anthony wayne, we'll talk about the future of the country and u.s. policy in the middle east. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. washington journal is next. ♪ [washington journal theme plays] ♪ host: good morning, it is sunday, march 20 eighth. a pair of high-profile mass shootings in atlanta and boulder, colorado at a new urgency to gun control effort on capitol hill. supporters look at tougher gun laws as a way to curb gun violence. in the wake of that debate we are turning the question over to our viewers. what do you think can be done to prevent more mass shootings in this country? phone lines for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002.

a special line for gun owners. (202) 748-8003. you can also send us a text at that number, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook, it is facebook.com/c-span. here is the headline that denver area residents are waking up to on the front page of the denver post, and timeline of that shooting last week in colorado in boulder. 58 minutes of terror, how the boulder shooting unfolded. as shots rang out, employees and shoppers feared the nation's next mass shooting had come for them. last week during a meeting of community leaders in boulder it was senator michael bennett who spoke about his efforts and democratic efforts on capitol

hill to perseus -- to pursue tougher gun control measures. sen. bennett: we are not asking congress to show the same level of courage as officer tal ley or the other men and women who helped people at cape -- people escape who were on the front lines of the pandemic to begin with. a young man who wrote that he could not stay home because he was a grocery store worker, an essential worker, and had to be there. we are asking our politicians to show an ounce of courage by doing everything possible to keep weapons of war out of our communities and to pass universal background checks, to limit the size of magazines, to address the epidemic crisis of mental health in these countries , and our country.

years ago i heard somebody in the wake of an incident like this say this was just the price of freedom. what a shame, what a shame that somebody would say that and believe that. what a complete surrender to our children and to the victims of these crimes, what an odd compromise of americans'right to be free from violence. that's where we need to get. and i believe that we will. i'm going to insist that these issues get a vote on the senate floor. host: senator michael bennett of colorado last week had that meeting with community leaders. this morning we are learning more about the series of shootings in virginia beach, virginia late friday night. 10 people shot, to fatally in virginia beach according to police. at least 10 people shot during what police called a chaotic night of violence in virginia

beach on friday night with two unrelated cases of gun violence within blocks of each other. members of the virginia delegation tweeting about that incident, including senator tim kaine. 's is he had to say "i feel sick at the news of another senseless mass shooting in a community already scarred by the scourge of gun violence. we cannot stand by as more families lose loved ones. the time for congress to act on gun violence is now." one action congress took last week was a hearing on curbing gun violence in this country. it was democratic senater richard blumenthal who spoke at that hearing. sen. blumenthal: now is the time of action to honor these victims with real action. not fig leafs or shadows that have been offered by the other side along with hopes and thoughts and prayers.

thoughts and prayers cannot save the eight victims in atlanta or the 10 last night, including a brave police officer. thoughts and prayers can't save the 24,000 people killed every year, or the 26 wax killed every day, the eight children killed -- blacks killed every day, the eight children killed every day as a result of unsecured weapons. thoughts and prayers are not enough. yet thoughts and prayers is all we have heard from my colleagues on the others, thoughts and prayers must lead to action. host: democrat richard blumenthal. last week on the senate side, on the house side a series of gun control measures were passed by largely democratic majorities in the house, here is one of those

bills, the bipartisan background check act establishing background check requirements for gun sales between private parties prohibiting transfers unless a licensed gun deal -- unless a licensed gun dealer, or manufacturer first takes possession of the firearm. it would not apply to certain transfers such as gifts between spouses. eight republicans joining mostly democrats on that. one other bill passed that same week on the house side, the enhanced background checks act. that bill, reminder for what it would do, increase the amount of time firearm sellers must wait to receive a background check before transferring the firearm to an unlicensed buyer, from three days to 10 days. that bill having just two republican votes, mostly democrats. republicans joining that hearing last week on the senate side responding to democratic calls for more gun control.

one of those, republican senator ted cruz. sen. cruz: i don't apologize for thoughts or prayers. i will lift up in prayer people who are hurting and i believe in the power of prayer. the content of democrats for prayers is odd sociologically. i agree that thoughts and prayers alone are not enough. we need action. today chairman grassley and i are introducing a grassley cruise act and i would ask senate democrats not to participate again in the shameful filibuster that this body engaged in in 2013. let's target the bad guys, the felons, the fugitives, those with mental diseases, let's put them in jail and stop them from getting guns and not scapegoat innocent law-abiding citizens and not target their constitutional rights. host: texas republican ted cruz at that senate hearing. in the wake of that discussion we are turning the questions to you our viewers, asking you how

we can prevent more mass shootings. phone line split, democrats, republicans, and independents. a special line for gun owners, (202) 748-8003. we start with david in detroit. good morning, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, and good morning to all of our fellow washington journal listeners. i want to say, i don't know if there is anything that can ever completely prevent mass shootings or shootings for that matter. i don't think it's an issue of anyone trying to deprive anyone of their second amendment rights , that's not the issue. what we want to do is prevent or curtail these incidents, these mass shootings. what i don't understand is why

haven't we come to conclusion on a national basis that you would have to carry liability insurance to be an owner of a gun? you can have as many guns as you want, but you will have to pay some type of liability insurance that would reduce the burden to society on having those weapons, especially when they are discharged. when you have a car you have to carry liability insurance in the event that you are in an accident or you create mass casualties. these guns have been the center of mass casualties. if you own a gun, transfer a gun, being a licensed owner of a gun, then you must prove that you have insurance to accompany that weapon. host: that's david in detroit.

this is fred out of ohio, and independent. how do we prevent mass shootings? caller: i was more or less thinking about when people talk about gun control, because we as people, as citizens are not perfect, there are accidents. i get that. if you would like us to not have as many weapons or no weapons at all, you want us to totally rely on law enforcement. when they are imperfect, we just shrug our shoulders? when we get killed because we couldn't defend ourselves, what happens then? i was thinking like major new doll -- the man who shot up that military base and all the soldiers were unarmed, some might have posttraumatic stress disorder. i got that. they were completely unarmed. it came out there were all sorts of warning signs about him that were ignored.

was any educator or academy administrator held to account because he slipped through the cracks? host: he started talking about gun control and that is what a lot of democrats are talking about on capitol hill. would you be for gun safety? rather than gun control? is it the terminology we use and what the end goal is? caller: i think for one thing, accidents. people are imperfect. that's a shame when it happens. scrupulous people can have a brain lapse. maybe that's a good reason for people not to have guns. then again, law enforcement is not perfect. on enforcement does not always get there on time. why should they be the sole determiner of how safe we are? host: that is fred out of ohio on this issue of gun control. fred rooney in the new york times sunday addition with this column saying "stop it with gun

control, enough already." he says the phrase's day is done by democratic politicians who have rightly recognized the pre-judicial aspect of control with its reign of impressionism. you don't hear joe biden talking about gun control. the same holds true for other democrats urging gun safety, a preferable term, but not a perfect one. he says it is unhelpful to use gun control and in its sickness ample of the lotus -- the loaded language that often shapes our discourse on imperfect matters. he says i don't think gun control is the main thing staying in the way of measures to protect from gun violence, it diminishes the number -- a country crazily saturated with guns, but how we write and talk about this issue is inevitably consequential. fred rooney in his column today in the new york times. taking your phone calls asking you how to prevent mass shootings in this country with

democrats last week pointing to a series of new gun control provisions they have proposed to republicans on capitol hill including senator kevin cramer of north dakota, saying there are laws on the books that are not being enforced and should be. this is kevin cramer from a monday interview with the washington post. kevin: one thing that frustrates me is that in 2018 in the midst of several high-profile mass shootings, congress did pass a bill, and that bill was constitutional and aimed at making the nics more effective. one of the frustrations was that we are not adequately enforcing existing laws within our constitution. by enforcing i don't just mean catching the bad guys are prosecuting the bad guys, but that registration if you will of the background checks, not making it to the nics, local and

state officials not sending in the information for people that should not be eligible for a gun. we should -- we have seen that play out in tragic ways, that sort of regulatory laziness playing out and several of these mass shootings, someone who legally acquired a gun should not have been legally allowed to acquire a gun. i think until we start enforcing these it's not a good idea to start advocating more laws. host: republican senator kevin cramer on capitol hill last week. you heard ted cruz talk about the grassley -- grassley cruz act to cleanup the national background check system. that bill proposed according to chuck grassley's website "to preserve lawn binding citizens second amendment rights while putting in --

accurately's submit their record to the national criminal background check system to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. the chuck grassley grab site -- website with the ongoing effort between ted cruz and chuck grassley. back to your phone calls, janet from stony brook, new york, democrat. how do we prevent more mass shootings? caller: i'm a democrat, and i grew up on rhode island, it's not a gun culture, but i respect the right of republicans, i know places and a lot of the parts of the country it is their culture. i do believe people should be able to go to shooting ranges, maybe even have a gun in their house, but i think the largest problem, this is in every shooting, but many shootings, is the mental health of young men. i am the mother of two sons, i have three brothers and multiple sisters.

i do know that young men at a certain stage in their life are lost and they need to be found, they can be found if they find themselves and be prevented from owning a gun. i would recommend a much longer waiting period like japan does, i think it's 17 years, but maybe five. the difference between a 21-year-old man and a 26-year-old man is profound. i see it in my own kids. i think that would solve a lot of problems. a longer waiting period, mature people can usually handle dangerous things like drinking or whatever else, maybe smoking. in terms of guns we need to make sure that people have the right maturity before they have the right to have one. host: janet out of stony brook,

new york. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i am one of these people who were born in the 30's and watched the germans walk into my hometown and the first thing they did was confiscate guns. if we talk about gun control, what does the word mean? have you ever seen a gun running down the road saying "here is a nice person i'm going to shoot" boom? gun control is a misnomer. it ought to be said people control. we do talk about background checks, and if we think in terms of how many gun control laws, so-called gun-control laws, there are already on the books,

i think they exceed 50,000 overall from the states and so forth. the first thing that gun control does is give the government the power to take away the guns from the people, you know what our founding father once said. if only the government has control of guns, than the people live under tyranny. host: that is hendrick in new york. a special line for gun owners. (202) 748-8003. we do want to hear your thoughts on this topic with gun control very much in the news and on the -- in the conversation on capitol hill. rick is a gun owner out of new york. go ahead. caller: we have to look at several things. we have to look at, i think

first of all as aces -- at our society and our justice system. we have one -- young kids who will let -- whose parents will let them play games where they shoot things and blow things up and when they get mad they say they are going to go out and shoot somebody. our judicial system, we have done away with what a lot of the punishment for capital crimes. maybe some states need to bring back the death penalty. the best way to say it is why do we keep blaming the gun when it's the individual? when cain killed abel, god did not blame the rock, he blamed cain. david out of santangelo, texas. good morning. caller: i have several points i would like to make. one is, the thing is we need insurance for gun owners. that's a good idea.

