giving us perspective on not only the proposal by the democrats and congress, but his situation in texas with the weather and the related issues of power and the like. rose in staten island. caller: what i feel we need to do is we need to be able to communicate a little better because people are too intimidated. thinking that their likelihood will be taken away by people because they are not from here. elon musk is from south africa. you have steve jobs. his natural born father was from syria. people are too afraid. people from other countries have businesses here making their own

jobs, giving americans jobs. people who graduate from m.i.t., they end up going back to their country. that is not a good thing for us. we can't have kids in cages. donald trump -- i don't care what anybody says. that slush fund for the wall. he had plenty of money. we can't desensitize what we do to people, then we have the d.c. riots. we have more commercials showing people having all these vaccinations they came from other countries. jeff bezos, his father was from cuba. here's an example. my economics teacher taught us this in college. the cat scan. 1991. there were two college students

who put the scans together and made an extraordinary machine. they were from japan. they were in a teacher's lounge and they got kicked out by the dean of the college because they were having tea. it is a common story. it is a true story. host: what headline to show u.s. are as new cases. below 80,000 in the united states. 70,188 new cases on wednesday. the total was higher than the new cases reported the previous day. massachusetts is next. fran opposes the effort. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: go aheadhost:. --host: go ahead.

caller: as long as these people prove they can support themselves without federal assistance, that would be fine with me. that is not always the case. the first thing you need to do is close the border. you can't have an open border. without a border we don't have a country. you can't invite the whole world in. we are a very wealthy country but we can't support the entire world. we have people in this country starving. it is because of lack of work. it is jobs they don't want to do or don't have the knowledge to do. host: one more bit of international news. the white house proposing talks with iran. quoting a state department spokesman. "the united states would accept an invitation to discuss a diplomatic way forward on iran's nuclear program as the biden

administration does not know yet if iran would agree to meet." tim in michigan. i hope i pronounced that right. caller: i would like -- first, i want to commend you. you keep people in their lanes. i hate when republicans call on the wrong line. i used to be a democrat. then call on the republican line. anyway, there is one thing. i'm very worried. there are two callers you get that are my absolute favorites. there is that 92 are 93-year-old margaret from texas. i hope you are well, warm and ok. call in. let her call in just a check-in. host: we are running short on

time. your support for the citizenship path. can you describe that? caller: i sure can. and david in new jersey, i hope you're ok. we lost 500,000 people thanks to trump following putin's orders. those are people that will not be working. i'm 59 and i'm looking forward to my social security benefits. if we don't have people working, i'm screwed. so is everybody else. that's how social security works. these people come over here. they are human beings, just like everybody. they want to work. they will put into the social security. god bless them. we need these people. we have lost a lot of people in the workforce thanks to daddy

vlady' host: that is timmy in michigan calling in support of this effort. i wanted to show you usa today reported that senator bob dole, 97 years old diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. he put out a statement -- we have hurdles i had. i joins millions of americans who face significant health challenges of their own. he has fallen into stage four bracket. you can read more on the page of usa today. we will change to -- topics and look at the idea that speaker pelosi wants to create a commission looking at the events of january 6 on the attack on the capital of, tom kean, former governor of new jersey and chair of that commission. he will join us to give us his perspective on what this commission needs to considered we will have that conversation next later on on the program.

an update on reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. if there is a pullout of troops. joining us as general john sopko. those conversations coming up on wj. >> american history tv on c-span three, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this weekend, saturday, at 9:05 eastern, prior to the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol, hear stories about the capital from tour guide and author robert who talks about the late 19th century bad of honeymooners visiting the capital of -- on sunday at 4 p.m. eastern, unreal america, we feature the 1934 newsreels on california governor's campaign. it is by mgm studios in an effort to defeat a gubernatorial

candidate in sinclair. at 6:30 eastern, a discussion with brigadier general charles mcgee, looking back on his military career, particularly, his time with the tuskegee airmen. at 8:00 p.m. on the presidency, and reenactment between benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson discussing the role in shaping the revolutionary war era america and their constitutional government it produced. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest is tom kean. he served as the former chair of the 9/11 commission. he is a member of the bipartisan policy center on the task force on the ideology cochair and former governor of new jersey.

thank you for giving us your time is money. guest: thank you. host: he wrote a letter to president biden advised president harris and others about this idea of a commission looking at the events of january 6. can you give us the just of the letter and why you wrote it. you do we -- guest: we look at this event and thought it was a violation that never happened before, the capital of has never been invaded like that since 1812. this was our own citizens. why did that happen? how did it happen? what are the facts? and what can we sure that -- can we do to make sure that never happens again? it will make recommendations that were basically accepted by the american people of the congress. and because of that, we are a lot safer and have not had an event like that since 9/11. why not do something like that

again? host: from your experiences with the commission, what would you suggest first off with this commission being proposed in the congress to take a look at these issues? guest: first of all, it has to be truly bipartisan. if you are not going to make a bipartisan commission, if you are not going to happen that appoint men and women who are really -- appoint men and women who are really going to go across the aisle and come up with solutions that both sides can buy, then do not do it. you have to get bipartisan. you have to give enough time to do its job. then, you have to get enough money to do it -- to do the job. and make it visible so that people know what is happening step-by-step and hopefully, they can do this and the american people know exactly what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. and we can set up mechanisms to

make sure it never happens again, the capitol is never fully defended. host: your commission had 10 members and nearly -- reviewed 2 million pages of documents and conducted 1200 interviews and 12 public hearings as well as 20 months to compile a 570 page, 14 chapter report and then you mentioned those 14 recommendations for security agencies. with that in mind, as far as disco, you said it had to be bipartisan in nature, but what keeps it from being political and what did you learn from your experiences there? guest: it makes it hard to keep things bipartisan. it is not hard -- it is the men and women who are appointed to the commission. that is the key. if they want to keep it bipartisan, they will. they talk to each other, if they respect each other, at they respect each other's ideas, and go on that way, -- that is why

it is so important that these men and women have a record in their lives of working across the aisle and putting country above party. host: are the best candidates for these positions in your mind? guest: i have passed on some, but at some point, you cannot make those names public. host: in terms of their experiences, but kind of scope of experiences do you think makes a good candidate to serve? guest: a variety of experiences. it cannot be people who are serving now and it cannot be anybody who has ambitions to climb up the ladder. the 9/11 commission, we used to talk about has-beens.

one of the wonderful governors, mayors, there are people who are working to push administration. the obama administrator, the clinton administration, you have a lot of to pick from. i know that with the right motivation, congress can find men and women who can do this job. host: if you want to ask him questions about this commission to investigate the attack on the u.s. capitol and you want to ask him questions considering the experience with the 9/11 commission, you can call us, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. -- you can post on twitter and facebook as well. governor, what powers should this commission have in order to do its best work? guest: you can have subpoena power. we used it once when the

agencies lie to us and we made them tell the truth. but, if you do not have subpoena power, -- if you have subpoena power, they will come and if they do not come, we will make them come. that is the main power you need. host: in your mind, what areas should be subject to subpoena? guest: anybody who has been involved in this attack on the capitol. we want to answer questions i wrote a lot of accounts and they wrote this plan ahead of time. they said they would invade the capitol, that is what we will do, it will take three weeks to plan it. why was it the capital of -- you had a huge amount of people there, so less people attending

and protecting the capital. there is a whole series of questions and as they got one question answered, it will lead to another. the bottom line is the american people deserve a full report of what happened and my recommendations are to make sure that never happens again. host: and your recommendations in mind? guest: on the 9/11 commission, we questioned the present president, the present vice president, the former president. you have to have a wide-ranging -- the ability to call on white information. host: this is robert -- on a wide or information. host: this is robert. good morning, go ahead. caller: i respect tom.

he brought up interesting points that he said that the american people do need truth about what came out on both sides. it is clear that both sides -- he said -- trump supporters were on the front of the capitol. you can clearly see that there was a line of people that come behind the people that they were looking at what was going on. then, a guy tries to break through the window, the capitol window, with a shield and it is clearly on tv. how long did it take for him to get in there? i agree and god bless him for bringing up that. host: robert in kentucky. governor, go ahead. guest: you have to find exactly what happened. until the american people about

it and move to a better future. that is the idea. host: james in wilson, north carolina. democrats line. your next up. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, governor. i know you know what you are talking about. i saw what trump done. they went down and protested and then they broke in and went through nancy pelosi's jess -- nancy pelosi's desk. governor, you have done a good job good i am a democrat and when i was in new jersey, you are the best governor that has ever been. host: watertown, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

let me do you a little history about what all politician commissions have given us. they have given us bankrupted social security, $100 trillion in debt, endless wars, the investigation on hillary's emails, benghazi, the financial crisis, so when you say you want to go bipartisan, no. we have a unit party in washington. you are all in it together. if you have legitimate investigations and a legitimate government, donald trump could never have gotten elected, but he did, and the reason he got elected is because guys like you think in terms of democrats and republicans. it is not going to work and if you do have nothing but politicians on your commission, nobody is going to believe it. host: ok. i'll calling for the governor, governor go ahead.

