pandemic. that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the house returns at noon for a commission to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and the bill. on c-span2, a hearing to examine proposals addressing potential abuse of the justice department investigations into leaks of classified information. at 1:30 pm, lawmakers discuss how investment in transportation infrastructure can help solve climate issues. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, a hearing on the impact of cryptocurrencies on individual wealth. coming up in 30 minutes, virginia congressman rob wittman , a member of the armed services committee, on the recent u.s. airstrikes on iranian militants in iraq. at 8:30 a.m., maryland representative johns is on to talk about voting rights. our 9:00 a.m. guest is senior

pentagon correspondent tara copp to talk about recent airstrikes in the middle east and the latest on efforts to repeal the 2002 authorization for the iraq war. ♪ host: this is the washington journal for june 30. house democrats and some republicans voted to remove statues from capitol hill of those who upheld the confederacy. 10 republicans will be needed to pass the legislation in the senate. we want to hear from you about these -- about the move to support these statues. if you support it, give us a call at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you want to text us your thoughts, (202) 748-8003 is how

you can do that. you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span and our twitter feed at @cspanwj. usa today rights about this vote -- writes about this vote, saying the bill passed tuesday would remove those confederate statues from the u.s. capitol and the bust of a former u.s. supreme court justice who wrote the dred scott decision that denied and saved -- enslaved people the right to be citizens. we ought not to forget history. we must learn from history but ought not to honor that which defiles the principles for which we stand. that was house majority leader steny hoyer. when it comes to the actual vote, the bill passed by a vote of 285-120. every democrat and 67 republicans voted for it. the bill heads to the senate, where it would need 10

republican senators to pass the upper chamber. here is some argument for the removal of the statues. [video clip] >> the united states capitol is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, visited by millions of people each year before covid hit and soon we hope to be visited by millions of people again. what and who we choose to honor in this building must representative -- represent our values. chief justice taney, who in the dred scott decision declared that african-americans could never be citizens of the united states and had no constitutional rights, does not meet this standard and neither do the white supremacist and confederates we continue to honor with statues today. justice taney's decision permitted the expansion of slavery.

those who fought for the confederacy were willing to spill american blood in defense of it. in his infamous speech, the confederate vice president said slavery and white supremacy were the cornerstone of the confederacy. there are no shortage of figures like justice thurgood marshall, the first african-american to serve on the supreme court, more deserving of the honor of being displayed in our capital. there are some who argue this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. nothing could be further from the truth. we must never forget our nation's shameful periods of slavery, segregation, racism. this is about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on a pedestal and display as emblematic of our values. host: that was a lofgren of

california -- zoe lofgren of california, talking about the bill that would remove the statues. usa today says the legislation will require states to remove or replace any statues honoring members of the confederacy by prohibiting the presence of those who served as an officer or voluntarily with the confederate states of america or with the military forces or government of a state while the state was in rebellion against the united states. one of the people republicans heard from yesterday in this debate was the house republican minority leader, kevin mccarthy. he also voted for removal of these statues yesterday and used his time on the floor to make this case when it comes to the history. >> the bill we are voting on today we voted before and i supported it. i supported now. -- support it now. let me stay simple fact.

all the statues being removed by this bill are statues of democrats. as i heard the speaker talk earlier about removing the four portraits of speakers in the hall, the same answer goes for that as well. they were all democrats. what is interesting -- the statues that need to be removed were sent to the capital by states that were majority controlled by democrats, send to a house that had a majority controlled by democrats accepting of the statues. i think the bill should go further. maybe it is time the democrats change the name of their party. they may be desperate to pretend their party has progressed from their days supporting slavery, pushing jim crow laws, or supporting the kkk.

let's be honest. at any place, at any time, if those fundamentals rest somewhere, we cannot let them. let's go through some of the words and actions of a few democrats. just a few years ago, then vice president joe biden praised democrat senator robert byrd. he was the exalted cyclops of the ku klux klan. in his eulogy, he said, for a lot of us he was a friend, a mentor, and a guide. another leading democrat who praised byrd at the time was speaker pelosi. she called him a friend, a great person, and a great american patriot. host: 67 republicans joined the democrats in the passage of this bill.