how many bad guys, criminals have guns, and they will laugh at getting insurance. they have a gun illegally, so why would they get a insurance on a gun they are not supposed to have anyway. one person said we need to wait until they are 26 years old until they own a gun. that's a great idea. who's going to be in the armed forces? people are in the armed forces at 18 years old and they have guns. host: is there anything you think would work on this issue of mass shootings happening again and again? caller: yes i think there is. i think if we had parents being parents that would help. if we believe maybe we ought to send our kids to church, even if we don't go, maybe we ought to send them and give them a chance to hear the word of god. he takes care of all the problems. all you have to do is listen to

him. host: that's david out of santangelo, texas. this issue in the conversation on capitol hill. democrats taking to the senate floor in an effort to say the names of recent victims of gun violence. one of the leaders of that effort senator chris murphy out of connecticut. here is some of his introduction to that effort to name the victims on the senate floor. senator murphy: we have seen a dramatic increase in gun violence, and while in 2020 we did not see the mass shootings we have been accustomed to in years prior, we now have seen them once again pop up on our tv screens in 2021. the lack of mass shootings masked the reality which was a dramatic increase in the number of people failed by guns over the course of last year. we thought about what we could do to make more real for our colleagues the scope of this

epidemic. we thought of maybe something simple. to make people understand that these aren't really numbers, numbers are just a way to explain in aggregate who these people are, because each one of them is an individual, each one of them had a life and people who love them, each one of them loved people, so many of them you can see by the snapshots were young, they had full lives ahead of them, businesses to start, families to begin. none of that happened for them because they were shot. i am hopeful i will be joined by a number of my colleagues to do something simple. just to read into the record the permanent congressional record,

the names of those that have died, just in 2021. every single day there is over 100 people dying right now. i don't think america has ever seen this rate of gun violence with the exception of wartime, in our history. while we won't have time to tell you the story of all these people as michael did about those who were lost in boulder, at least we can make sure that forever their names, and a link to their story is in the congressional record. host: senator chris murphy on the senate floor last weekend he was joined on the sender -- on the senate floor by senator cory booker who participated in this effort to name the names, this is senator booker. senator booker: killed with a gun in chicago. 19, killed with a gun in el

dorado, illinois. victor booker, age 20, killed with a gun in phoenix, arizona. age 25, killed with a gun in columbus, ohio. say their names. say their names. this is the question of our country, what is the quality of our mercy? how courageous is our empathy? how anemic is our love for one another that this many americans are dying hour after hour, day after day, month after month, year after year, the carnage in our country like never before seen in humanity's history. we do nothing as a society. in a government that was formed

for a more perfect union, for domestic tranquility, for justice at the top of our federal government's constitution is the very ideal that we are for the common defense, say their names. host: senator cory booker on the senate floor. if you want to watch all the proceedings from the senate floor you can do so on our website at c-span.org. how to prevent mass shootings in this country. you are next. caller: good morning, grateful to be able to speak. i'm disturbed by some of the comments. i had something else i wanted to say. the comments from the man in perry and the other man talking about civil war and the germans coming to take their guns. that was interesting because i

have never even wanted to own a gun, and i don't understand why people have to feel they have to have a gun to defend themselves, who are they going to defend themselves against? that's why we have the army and air force four. in the marines, to protect us. what are you fighting against? i out -- i don't understand it, it's interesting. i believe that just like they have mothers against drunk driving they should have families against gun violence. they should have ensuring owned guns or something, it's too much. and to hear these people spewing this, i'm not judging and i'm not emotional, this is fact. that is idiocy. that man from perry, ohio, and the other man who said when the germans came in and trying to -- host: that's jonathan in ohio. one of the groups that has been pushing for action for years, moms demand action and the founder of that group

interviewed in the washington post story that is out today in the sunday post about the long game in the fight for good -- fight for gun control. saying in that story that the notion that gun-control advocates have not made progress is not helpful, pushing back on that. saying that nothing has changed is not true and it is feeding into the gun groups and the nra narrative that we can't make change. along with a coalition of groups successfully pushed for laws that require background checks on handgun sales in 22 states in the district of columbia and red flag laws in 19 states, that allows the court to seize firearms from those who may harm themselves or others. the story interviews the legislative counsel for gun owners of america, who said the boulder shooting showed that gun control does not work, noting that colorado had universal background checks, a red flag law, and large capacity magazine

bands. that story from today's washington post. this is rodney out of jackson, mississippi, and independent. caller: good morning. i think that if we really want to get serious about gun control , what we have to do is invest in mental health. we invested $1 trillion into getting psychologists and psychiatrists into the school system so we can identify people like the guy that carried out that horrific crime. we can identify them early, get them the help they need, and that would go a long way. we still have a stigma in this country towards mental health. once we get to a point where we realize that the brain is just like your heart, if something goes wrong with your heart or even nothing is wrong, you go to the cardiologist and see what is going on with your heart and

make sure that things are going right with your blood sugar and your blood pressure and those kinds of things. we have to get serious about mental health. we are already over legislating in this country. you can put all the laws you want to on the books, but one thing that human beings have been able to do since the beginning of time is figure out how to kill people. if you take guns away from them they are going to use knives and if you take knives they will use their bare hands. we have to get serious about mental health. i think that what senator kunz and what senator booker were saying was to grandstanding and it was disingenuous. host: what do you think of the democrats on capitol hill, who, to your point if there is no guns that they will use knives or their hands, democrats on capitol hill will say, they could do that, but it won't

because the mass casualties that we see with dozens of people killed, tens of people shot into incidents over the friday night in virginia beach, guns is the unique problem here. caller: what i would say is, if you look in europe a couple years ago there was an incident in london where a gentleman took a machete and just went wild, i think he killed three people and injured another six or seven. a gun is quicker, but in the hands of someone -- even martial arts. if you get someone killed in martial rt could break your neck and my neck and three other peoples in a matter of seven to 10 minutes. host: that is rodney and jackson, mississippi. this is peggy out of texas. a republican, good morning. caller: good morning.

until we look at the root of the problem it's not going to be fixed. i agree with the gentleman talking about mental health. these people, mass shooters, a lot of them were already in trouble with the law, and they need to be carefully watched and make sure they are getting mental health counseling. another thing, all of these places seem to have no security, if there had been a responsible citizen there with a gun, that guy may not have been able to kill so many people. i am a senior, and when i was growing up we did not have all these mass shootings going on. the kids are being exposed to video games and their minds are

not capable of handling it at their ages. we need to like i said look at the roots of the problem because the second amendment, our founders knew what they were talking about based on their own experience and wisdom, the right to bear arms. there is always going to be people that break the law, they are going to smuggle guns into this country. host: that's peggy in texas. this is mike from garrett saville, maryland. caller: hey, john, how are you. so wonderful to talk to you. just wanted to thank you for -- you are one of my favorite host. i want to say hello to brian lamb. i'm up here in northern hartford county, and i think it's wonderful you have this show going on. on monday at 10:00 the trial that is coming up, it's nice that you are covering that.

here's the deal. i'm up here in northern hartford county. i just did see a sheriff's car drive five. it's not like we are here without any police. but i'm looking out sunday morning out the back window and it's beautiful. there is nobody around. the rural part of the county, there are only cornfields, i don't know what's out there now, it's about to turn green. i could scream and nobody could hear me. you have to have guns, my wife is here, i want her to have something to protect herself. i the time the police get here it's going to be a few minutes. you have to protect yourself, you are the police really. in maryland the laws are very strict and we follow all the laws, we lock up all of our weapons, our weapons are locked up at all times, but we can get

them at a moments notice. here's the thing, mental health, people have been saying it all morning and that's what it's about. if you see something, say something. you can go online and see all of these guys, the aurora, colorado guy all of his interviews are on there. we had a guy in maryland at prairie hall a couple of years ago, a kid in the lunchroom took his grandfather's and got in the school. he is still in jail of course, but he didn't shoot anybody, thank goodness. it's all mental health and there is something that is going on in their lives. host: an early caller said get the counselors in the school and identify these kids better and sooner and restrict them from being able to have guns later on or throughout their life, is that an answer? is that something we should be

doing in schools, not only trying to teach kids but identify potential mass shooters as well or for some sort of lifetime ban on owning the weapon? caller: yes. the teachers and counselors, you can go up to the high school and teachers and counselors, principals, assistant principals, they know that children very well excuse me, little nervous. they are very good at seeing the young people on a daily basis which is why we need to get the kids back in school, so that they can have access -- we need more of that. that is tax dollars well spent. host: got here point. a lot more collars here. it's just after 7:30 on the east coast having this conversation about mass shootings in this

first hour of our program. keep calling in. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. plenty of conversation about this on capitol hill. this was tuesday after the colorado shooting that president biden spoke about efforts by congress to pass new gun-control legislation, this is what he had to say. pres. biden: we are still waiting for more information regarding the shooter, his motives, the weapons he used, the gun, the magazine, the modifications that have taken place to those weapons that are involved here, i don't need to wait another minute, let alone in our to take common sense steps that will save lives in the future, and i urge my colleagues in the house and senate to act. we can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again.

i got that done when i was a senator. it passed and was law for the longest time. it brought down these mass killings. we should do it again. we can close the loopholes and our background check system including the charleston loophole. that's one of the best tools we have right now to prevent gun violence. the senate should immediately pass, the united states senate should immediately pass, i hope summer listening, should pass the two house past -- the two house past bills that would close loopholes in the background check system. these are bills that received votes from democrats and republicans in the house. this should not be a partisan issue. this is some -- this is an american issue and it will save lives, american lives. we have to act. host: that was president biden on tuesday of last week. president biden asked about it at his first press conference he

held thursday. here is a bit of president biden on this issue from thursday. reporter: i know you have had a chance to address the tragedy in georgia and colorado, you said stay tuned for actions you might take on gun control. i was wondering if you made a decision either about sending the manufacturer liability bill that you promised on day one to capitol hill or executive action like going after guns or giving moneys to city and states to battle guns. pres. biden: all of the above, it's a matter of timing it. as you have all observed, successful presidents better than me have been successful in large part because they have known how to time what they are doing. or to decide in priorities what needs to be done. the next major initiative is,

and i will be announcing it friday in pittsburgh in detail, is to rebuild the infrastructure both physical and technological infrastructure in this country so that we can compete and create significant numbers of really good paying jobs. host: president biden from last week, taking your calls this morning. online for democrats, republicans, independents, and a special line for gun owners. melvin is an independent out of asheville, north carolina. caller: where i'm from -- in america the ones that are raising the children in this country are all messed up. they have parents that are teaching their children first of all to start off with water guns , then to move from water guns

to bb guns, then from bb guns they go to 20 twos -- .22s. they are teaching these children how to use these weapons when there minds go old and they kick off and go in the wrong direction and they become aggressive towards someone else it all starts from the education of our children. host: what do you think a gun owner would say to your point that they are trying to teach their child how to use a gun safely and respect a firearm? that is why they are teaching them to use the weapon? caller: they should not be using weapons. period. they should not be teaching them to use weapons. when i was growing up, i'm 73 years of age, and when i was raised i never had a weapon, never had a gun, never used a gun or one of the gun.

i didn't want to hurt anybody. to me it was all about how we use it. when i was growing up i was going to a store and there was a little girl on the street pointing her finger at me like she had a gun to shoot me. her parent did not correct her. i told her she should not do that, because she is imitating a gun, and if she had one she would shoot it and she would kill me. host: we got your point, that is melvin out of asheville, north carolina. darnell out of philadelphia, -- out of philadelphia, good morning. caller: good morning. i have one question for all of black america, from the five-year-old child to the 90-year-old matriarch. malcolm x was shot dead by a black man, was it worth it?