-- calling for the governor, governor, go ahead. guest: there are a lot of commissions that have not worked. many of them a note investigation that you are talking about -- congress has a problem with those. they are very highly structured. they have a lot of other things to do. i am talking something about very different. the 9/11 commission worked. the american people accepted it. nobody questioned it. we made recommendations which made the american people safe. we have not had an attack like 9/11 sense because we re-ignores -- reorganize the whole intelligence system. host: your commission, you mentioned that 41 met conditions.

-- 41 recommendations. guest: the only one that was not acted on it was the one to reform the congress. congress did not want to reform itself. 40 of them were. one of the largest reorganizations of the u.s. government in history. it worked, we have not had a problem since. host: when it comes to the staff totaled doing the bulk of the work, what is the recommendation as far as numbers or money that is going to be involved to make this happen? guest: i do not think -- in the 9/11 commission, we went to saudi arabia to investigate. we found out the seeds of the problem of al qaeda and all of that. this is narrower. you probably do not need a stem of that size. what you need is a staff that knows the commission. you do not need staff who have worked in the republican campaign, the democratic

campaign, you need people who are respected, knowledgeable, whose work can be trusted, and if they have been republicans or democrats, that is fine. host: as far as that is concerned, do they have to come outside of washington and how much of the commission or outside for your commission? guest: some of them were outside, somewhere inside washington. they were people who'd did the job. -- who did the job. we know that most people -- that is fine. it does not matter what party you belong to. if you worked in a recent campaign, republicans or democrats, then we cannot have you. because you have been partisan too recently. if you have the expertise, we want you and we screen the staff very hard and we are proud of it.

host: tom kean, the former chair of the 9/11 commission, he served in that commission from 2002-2004. governor, someone asked the question about the people who will eventually come in front of this commission if they should be questioned under oath. guest: yes. we question everybody under oath. host: from johnny in louisiana. republican line. hello. caller: yes, governor. we need a big reality check. comparing 9/11 commission to this is 3000 deaths to two. you guys -- the idea that anybody thinks this is going to be anything other than partisan has been asleep in the last 25 years with the media all on one side. do you really think nancy pelosi is going to let anything happen that does not have a big slant to the left. if it is, you guys are either on drugs or you have been asleep for the last 30 years. it is disgusting to hear you

compare the 9/11 3000 deaths with an attack on a building in washington, d.c.. the last thing i have to say, the u.s. capitol of is not the symbol of the democracy. democracy in this great nation exists in the hearts and minds of 350 million citizens, not some dam building. host: that is john. thank you, john. governor, go ahead. guest: john, look. it does survive in our hearts. you cannot compare 9/11 as an event with the attack on the capitol. those are different things. but i am saying, -- i grew up to revere the capitol because i walked around it and you can see where webster's had, you can see

where john quincy adams made a speech as he died attacking slavery. i knew the people that the buildings are named after. i remember -- i took my grandchildren around there. you see where these american events happen. you were very democracy -- you revere democracy because of -- i'm not saying they are similar events and in any way at all. what i am saying is that the capital represents many people in that it democracy, not only here, but around the world. the way that it was violated made me sick to my stomach. i think that was true for a lot of american. i think i had to get to the bottom of it. you cannot have a democracy at

the seat that represents democracy is under attack. host: you talk about the role of the support staff that will do the work. give us an idea of what the job is of the chairman during this process and what are the jobs of the members of the commission themselves? guest: the job of the chairman is to simile make sure you are doing the job. -- is to simply make sure you are doing the job. we have nine great people, 54 democrats. -- five for democrats. the job is to make sure the commission does not go off course. that is a balancing act. you have the congress who wants to know what is going on, you have the american people, you have to use the subpoena power widely. you have to always keep the mandate in mind. my vice chair i used to go all the time to the members and say,

what are the facts? let's get back to the facts. when we are writing reports, we found out a lot of the things people were arguing over were not the facts. they were the adjectives. we take out the additives and -- host: democrats nine. allen, hello. caller: good morning, i am honored to speak with governor keene. -- governor kean. one of my points is that you are looking for people who are no longer actively ambitious about advancing in office, but there is a big difference between the kinds of public servants we have in the young crop of elected officials today and those who were raised before -- since i believe that is part of the reason that these events happened, i wondering, can we not have an artificial cap on

the range of history you can look at as relating to the events of 1/6. that began the trend that was transferred into the internet where you had internal discussions self reinforcing eco chambers. -- echo chambers and rumors and lies can spread rapidly to the point where individuals became like dry grass where terrible ideas could spread rapidly and overcome individual will. that is one point here, can we look back far enough to examine the roots of these kinds of negative changes in the population in earlier policy changes?

host: that is allen in brooklyn. governor, go ahead. guest: you hit one of the problems of this democracy right now. one of the questions i asked was, can you have a real democracy if there is no unified sources in commission grid i am old. i grew up in a time of walker -- walter cronkite. we do not have that anymore. when there are few people in this society today that have full credibility. i do not think that can stop us from going ahead with this kind of investigation. that is another problem that i think will be a good problem to address in the future. host: what are the best practices you would advise when it comes to transparency of this

commission's work? guest: in the 9/11 commission, we had a public hearing. we openly call the witnesses. -- we openly called the witnesses. we called her in a public hearing held in the united states capitol. it was televised. we found out things, we make them public. the public was able to follow our investigation step-by-step we got criticism, praise, we took all of that into consideration. when we finally finished and came to our conclusion, the people that come along with us, and they knew what we had done and how we have done it, and they knew why we came to the conclusion that we did -- host: how do you think your

experiences back then, how social media will impact this commission's work, and will it be televised? guest: social media and faxed everything. -- impacts everything. he had to be totally transparent. you have to know what you are doing every step of the way. it is fine to get criticized. you have to be transparent. you cannot bring everything along -- everyone along if you're doing everything in secret. he had to bring people along with you and they can disagree with you or disagree with you -- disagree with you are agree with you. if they have confidence in what you're doing, you get support. host: and line, go ahead. caller: you said you wanted the facts, it seems odd things went on in january 6. my spidey sense when offered i was looking at the news -- sense

went off. someone shot someone in the back because they had that she had a knife in his hand. not one police officer shot a shot that day. fellow officers were getting fire extinguishers thrown at them. all of that stuff, on top of that, how can a congressional laptop get stolen and y'all not know where it is when i can buy an iphone and i know exactly where it is. are these the kinds of things you will find about that. this is way deeper than people are trying to make it seem and everyone wanted to blaine trump and i am by far not a trump fan -- to blame trump, and i am not a trump fan. this is bigger than him. this is not an accident. this is not a perfect storm. host: governor, go ahead. guest: the questions you raised,

the questions are questions that have to be raised. that is why we have to have an investigation. one that peopled -- one that people have faith in. hopefully we will make recommendations to make sure it never happens again. host: holland, michigan. this is ryan. caller: high, -- hi, thank you for having me on. thank you for your work, thank you for is a standard i have a degree in economics, but i am familiar with the events of 9/11. i do not appreciate the report that you guys put out. there is a book called 911, -- 9/11 commission, commissions and distortions. among the chief ones is you do not explain how the building itself -- the commission stopped its reporting at the initiation of collapse.