until our guests at 7:30 joins us, we want to get your opinion. mike starts us off in washington. he opposes this effort. go ahead. caller: we should not be taking down any statues. i think these people are trying to erase our culture. they are trying to erase our heritage. they want to take down statues of jesus christ. that is on acceptable. -- unexcept a ball. the united states has been at war with -- unacceptable. united states has been at war with jesus christ. host: what is the purpose of keeping these statues up, particularly those who supported the confederacy? caller: i do not think those people were the worst people in history.

people have done worse things, like the japanese on pearl harbor, al qaeda on 9/11. those things -- those people did worse than those confederate people. caller: i support taking these -- the messages of our past and they send this bad message. furthermore, i support the abolishment of the united states capitol building. this is a beacon of slavery. it has allowed racism, sexism, xenophobia. i think the united states capitol building, the white house, monticello, all of these establishments should be immediately removed. if you disagree with me, you are a racist and should be prosecuted. host: as far as the statues themselves, do you think the

removal is a chance to teach about the history of this country? caller: it depends what history is it that you want to teach. i think these are things that we can read about in history books. we can read about them on youtube and google on that information will be free. we can completely trust them and we should complete leader destroyed our heritage. that way we can institute global government. host: off of facebook, saying, like it or not, every one of these people had a part in putting this country together. it is not perfect but far better than other countries. anthony snow on facebook saying, you cannot teach about -- if you think about it, these are participation trophies.

facebook.com/cpsan. -- facebook.com/cspan. we will go next to helen, who opposes this. caller: absolutely. if they want to take -- i suggest that these people that agrees with this, i suggest they visit gettysburg, pennsylvania. are they going to go after all the statues and that federal park? -- in that federal park? i suggest they take down martin luther king's big statue. i do not know what is wrong with our politicians. we cannot go back 150 years and change history. a lot of the average college kids entering college today cannot even tell you why the fourth of july is celebrated. some of them do not even know who their president is and i suggest the american people, when we have the next election

in 2022, i suggest they bow some of these people out of office -- vote some of these people out of office. it is like if they run a business. they would not last long. host: what is the value of keeping these statues on capitol hill? caller: because these people fought for what they believed in, sir. they believed in that, and that is what they fought for. host: that is helen in north carolina. let's hear from pete in des moines, iowa, who supports this. caller: the thing that i liken this to is what they did in germany. they faced the holocaust and everything that went along with it and they put monuments -- not monuments but designations of

what happened and teach it in their schools. unless we face our history and our past, we will never come to grips with it and resolve if possible the situation. host: do you think the average person looking at the statues will grasp that history by a statue in itself? caller: i cannot say that for sure, but i think facing the history and acknowledging what happened and trying to express that or teach that everyone is one of the ways of facing that and hopefully resolving the conflict. host: that is pete in des

moines, iowa. you heard so lofgren talk about justin taney. jamie raskin of maryland -- why should they occupy a place of honor in this building? the representative noticed -- noted that his hometown moved a statue of its native sun five years ago. in the name of original attend -- intent, justice taney transformed our constitution into a white man's compact. he disgraced the supreme court. it would take the civil war, the reconstruction amendments, and the civil rights movement to dismantle the white supremacist constitution. it would be replaced by one of thurgood marshall, the first african-american supreme court justice. that is part of the debate that took place in this house vote. it goes to the senate now and needs 10 republicans who go along with it to ensure passage. we want to get your thoughts in this first 15 minutes or so

before our first guest joins us about this move and what you think of it. (202) 748-8000 if you support this move. (202) 748-8001 if you oppose it. fred is next in new jersey and he opposes it. caller: i do. i would like to say something in defense -- it seems like in the future visitors to the capital are going to be deprived of the enjoyment of these works of art. we should consider that art is important for its own sake and the subject matter is not necessarily so important. just because the subjects of the statues have fallen into favor is not reason to deprive people of the enjoyment of a work of art that people slaved over with their hearts and souls.