host: what is your point of asking that question, and do you have comments on the issue of mass shootings? caller: i believe america has placed the second amendment above the first sentence where they call for a more perfect union. it seems that america has taken some john wayne persona into believing that the only way to live. host: darnell out of philadelphia. don out of california, a republican. caller: what i'm hearing out of washington, d.c. these days is gun control for the, but not for me. president biden's own son, president biden who is saying how great background checks are and that we take background checks, his own sunlight on his background check to buy a gun. he lied to by.

you should be prosecuted and put in jail. he won't be. look at mount olympus, a.k.a. washington, d.c. surrounded by razor wire, actual assault rifles. they are sitting up there surrounded by guns telling us how bad guns are. and we are supposed to listen to them? are you kidding me. host: on the issue of background checks, we mentioned there are two pieces of legislation passed recently in the house awaiting action in the senate. it was on tuesday a senate judiciary committee hearing on gun violence in this country, robin thomas of the giffords law center to prevent gun violence was asked about the importance of background checks. here's what she had to say. >> explain why it's a critical warning sign when a person prohibited tries to buy a gun. fails the background check, and wide timely notification of law enforcement might help save lives? robin: thank you for the

question and thank you, senator, for your leadership on this. it's important that we understand that when someone fails a background check that is because they either have a felony conviction or unappropriate felony missed -- felony violence misdemeanor. these are situations where an individual presents a risk to themselves or others and we want to make sure we are doing everything they can to keep guns away from those individuals. when someone goes to buy a gun and fails a background check it often means they might be intending to do violence, particularly in the case of domestic violence guns prevent -- resent a high risk to individuals involved in those relationships. by notifying law enforcement and giving law enforcement an opportunity to follow-up and ensure the individual is not acquiring a gun through other means we can prevent harm. host: robyn thomas of the giffords law center there. you can watch that hearing on our website.

it was just after that that a senior legal policy analyst at the heritage foundation talked about why she believes background checks have not worked to prevent gun violence. >> normally when people bring up background checks they are referencing impacts on mass public shootings and i think it's important to recognize that with perhaps only one exception, these would not have played any meaningful role in preventing any mass public shooting in recent history, perhaps, though i think it's questionable, the exception being the o desta mifflin shooting a couple years ago. the real problem is most of these mass shooters actually passed background checks to begin with. that there is not this intermediate option for when they are exhibiting very serious signs of being unstable and violent towards themselves and others. that is more so than background

checks for limited persons, we'll -- when we are talking about public shootings the issue is that many of these parties passed background checks in the first place. host: a member of the heritage foundation. michael has been waiting and garrett, indiana, a gun owner. how do we prevent mass shootings in this country? caller: i believe the first way is registration. every gun made has a number synonymous to that weapon. use it, we use it for automobiles, boats, motorcycles, this is the most effective way to stop crazy stuff that's going on. it's not going to stop it all, we are all human and we all make mistakes. people go crazy once in a while. host: what does registering every gun in america do? caller: it will make sure everyone that owns that gun is

accountable for that gun. if it is stolen you turn it in and they know that gun is on the streets. everyone is accountable for that gun. someone can't just sell a gun on a street corner and you end up with a mass shooting chicago or wherever. host: do you think that will still happen, the argument is that criminals will still break the law whether you have new laws on the books or not. caller: absolutely, but it will stop the majority of it. he will never stop it all, but you can put a big dent in a lot of this crazy stuff going on. host: from maine this is kathy, a gun owner. caller: good morning. guns don't kill people, the people holding the guns are the ones that are shooting the guns. like the man from the 1930's that called in earlier, i agree with him totally.

guns don't kill, people do. i believe if there was a more harsh punishment for crime that would definitely be a deterrent for anyone to kill someone. i believe that the government has way too many laws on the books now they can't keep track of them. they are not really enforcing the laws they already have. host: this is carl out of oxford, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. to all the people, you can commit a murder with an ax or a knife. a long time ago i read an article about charles manson and his bunch. somebody challenged his authority and he gave the guy on knife and gave him his stomach and said go ahead and kill me. he knew psychology. you can kill somebody with any kind of weapon, and knife or a blunt weapon, but you really

have to be very crazed or very determined. pulling a trigger is much too easy. i'm against guns because about 40 years ago we had a very near miss and my brother almost got killed, the gun went off on its own. that's my comment, thank you, very much for c-span. host: this is stewart in madison, a republican. caller: my whole thing with the boulder shooting is he was able to buy the gun, he knew he was going to go kill all these innocent people, so the gun registration had no effect on him because he didn't care about the gun. a guy from indiana, i'm sorry but when somebody steals your weapon and they now have it, they are going to file off the serial numbers. behind this is when they go back

to where the death penalty was reinstated, especially for mass murder. the man who did this in boulder, he was the killer, he did it. he didn't care about those people. he did it and walked out of there. he passed the background checks, i don't know if he was seeing a psychiatrist, if he was it was not reported to the government and he was seeing a psychiatrist. after he did this his own family said, why would you allow your brother to even possess a weapon? host: that's a stewart in maine. the gallup organization has been pulling on this question for years. they asked respondents if they feel that laws covering the sales of firearm should be made more strict, less strict, or cap does they are now. the latest polling from

september or october of last year, 57 percent of respondents saying gun laws should be more strict and 34% saying keep them as they are now. 9% saying they should be less strict in this country. 57% saying more strict down from the all-time high when it comes to the gallup polling on this back in the early 90's with 78% of respondents saying gun laws in this country should be more strict. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. been watching you for years and this is on television. i'm amazed at how all over the

chart people are with calling in and all sorts of things -- in 1994 there was a virginia ban on assault rifles. during that time there was one mass shooting. one shooting, one shooting period with an assault rifle. in 2004 and set of renewing the bandit was allowed to lapse and in the next 10 years there were over 250 shootings involving assault weapons. i think that pretty much speaks for itself. when the band -- when the ban was lifted you head over 250. you never know when somebody is going to have a bad day. the woman from the heritage

foundation said they get their guns legally and law-abiding citizens, until they have a bad day, their girlfriend leaves or their wife goes away, trouble at their job, someone cuts them off in traffic. you can't predict when someone is going to snap. host: on the issue of the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, it was president died in debt president biden who brought up that issue in his remarks after the boulder shooting, then the washington post fact checker took up that claim today. the washington post fact checker, bite and sing the 1994 law brought down mass killings. here is what the fact checker said, the biggest hurdle for biden is that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. biden also was careful to say that both the assault weapons ban and the large capacity magazines -- new research supports the idea

that restrictions on large capacity magazines were effective in reducing the death toll. recent research also supports the contention that mass shootings have increased since that law expired. the research concludes that the 1994 law was effective in reducing mass shooting deaths. the washington post fact checker column by glenn kessler. this is mike out of massachusetts on the line for gun owners. mike, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you. host: are you a gun owner in support of stricter gun laws? caller: no. i'm a lifelong gun owner. i've always been responsible, because the first thing they teach you in gun owner safety is the control of the gun itself. the gun itself alone does not kill people. the incompetence of people owning the gun kills people.

i feel so bad for these people's families that this all occurred, but making more laws on the books are not going to stop people from doing these heinous acts. if they go about their business and abide by the laws that are already on the books with background checks and stuff like that, i'm for that. call assault rifles assault rifles. and ar-15 is an arm a light rifle. that is the company, the manufacturer. it has nothing to do with assault. i could take a baseball bat and turn it into an assault that by action, not by its form but by its action. host: tim is in michigan, and independent. caller: o god, i love this

twisted, gordian knot pretzel logic by these people. how many people are you going to kill from a hotel room with adamn baseball bat. i bet it won't be 58 of them. not to mention how many people are wounded. ugh. anyway. guns should just -- if you are a hunter, that is great. go out, stock your fridge with whatever it is you like to eat. personally i prefer my stuff farm raised. anyhow, i would also, while i have you on here, we don't need gun control, if you are a hunter that's great. if you are a farmer and you have to control pests, beautiful.

you don't need 50 round magazines. host: you bring up the las vegas shooting, one of the shootings in recent years that is included in the violence project, the mass shooter -- and on breaking down the number by states and number of victims. here are some numbers from the violence project in the last five years there have been at least 29 shootings in the united states with four or more fatalities. the number of overall injuries for firearms reaching to a 50 year high, americans making up about 4.4% of the global population and they own about 42% of the world's guns. -- catherine in ohio, democrat, good morning you are next. caller: good morning.

this is what i think. excuses excuses. ♪ you hear them every day. ♪ we have democrats who give excuses, we have republicans who give excuses, we need stricter gun laws that are enforced. we need to take guns out of the hands of people, we have proven that we are not responsible. we cannot do it. we have told ourselves we can, but we have proven time and time again in school shootings and church shootings, and theater shootings in grocery store shootings and bank shootings and vegas shootings and nightclub shootings that we are incapable of controlling ourselves and others. host: this is sean out of columbia, missouri on the line for dumb -- on the line for gun

owners. caller: thank you for taking my call. the law actually states "shall not be infringed." if you want to act like this is a democracy instead of a place of tyranny, in the huns to touche and. 40,000 people die a year from car accidents yet we do nothing. 780,000 people die from heart disease and nothing is done. we need to save everything something, why are those taking secondhand the echo. host: one of our first callers brought up that you have to carry insurance to drive an automobile and you should have to carry insurance for a firearm. caller: no. what does insurance do? it doesn't create people dying in car accident. if you want to take away guns,

take away cars. we will and 40,000 people dying in cars. host: last caller on this segment of the washington journal. on a more to talk about. up next we will be joined by the cofounder of the digital advocacy company rent and to discuss federal efforts to regulate intech and later former deputy u.s. ambassador to afghanistan earl anthony wayne will join us to discuss the looming troop withdrawal deadline in the future of u.s. involvement in afghanistan. stick around, we will be back. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, explore and the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. today at 2:00 p.m., the 1968 massacre where south carolina state troopers fired on students

protesting segregation. we feature three films that were nominated or won academy awards. library of congress and why man creates. at 6:00, we visit the national museum of the u.s. army in virginia. at 6:45 p.m., smithsonian secretary and documentary filmmaker ken burns discussed the challenge of telling america's story. watch american history tv today on c-span3. >> monday, watch live coverage of the trial for derek chauvin, charged in the death of george floyd. watch the trial live at 10:00 on

c-span two, on demand at c-span.org, or the c-span radio app. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. created by america's television -- cable television companies. we are brought to you by these television companies. brought to you as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: bret jacobson joins us for a discussion efforts to regulate big tech. he is cofounder of red edge. bret jacobson, explain what you do and how you do it. guest: we try to help our clients explain complex issues about we -- about how we govern ourselves using a lot of the digital platforms, emerging technologies. our goal is to have the

population as educated and active as possible. we are focused on keeping those platforms and conversations free and vibrant. host: does your work have a political leaning to it? guest: we tend to work with the freedom side, lower tax and less regulation. we want people to be as free as possible and unencumbered by the government as possible. host: largely on the issue of moderating social media platforms, regulating big tech. do you think big tech should have more regulation? guest: it is perfectly fair to keep asking a lot of questions. i do not think their behavior is requiring of greater regulation.