host: as far as the question for commission being looked at for the january 6, do you have something specific to that? did you want income -- caller: are you going to stop the timeline at a similar point, let's say when the first protesters get inside a s -- in side the capitol? host: as far as the scope, do you just look at the events of january 6 and how far do you go back to examine the scope of things that led up to it. guest: you go as far back as you happy. -- as you have to. we have no restraints. the congress did not put handcuffs on us.

i would not put any constraints on this commission. bottom line is, how did it happen, why did it happen, and to make recommendation so it does not happen again. host: one more call, from florida. republican line. caller: good morning. i am happy to hear that you will be looking at the foundation and i do think that you need to explain to us why the capital was unprepared. it seems to me only cheese son was the one that paid the price for the failure of law enforcement to protect the capitol. they are supervised by the capitol police and the elected members of congress and the senate and the sergeant of arms

from the house and from the senate. the mayor, mayor bowser of d.c., and the d.c. national guard unit, we need to know if they all had advance knowledge and why did they fail to act and as far as going to the foundation, we have had riots over this summer, 25 people have died, $1.5 billion of damage. that ideology and those lawless action have to be investigated and examined because it is all one and the same. host: thank you. guest: you ask a very important question, and one that is going to be part of an investigation, why was the capitol so poorly defended? we knew that -- if it had been an athletic event, the super bowl, there would have been more

police and ready and there were. was there advance notice? people suppose there might have been. if there was, where were the policeman? where was the national guard? or where were the people that were supposed to be defending the capitol. hopefully, people thought it was going to be peaceful, but with that many people coming for the capitol, where were the police? it should not have been that for the defendant. why that was and -- have been that poorly defended. host: have even asked to be a part of this effort? guest: we need a fresh crew. i think we can be an example because the report article was accepted and is accepted still. i think -- i think it is time

for fresh blood. host: tom kean, the chair of the 9/11 commission. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: coming up, our next guest submitted his quarterly report for reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. we will get updates from general john sopko. later in the program, the cofounders of ben and jerry join us on their latest efforts to end the ability of police officers to escape civil lawsuits. this conversation coming up on washington journal. >> saturday on the communicators, a discussion on court cutting in a pandemic would a senior research analyst michael.

>> truth cutting had not changed much. that continues at a concentrate. the adoption of broadband and the need for more speed is benefiting the cable industry broadly. that has been our thesis for a while, but the pandemic has clarified that idea, right? even with the court cutting, streaming has benefited the economics of the cable industry. >> watched the communicators saturday at 6:30 eastern on c-span. -- >> he talks about his book. >> we see with change, revolutionary change, he starts talking about using nonviolence as early as 1960 five after the

los angeles rebellion of 1965 to paralyze cities to leverage nonviolent civil disobedience to transform american democracy. malcolm x has called for the same thing at the march on washington, which malcolm criticized. he wanted a display of civil disobedience that it going to be muscular and and the racial status quo. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest serves as the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. he is general john sopko. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: can you remind our viewers in job, what specific role it has? guest: i am the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. it is a long term.

just call it the sigar without the c. my job is to oversee all of their reconstruction money -- and the reconstruction money that is being spent currently in afghanistan. i have auditors, investigators, engineers, analysts, and i have been doing it for about 10 years. we are at 70 ig's for each of the agencies in the federal government. the difference between us and them as we are temporary and we go out of existence at a certain time when the amount of money falls below 250 million. we can look at the whole of government. most ig's can. they can only look at their agency. when congress created us, they

gave us the opportunity to look at any money spent by any u.s. agency in afghanistan for reconstruction. host: how much money has been appropriated by the u.s. government for reconstruction efforts and how much has been spent? guest: i think we are over 143.2 billion dollars for reconstruction. i have to check that. we have a billion dollars in the pipeline and a couple of billion of new money that had not been allocated yet. host: from your report on the 30th of this year, 143 billion and you said appropriated for -- 14 billion for agency operations

and 4 billion for aid or humanitarian aid. what would you say to viewers as far as for the money that has been spent, what are they getting from it and where do you find concerns, especially from your investigative work? guest: they are getting mixed results. we have highlighted problems for 10 years. i have been there almost 10 years. they have gotten some successes. there has been an improvement in the afghan military. there has been improvement in the quality of life, the health, and the education of the afghan people. a lot money has been -- we see that and we are dealing also -- we are dealing with a country that is at war, it has been at war for 20-30 years. it is difficult to do reconstruction in a country like that. host: to come to the report, you said this about the current

condition of the security in the country, you said this, "almost exactly a year ago with the united states -- withdrawal agreement with the taliban, peace talks with the taliban have yielded few substantial results. it goes on to say that the taliban have -- expand on that, the role of the taliban and what it means not only for security, but reconstruction efforts in that country guest: the taliban are the main insurgency group and have been. you have to remember why we went to afghanistan. it was because of the attack on the u.s. we went in there to take the terrorists out, to fight them. and kick them out of that country and to help create a stable government that could

rule that unruly country for the future and would keep the terrorists out. that is what we have been fighting there. we lost 2000, over 2300 americans, american servicemen and women. 20,000 injured. we spend all of that money to try to keep them out. now, the taliban met with an negotiated with our government for a withdrawal agreement and as part of that agreement, they would stick out with the afghan government and negotiate a peace treaty. that is going to be very difficult. my agency is not part of the peace negotiations, nor do i have jurisdiction over that. i look at reconstruction, not peace.

if there was peace, it would have a dramatic impact not only on afghans, but on the success of reconstruction. the problem is, it has been stiff. many experts, many people -- i spoke with general allen at the brookings institute about a report released. -- a report we released. our concern that they will wait us out as part of that withdrawal agreement that the prior administration signed was we would pull all of our troops out by may. that would have an impact on that nato troops in their and other troops who come to our senses -- who have come to our assistance there. people are concerned that the taliban are just waiting. there is an old statement that

the afghans have and that is that you have all the watches, we have all the time. that is what people are afraid of. and all the afghans that i have met and talked to are afraid of that. that is where we are. it negotiations have been stalemated, violence is up, particularly targeted violence, targeted attacks, killings, by the taliban and other insurgency groups that are targeting senior officials in the afghan government. newspaper men, journalists, judges, civil society officials, the number of what they called sticky bombs, those are bombs that are attached to automobiles, have gone up tremendously in kabul, which is the major city. that is where we stand. the biden administration now has

inherited this and they are reviewing the policies and how to go forward in afghanistan. host: go ahead. our guest is with us until 9:15. if you want to ask questions about his work, looking at reconstruction efforts in afghanistan. a one for republicans. 004 democrats. 024 independents. -- (202) 748-8001 for republicans. 00 -- (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8003 for independents. guest: in three months, there would be no u.s. troops. that is how prior administration's agreed. it was condition based.