host: this is ed wargo from kennesaw, georgia, who supports the effort. -- eduardo from kennesaw, georgia, who supports the effort. caller: i support the removal of those statues. a lot of those republicans now talk about democrats being traitors and how they need to be removed from government. these were actual traitors. they fought to secede from the country. the fact that lincoln and the other people did not hold them accountable for treason and they forgive them basically -- that does not change the fact that they were traitors. why do we need to keep statues? we do not see statues of hitler's germany and they learn the history. they know hitler's was not a good person. i do not think we should keep all this money was an statues just for history.

we got books. host: marlene from louisiana opposes this effort. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i oppose because i find it very wrong. that is in the history books, all of this stuff, the statues. they want to take them down and stuff. they removed some already but i find it wrong. i find it was a disgrace really. to our forefathers a long time ago. i just think it is wrong. host: marlene in louisiana talking about the vote. one of the people on the house floor, jim clyburn, discussing when it comes to the context of history the role of the republican party and segregation. here is some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> let me close by reminding my

friend. most of us who studied history no when the republican party came into being. we know the democratic party came into being. i understand all of that. we also know that in 1948 hubert humphrey spoke at the democratic convention against segregation. strom thurmond, the democrat, left the party, came back in 1964, when democrats came together to decide they were going to pass the civil rights act of 1964, strom thurmond the democrat left the democratic party, became a republican, and took although segregationists with him into the south carolina republican party. the south carolina republican

party itself on the confederate battle flag. those are facts of history. you cannot deny those facts. do not try to. learn the history. gather lessons from that history or we run the risk of repeating that history. what we should do today is relegate these statues to the dustbin of history. host: more that can be seen on our website at c-span.org. other news alongside these votes that took place yesterday. in wisconsin, president biden talking about his infrastructure -- desire to pass an infrastructure bill, particularly as debate goes on with framework between he and a

group of senators. this is highlighting that trip to wisconsin yesterday. also taking place today, former president trump heading to texas to go alongside the border to talk about immigration efforts and border security efforts with texas governor greg abbott. the austin american statesman capturing that on its front page. you can see that at the website of the austin american statesman. also happening today, abc news reporting the house is set to vote on a bill that would create a select committee on it comes to investigating and looking at the events of january 6. let's hear from rep -- kip -- rip in fredericksburg, virginia, who opposes this effort. caller: it is our history. good, bad, or indifferent, it is our history. if you do not remember history, it may repeat itself.

to do what has already been done -- it has been done by the most uneducated individuals that we have come into contact with, to tear down your history. you do not have a lot to do, actually. if you do tear down all your history, i do believe we will have another civil war. that may be the best thing that can happen to us. host: we will go to dan in mississippi on our support line. caller: i agree with what james clyburn said. i was going to agree with -- i was when to say what he said, but he said it eloquently. you need to have a site meant on that because all of these so-called republicans, their forefathers are democrats. they are the ones who fought for slavery.

you need to have a segment on that. i'm tired of these republicans calling and talking about the democrats fought for slavery. in name but they changed. they are the ones that they called secrets -- dixiecrats that ran to the republican party. host: why do you support the removal of the statues? caller: i got a couple more reasons. one is why not have general william sherman's statue beside all of them, all of these confederates? why not have general grant or union generals? you never hear them talk about them. they always talk about these -- host: finish your thought. caller: that is it.

host: this is langston in washington, d.c.. caller: i oppose it because you really do not have a means to look back and see what led this country and what brought us to where we were during that time. when we remove the statues, it is like burning literature. that was a precursor to world war two. if we remove the statues, we should be able to remove any literature that has to do with anything negative that comes from jim crow, that comes from any type of civil war literature or any of that stuff because what we are seeing is, because our history is blemished, because our history has dark marks, we should be able to remove that spot and that is not how you get rid of a disease.