you have one side, the democrats saying they are not doing enough to moderate content and you have one side saying they are doing too much regulating of content. they are in that uncomfortable but effective and efficient middleground. host: section 230 comes up when we had this conversation. guest: it is a rule that keeps away trial attorneys from suing websites for every comment that somebody does not like. it is a protection that was put into allow internet websites to grow. it has done that pretty well. it has kept it relatively free and vibrant. there are questions about whether that should be curtailed or used as a cudgel to get what politicians want, which is their side a slightly more favorable outcome in tumultuous times. host: what does section 230 mean

for red edge? guest: we can get our grassroots individuals to comment, talk to congress, talk to regulators, talk to each other, share content and ideas. for us, it is important that 230 is kept intact or the spirit of it is kept intact. the great thing about the internet has been the ability to share massive amounts of information with more people. we are better informed than other -- than ever. after having watched the hearing, we are concerned that both sides are trying to figure out what color is the new golden goose. host: mark zuckerberg stating he is open to changes in section 230 after a couple of decades. here is what he had to say. >> i would support two specific

changes, especially for large platforms. i want to call out that for smaller platforms, we need to be careful about any changes we make that remove their immunity because that could hurt competition. first, platforms should have to issue transparency reports that state the prevalence of content across all different categories, harmful content, everything from child exploitation, incitement of violence, terrorism, intellectual property violations, pornography -- >> where with those transparency reports be reported to? >> as a model, facebook has been doing something to this effect for every quarter. we report on the prevalence of

each category of harmful content and about how effective our systems are about removing that content. company should be held accountable to having these systems. i would propose creating accountability for the large platforms to have effective systems in place to moderate and remove clearly illegal content. things like sex trafficking or child exploitation or terrorist content. it will be reasonable to condition immunity for the larger platforms on having a generally effective system in place to moderate clearly illegal types of content. host: on those recommendations from mark zuckerberg. guest: he makes -- it makes a lot of sense to prioritize reporting. one of the more interesting lines of questioning from democratic house members was access more data to see how the

platforms are performing. more information is probably better. it could probably be done in a voluntary fashion. facebook -- if that is where it needs to go so people start to feel safe, that is great. it is important that he called out that very small companies need to be exempted from that. that regulatory burden would kill them before they had a chance to compete. it is good that facebook is offering some potential solutions. hopefully, congress will start to look at that as a conversation so we are improving our conversation and not just regulating them to death. host: bret jacobson is cofounder of the digital advocacy company red edge, joining us for this conversation about regulating big tech.

would you support more regulation for big tech? (202) 748-8000. if you would not, (202) 748-8001 . you said companies should be able to regulate. what happens if they do not do it voluntarily? or not doing it well enough, and who decides not well enough? guest: those are good questions for hearings. i do not know if there is a regulatory framework established. you have recourse to the courts for civil remedies if necessary. i do not think there is a great framework to start with a so that would be more interesting question. what would a successful framework look like? right now, i do not think government is equipped to move

at the speed of digital conversations. what we don't want is bureaucracy that moves in months and years trying to make decisions regarding platforms and online dialogue that happens in seconds and milliseconds. host: when would you remove something on a platform that you have worked on? guest: if it is anything inciting violence, threat to an individual, inappropriate for children. i am a parent of three girls and i am not looking for the internet to be this wild thing. companies -- clearly, illegal content can go quickly. it starts to get a little more difficult to decide once you are trying to gauge opinions. the conversation framed in the

hearing about disinformation and misinformation is where it starts to get really sticky because in america's discourse, the right and left her having a hard time agreeing -- left are having a hard time agreeing on what a fact is. host: steve scalise brought up this idea of censoring based on political bias on the social media platforms. directing his question to jack dorsey. >> this is the new york post, a newspaper that goes back to 1801 founded by alexander hamilton. this article, right before an election about hunter biden was banned by twitter. when you contrast that, you have this washington post article that was designed to mis-portray a conversation between president trump and the georgia secretary of state.

since then, parts of this have been debunked. i want to ask mr. dorsey, do you recognize there is this real concern that there is an anti-conservative bias on twitter's behalf? do you recognize that this must stop if this is going to be -- if twitter is going to be viewed by both sides as a place where everybody will get free -- fair treatment? >> we made a terrible mistake with the new york post. we corrected that within 24 hours. we do not write policy according to any particular political leaning. if we find any of it, we write it out. we will make mistakes and our goal is to correct them as quickly as possible. host: bret jacobson, i know you

watch that hearing as well. guest: i thought it was a perfectly fair question. i thought throughout the day, there were some questions that were off-the-wall. i thought that one was spot on. it was a pretty honest answer by somebody running a company that is pioneering new technology and new ways of connecting people. there will be a lot of mistakes and we have to distinguish between mistakes of intent, which is what republicans and conservatives are concerned about, and mistakes of practice and habits, which is what the platforms are saying is going on. it is not a new question by represented of scully's. this has been -- representative steve scalise. this has been happening for years. it is something platforms need to do a little better job of reviewing internally and discussing with people who have those concerns. host: big tech regulation is

what we are talking about. if you support more of it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose more of it, (202) 748-8001. good morning. caller: what i was going to say if people don't like what is on the platform, they don't need regulation. it is a consumer item. you go to another platform. when you sign up for a platform, like facebook or twitter, before you even get onto the platform, you agree to the rules. it is not your platform to be like, i disagree with it. leave it. don't try to regulate something that belongs to somebody. it is not a public platform. it is something you went to and you agreed to follow the rules

on the platform. host: bret jacobson? guest: i think that is right. one thing i hear frequently is this concern from conservatives that if the platform or if they do not want to be on a particular platform, they have nowhere else to go. with news that the trump empire will roll out own social platform, that undercuts one of those key arguments that there is not the market place for people to go and share their ideas. there are other upstarts. there are several out there were people can go. i think that by a large, we want people to vote with their digital feet in their wallets and go wherever they feel the most comfortable. minimize the amount of government interference.

host: silver spring, maryland, supports more regulation. are you with us? i will let you keep working on that. this is barry out of new york. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i just wanted to point out that we would be opening a big pandora's box if we start to regulate the ability of private companies to remove people from their platforms that they deem to be offensive. this idea would proliferate throughout more than just online arena. it would -- i could imagine fox news, there has been a lot of controversy about when they post videos and comments that don't

align with the fox news narrative getting removed from fox news. all these conservative outlets have videos they post and comments people post in response. host: what about this idea of misinformation or specific disinformation from a foreign country, perhaps, ahead of the election. ? caller: that could be taken care of if these companies were really diligent about making sure they remove their bots. that is where some legislation could be productive. some assistance from government agency helping little companies that may want to compete against twitter or facebook, helping

them to determine, using algorithms and ai or whatever the how they do. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think the caller is correct that if we are getting into state-sponsored misinformation, we probably also need cooperation with our own government in terms of tracking where that is coming from. there has been some interesting research that shows information's biking during the working hours in moscow, which is something we can working with the government -- spiking during the working hours in moscow. i think these platforms are very well positioned to be able to hunt down this 99-1 rule that you see online.

you see that in conspiracy theories. a lot of misinformation. hopefully, the platforms are able to figure out where the sources of the really most common, the most harmful, the most deleterious misinformation is coming from. we want those to be targets and ideally, wasting time. host: do you think the hearings are a waste of their time? they always get a lot of attention, but are they worth it? caller: i do not think they are worth it until both parties on the hill can agree on what the problem is. lastly, you had two different hearings going on. the accusations were wildly

apart. i do not think it is productive until people can agree on what the problem is. you also have some productivity lost by these random accusations that were being utilized by members using their five minutes to go on and on. you saw some pretty crazy stuff in hearing and after the hearing these companies have blood on their hands. once you are at the point of that wild hyperbole, you are not getting closer to a solution. you are getting further away from it. host: one of the moments you tweeted about is when jack dorsey was asked about twitter being in arbiter of truth. >> is not often i find myself agreeing with bernie sanders. he said, if you are asking me if

i feel comfortable that the president of the u.s. should not express his views on twitter, i do not feel comfortable about that. yesterday, it was donald trump who was blamed. tomorrow, it could be somebody else. do you think the law should allow you to be arbiters of truth? mr. zuckerberg? >> congressman, i think it is good to have a law that allows platforms to moderate content. but, as i said, i think we benefit from more transparency and accountability. >> mr. dorsey? >> i do not think we should be arbiters of truth and i do not think the government should be either. host: to that response? guest: libertarians have a new

hero in jack dorsey for putting something specifically -- i do not think the history of free speech and free expression would bear out that we would want government deciding what we see in our newsfeeds. we probably do not want the platforms deciding what is true and what is not true. i think it is difficult to figure out what is appropriate in terms of optimizing content for users in terms of what they enjoy versus any harms we might be seeing if misinformation is being prioritized or if we feel like people are being radicalized. we need to separate questions -- is something good? if not, is the government the answer? rarely, when it comes to speech, is government the answer. if we are concerned about the content that people are seeing and the unhealthy diet of it, what are solutions we could do to make better consumers?

how can we pressure the platforms to do better? one of the self-interested answers we saw in the hearing was from the ceo of google who said advertisers, who are their primary constituency, do not want to be around a lot of conspiracy content. there is pressure that could be put to the market and advertisers for platforms to keep their platforms clean and healthy and places for fair and free speech. host: on the issue of advertising, is social media being taken over by ads? you can call in. the line for those who support more regulation, (202) 748-8000. west palm beach, florida. caller: i am calling about

google. as far as i can tell, we did not respond to their demands for advertising dollars. when you call the 800 number for their customer service department, you get a sales department. you are directed to go to a business website, which directs you to a bunch of pages and says for $100, you can do this. if you still have a problem, click this button, and intend days, we will send you a postcard -- and intend days, we will send you a postcard. host: what business are you in? caller: it is a small moving company. our business is 90% referrals. i have people calling me in a panic because they are booked --

they booked jobs and they are being told we are closed. host: thank you for sharing your experience in florida. guest: i run a small business that i would not appreciate if google was telling the world we were closed. we are trying to stay busy, trying to do good work. i would sympathize with the caller. it sounds like the postcard you mentioned is probably part of the identification authentication system, which is part and parcel of the overall conversation of how we are weeding out misinformation. unfortunately, i am not very successful as a help desk person

but i share her frustrations. host: cleveland, ohio, opposes more regulation. caller: i oppose more regulation because it falls in line with voting. every time there is voting, there is a foreign country interfering with our senators, voting polls, voting regulations. i think the communication has to start somewhere to find out who is responsible for letting all of these companies get in and letting these foreign companies interfere with our business. host: bret jacobson? guest: voting information and misinformation around voting should be taken extremely seriously and to one of the earlier points, that is when you want the state department, your intelligence community to

monitor if it is foreign state actors or if it is foreign nonstate aggressive actors. if we try to put responsibility of the company level, at the platform level, you are reducing the number of resources they can direct at correcting the problem or preventing problems. you need the same sort of government resources that are hopefully protecting our banks, financial institutions. so much information, so much of our public perception is shaped in those daily conversations. host: mike doyle asked the ceos how much responsibility there platform t --heir -- their platform bore out of the january

6 attack at the u.s. capitol. >> does your platform bear some responsibility for disseminating information that led to the attack on the u.s. capitol? yes or no answer. >> chairman, our responsibility is to build systems -- >> yes or no answer. do you bear some responsibility for what happened? >> our responsibility is to make sure we build effective systems. >> yes or no? >> we worked hard this election effort was one of our more substantial efforts. >> yes or no? >> is a complex question. >> mr. dorsey? >> you have to take into

consideration a broader ecosystem. >> thank you. i agree with that. guest: i think you can start to hear the frustration in jack dorsey's voice. i am not sure the question was extremely intellectually fair. these people are responsible for companies that might have legal liability if they answer the wrong way. you want private companies to feel a responsibility to try to make sure the community they operate in is safe and healthy. i think we can hold them accountable to that general premise. specifically, operating within the appropriate laws at the city, county, and federal level. it is fair to hold companies to a standard. the question is, are they responsible for the actions of seemingly deranged individuals? the answer is i don't know.