i do not know what that means and we do not know what it means. many people say in their condition is that you stop the shooting and the killing of the afghans. the one good thing about this is that no american have died in the last year in afghanistan. to that extent, that was part of the withdrawal agreement to say that we would not attack -- they would not attack u.s. or coalition troops. if there is a withdrawal of the troops, there is a lot a concern, and we have expressed that in some of our reports, at the afghan government, particularly afghan military, which is doing 99% of the fighting right now, will be hard-pressed. and because we are still there, we still have a tremendous ability to help defend the

afghan government and troops and we noted in our quarterly report, the number of aerosols by our military has increased this last quarter. that is in support of the afghan military police. at that air support is gone, the afghans do not have the capability really to defend themselves in that area or at least as well with our forces. there is concern about that. the bigger concern is the funding. the afghan government cannot survive without u.s. and donors's support. they raised about $2.6 billion a year and my understanding, so that i get the numbers right,

their annual budget shortfall is about $6 billion-$8 billion. that shortfall is paid for by us. if we stop the funding reconstruction money, support money, whatever you want to call it, most experts say the afghan government would collapse. host: our first question come from baltimore, maryland. democrats line. steve, you are on with john sopko, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. caller: i have seen you in many hearings with the senate over the years with desperate you ever see an end -- it is almost like a jobs program. is this coming to an end or conclusion that will be sufficient when it come to the money that we are spending as

taxpayers in afghanistan? guest: sometimes, it is interesting that it the cold weather now, i am reminded of groundhog day. sometimes i feel like bill murray. he had seen me on c-span, and it seems like i am repeating myself. what i keep repeating myself about is that there are better ways to do it over there. i do think there is success possible. if people would stop repeating the same mistakes time and time again. that is the definition of insanity, to do the same thing over and over again and soon -- and assume there will be a different result. we have issued hundreds of reports, other ideas, gao issues. we enable recommendations. it does not seem to be their

willingness or capability of changing our ways. i think there is a possibility of success. it is not going to be just us who will do it. the afghan government has to. -- has to start cleaning up their act. i do not know how many times we issued reports on the problem of corruption. eruption is not just a criminal justice issue. corruption -- corruption is not just a criminal justice issue. eruption is having an impact on the morale of the afghan military. -- corruption is having an impact on the morale of the afghan military. until they do what it is recommended by us and experts, it will be groundhog day again. we can succeed. we have had successes. we should learn from those successes. host: what is the largest u.s. mistake in your mind? guest: biggest mistake was going

in there, not knowing the ground -- i will talk about the military side. i talked about we went in there with reconstruction with too much money, too fast, and too small of an economy with little or no oversight. we have drowned that money -- are we surprised now 20 years in that the warlords and the ridgebacks are corrupt officials and our traffickers and have a big control over that country. the average afghan is not seem to benefit of that u.s. and european budget. they are easy recruits for the taliban. one of the last things in the last quarter report that was

highlighted was held for that country is and how the state of the economy is really cratering. that helps and is certain and insurgency. host: raleigh, north carolina. roger, go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i lived in the middle east for a while in the late 70's. everybody knows that when -- in order to get anything done, you have to pay off. your guest certainly understands that. wouldn't it be more humane in the long-term to stop the money and let whatever happens, let natural things happen there because i do not think anything is going to come out of this, it is going to be not to our benefit or the world. guest: the caller makes a good point. a very good point about bribery

and corruption. what he experienced or dealt with or is aware of in other countries, you have to magnify in afghanistan. it is so much worse. the amount of corruption in afghanistan really hurts the ability of the country to function and fight this war. that is the difference, a little bit of the difference. we understand that there is corruption throughout the world. there is corruption in the end the united states. -- corruption in the united states. what you are seeing is corruption that does not help the government to function or the society to function well. is it better to walk away?

that is a policyholder. let me be clear, so you know who i am, i am not a representative of the state department or the national security council or an advisor on policy. i am an inspector general. there are 72 others around the government. we do not do policy. we take the policies from the administration and congress and see how well that policy is being executed. we report back to congress on what we find. if we find people stealing money, we try to get them prosecuted. i do not do policy. that is a good policy question. these are the type of policy questions that congress, that the administration, should be asking and the american people. it is my money being wasted there too. just like to caller's money. josh -- just like the caller's money.

we all have an interest in policymaking. that is the important thing. i cannot tell you what the policy should be. i can tell you that this is your policy, this is what you are doing that helps it and what hinders it. and this is what happens if you continue. that is what ig's should do and they should not get into the policy realm host: this is someone who served in afghanistan. mcas line. good morning. -- democrats line. caller: for 20 years, i was a veteran. two questions really. as far as -- you have seen it all. what would your letter grade b for the current policy -- letter grade be -- how much of that is

being given back to america? guest: we have issued 300 or more reports and we have made a thousand recommendations and some of it being good and some of it is bad. i know you're thinking he is dodgy. maybe i am to some extent. i cannot put a grade on it. we set people like you are -- we have to have the evil guys who keep stealing. contractors are doing a bulk of the work in afghanistan and do a heck of a lot of work in ever -- everywhere we have ever fought and every reconstruction.

some of them did excellent work. some of the programs were excellent. it is hard for me to give a grade. i have got impressed by this by a lot of congressmen over the years when i testified. i think we found -- we did an analysis for congress, about 30% of the money was either wasted and i leave it to the listener whether that is good or bad. you always waste money on a place like afghanistan just by the nature of the place. as for the second part of the question about money coming back to the united states, in terms of kickback, it is not so much kickback, we have a u.s. contract, there is an individual

who works over there and they bring the money back legally. there are some who we try to catch and we put them in jail for bribery and corruption. most of our contractors are doing a dam good job in afghanistan in horrible working conditions. some of the contracts could have been better written, many should have been better written, but our contractors are doing what they have been asked to do at great risk. great risk to themselves. we issued a number of reports on contractors who have been killed and wounded some time ago and they have suffered too. i do not want to paint this as a bunch of contractors going over there and stealing all of the money.

the afghans have done a good job at that too. and third-party nationals. host: so when money is turned over from the united states to save the afghanistan government, what is the ability to follow the money once it leaves our hands into theirs? guest: that is a really good question and you hit on a sore point that i at my agency -- my agency has had. at the department issued a contract to an american contractor, that is a direct link between the government and our government who has oversight over that cup -- there something cold on budget assistance where we just cut a check from that

u.s. treasury directly to the afghan treasury and they issue this contract themselves and they spend it. our concern is the overreliance on on budget assistance, especially in a country like afghanistan where there is a historic record of the inability of the afghans to manage that money and the inherent eruption in the government over there. -- inherent corruption in the government over there. we are concerned about that. our budget assistance helps the government of afghanistan control and manage and learn how to manage money, which is great, it is a good policy. the problem is, we have seen abuse and an inability of our government to understand how the

money is being spent. our concern is that as the security situation has deteriorated and we naturally have pulled back a of our aid employees and aid contractors and space department employees to manage these contract, these billions of dollars being spent, that we are going to be using on budget assistance. more and more. with less and less oversight. all we can do, this is a policy decision, ig's do not do policy. what we try to tell congress is, if you are going to do that, just be aware the fact that the amount of money being stolen is going to increase. and so you have to be concerned about that. it is up to the policymakers. we can only advise them about that. i think the caller -- it was

you. you have brought up a good point. host: our guests are available at the website sigar.org. when you submit a report, what reaction do you have? what reaction do you get from congress? guest: let me back up so the audience does not miss her -- ms. understand b. that is our 50th quarterly report. they are required to issue a report every quarter. that tells congress and the american people, this is what happened in reconstruction for the last quarter. we have issued hundreds -- we just issued a lessons learned

report prude issued audits. we will have a great audit coming out next week. those are things we built in afghanistan and we were asked by congress to issue a report and look at what happened to everything. we issued hundreds of those. i do not want you to be confused about it. it is not that we issued 50 reports over 10 years. we issued hundreds. host: thank you for the clarification. mike in massachusetts. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. most of the hijackers that flew into the world trade center, washington, and pennsylvania came from saudi arabia, went to school in this country to learn how to fly planes.

now, my question is, i think we deserve a good answer on this one, what did anyone in afghanistan, including the taliban, have to do with what happened on 9/11 when the bin laden family's roots are in saudi arabia? it is like, what was our main objective forever going to afghanistan? i have a reason i'd like to say, but i'm not going to say right now. host: go ahead and follow-up so we can let the guest respond to it. caller: i also believe we want to get our hands on the opium poppy production over there, just like we got our hands in colombia on cocaine production. i believe the war on drugs is a war for control of drugs. host: ok, go ahead. guest: you do make a point about the hijackers.