if the system is messed up, you need to work on the system. changing what you see on the front is not going to get rid of the actual issue. why remove the statues if you are not going to remove the system of holding all of it -- upholding all of it? host: if you go to the website of the southern poverty law center, they have a map highlighting some of these other images and statues. it says, the civil war ended 150 years ago, but confederate memorials remain part of the american landscape. symbols of the confederacy have been identified in 36 states, puerto rico, and the district of columbia. they give you a map if you want to access it. and the highlighted areas where these statues exist. for your own education, the southern poverty law center is how you find that. this is from tammy in

washington, pennsylvania on our support line. caller: i am calling in to say i agree with what they want to do because those statues do not need to be destroyed but need to be put in a museum, like gettysburg, the open air museums, or the civil war. anyplace they can put them that is historical that you have a choice whether you want to see them or not. if you put them in public like washington, people have to look at them that do not even want to see it. if they want to learn their history, they can go to the history museums and learned about these people. that is all i have to say. host: if you want to participate in our twitter pole -- poll, you are welcome to do so.

as far as results are concerned, 73% support removal. 27% oppose it. that is something you can do as far as participating and getting your thoughts out there. you can also post on twitter. our facebook page is available too. text on us. -- text us. denny saying they are works of art and parts of our history. they do not belong in a place of honor. they should be placed in a new museum that explains why they were removed. this is from joe in georgia commencing interesting that african-americans should forget about the past and move on. we must preserve confederate statues. i hate oppression -- -- but we must preserve confederate statues that glorify hate and oppression. from maryland, opposing this effort.

caller: i just feel like these people, these democrats come if you're going to erase this you can go down to the african-american museum and these people are dead -- from the past. host: ok. we'll will hear from brian in massachusetts on our support line -- we will hear from brian in massachusetts on our support line. caller: i oppose because they tried to secede from the union and they have no place in a public place, like other people have said. they can put them in a museum so if you want to look at them that is fine, but they should not be replaced with another statue.

maybe put a plaque saying whoever was here was removed because they were traitors, more or less, but in kinder words. with this critical race theory thing everybody is talking about, that is all nonsense. host: as far as the plaque you talk about, what do you think that accomplishes? caller: like the museum, they stole all the paintings there. i have been there a couple times. they left the picture frames there. just as a reminder of what happened. host: ok. that is brian from massachusetts. from maryland, we will hear and from patrick on our oppose line -- next from patrick on our oppose line. caller: i oppose it but not for

the reasons you would think so. the timing is important here. remove them as needed but leave it up to the states. take them out, put them in museums. that is fantastic. but the timing of removal and the intention -- attention being focused on it, it feels like there are bigger issues to deal with today, infrastructure, defense, cybersecurity, fiscal policy. to spend days and days of debate on the floor over statue removal when this could be handled by historical societies or local associations, it seems like it is not a good focus of efforts. that is what i am getting at. i have been stationed in germany. the germans are not proud of the blight on their past, but they do not hide it either.

they do not hide it because they want their people and the world to know these are the mistakes we made. we are not proud. do not be like us. host: that is patrick and maryland. the last call on this topic, ray on our support line. caller: i a group the men who said -- i agree with the man who said the confederates should be replaced with statues of union generals who helped end slavery. that was a true cause. host: that is ralph from new york finishing off this half-hour -- ray from new york finishing up this half hour. we will be joined by two members of congress today to talk about issues of the day, plus that vote to establish the january 6 committee. republican congressman rob wittman of virginia joining us next, a member of the house armed services committee. later, we will be joined by democratic congressman john

sarbanes maryland. more when washington journal continues. ♪ >> here are some of our live coverage today. on c-span, a house hearing on how local food supply chains including farmers markets, have been affected by the covid-19 pandemic. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the house returns at noon for work on a commission to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and a surface transportation bill. on c-span two at 10:00 a.m., a hearing to examine proposals investigating leaks of classified information. i 1:30, lawmakers discuss how investment in transportation infrastructure can help solve climate issues. at 10:00 on c-span, a hearing on the impact of cryptocurrencies on individual wealth. book tv has top nonfiction books