i think tough question for us to think about is do we want crazy people to operate where we can see them or where we cannot see them? ideally, we are at least monitor -- able to monitor their activity and get ahead of it. host: good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i have some questions. whatever happened to slander and libel? what made big tech the court system to decide who has the right to say what? and not say something? i mean, big tech is way out of line and does not have the right

to tell people what they can or cannot say. that is what they went into business for and that is what they set up to make money off of. that is what you get. host: what would you want to see as somebody who supports more regulation? caller: number one, i recently bought amazon fire. the place did not tell me this. i am not into the social media stuff. they want my bank account information to even use it. i will not give them that. what is it that makes you think you have the right to all of our personal information? i do not think that should be allowed. host: privacy issues? guest: we have clients that work in the privacy area that are pushing for a federal privacy standard.

one of the benefits of that is to make it easier for people to understand the trade-off, what they get in return for giving up their personal information. we certainly are former -- are for more transparency and more clarity. products require information to be able to process payments, so that is a good case for the user can decide whether the value is there for them or whether they need to return a product or service. so much opportunity for entertainment education, communication, making things more clear and transparent are good goals for product sellers. host: from red edge, the efforts you have to try to educate voters about polls and the positioning of polls, the privacy issue that comes into

doing that? guest: the user would give a service our app information about where they live, which is somewhat personal information. used to be published in the white pages all the time. once it is online, people feel a little different about having their address public. you try to make that clear at the start of the transaction. i think people are still within several years of trying to figure out what information should really be private, what information are they comfortable trading away to allow systems and services to offer them easier lives. host: rededge.com.

bret jacobson is with us for the next 30 minutes. caller: referencing what the earlier caller was talking about , larry ellison of oracle said that as far as privacy goes, we gave that way a long time ago. signing off these agreements at the beginning of various different -- when you are logging on, we gave up a lot of the privacy information. the bigger question is, how do you police the truth? how do you get the truth out there without false information? if you allow people to make the correction, people have to be

somewhat informed and engaged. the problem is, i want to give you an example. i was posting on facebook. i was reading various science, what was coming out of china. i was posting on facebook that we should be wearing masks given what was out there and i was complaining about the who not yet calling it a pandemic. things started popping up. this is going up against, knowledge. take a look at the -- common knowledge. take a look at the who website. i think the organizations themselves are doing enough or possibly too much trying to counter what is going on. host: bret jacobson, take that up. guest: the caller is on to interesting dynamic that is facilitated by digital

technology, which is this move over the last couple decades to open source technology. it allows lots and lots of different users to contribute solutions to a problem. one of the most important ways that manifests is in cybersecurity. as bad actors try to exploit a loophole, you have a bunch of people acting as self-appointed white t cells to get rid of the program -- the problem. that is a better model than having small, relatively isolated governmental solutions try to attack one-to-one misinformation. the sheer scale of people willing to help try to fight for the truth, their version of the truth, is a better long-term solution, something we should be betting on rather than putting our eggs solely in the basket of

government. host: this issue always comes up when we have these conversations. " restore the fairness doctrine,," referring to the requirements that were in place in the 1980's. can a fairness doctrine happen in social media environment? guest: no, and i do not think we want it to. it would not be reasonable to expect to be able to boil down a complex world and try to force a quality time. -- force equal time. there are 15,000 different perspectives. trying to slow down our media, trying to adjust the media to be

more simplistic and two sites only does not make us smarter consumers or better informed or wealthier or healthier. host: bill out of alabama opposes more regulation. caller: i wanted to address a couple of issues. disinformation, back when america was viewed as a free country and eastern europe was a repressive regime reported by the soviet union, we had something called radio free europe. we beamed our messages into eastern europe. that was away for the people to hear the truth because the government shut down all the radio stations that had any views different. a lot of our media blocks information and if there is a foreign government that would give us some information, that is a plus. when hillary clinton's emails were being shut down, why

couldn't cuba get us the information or china? host: bret jacobson? guest: a lot of this question over misinformation and disinformation comes down to what sources will you ultimately trust? i do not think there is a great argument that the u.s. federal government has on trustworthy communications and we want as many watchdogs as possible trying to label where information is coming from so people can take a piece of information with a grain of salt or an ocean worth of salt. it is important to start thinking for the difference between misinformation, which is a misunderstanding, and disinformation, which is intentional distortion of our conversation. usually, that comes in the form of meddling with our elections.

host: to the lone star state, this is troy, amarillo, good morning. caller: [inaudible] host: you are going in and out. want to try it one more time? caller: [indiscernible] host: we do not have you but give us a call back. bret jacobson, you mentioned a lot of issues came up in this hearing. another one of those issues, how much access, open access minors should have to the social media platforms. asking mark zuckerberg about an instagram for under 13, whether it should be done or not. your thoughts? guest: i think it is better to be done by large companies that

can keep things locked down and keep content being shared from a very small number of trusted content creators. pbs, c-span, thinks that are very trustworthy. kids are smart enough that they will find their parents' phone. we want them in places where things are triple verified. that comes with a lot of liability for any company and requires a high level of trust. to do it right can be a huge service to parents to kids -- and to kids. to it wrong would be a world of legal and social pain for everybody whts it wrong. host: running short on time. jim, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i oppose any regulation that imposes on the freedom of

speech. i have never heard of red edge before. i do not even know how to text. technology is great but you do not want technology to run your life. you need to run your life and use technology to your benefit. if i want to hear the news or the weather, i walk outside my door and i will check out the weather. i do not need text. government does not need to be involved in freedom of speech of this company. i do not know how to explain it any other way. host: jim, i think you explained it simply. guest: sounds like we need to improve branding for red edge so people know the name more. there are a lot of interesting questions and hopefully, people in d.c. and on capitol hill will start to hone in the most important question, how are we

ensuring that people are having the broadest ability to speak freely? how do we police when it is -- how do we keep government out of that? how do private platforms make sure our trust in them is cared for? host: bret jacobson is cofounder of red edge. thank you for your time this morning. up next, this past week, georgia governor signed into law a new voting's rights bill already being challenged by critics. we will -- we will ask you whether you think it is fair. we will talk to you right after the break. ♪ >> tonight, at 9:00, the washington post jodey work

discusses his book redlined, the unraveling of syria and america's race to destroy the most dangerous arsenal in the world. he is interviewed by jean -- george washington professor. >> why was the red line threat issued and why is this conflict still so horrific and so tragic 10 years later? i tried to explain some of those complexities in the book. i do it through human stories to make it more powerful and more real, more relatable. >> watch tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. you can also listen to every program where you get your pride casts -- podcasts. >> sunday, april 4, a live

conversation with science writer and author harriet washington. her most recent book is carte blanche. >> when companies use profit to measure their success in the medical arena, the problem is that we cannot expect the companies to care about us. we cannot expect the companies to make less money because they care about our health. they do not care about our health. our government, people that we pay and that we should expect to care about her health and should defend us -- our government should be raining in these companies and forcing them to develop things that will fit the public needs. >> join in a conversation with your phone calls, texts, and tweets for harriet washington sunday, april 4, at noon eastern.

>> c-span's new online store, go there to order a copy of the congressional directory with contact information for every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments. contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. order your copy at csp anshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: you have heard about that new voting rights law signed into law in georgia last week by governor brian kemp. we are asking you, do you think the new election law changes how elections will be conducted in georgia, do you think it is fair? if you do, [indiscernible] . -- if you do, (202) 748-8000. if you don't, (202) 748-8001.

a special line for georgia voters, (202) 748-8002. it is a 98 page measure signed into law thursday by governor brian kemp, makes numerous changes to how elections will be administered in the state. it allows the new -- the state election board new powers to intervene. that prohibition extends 150 feet from a polling place and 25 feet from any person standing in line. more explaining what that new state voting rights bill does. >> we quickly began working with the house and senate on further reforms to make it easy to vote

and hard to cheat. the bill i signed into law does just that. first and foremost, sb202 replaces the signature match process with the state id requirement to submit an s -- an absentee ballot. when voting in person, you must have a photo id. it only makes sense for the same standard to apply to absentee ballots as well. for example, the november 2020 election saw a 350% increase in the use of absentee balloting. over 1.3 million absentee ballots total, when compared to election day in 2018. this led local election workers to have to process far more ballots using a time-consuming, labor-intensive and arbitrary process.

by moving to a state issued id requirement, instead of a signature match, georgia will dramatically streamline the verification process on absentee ballots. sb202 secures all ballot drop boxes around-the-clock. it speeds up processing to ensure quicker election results might require security papers to allow for authentication of ballots, and allows the bipartisan state election board to have more oversight over counties who fail to follow state election laws. host: georgia governor brian kemp last week on the new election law in georgia. do you think it is fair? (202) 748-8000 if you do. (202) 748-8001 if you don't. georgia voters, give us a call at (202) 748-8002. according to the associated press, republicans had proposed

at one time to limit early voting on weekends, a time when many black churches conduct souls to the polls efforts to take congregants to vote. the new law shortens the time for the runoff from nine weeks to four weeks. just try to walk you through some aspects of a very large, very new voting law in georgia. we are asking you whether you think it is fair. let us know what you think. this is mike out of ohio. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. speaking as a poll worker, voter fraud does take place as well as voter suppression. neither one of them needs a

sledgehammer for a solution. when it comes to jim crow laws, it happens in the north as much as the south. it is a problem across the country. my view is this -- if it looks like a crow, if it sounds like a crow, if it flies like a crow, but it smells like a dead crow, that is a jim crow. that should have been dead 55 years ago. the gop has tried to bring it back to life. host: this is philip. caller: good morning. just wanted to thank you for having me on c-span so i can make some comments. host: what do you think about the new law? caller: i am disappointed. i felt like the last general election was run fairly. i went to the process myself.

i voted absentee as well as in person. i did not see any security issues with the way we are -- we were running the election currently. i do not understand why we need to implement so many additional measures to try to make something secure that is already secure. just so people know, when you vote in georgia, you have to present a photo id and you have to sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are on the voter registry. they check your name and they give you a card, a voter card that accesses the voting machines. you walk around and you stick that into the machine, and you make your selections on the ballot. when you make those selections, it is physically -- it physically prints out the ballot.

you can verify on the paper who was recorded in the machine for that vote. you take that around and you put it in a scanning machine and you scan it into a machine that goes into a box. there are already several levels of checks. we did the recount, they did not just rely on the digital ballots. host: on changing the runoff, do you think it is a good system that georgia has right now that runoff -- the whole country saw that play out in your two senate races. caller: i think nine weeks is reasonable. if it is going to be just two candidates, the two top candidates, i think that gives plenty of time for them to what the voters know what they stand for and what they are

supporting. four weeks, that is pretty short. you are talking about trying to get all the polls ready for an election again pretty quick. right after the general. there is a lot that goes into opening the polling places. that is a short timeline. this whole thing about -- what really burns me up about this new law is this idea that it is a misdemeanor crime to handout food and water to people standing in line to go vote. i think that is beyond the pale. host: the washington post editorial board focuses on that provision. it is clear who would be hurt the most by that specific shift. lines tend to be long in predominantly nonwhite precincts