i think the speaker who was on before with the 911 commission, you should have asked him because they did a whole study on that. but the reason we went in is that the taliban, who were controlling afghanistan, allowed the terrorists to do the training and planning and afghanistan, and a lot of the terrorists who worked on it and developed it, including their leader, were in afghanistan and the taliban were protecting them. so that was one of the reasons we went in. we went into find and punish those people, arrest those people, to eliminate them as potential future attackers on the united states. the idea was not to have afghanistan be a fertile area

for more terrorists to train and get ready to attack us or attack our allies. that was the reason we went in. so the question about narcotics, narcotics is a big problem. opium is a big problem. no doubt about it. but in my team have seen absolutely zero, no evidence that the u.s. government is trying to control opium. as a matter of fact, we have done a pretty bad job trying to control it. i don't know of any western country, anything at all about that. so i have to very adamantly disagree with you about that conspiracy theory of yours. there is no truth to it. host: earlier you said that you had seen programs that work there in afghanistan.

what is the best example of one? guest: you know, i would say the best example, and it didn't cost much money, what we did with the independent press and media. the state department and usaid spent money helping develop an independent press and media in afghanistan. if you are trying to create a democracy, you've got to have an independent press you've got to have an honest, not government controlled press. if you look at the countries around afghanistan, as bad as things are in the country of afghanistan, if you look at their press, their media, they have a very vibrant -- it is not us, it is no "new york times", abc, cbs, but it is pretty

impressive for that poor little country. so that is one success. the other thing is with women, with gender. that was in the report this week. the number of girls in school, the number of women who can survive pregnancy over there. those programs were great successes. host: education as well when it comes to women? guest: yes. hardly any girls in school, hardly any schools for girls when the taliban were there. but it's like 3 million, i believe, girls now in school. there are more in the bigger cities. the rural areas are still problems. but that was a success. host: if the independent press there got help from the u.s. government funding everything, can they still remain independent and not be swayed by u.s. interests?

guest: they have. it's been very tough on us. so it's not like we are paying them a salary and all that. we help them with training, with equipment. we've supported them. people fail to realize, when the ambassador in afghanistan and he secretary of state and every congressman and senator who visits afghanistan tell the afghans and tell the people we support an independent press or we support women's right, or we support anticorruption, that sends a message. that gives top cover to a lot of these journalists and media people, gives top cover to civil psyd. words are a -- civil society. words are a weapon, and we have to realize that, for good or for evil. but when you send a message like our current ambassador does on a regular basis to the afghan

people that we are watching, we are here to help you, that is significant. you know, that was a message being sent, a message for the media, for the civil society organizations, for the rule of law. that is something that is hard to measure, but it is a tangible change. host: let's go to illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. this is about the obama administration and the tea party and that. did you ever get my messages come into you about the pictures about -- host: this is about afghanistan and reconstructions efforts. do you have any questions about that? caller: [indiscernible]

they are all contracts. what he's trying to do is buy out the congregation. host: ok, we will leave it there. from savannah, georgia, democrats line, go ahead. caller: hi. when you mentioned air support for the afghan police enforcement and battles that were going on, it reminded me of what our military did in vietnam. when we were sending advisors in , and it was warfare, and then we were advising and teaching them how to defend themselves, yet every time things got sticky, they would call in an airstrike. and when we withdrew, we withdrew the air support, and the only way they knew how to really carry on warfare was with air support. the same thing. so when we go in, we were told

we were going to build up their military and make them be able to be self-sufficient. and we never did. they don't have an air force. they don't have a way of conducting war the way we do it. same in iraq. as soon as we withdraw, they don't know how to -- when things get sticky, they have to run away, just like when things get sticky for the taliban. they run away and just sort of melt away. that's what guerrilla warfare is. without our military, it is impossible to carry on a war the way we do when you are fighting guerrilla warfare. host: thank you, caller. guest: you do raise a good point, and i think it is an important point we should discuss. part of my job is looking at reconstruction in the way it is defined, looking at our mission to assist the afghan military

police. that is important. the bulk of our reconstruction has been to try and help create a functioning, effective, democracy appreciating military that won't be used against their own citizens. we had mixed results. but i will tend to disagree a little bit with what you said. the afghans had developed an air force. and actually, one of the success stories from afghanistan and our reconstruction is from georgia. moody air force base did an excellent program training, advising, and assisting the afghan air force in their pilots and their crews, and it was tremendous. we actually recommended everybody should follow their lead. unfortunately, the army didn't, and nobody else did. i wish people would read our

reports, maybe. but there is a functioning air force. is it able to survive without u.s. trainers and u.s. support? that is the big question. we don't know. general miller, who was our supreme commander there, our senior military official, and others have noted that the air force is good, but we are going to have to keep providing trainers and advisors and assistants for years to come, so they can't really make it totally on their own, but there is a functioning air force. there's a very good special forces capability, and actually we highlight the successes that i think a number of actions taken by their special forces i believe doubled over the last quarter compared to a year ago.

so there is some success. can they withstand the taliban? can they continue to fight without us being there? we don't know yet, but there are concerns about that. host: let's go to dave, south carolina, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, john. first off, it is not for nothing that afghanistan is referred to as the graveyard of empires, ok? it is a rathole for treasure and blood. the tribalism that exists in afghanistan has existed for thousands of years. it is not going to change. they will kill each other with sticks and stones if they don't have guns. you can call a mercenary a contractor all day long. it is still, at the end of the day, a mercenary. they draw blood for gold. that's what they do. ok? it's incredible to me that after 20 years, we still got people saying it is a good idea to be

there. i mean, how much gold and blood are we going to waste in that part of the world with people that don't care anymore about each other than they do about streptococcus pneumonia? it's incredible to me. host: ok. we will let our guest answer. guest: well, dave, about mercenaries, when i talk about contractors, i was not talking about contractors doing the fighting. there are no contractors that i know of or my agency knows of that are actually doing combat. these are contractors in support , like trainers, teaching them how to fly, or mechanics, or teaching them how to do logistics, so there's no mercenaries i know of in afghanistan, and i think our military have been very cautious about any proposal that would

bring in mercenaries to do that, and i think the afghan government doesn't want mercenaries. they are providing the blood, sweat and tears for the fighting right now. hundreds of thousands of afghans have died over the course of it. you want to read the history of afghanistan, is is an interesting history. i would recommend great game -- recommend "the great game," a history written by a british historian years ago. it is a fantastic to read. but to portray the afghans as this bloodthirsty, cruel easterners who do this i think is unfair. over the decades, i go there four times a year -- at least, i used to before covid -- for weeks at a time.

i've met a lot of god-fearing, honest, honorable afghan men and women who are not risking their lives in the military, but risking their lives as investigative journalists, doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers, or just common citizens. to portray them as different than us, certainly their culture is different. their clothes are different, their food is different a mother accent is different. but they are not different than us. what they want is the same thing we want. we want life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice. they do, too. their definition of justice, their definition of democracy, their definition of rights for women and boys and children and

whatever may be a little different because of their culture, but that is no different. it doesn't make them evil. that doesn't make them less human, less like uri. -- like you or i. and i think we should keep that in mind. that distinction is not just bad for us as americans, but is bad for afghans and any other country where we need and want their support. host: let's work in one more call from troy in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: my question, did they put anybody in jail for putting combat posts at the bottom of the hills? did they also know that the taliban said at the beginning that they would not withstand the fight because we don't have the appetite for it?