and authors every weekend. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a former xerox ceo matt the first black female ceo of a fortune 500 company, on american business and the corporate world. she is interviewed by an amazon vice president. sunday, join our two hour conversation with a pulitzer prize winning author and historian as she talks about american presidents, slavery, and emancipation. the prize-winning books include her latest book, "on juneteenth." she will take your calls, emails, and tweets. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. >> washington journal continues. host: our first guest of the morning is representative rob wittman, a republican of

virginia. he is also a member of the armed services committee. guest: good morning. host: your reaction when you heard about the airstrikes that president biden authorized this week? what was your reaction and did you get advanced warning? guest: we did not get advanced warning but i was very happy that we are actually going after those iranian backed proxies in syria. the key is to counter, i think, the aggressive behavior by iran. iran continues to seek to destabilize the region, continues to seek to gain power and influence across the region. i think it makes it harder for us to have a peaceful middle east, so i think standing up against iran and taking strong action when iran continues to foment this violence and attacks

in the middle east is the right way to go after iran. the only thing they understand is decisive and quick action to things they are doing in the region. host: how do you connect to the authorization of the president of this force and at the same time the desire of the biden administration to reinstall negotiations over iran's nuclear deal? does that work or come look at things? guest: it could -- complicate things? guest: it could complicate things. it speaks to iran's desire to destabilize the region and shows they are not a trustworthy partner and looking at what you could do with an agreement. i look at what iran is doing in the region and through proxies. i do not get the sense they are in any way serious about a peaceful existence in the middle east.

they continue to strive toward being the dominant power, which would give me pause as far as any agreement going forward with them on the iran nuclear deal and whether you can get an agreement they would actually follow. and where they would actually do the things they say they would do. host: and back to the strikes. these instances always have a debate over the authorization of military force, especially from congress. where are you as far as what congress should be doing as far as authorizing the strikes? guest: i think congress has a role in authorizing the use of military force. i want to make sure we are not too tightly tying the hands of the president. the president needs to be able to act quickly regard the party. i want to make sure -- regardless of party. i want to make sure congress is consulted and know the details of why things are being done, the details of what is going to be done, and specifically the plan. these efforts encountering -- in

countering iran or any other influence across the globe that is counter to u.s. interests, there needs to be a plan for that. i think congress needs to be involved. the authorization and use of military force sets the guidelines for the boundaries of the executive branch regardless of who is president and what they can and cannot do. that is critical. there has to be involvement with congress and those decisions. host: there were two votes on this yesterday and today impact the authorization given in the lead up to the iraq war? guest: the votes concerning whether congress is involved in this is quintessential of things we need to be doing. what i want to make sure we do is come before we set aside -- we do is, before we set aside the authorization of use of military force, we need to replace it. if you do not have anything to

replace it, i think that is problematic. those two things have to go hand in hand. host: before we talk about other issues, there is a story about general scott miller warning of afghan civil war in light of these announced pullouts in afghanistan. what is your level of concern? guest: i am very concerned about the aftereffects. i'm concerned by the thousands of afghans that have helped u.s. forces through the years and to make sure we get those afghans out of afghanistan along with their families. i am confident, unfortunately, that the taliban will go after them, not just the folks that have helped us, the interpreters and folks who have worked in the dining halls and all the things we pursue their with afghan help, but also their families. that has to be rob one -- job one. without a complete withdrawal

from the country, it does create a number of challenges. in that vacuum, i do not see that the afghan national army or police force is going to be able to handle what is going to happen with the taliban now reasserting itself to try to gain influence in the area. i think it is going to go back to those tribal ways. that creates a variety of challenges, especially since we will not even have any place to operate out of anywhere close by . conversations with pakistan have not been successful so we will not be able to operate out of pakistan. the only remaining place would be uzbekistan. if not, we are going to be long distances away and not in the best position to counter what could reemerge in afghanistan. i would much rather be in a position to make sure we can manage that along with the