, areas that tend to vote for democrats. data revealed the average weight after 7:00 p.m. in predominantly nonwhite neighborhoods was 51 minutes while in predominantly white neighborhoods, it was six minutes. in the grand scheme of voter suppression measures, limiting water distribution is emblematic of a party committed to finding new hardships to impose on voters and all aced on lies about voter fraud to keep hold of political power. we are asking your thoughts on this new election law. is it fair? david in virginia says yes. caller: there are two sides to this. all of that jim crow nonsense, that is ridiculous. it is propaganda. it just creates more division.

once you have voter id, which is the most important part of this, people can get ids. it is ridiculous for anybody to say they cannot get an id. any kid who wants to drive gets his license, period. let's get real. i do understand, once you start that, it might inhibit some people. let's get together on the basics. the water, not giving out refreshments, that is ridiculous. i do not even know where -- why that is involved. host: this is president joe biden from his news conference on thursday of last week being asked about this new voting law in georgia. >> are you worried that if you don't manage to pass voting rights legislation that your party is going to lose these -- lose control of the house and

senate in 2022? pres. biden: what i am worried about how it -- is how this -- how un-american this whole initiative is. it is sick. deciding that you cannot bring water to people standing in line waiting to vote? deciding that you are going to end voting at 5:00 when working people are just getting off work? deciding that there will be no absentee ballots -- it is all designed, and i will spend my time pointing out three things. trying to figure out how to pass legislation. number two, educating the american public. the republican voters i know find this despicable. republican voters. host: president joe biden last

week from the white house. in terms of what is next for this georgia law, ap taking a look at that topic. groups having filed a lawsuit to try to block the law. a new georgia project black voters matter says the law violates the first and 14th amendments of the constitution as well as parts of the federal voting rights act. opponents also looking to congress, which is considering the nationwide voting standard. back to your phone calls. is this georgia election law fair? steve, ohio, says yes. caller: yes, i believe the law is fair. you have to have an id for everything. you have to have an id to drive. you have to have an id to cash a

check. you have to have an id to receive government funding. of any kind. to vote, it only makes sense. i heard a minute ago -- host: on the id requirement, what this is doing, this is a photo id requirement for voting absentee by mail. caller: exactly. host: i wanted to be clear. caller: id is needed to vote in person. why wouldn't an id needed to be required to vote absentee? host: two are for the call. this is jim -- thank you for the call. this is jim out of missouri. caller: good morning. i believe this is pushing us in the wrong direction. we should be expanding voting.

there are 80 million eligible voters that do not bother. a male in ballot -- a mai to every voter in every state. short story, i was looking through an old phone book in the state of iowa, the old type they used to have in the phone booths. the backpage page was a voter registration form that you could tear out and take to the polling place. it allowed for you to put an intersection as your address in case you are homeless. it seems so simple, so universal , what was wrong with that idea? we need to get back to expanding voting rights instead of what we've got now. host: thanks for the call.

savannah, georgia, good morning. you're next. this law, how is it going over in savannah? caller: it is the craziest thing. i am a black american conservative and i am so frustrated with the republicans sometimes because we keep just stepping on our own message. let me answer the question. is the new legislation fair? yes, it is fair, but so many parts of it are just abjectly foolish. the republicans, we have this huge issue with messaging and we leave these gaps where it could be manipulated and there is a lot of manipulation to the messaging, but we give them permission. host: what is the most foolish part? caller: the fullest part is that you cannot bring water to people if they are standing there waiting to vote.

the thought behind it may have a legitimacy, but why would you give someone the ability to take that measure, saying that you cannot bring somebody water who is standing in line to vote? that is just foolish. what has been done now? there are going to be lines around like disney world. i'm from florida originally. they even inspired more democrats and independents to vote against us because of things like this, so it gives that fodder to be able to say that is something reminiscent of jim crow days and a real voter suppression. we as republicans, we have got to cut this kind of connotation that republican is equal to racist, but when we do things like this, tell people they can't bring somebody water who wants to stand in line to vote, we give fodder to that and i am so annoyed by the republican party for doing things like that. host: thanks for the call.

here is your republic in governor brian kemp defending this new election law. gov. kemp: in contrary to the highly partisan rhetoric you may have heard inside and outside this dome, the facts are that this new law will expand voting access in the peach state. every county in georgia will now have two mandatory saturdays of early voting and the option of two sundays of early voting. georgians will no doubt be soon overwhelmed with fancy tv ads, mailers and radio spots attacking this commonsense election reform measure. host: and there is a picture from the atlanta, georgia constitution from the scene inside that constitution as the bill was being signed. stop voter suppression, the sign says, from one of those who was there, how do you sleep at night? ajc.com on the story. deborah is in oregon, good

morning. you say it is not fair, go ahead. caller: absolutely not. it is un-american. you know, we should do everything we can to get everyone to vote. everyone has the right to vote, and -- host: how do you vote in oregon? caller: we vote by mail. host: how do you determine who you are, or is there any sort of id requirement? caller: know, there is not. i mean, when we fill out a registration form, aren't we putting down our information there? guest: have you ever been worried that election is unfair in oregon? caller: no. not at all. host: that is deborah in oregon. this is mike in houston. good morning, you say it is fair. caller: yes, i do believe that

is a good law. karl rove was on fox news a few days ago comparing exclusively the rules and state laws in georgia that were just passed the laws and rules in places in delaware. which i might add, is from where joe biden is, where joe biden votes. in delaware, they don't have early voting. in delaware, they require an id to register. in delaware, they could ask for a social security number for mail-in ballots. and in delaware they have only four drop boxes in the entire state. host: do you think it is a matter of what the other caller was saying, of messaging, that republicans, especially with restrictions on food and water, that they are just stepping on their own message here? caller: i have never thought about the need. food and water, good lord. let's have hammocks.

i will tell you something else. think about the number of countries that require voter id. about 106 to five. i don't know, something like dozens and dozens require voter id. remember in iraq, the figure was -- finger was inked to show that they voted. when there are rights, you also have responsibilities to vote once, not twice. you have to vote within the rules. plus, they require in georgia when they start counting votes, that they cannot stop. these are common sense things. i don't want people voting twice. and we have to have rules. you can't vote and then count the votes until you get the outcome you like six days after the election. host: on the issue of voter id laws, i don't have the international numbers for you, but from the national conference of state legislators, this is on

state laws on voter id, a total of 36 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification. 35 of which have been enforced and were enforced in 2020. 14 states use other methods to identify voters. most frequently provided at the polling place such as a signature is checked against information on file. this is linford out of north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. say it is not fair. caller: for one, you are talking about a bible state that is directly in contradiction to what the bible says. i thirst and you gave me

something to drink. that is out of matthew 25: 35. not only that, this stinks to me because i am a veteran and they change their laws about how they pay people, so no longer can you go to your appointment and come in and get your claim. now you have to go on a computer. host: we are going to stick to georgia voting laws. veteran issues are certainly important, but call back when we are doing that. a lot of folks trying to get in on this topic and we want to prioritize those from georgia especially. (202) 748-8002 if you're a georgia resident. this is tim from the peach state, good morning. caller: good morning. host: how is this law going over, where are you in georgia? caller: i am a pull manager in our small town for the past 10 years and i think lawmakers in

our little city, our election went well but we have got an excellent supervisor of elections. i feel like it is fair and there is a little bit of misunderstanding about the handing out of water. i think they didn't want voters to be persuaded by groups, democrat or republican, that would be there handing out food, water, something like that. host: have you ever seen that happen in your precinct, do you think anybody has ever had their vote swayed by a water bottle or a piece of food? caller: i don't know that they did, but i know that they did have people handing out drinks. of course, we've got drinks in

our precinct. we are a small town, we know everybody, so we have always got that stuff anyway. host: you are allowed to do that now as a poll worker? if you see somebody who looks like they could use a drink of water. caller: we are not restricted. we've got fountain drinks or a water fountain that everybody is welcome to. in our precinct, voting rights is 100% first. everybody gets to vote, everybody is treated fairly. nobody is turned away as a voter. host: do you think any more or less people will vote because of these rules that are now in effect in georgia, that are being challenged? caller: i don't think so. i heard one of the callers say that people might be more diligent to vote, so there could

be more voters. our precinct, we have got one scanner, like 20 machines. we voted the 1500 people in the last election. that was one boat every 45 seconds. i don't think we could have voted anymore, and that was all day long. the precinct that have more than one scanner, i think they have more problems because the scanners don't communicate with one another. that is a lot more counting up the work at the end of the day. host: are you going to volunteer again in 2022? caller: yes. host: how many years have you been doing it? caller: 10 years. it is hard to remember, now. host: thanks for what you do. john is in virginia, you are next. caller: good morning. i am sort of the middle. i think it is fair that they should have to show id or some kind of identification to vote. i understand why they can't give

them water, but that is kind of ridiculous if it is a hot day and it is a long line. i'm sorry, i don't think that, i think they should be allowed to give them water. i am in virginia, i have voted here for the last 30 years and the longest i have ever stood in line is 10 minutes or a real important election and that was a long line. how could somebody stand in line for seven hours? why wouldn't they open more precincts? why we do not have more voting locations? nobody should stand in line for seven hours, that is just beyond comprehension. if you've got millions of people voting, you should have a lot more precincts. host: banished is john in virginia. this is celeste in georgia, good morning. (202) 748-8002 -- caller: good morning. my big problem with the law is i

think it gives the secretary of state's office, i don't know about all of the lineage and who has the final say, but it gives the secretary of state basically the control of appointing or hiring county election officers that can replace whoever that is. host: and you are concerned about politics creeping into those divisions? caller: whatever political party is in power can replace the offices that are there with their people, so that means that they have official control of who is running the election in

various counties. host: do you think that the folks who are in those precincts when received -- we see continued problems, you think those people should go? do you think in new people should come in and figure out a better way? caller: i am not saying new people should come in. i'm saying the fact that the secretary of state's office has the power to replace the people that they know are going to vote , not vote the political party. host: this is anne out of memphis, you are next. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am. caller: i'm trying to mute my tv, sorry. i think that it is something that was necessary because of what happened in the last election and all the times that

it had to recount and recount and then all the scrutiny they got for being unfair and it being rigged and this and that, and then how many days it took for them to actually come forward to decide the election, and that was the state that brought in the final say on the whole thing, and then they are still going on, the republicans, about how it is rigged. i think the measures may be a little bit harsh for everybody to understand, but i think that you could misconstrue giving people water and food in line as giving them gifts to sway the vote or also with the mail and elections, saying that they were all fraudulent. i mean, the ballots were fraudulent. by doing a copy of photo id, that would be something that could clear that up. i think that in the case of this last election, what went on with

the past president and all of his accusations, -- host: got your point. today's washington post takes some of the issues, she writes at the end of her piece this morning, perhaps these new restrictions and their discriminatory impact could be justified if there was a need to impose them. there isn't. not a clear one. not anyone at all except for the baseless frenzy over stolen elections and widespread fraud whipped up by donald trump his allies. as george's republican secretary of state, now the named defendant in the lawsuit said in january, the state conducted safe, secure, honest elections during the 2020 cycle. this small minded new law, she writes, is a dangerous cure in search of a nonexistent problem unless the problem is that the

more people get to cast their votes, the more republicans lose. this is cynthia out of texas, you are next. caller: good morning. my comment refers to requiring a voter id. the states that require voter id will provide free a voter id, a lot of people don't know that. and then for the politicians to claim that it is unfair to minorities, that is quite an insult to minorities. actually, here in texas, we do require voter id, and we are given water when we are standing in line, we don't stand in line too long. i mean, we didn't in this past election. it is only fair to require a voter id and as far as the mainstream media, they just put out propaganda and it divides people.