and those fighters were ready to leave. and then, and the reconstruction , i so those houses they made in downtown kabul. they all got burnt up because the taliban have a stake in the reconstruction. there's a war going on. there's not a peace. and it seems that people keep thinking there's no war going on over there. host: we will leave it there. guest: well, i don't know what the reference is to building the fort at the bottom of the hill, other than that it was a great movie that came out about some of our troops who saw combat there. but we have not looked at that. that is not part of my job to look at the actual war fighting itself of the u.s. military, so

i can't answer that. i didn't quite understand all the questions that the caller had about the taliban and houses in kabul, so i can't really answer that question. host: let me finish with this, then. when it comes to infrastructure in afghanistan, has it improved because of u.s. efforts? guest: to some extent, yes. the better question, has it improved as much as it should have with the amount of money we have spent there? and the answer is no. we have wasted a lot of money. if we don't change our ways, if we don't have oversight, continued oversight, if we don't make oversight mission-critical, and anyone who's in the military will know what mission-critical means, if we don't, we are going

to waste more money. if we don't hold their feet, the afghans' feet, as far as the taliban, to the fire, we will lose more. host: you can find the work of his and his team at sigar.mil. thanks as always for your time. guest: it's a pleasure. host: coming up, we are going to talk to the creators of ben & jerry's ice cream about their effort to end qualified immunity first police officers -- qualified immunity for police officers. that conversation is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend.

coming up saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, i discussion on "now what, the voters have spoken," with the author and contributors. on sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards," the american enterprise interested -- american at a price institute -- american enterprise institute's john fortier. at 10:55 p.m. eastern, the book "the doctors blackwell, how two pioneering sisters brought medicine to women and women to medicine," on c-span2. >> president biden's nominee for attorney general, judge merrick garland, testifies before the senate judiciary committee monday for his confirmation hearing. watch our live coverage at 9:30

a.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies, who provide c-span2 viewers as a public service -- who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: you know our guests from their ice cream, ben & jerry's, but ben cohen and jerry greenfield involve themselves in a number of projects, including the latest issue in police reform of qualified immunity. good to see you. mr. cohen, you had a recent op-ed and talked about why you

launched this latest effort about qualified immunity. remind the viewers what that is. >> qualified immunity is essentially a get out of jail free card for bad cops. the supreme court came up with this doctrine that essentially says you cannot sue a cop for violating your constitutional or civil rights, like your right to life or not getting beat up, unless there has been exactly the same situation in the past in that same jurisdiction, and the cop was convicted and it went all the way up the appellate process. so the supreme court has essentially said that if there hasn't been exactly the same situation before, that this should be thrown out of court.

it is so bad that there was an example of a guy who was a suspect, and he had surrendered, and the police sicced their attack dog on him. that guy got prosecuted. then there was a second situation where a guy surrendered, the police sicced their attack dog on him, and the judge threw the case out because in the first instance, the guy surrendered by lying on the ground, and the second instance, the guy surrendered by kneeling with his hands up. so it is kind of absurd. it is ridiculous. host: mr. greenfield, what do you hope to add to the conversation, or at least this issue, for you and mr. cohen's involvement? >> one thing we bring as business people is the understanding of accountability.

we need accountability with our police. we've been in business for over 40 years. we understand that accountability is the key to achieving results, and you can do all the training in the world , you can put on body cameras, you can do whatever. but if there is not accountability, we won't get the police reform we want. it is a fundamentally unfair and unjust policy. host: to both of you gentlemen, i am sure you have seen reaction from those in the police world and to work on police issues. they had this reaction, including the recent op-ed from the florida police benevolence association, that "opponents of qualified immunity have argued ended the practice will lead to greater police accountability and punish rogue police officers. this false narrative is deeply misguided. there is perhaps no other profession that currently faces more external scrutiny and

oversight and police officers, whose every action is scrutinized by inspector general's, the criminal justice standards commission, state attorneys, and grand jury's." what is the reaction? >> police have a difficult job. they are overseen by all those people, and yet we see time after time after time unarmed people, mostly black people, are brutalized, maimed, and killed. obviously something is not working. the only people who benefit from qualified immunity are bad cops. the good cops don't need it. police already have strong constitutional protections without qualified immunity. they are protected if they make reasonable mistakes, if they make well-intentioned mistakes.

the only thing that this would harm is if they are intentionally breaking the law. host: mr. cohen? >> yeah, what he said. the police are the only element of our society that we authorized to use lethal force in our name. right now they are held less accountable. we just need them to be held as accountable as you or i if we were to shoot someone in an unjustified way or brutalized somebody unjustifiably. you know, what this police officer says that you quoted is not accurate in terms of the realities that the police investigate themselves.

the reality is that people are harmed. innocent people get shot in the back when they did nothing wrong , and the cop gets away scott free. i don't want people on the police force who are not willing to be held accountable. host: ben cohen and jerry greenfield joining us for this conversation on their efforts on qualified immunity. if you want to ask questions about it, (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. you can text (202) 748-8003, and you can post your thoughts on twitter and facebook. mr. cohen, what is the best resolve to this issue? what would you like to see done? >> well, it is pretty simple. congress passed a law back in the days of reconstruction, in

the 1870's, and the reason why they passed it was because after the civil war, there were a whole lot of police that were members of the ku klux klan. so they were brutalizing and killing black people. congress passed a law that said if your rights are violated, you may sue the government employee who violated your rights in civil court. and so i am just saying, yes, we should abide by that law. what happened was that the supreme court interpreted that law to essentially eviscerate it and say, no, in most every situation, you cannot sue the police. host: mr. greenfield, is this a congressional issue that needs to resolve it? >> it can be changed either

through legislation or at the supreme court. you know, it is interesting because qualified immunity has been eliminated in colorado last year. there's a lot of activity in several states going on now. in maryland, and new mexico, and new hampshire. in the last congress, there was a bill that was proposed in the house by justin amash and ayanna pressley to eliminate qualified immunity. there will likely be a bill introduced this year. i would like to add that this is not an anti-police movement. we recognize that there are thousands of great police people who go above and beyond to protect and serve, and what we

say is love the good ones, prosecute the bad ones. the only people that would be hurt by ending qualified immunity are bad cops. the other thing that is interesting about this idea is there is broad support for ending qualified immunity across ideological thinking. it is supported at the supreme court by both clarence thomas and sonya sotomayor, who are rarely on the same side of issues. it is supported by the aclu, by the leadership conference, by the naacp legal defense fund, and also by libertarian groups like the cato institute and the institute for justice, americans for prosperity. there are hundreds of business leaders who have signed onto a letter.

there are 1400 professional athletes and front-office people who have signed onto a letter. there are lawyers, judges come up performing artists -- judges, performing artists. there is a broad coalition on this. host: and you have started the campaign to end qualified immunity. talk about the coalition before we take calls, mr. cohen. >> the coalition is growing by leaps and bounds. last week there were 14 organizations. now there's 16. there's more that we are about to talk with, and that is just the major organizations. then as individuals, as jerry said, you've got a bunch of sports professionals from the

nfl, you've got actors, actresses. people from all walks of life. how do you make the case that somebody should not be held accountable for their actions? it is absurd. we are aware right now that people's rights are continually violated by bad cops, and good cops ought to want to get those bad ones out of the force. it destroys community trust, and without community trust, you ain't got nothing. you know -- well, i don't remember what i was going to say. host: we've got a call for both of you, bob from south dakota. go ahead. caller: yes.

i think one of the things i wanted to comment on, and i notice it is missing in on most every incident you look at, whether it is from rodney king to the trayvon martin or brown or floyd, is that somewhere within the interaction of the police force in our society, and this is part of the society i think and the attitudes we have created in the last 50 to 80 years in this country, that you have a responsibility as a citizen to yield to lawful authority, no different than if you are in the military and taking an order from command. when you are confronted and told to stop, standby, do whatever, and be questioned, you don't first jump out and get in the face of police officer that's there to serve and protect. host: ok.

mr. greenfield, do you want to take that one? >> i don't think that is really the case of what is going on, and particularly if you want to look at george floyd and the tragic murder of george floyd. we all saw these horrific videos of george floyd on the ground, with the police officer's knee on his neck. this is not the kind of policing we want. host: let's hear from lisa and ohio. go ahead -- lisa in ohio. go ahead. caller: hi. i just find it kind of interesting, or even funny, that we have these two guys who are talking about accountability and all that other stuff when they have stores in myrtle beach that have violated labor laws by having kids work, and they are

not paying them properly. they have 12-year-old kids operating ice cream stands, and they are not paying people there over time, kids overtime, but they are talking about account ability? host: before we let them answer the question, what do you base that on? caller: i am basing that on an article from the u.s. to permit of labor. -- u.s. department of labor. host: ok. mr. cohen, do you want to take that? >> i would say if that particular franchisee is violating laws, they should be punished. they should serve the consequences. yeah. we are certainly not telling our franchisees to break any laws. on the contrary, we expect them to uphold the laws and then some.