afghan government. the president of afghanistan was talking to the present about what we need to do as a nation to maintain stability. i think all those things are significant issues. i know a lot of investments i have heard that within six months control of the country will be back in the hands of the taliban and that kabul will be the only place in the country under government control and i think that is a realistic summation. host: representative rob wittman joining us, republican from virginia, serves the first district. he will take your questions at (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents (202) 748-8002. the president is releasing his ideals for a budget in 2022. $715 billion, an increase of $11

billion, and also money for r&d and procurement. what do you think of those? guest: i have some issues there. the congressional research service has said, and we have talked about and laid out a task in the years leading up to now, that we need to at least keep up with the rate of inflation. this budget does not do that. just keeping up with the rate of inflation meant -- inflation. that is problematic, especially when we have not been able to keep up with modernizing, to keep up with the chinese, to keep up with the russians. those things are important. the president says do not tell me your values. show me your budget and i will tell you your values. on the converse aside, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said we need a larger fleet to compete with the

dominant force of china, to have a dominant capability to counter the forces of china and other forces, like russia. we need a much larger fleet. in this budget, they propose to build eight ships. two of those are tugboats. they propose to retire 15 ships. our navy will be reduced by a total of seven ships. we will go from 200 96 to 289. -- 296 to 289. you cannot do addition by subtraction. at the same time, china is at a record pace, adding this coming year over 10 ships. they have a navy that is bigger than ours, growing in capability. that is in addition to the challenges we face in russia. they have significant capabilities especially with

their summer reinforce. you see china and russia going in the direction of building their navies. see us going in the opposite direction. you hear the increasing risk from china and that naval presence is important. i think there are problems with the president's budget request sending this nation in the opposite direction. it puts the united states in a weaker position and makes it much more difficult to deter a competitor like china. host: we had a wisconsin democrat on the program. here is some of the assessment he had. [video clip] >> there was a 20% increase in defense spending at a time of relative peace. there is a slight increase even

in the biden budget, but for context, just that increase, that increase is 150% of the entire cdc budget of the center for disease control. at a time that our biggest national threat has been covid, the amount of money that goes toward something like covid is a fraction compared to what we spend with defense contractors around the country. we want to make sure our money is used fantastically and is not wasted. let's make sure we are investing things -- in things that are really in defense of this country and not just put his money into defense contractor profit. host: your reaction? guest: i would invite the rep. degette: the same classified -- the representative to get the same classified briefs to understand the true scope of what is happening in the cyber realm, in the convention realm

appearance those things are important for us to understand. i would invite the representative to cosponsor the bill i put in. that is so we can get to how covid-19 came to be, to hold china accountable. i do believe there is growing evidence to show the covid-19 virus escaped from the wuhan lab. i want to make sure we are holding china accountable. we talked about the strategic elements of covid-19. we ought to hold them accountable. i think there are places where we can do those things. i would argue that investing in our united states military might making sure we have the ability to counter the chinese and acceleration of aggressive behavior that we see the chinese pursuing throughout the region is a way to ensure a safe world.

that is the strongest force for deterrence, to make sure there is not conflict got to make sure china does not make a move to try to go after taiwan. all those things are incredibly important and you have to properly resource those, especially in light of the gaps we saw happen through the years of sequester. we were not able to stay on the track to modernize. why we did that at the same time we pursued a counterterrorism effort and counterinsurgency effort in iraq and afghanistan, our competitors were gaining ground on us. that is where we find ourselves today. we have to have a strong national defense. it is the foundation to everything that we enjoy in this nation. the strong economy we have because we are able to conduct business around the world without the threat of having commerce interrupted because we have a strong navy and to make sure that other bad actors in

the world are dissuaded from doing things that would hurt the united states or our allies. all those things create the nation we see today, so the underpinnings of a strong united states began with a strong national defense. host: our first call comes from walter in indiana. you are on with representative rob wittman. caller: do you have a chance where i could speak about the insurrection thing or are we doing the military and budgets and stuff? host: you can ask him any question you wish. caller: they are talking about is insurrection and i think it is comical. what insurrection happens when the people come with no weapons? you have seattle, portland where they are burning police stations and you have democrats standing there talking about peaceful protests and when the mobs came into the white house -- it is ridiculous.