that's what is not fair. host: the headline from the new york post calls for the professional golf association to boycott georgia. the masters said to take place in georgia as well as the all-star game in july in atlanta. one more call on this. this is joan in decatur, georgia. caller: good morning. it is difficult for me to watch and know exactly what happens on the ground. the voting process was extremely sorrow, and as the caller said, a few calls before me, there were various measures that were taken to see that it was done

fairly. this is really a problem in search of a solution. this is absolutely ridiculous. and the elephant in the room is that this is all a result of the big lie. that is the elephant in the room. host: that is joan in decatur, georgia. our last caller in this segment of washington journal. more to talk about this morning. up next, we are joined by a former deputy u.s. and master of afghanistan. the future of u.s. involvement in that country. stick around, we will be right back. announcer: tonight on q&a, journalist elizabeth becker, author of "you don't belong here, tells a story of female vietnam war correspondent at a

time when covering war was a male-dominated profession. >> there was no one vetting like we have now. it was probably the first and last uncensored american war. it was, for women, a gift. because it was only because of this lack of codification, this openness, that women can through -- could get through what had been the biggest barrier as a war correspondent, that you are not allowed on the field. host: journalist elizabeth becker tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. you can also listen as a podcast where you your podcasts. monday, watch live coverage of the trial for former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin, charged in the death of george floyd.

watch this while live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. listen to c-span's podcast "the weekly." this week, a fellow at the hudson institute shares her insight on america's relationship with china. >> know your enemy, know yourself. this really goes back to knowing -- and i don't necessarily want to say n/a. i can replace that with opponent or challenger. that is something that we really have to understand because if we don't understand that portion, everything else really won't matter because we will not address the fundamental issue, which is the republican party and its goals. >> washington journal continues. host: a discussion now on the future of u.s. involvement in

afghanistan. our guest, former deputy u.s. ambassador to afghanistan earl wayne. remind viewers when you served in afghanistan, what the political situation was like then compared to now. >> i went to afghanistan in 2009 and this was part of the effort under president obama to search civilians and military officials in afghanistan. and so i went from argentina where i had been serving as ambassador and for the first year, all of our sevillian existence programs. about $4 billion in total at that time. the second year i was the deputy ambassador, which is like the chief operating officer. at that time, we had civilians all over the country. we had a nato force of 130,000, and there was an awful lot going on. it was a very different situation than we are in today.

we still do have about a total of 10,000 nato and partner troops in the country. host: and we could soon have no troops in the country if this deadline that we go during the trump administration goes into effect on may 1. reminder why we have this deadline and where it came from? guest: that is a very good question. the trump administration undertook talked with the taliban which was a very good thing to do, to try to get the taliban engaged in the process, and early 2020, they reached agreement with the taliban to lead u.s. troop withdrawal to a number of other steps, including the taliban breaking off their ties with or ceasing support for al qaeda and other international terror sources.

it also talked about the reduction of violence and also getting negotiations going with the other afghans, with the government of afghanistan in kabul. and the deadline in that agreement was made 1 -- was may 1. it is important to note and i will argue that it was not the deadline so much as what of the u.s. interests involved and what are the consequences? there are a number of questions about whether the taliban really has been abiding by its commitment in that agreement, and there are a number of very serious consequences that could follow if the u.s. were to pull all of its troops out at this moment. host: president biden in that news conference last thursday, acknowledging that the may 1 deadline with the hard to meet. how have his statements from thursday been received by the afghanistan government and what do we know about the taliban

reaction? >> i think it is important to look back at the beginning of march when the biden administration diplomatic initiative, really therese shuffled the situation diplomatically and to try to kickstart the negotiations between the afghan parties and to get more international players involved in pressuring all the afghans to really start making progress on a piece negotiation framework. i think there's widespread recognition that if you don't have more progress there, you could easily have a situation that turns into chaos very quickly. i think among partners, friends, and even rivals, it is just russia and china and pakistan. there is a realization that the situation does need to move along to get these parties

engaged more seriously. and so i don't think people were really shocked to have been involved in the process, either from the u.s. or from other countries in what the president had to say. host: a conversation on the future of u.s. involvement in afghanistan. our guest is the former u.s. deputy babs there -- ambassador to afghanistan. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. and a special line for afghanistan war veterans, (202) 748-8003. we want to hear your perspectives, your stories from your time. as folks are calling in, what does victory look like in this nearly two decade war? guest: well, i think from a u.s. perspective, victory would look

like a sustainable settlement for afghans to live and govern together. and that won't be easy and it won't come too quickly. it's important to remember these parties have been fighting each other for two decades, now. they have a very different view of what the thin state of peace negotiations should be. many in the taliban still wanted islamic emirates that would apply islamic law fairly strictly. the government in kabul actually does respect basic freedoms, they respect women's rights. they've been able to offer education to millions of young afghans who are growing up with a whole different view of what a society should look like and they have a very free rest and a re-media. so it is a very different view and it is going to take a while

for them to reach some agreement on what that end state would look at and then how you get there. we have to remember that we look to columbia and other places, it takes a long time to bring the parties together, to reconcile, to find ways to reintegrate the people who have been involved in the fight and importantly in the case of afghanistan, to create jobs for these people that are not jobs in the security sector or fighting each other. it is a complicated process, it will take patience and international involvement, not just u.s. involvement, to support this going forward. in the alternative is really a pretty chaotic future with the taliban demonstrating its military superiority with the potential of many, many refugees in prolonged civil strife in the country. host: we mentioned president biden's comments from his news

conference on thursday. here's a minute of the president talking about the future of u.s. involvement in afghanistan. biden: is going to be hard to meet the may 1 deadline, at least in terms of tactical reasons, hard to get those troops out. so what we have been doing, what i have been doing and what secretary blinken has been doing has been we have been meeting with our allies and those other nations that have nato allies who have troops in afghanistan as well, and if we leave, we are going to do so in a safe and orderly way. but the question is under what circumstances do we need an agreement that was made by president trump to leave under a deal that looks like it has not been able to be worked out to begin with. how is that done? but we are not staying a long time.

>> do you think it is possible -- biden: we will leave. the question is when we leave. >> do you believe it is possible we could have troops there next year? biden: i can't picture that being the case. host: ms terrain, on comments -- ambassador wayne, almost comments from the president? guest: i think it is important to remember that if we have a different medic breakthrough, there is going to have to be some sort of international presence for a while going forward. he's right, it does not have to be u.s. troops enforcing, it could be some kind of a u.n.-organized force, but we are going to need u.s. and other international assistance for afghanistan, even in the best of cases. a study in 2019 or so said you

probably need international assistance of about $70 billion over four years to help that economy. to help support demobilization and reorganization. we don't know how that is going to come out. of course, in the worst situation, you are not allowed the systems that you would need on the humanitarian side because in the worst situation, you could see millions of refugees. and many of those refugees also would ask to come to the united states because we have trained them, they have worked with us, they would be in danger. there are a lot of consequences to the scenario that you really have to think about as we are trying to get a sustainable way forward. it is not just about u.s. troops. host: do you think that the u.s. public needs to reframe how they think about u.s. involvement in afghanistan?

in south korea, we have had a presence since the korean war. in germany, since world war ii. is there a way to get americans to think about afghanistan in a strategic point at the crossroads of asia? >> i certainly think we need to work to get our narrative right the way that we are considering this. really to look at what of the u.s. interests here? how do we best secure those interests going forward? one of the forces a lot of people thought about was the counterterrorism. we don't want a space that is a place where al qaeda and others could come back and reestablish a base for working internationally. including with rivals like china and russia.

i think the biden administration really has to think about, is it our support for democratic values and how can you best guarantee that and have a transition for bringing this society together and reconciling? i do think that it is worth thinking that through. if we get a peace agreement that is potentially sustainable, for example, you are going to have to have checks and balances because it would be a bumpy process along the road and you are going to need some sort of way to deter those who want to try to mess up the agreement from doing so. and that might mean in international presence. and-or the ability to have a military set of options against

those who are disruptors and who are trying to destroy the peace process. host: back to that map that we showed viewers from the new york times as you were talking, showing the six leading ethnic groups in afghanistan. their locations around the country. take a look at that map or let the viewers do that as we hear from amin in temple, texas. caller: good morning, sir. i am a vietnam vet and it was the same way with vietnam. they cap saying we couldn't leave because the north is going to overrun the south and we need to leave people there. when we got completely out, the two sides got together and from the 50th anniversary of leaving

vietnam, ex-vets to vietnam, they got mcdonald's and they got all kinds of stuff. afghanistan, backcountry, they have been fighting for centuries. there is nothing we are going to do that is going to change that. host: ambassador wayne? guest: i think you were correct that the vietnamese after a very difficult time, and remember the hundred thousand people that came out of vietnam that are now living in the united states, but after that difficult time, the vietnamese did work together. but they were a much more united people, historically, and ethnically, than in afghanistan. but i do very much believe that we should work hard with others in the region and international parties to get that process started as we are leading

militarily. and i completely agree with that. the big plots from the trump administration was getting us to talk seriously with taliban. but now what we have to try to encourage is to get a dialogue going among the other afghans on these difficult issues. and it would be much better if they could hammer out a way forward amongst them then having a subsequent breakdown of the situation and a civil war and millions of refugees. and i think it is worth the diplomatic effort which is really a very small investment compared to what we have, to try to bring these sides together and get them in a situation where they are talking together and together and then have to work together going forward with the help of their neighbors and international partners.