so i think the caller and i agree. if a law was broken, they should be held accountable. host: mr. greenfield? >> i agree with ben. nobody should be above the law. host: let's go to paul in los angeles. caller: hi there. i find it amusing that these two guys, whose main contribution to america has been to put on increased poundage, don't look at these cities and who actually oversees the police forces, which are all liberal democrats. every major city in america is run by liberal democrats who share their ultra leftist views. why aren't they doing their views and overseeing the police properly? >> you know, i think as been mentioned earlier, it is generally the police overseeing the police. it is the police looking at their own activities.

if things should be improved, yes, they should be improved. i don't think this is a liberal or conservative issue. this is just an issue of doing what's right and what is just. host: mr. cohen, do you want to follow up? >> you know, if i walk over and punch you in the face, i should be prosecuted. you should be able to sue me. just because a guy happens to be in a uniform and he punches me in the face for no reason, it shouldn't be the case that i am not allowed to sue him. i mean, i believe that police should be held to a higher level of accountability because we authorize them to use lethal force in our name. but the reality is they are held to a lower level of accountability. i can give you examples up and down of innocent people who the

police showed up to, and in six seconds, they were shot in the back. clearly not a threat. that's what we have to deal with. that's what we have to overcome. host: because you are both high-profile and you have involved yourself in this issue, have you heard directly from police officers or police organizations about your involvement, mr. greenfield? >> yes, we have actually reached out to a couple of police organizations, both the fraternal order of police, the president of the major county sheriff's of america, and not only that, we are in conversations with current and former law enforcement individuals who support ending qualified immunity. there's a couple of organizations. there's the law enforcement action partnership, which is

made up of former police, judges, prosecutors who want to end qualified immunity. and so yeah, we are in touch. i can tell you that certainly, the fraternal order of police does not agree with ending qualified immunity, and we are not surprised, but we had constructive conversations with them, and one thing we all agree on is that there should not be bad actors in the police force. the question is how do you deal with it. host: with this issue and others, how do you and your partner decide to involve yourself? >> i think jerry and i, like millions of americans, have been outraged about when we find out that a police officer has killed

an unarmed person. i want to be clear that the only cases we find out about are the ones that happen to be caught on video. there have been a lot more. so yeah, i have been outraged about it. then you get outraged again when it goes through some process, the existing process, and the cop gets off scott free. so yeah, i think the murder of george floyd is kind of the straw that broke the camels back. you know, i feel like when you are confronted with situations of injustice, you can either ignore it, you can complain about it, or you can do something about it. we chose to do something about it. you know, this is not a black problem.

this is a white problem. it is white people who hold the power in this country, and we are the ones who have the ability to fix it. host: let's go to benny in california. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. it's good to have a conversation like this. i love ben and jerry, and i like their ideas. my thing is that i believe that every cop in this united states should be put on a lie detector test and asked some questions about race. i think that is one way to weed the bad cops out. it breaks my heart to see a black man get murdered by a police officer that is sworn to serve and protect, and then get

off in the judicial system. it breaks my heart. thank you. host: mr. greenfield, do you want to take that one? >> sure. i think everyone recognizes we have an issue in this country with white supremacists, and there are white supremacists throughout society, but it is particularly troublesome when they are in law enforcement or the military because, as ben mentioned earlier, those are people who have the opportunity to use lethal force. we are a country that is built on a history of enslaving people, and we have to recognize that even though there is not slavery today, there are still -- there is still systemic racism throughout our society, and it is not enough to be not a racist. we need to be actively

antiracist if we are going to have a world of equality and justice. host: mr. cohen, you had said the supreme court was the start of this idea of qualified immunity. has there been an interest from the current makeup of the court to take on these issues? >> well, as jerry mentioned, both sotomayor and clarence thomas want to revisit it. i believe -- revisit it and, i believe, overturn it. sotomayor has said that qualified immunity tells the police they can shoot first and think second, and it tells the public that probably demonstrable police brutality can go unpunished. so those who want to take it up, there's been ample opportunity for the supreme court to do so. they have refused to do so.

so now this needs to be overturned through legislation in washington, d.c. 9 do you have a -- host: do you have a sense that president biden would do something if congress decides to send him a bill? >> you know, i certainly don't know what goes on in president biden's mind. i can tell you that the vice president has made statements saying that she wants to see that overturn, and i believe there are two assistant attorney general coming in that want to see this thing overturned. host: mr. greenfield, the same question for you. >> i think ultimately, our government will respond to the will of the people. i think if we think back to last summer, with the murder of

george floyd, and not just the outrage in this country, but really the outrage around the world, business leaders spoke out as never before. people throughout society were speaking out, protesting. what we want to do is move from protest to policy, to make constructive steps to reforming police. so i think when the public hears more about the issue, they will understand that this is not the whole solution, but this is a key part to not only establishing accountability for the police, but has ben mentioned earlier -- but as ben mentioned earlier, building

trust between communities and police where it does not exist before. host: among the elements of a bill to end racial and religious profiling was an element to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement, passing the house last year. let's go to mike in maryland. hello. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i just have three quick points. the first of which, if any of these gentlemen have any literature or have written any books on the subject matter, i would love to know what it is because i would quickly buy it. they are definitely knowledgeable on the subject. second, as far as the term good cop, bad cop, what people need to realize is police officers, they don't go into the force being bad. but they are presented with the opportunity to make a decision, and they make a bad decision. so while we are asking those who

have been deemed good cops to turn and report those that are bad cops at any given opportunity, a good cop can turn bad based on one bad judgment. so if we don't focus on the systemic problem, just focusing on a cop that made a bad decision is not going to do anything. you had a caller that said submit to lawful authority, what the caller doesn't realize is in his life, i'm sure he can count how many times he has been detained or stopped by the police. but for african-americans, on both hands in the course of 12 months, we can count many times we have been accosted or stopped by police. there comes a time when submitting to lawful authority becomes submission to your own rights, and you are expected to voluntary give up the rights that the constitution has been afforded to you that no other united states citizens would be

willing to give up. host: that is mike in laurel, maryland. go ahead. >> i am glad mike asked about the book because we just wrote one. it is coming out at the beginning of march. it has the stories of 17 people, mostly black, who ended up getting killed or paralyzed for life or beat up or having $200,000 fourth of -- $200,000 worth of rare coins stolen from them, and the judges throughout all these cases -- the judges threw out all of these cases. the caller was talking about the idea of some adding to lawful authority -- of submitting to lawful authority.

there was a guy, he happened to be black, driving down the highway, and his car broke down. he's on the phone to roadside assistance, and somebody in a white van, a t-shirt and a cap pulls up and says, do you need any help? the guy says no, i'm on the phone to roadside assistance. he's talking with the person, and the guy stays there. he says, really? he says yeah, really. he's talking on the phone. he says it again. and then he gets shot three times by this undercover cop. the cop made up some kind of story, but the call was recorded on the roadside assistance line, and it completely disagreed with the cop's story. the guy was murdered by some cop

that, i don't know, felt like that was something he could do. so that is the reality for black americans. there is white supremacy in our police departments. there was a report that i recently read put out by the brian center at nyu, a very respected organization. it was written by a former fbi agent, and he detailed instances of police departments around the country, south, north, east, west, condoning having white supremacist in the ranks -- having white supremacists in the ranks. host: we have 10 more minutes in our -- minutes with our guests. ann in texas, go ahead. caller: it is really hard for me to sit and listen to these two

multimillionaires talk disparaging lay about our country and our country being >> a permit system when they have been able to -- talk disparagingly about our country and our country being white supremacist when they have been able to achieve the american dream. i wonder if you'd know anything that happened with these. george floyd had a lengthy criminal past. do they know that he held a handgun to a pregnant woman's belly and said he was going to shoot her where her baby was? they speak like they were actually there, when these things were happening with the police, and i would like to invite them to go to any large inner-city at nighttime and hang out on the streets in these inner cities and find out what the cops are doing within these inner cities. they don't know what kind of situation they are walking into. you know, this is just -- i mean , it is appalling to me to sit there and listen to two multimillionaires speak about

our country so is berridge andly -- so disparagingly, and talk about equality and justice when poor people can't even pay for their ice cream. host: ok. >> i don't quite know where to start. i don't feel like we are disparaging our country. i feel like i want to make our country as good as it can be, and i think if there are things that are unjust and not right, that we ought to be trying to change them. i think that is a good thing to do as an american, and i think we should all be trying to improve the country. host: mr. cohen? >> yeah, i definitely agree with that. the idea that the caller was trying to put out was that anything that happens in our country is good, and that nobody should try to change injustices.