to bring about this reconciliation. host: about 25 minutes left in the program this morning, spending those minutes with former u.s. ambassador to afghanistan wayne who also served as ambassador to mexico. a long career in diplomatic service. here is how we split the lines. if you are an afghanistan war veteran, if you have served in afghanistan over the past two decades, (202) 748-8003. otherwise, lines for democrats, republican, and independents as usual. go ahead and keep calling in. republican, good morning. host: doing well. you are on. caller: my question is, isn't it time to bring the troops back? the cost alone and all of the debt that we are entering as a

country, are they paying us for our services for being there? guest: i think it is a good question about bringing people back. i think we have about 3000 there now, tremendously reduced cost. is afghanistan paying us? no, one of the very poorest nations in the world. 80% of the government is paid for by international partners. that is not going to change in the best of circumstances, for example, the world bank estimates that afghanistan is going to be dependent on international aid throughout this decade. but we do have a lot of other partners. there are more nato partners than there are u.s. troops. there is similarly a lot of economic support from others going into afghanistan and it is

interesting that from europe and other places, there is a tremendous amount of this support for trying to get to a devil medic solution that will preserve the rights of those millions of afghan women and young people who have really grown up with the hope of working within the framework of this international coalition that supported afghanistan. the u.s. has been the biggest player in that and we have had partners all along the way in doing this. and there's also a worry that if we leave in a bad way, that chaos is going to come back to haunt us. and some people point to the situation in iraq where we pulled out and we had to go back in again. and so the argument of a number is that it is worth the extra investment now to see if you can work diplomatically and with the incentive of continuing aid for

the reconstruction of the country to get the parties to talk to each other, to begin to work with each other and to start that reconciliation process. host: michael from twitter wants you to dig in more on the nato troops that are there. he says we do have those nato troops. he says the peacekeepers are not being brought up, so take a minute to dig into the nato troops. guest: well, so it means there are over nato command which is integrated with the u.s. command that they do a lot of training and equipping missions for the afghan armed services. they've been there for a long time. they also contribute to support

for the afghan national police force in the justice system that is there. they were there when i was there, and they've continued on. we've seen really no sign from them that they are eager, and a sense. of course they want to end the situation, but they seem committed to this sustained message and if you look at the messages that have come out of the recent nato meetings, they want to keep working to try to get this to peace. and there's a lot of support in europe on what we might call the human rights issues in the women rights issues because they know the record of the taliban. the taliban was a very impressive resume to anybody that disagreed with it and especially to women and girls. we see a strong commitment to try to forge an agreement among afghans that will allow those

families that want their girls and their women to continue to have access to education or opportunities to be able to do so, within the framework of the islamic law. there is an agreement among afghans that whatever emerges should be an islamic government. the question is, how fundamentalist or not it will be, and whether it will be bureaucratic oversight of everything that goes on. host: not sure if you had a chance to talk out the story in today's washington was, but the washington post interviewing a senior taliban commander about the deals during the trump administration, the may 1 deadline. he said he would oppose any deal that does not give the taliban absolute power over afghanistan because he believes the current government is a extension of the u.s. presence in that country, echoed by other taliban

fighters. "this fight is not to share power, this war is for religious purposes in order to bring an islamic government and implement islamic law, said that commander who spoke on the condition of anonymity. he said if we share power the government, what were we fighting for? i would not accept this." how concerned are you about that statement? guest: i think that statement shows what the situation relieves and i think there are a number of taliban who are not open to negotiating the state of the country. there are others who are. the taliban is not totally united front in this, but there are clearly a number of hardline taliban who believe that this negotiation was all about them taking over. and i also believe that a number of them have been just waiting for the u.s. to force troops out

so they could launch an all-out attack. and we've already seen society leaders, women, others in the cities, i think, by the taliban. this is pretty evident. it just foretells us of the really strong possibility of great depression if we just leave. because others are going to resist that. showing the different ethnic divisions in the country, you can see a number of parts of the country strongly resisting, civil war coming out and continuing for a while. as i mentioned earlier, millions of refugees living not only within the country, but perhaps to neighboring countries. and hundreds of thousands, at least, seeking to come to the united states in the same way

that --. we do have a sense of responsibility for these people who worked with us, who were educated under the umbrella and the vision from the democratic cause and more modern future for them. host: that map we showed you from the new york times, this is springfield, mass. go ahead. are you with us? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: my name is stephanie. host: stephanie, go ahead, you're on. caller: i wanted to ask you a question. mcdonald's helpers, i don't

understand how in the world he got our soldiers -- host: we will focus on the progression of the war in afghanistan during the trump administration. guest: i think during that time, president trump did very much want to reduce and eliminate and end the u.s. involvement. the good part of that was his pressure to get the united states to engage with the taliban. the part that i would more question is his pressures is to get the u.s. troops out without thinking through what would come after. at the very beginning of the administration, there was a well-developed strategy that was conditions-based. it used incentives and pressures to really get to a serious negotiation between the parties. at the end of the

administration, after the agreement had been reached, the president was much more focused on trying to get all the troops off because he had promised he was going to do that in his previous presidential election. and it was a lot of pressure but that meant a lot of resistance. of course, he was the president. so he did press ahead it to reduce u.s. troop presence to where it is today. but with a lot of concern on the part of those people who were working on afghanistan, that the outcome of this could be a very chaotic situation that would harm the u.s. much more over the years ahead than if we worked to

get a serious framework set up. host: we do have that special line for veterans of the afghanistan war. first called in on that line out of michigan. go ahead, when did you serve? caller: this was right after the u.s. went into afghanistan, 2005, somewhere around that area. i wasn't in actual combat, i was in a support group. i would like mr. wayne to address the role of pakistan and china and their interest in prolonging this conflict in afghanistan. given that afghanistan has a huge reserve of minerals, some estimates of $3 trillion. could he address that, please? host: thanks for the call, thanks for your service. caller:caller: you're exactly right that there is a lot of potential in the minerals in the

extracting injuries in afghanistan. that has not been developed because it is really hard to do these things during that conflict situation. the chinese were interested in this and in fact, they had one big investment in a copper mine but they were unable to go forward because of a conflict. and i think the chinese interest is twofold. one is commercial attentional. they have this initiative reaching out and i'm sure they'd be happy to have a part of that initiative come to afghanistan if it were more possible. there are also, however, worries about extremism that could come back to china. they are very wary of having a chaotic situation where extremists can gather in afghanistan and then attack other places. the situation in pakistan is

also very mixed in as been mixed all along there is little question that the taliban have been able to in and out of pakistan during this time. the taliban with political leadership is libyan when taliban fighters were injured. at the same time, the government of pakistan has facilitated the u.s. supply line going back and in afghanistan and they have been worried about extremists coming out of afghanistan and into parts of pakistan. so it has been a really makes the bag and particularly, there has been a lot of focus on the intelligence services and believe that they have particularly close ties to part of the taliban, and this has

been the part that actually carried out the most terrorist activities, bombings or assassinations. the network is based in pakistan. so getting serious pakistani commitment through a peaceful solution is very important, because they can't exert a lot of influence. they have been involved in encouraging the taliban talk the united states. and they can be very important in facilitating a peace agreement if this goes forward. i think with the pakistanis really don't want is an explosion of chaos in afghanistan because that would no doubt spill over into their country, also. host: how often do you still talk to afghan citizens and where are they? guest: i talk to afghan citizens

regularly in the united states. most of them are based in the u.s., some are afghan diplomats, some are afghan officials. a number of them are former afghan officials. we have a group of those of us who have served in afghanistan, two decades, who still get together regularly and talk about situations. we compare those to u.n. officials, with the world bank, with the imf, with u.s. officials, and with afghan officials. we talked to the different factions that exist. with very honest -- often talk

of the taliban. we tried to stay informed in many ways to help route 7 go through. afghanistan may be interested that we need to withdraw, but we would like to see it done in a way that actually brings peace to the people of afghanistan because many of them are so wonderful, so committed. some of my best memories are meeting this young afghan, highest will university students who just wanted a better future. they have the same ambitions children have. host: former deputy u.s. ambassador to afghanistan for just a few moments this morning.

we will try to get through as many calls as we can before the end of our program. your city, independent. caller: very quickly, first of all, don't need a country the size of afghanistan to train people to become suicide bombers or to become terrorists. number two, there's plenty of countries in which women are mistreated. would you suggest that we occupy all of them? number three, and most importantly, 20 years old. 20 years. there has got to be a point where you can't have america have an open-ended commitment. basically, it seems to me we could still be vietnam.

things will never be to the point where everybody will be happy and they will be a problem. host: we'll take the point and let the ambassador respond. guest: that is the kind of national debate we have to have. that point were we just say we are losing and we don't care about the consequences. my point is we should have that debate, but we need to be open eyed about the consequences. i'm certainly not arguing that we intervene everywhere in the world where women are oppressed but we do have policies where we do try to help them around the world. i used to work in the counterterrorist department, so i know that firsthand. these could happen other places. we do need to think that through an face that decision as a

nation as we go forward. my argument is that we just need to be clear eyed about it and really understand the consequences. it is not just about pulling u.s. troops out. other things will happen. you need to take that into account when you are having a national debate about what to do. but certainly your point of view is sound and is worth arguing. host: that headline, biden's production on afghanistan would draw spurs of doubt. we played for you earlier the president's comments from thursday coming in the same week that his defense secretary visited afghanistan to review this deal and u.s. terms, u.s. positioning in afghanistan. what do we know about the questions that secretary of defense was asking? guest: i'm honestly not sure what he was asking and talking

about while he was there. we do know that one of his general had testimony on the hill this week and part of the testimony was that the u.s. support for the afghan military logistical support is still very essential. and they would have a very hard time functioning if they don't have that support. it might be worth mentioning that the u.s. congress commissioned a study on afghanistan during the trump administration, in the last year of the trump administration, and that commission came out with a study just a couple of months ago under the offices of the u.s. institute for peace, and they made a number of very serious recommendations, part of which the biden administration is talking about, and they recognized the point that the previous caller made where

several of them made. we have been there a long time. it is time to change the situation. and they came up with a series of five recommendations. one, that we clarify that the end state that we really think we would be content with. two, that we reinforce the conditionality on the agreement that the trump administration reached because it was very fuzzy on the number of points. and the taliban did not meet the conditions of a agreed to. it seemed also they were not serious about a number of those conditions. if we clarify what kind of support we and others should be willing to get from an afghan state going forward in order to help a state function well, that we have a very active diplomacy

for all our friends, partners, and rivals in finding a solution to this, and that this be part of an overarching regional strategy. and i think that is what we are seeing right now, what the biden the ministration is trying to do. they are trying to shift the chairs around, to see if it is getting more people involved in watching this to get the afghan actors move into a bit more responsible status and really get to something that might work. host: bumping up against the end of our time. khalid has been waiting for about 15 minutes from falls church, virginia. caller: good morning. i really appreciate your topic about afghanistan. i am afghan. my question is that i want your view about the president of pakistan promoting the taliban, the iran-role in russia

especially, promoting support fundamentally starting from their equipment and all other accessories. i'm sure everybody has proof, but also as afghan, i know the facts are real. host: we're running out of time. thank you for the call. ambassador wayne, give us the last couple of minutes here. guest: sure, thanks. you're very right that a number of neighbors and regional partners have been trying to play in afghan politics for a long time. and that's a fact. and pakistan has perhaps been the most blatant in recent years, because i.s.i. has been involved in supporting parts of the taliban going forward in a number of different ways. russia, of course, was once present with tens of thousands of troops in afghanistan, i

think they an interest in supporting their own interest, their own influence there as things go forward and the same for iran. they've also had plenty of legitimate commerce, and there are plenty of afghans that have worked in iran and have fled to iran to try to find better jobs and a better situation for themselves, some of whom have come back to afghanistan. so one of the reasons to have a bigger process that you get all the neighbors involved and then have them make commitments also is to try to create a more stable situation where everybody just won't be trying to support their own interests by giving assistance to one faction or another and thus continuing the instability in that country. host: earl anthony wayne, former deputy u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, a public policy fellow at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars. you can see his work at

wilsoncenter.org. if you want to give him a follow on twitter, it's @eanthonywayne. we always appreciate your time on the "washington journal." guest: it's been a pleasure to be with you. thank you. host: and that's going to do it for our program this morning, but we'll be back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, have a great sunday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a

public service. monday, watch live coverage of the trial for derek chauvin, who's charged in the death of george floyd. watch the trial live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2, on demand at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> next, health care advocates testify on how prescription drug prices in the u.s. compared to other countries. they were also asked about the drug development process and how congress can have a role in reducing costs. this is just under two hours.