i totally disagree with that. i do believe that true patriotism is working to help your country live up to its stated values of equality and justice. host: from long beach, washington state, this is jerry for our guests. caller: yes, good morning. boy, this conversation is really going to extremes. what i would like to talk about his plain common sense. my son got pulled over and got a ticket. we told him when a cop tells you to do something, you do it. there's no other way. so let's talk about common sense. most of those guys i remove are the cops killing on film, those guys were resisting arrest. common sense is don't resist arrest. there's a drunk guy in a wendy's .

they tried to arrest him. he resists arrest, and they shoot him. common sense was they had his driver's license, they had his car. why did they have to kill the guy? another guy was pulled over because his tail light was out. the cup finds out there's a warrant on his arrest, so he goes up. the guy bails and he shoots him three guys in the back. you know, common sense. i think that is a training issue. it is a society issue. i've been pulled over, too. and guess what? when the cop told me to give him my driver's license, i did that. why isn't there any common sense here? host: ok. mr. cohen, you go first. >> well, all i can say is the instances i am aware of -- i wrote this book, there's 17 of them -- those are just a small sampling of the thousands that are going on out there. you know, the one that sticks in

my head is a situation in texas. there were two off-duty cops who were doing private security, and they hear on the radio that two black guys stole some sneakers, and so they are writing around this apartment complex. they see a black guy. they yell out to him, what are you doing? where are you going? you know, he points to where he is going, and six seconds later, the guy is shot in the back, paralyzed for life. this guy was not resisting arrest. he was not refusing to abide by authority. what can i say? there's situations where people

are either incompetent or -- i don't know, they are negligent. in any other profession, people pay a price for that, and you are supposed to. i don't know. what the caller was saying, these guys that end up getting abused by the police were not cooperating with the police, and maybe that is some of the time, but it is not the case is that i have been aware of, and furthermore, even if some guy is saying i don't want to give you my license, that is not a reason to shoot him. host: mr. greenfield, we have a viewer from twitter that asks,

"what about law enforcement's loss-of-life in the field? it is a two-way street, and you seem to be going one way." >> not at all. i recognize that law enforcement has a very difficult job, and i appreciate the jobs that people in law enforcement do. i think what we are saying is when there is injustice, when there are things that are wrong, bad cops ought to be responsible for it. host: this is ron from pennsylvania. we are running a little short on time, so jump in with your question or comment. caller: ok. good morning. my comment is i heard the fbi agent on a program at night, coast-to-coast. he was talking about the white supremacy problem and police departments, and i just don't know why that is not more investigated.

the other thing is the cops always say when you see something, say something. that's what they should do. the police should, when they see something, say something. the blue wall of silence has got to go. the other thing is, if i have time, any george zimmerman case, i don't know why the prosecution never brought up the fact that george zimmerman was told not to pursue trayvon martin, and he did it anyway. they never brought the word vigilante into it. you are not allowed to be a vigilante in this country. host: that is ron in pennsylvania. to the second point, do you get a sense that police officers of look at themselves as far as looking at the bad ones or the good ones, and try to police themselves within the force? mr. cohen? >> you know, i think that is the real problem with the fraternity of police, that regardless of

whether a cop did an obviously egregious act, the fraternity of police always defends any cop who did anything. that is what is destroying trust and credibility for police. that is what is making it harder to police. you've just got to hold people who break laws accountable, whether they are wearing a police uniform or not. host: mr. greenfield? >> i would invite people to visit the website, campaigntoendqua lifiedimmunity.org. it's a lot of words come but all spells out -- of words, but it

all spells out. i appreciate having conversations with people whether they agree with us were not. host: dave in california, mckinley bill. hello -- mckinleyville. hello. caller: according to bob woodson, a former civil rights advocate who now runs the woodson center for underprivileged kids in inner-cities, for every black american killed by the police, 270 are killed by other black civilians. many of them are children. last year in chicago alone, 50 children were killed by black gang bangers. several times the number of blacks killed across the entire country. so what is the problem? the next big crisis in this country is going to be willing to find -- is going to be finding anybody willing to become a police officer. police have become scapegoats

for bigger problems in society, like the disintegration of the -- host: ok. mr. greenfield, you go first. >> i don't have anything to say about it. look, we have police who we hire , authorize, they work for us, we give them the opportunity to use legal force, and we should be holding them accountable for their actions. host: mr. cohen? guest: we are talking about how police act and we are talking about holding police accountable. it doesn't have anything to do with anything except that. hold police accountable for the constitution they are sworn to uphold. host: with the launch of this effort, where'd do you go from here in terms of making your voice heard, does this include

coming to capitol hill and addressing the related agencies, if you have not already done that? guest: we are in the process of setting up several briefings for congress, congressional staff, and actual congresspeople. yes, so, we are doing that. along the way, we are working to overturn qualified immunity in new hampshire, maryland, and new mexico. it is just -- it is the most basic rule of business. you have to hold people accountable. if you don't have accountability, you don't have a business. if you don't have accountability from police, you don't have a police force that is going to be able to do its job.

host: i mentioned several states tackling this issue, maryland among them. is this a better effort for state legislatures to take on, is this something that needs a federal application of law? guest: i think it needs both. there will be some legislation proposed at the federal level. at the same time, as i mentioned, it's already been done in colorado, state efforts. i don't think it is unusual for certain issues to be dealt with first at the state level, as the federal level is being figured out. i think both of those avenues will be pursued this year. host: one more call from our guest, ken in washington, d.c.. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i have been a policeman often on for 25 years, currently in the district. that caller mentioned black on black crime. there is white on white crime as well, but that is not the point. we are talking about policing and the black unity in particular. as he touched on, in colorado, elijah mcclain had special needs, and he was killed by the police. everyone in the community knew him but the police didn't. you had that teenager who shot up the movie theater and he was taken into custody. policing is the overseer, officer mentality. until we start changing hiring and firing, nothing will change. it starts with legislation and works through the department. i have worked with white persimmon assist -- white supremacists. i am a black man first.

others have called out this discrimination. that blue ball thing, we take those bricks out. it is not quite as easy as some people make it appear, but clearly, if you have cancer in your leg, you have cancer in your body. host: final thoughts, mr. greenfield? guest: as i said, we appreciate the opportunity to bring this important issue up. it is very simple. it is about equality and justice , having police be accountable on the same way that everyone else in our society is. host: mr. cohen? guest: congress passed this law to deal with just this problem in the 1870's. the law was in effect until the

judges on the supreme court decided to eviscerate it. all we need to do is abide by the original law, which was passed for the same purpose, that there were white supremacists within police departments. it is a horrible thing to say, i don't want to say it, i don't want to believe it, but those are the facts. i would encourage the callers to check out the brennan center report and see for yourself. host: ben cohen, jerry greenfield, they are behind an effort to end qualified immunity. to both of you gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. guest: thank you. host: we are going to go to the house appropriations committee. a hearing on childcare in the covid crisis. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021