they stole the election for mr. trump. trump never said attack anybody. they are trying to make it out like this was a big insurrection. who comes to insurrection with no weapons? with our military, i served in the united states military. we have been in everybody's affairs and exhausting our military and our budget and soldiers for the last 60 years to gain nothing. we are in afghanistan. we are everywhere we do not belong. the funny thing is we speak about the threat of china, russia, but we trade with them and borrow money from them all the time. if they are our enemy, why do we do business with them? it is not to keep peace. we could not even get medication because it was made in china. host: we will have our guest respond. guest: i agree with the concept of withdrawing from afghanistan.

the key is what we leave behind and how we support those folks that will then help united states through the years and how we make sure a situation does not occur where we find ourselves back in the same conditions that led to osama bin laden and these extremist groups setting up operations in afghanistan. we have to do things to counter that. this extended period of time where we are in those countries without any end in sight is not a viable strategy. we have to do those things. we have to look in total at our strategic position was countries like china and russia. we have to look not just at what we do on the military side but what we do on the economic side. many times we empower china by the economic decisions that are made. if you look at u.s. companies in china, they are required to turn over intellectual property.

that is ridiculous. i do not think that should happen. that empowers china. the policies we have in trade with china, we have to make sure there is a level playing field. there are many things we need to do economically to hold china's feet to the fire and make sure they do not exploit things like intellectual property that the united states invests billions of dollars into developing and the chinese either co-opt or steal. we have to be stronger on the economic front as well as the military front if we are going to be serious about countering the growing threat from china. host: from virginia, independent line, larry. caller: mr. wittman, i have a comment. i am pro-life beyond your imagining. i have been advocating for life, trying to save life, doing what i can against basically criminal empire.

host: go ahead. caller: you get me. i have been advocating for life. i have been defending life. our criminal empire tries to extinguish. i would even -- i have even saved the life of your own unworthy self. host: what is your question or comment? caller: i guess that is my comment. host: let's go to a more, democrats line. caller: i just have a question for the congressman and it relates back to the inflation you spoke about about the military, saying you have to keep of with the ever-changing

and increase of budgets of the military to keep up with other countries. i find it amazing that more than likely yourself and a lot about the republicans have a problem with the inflation of the economy here in the country and you vote against raising the minimum wage. it is also a fact that a lot of the increases in the economy is going on and going up without raising the minimum wage. how can you say we need to keep up with the military because of the inflation in the military and raise the military budget but you will not increase the minimum wage to keep up with the rising inflation of the economy in the country? can you explain? guest: i think the issue with

wages is bigger than just a minimum wage. i do not to want to minimize somebody's wages. i want to make sure they have the opportunity to earn more than whatever a minimum wage might be. the way we do that is to make sure we are focusing on enhancing people's job skills and making sure that we start with our children when they are in middle school to start to make sure they know the pathways where they can pursue success. i want to make sure we are emphasizing career and technical education, that the dollars available on the education side for pell grant's can be used not just for two and four year degrees but also for careers and technical education. what we see today is 60% of new jobs in the future will not require a four-year degree but will require certification of credentials. let's prepare folks for a career path where they can continue to grow and to earn more rather than minimize wages.

i think that is shortsighted. the same way, we should make sure tax-free savings accounts can be used for more than just a four year degree or two year degree. let's make sure they can be used for certification and credentials so when parents say for children their children have options outside a four year degree. what we see today is the number of degrees being issued to individuals exceed the number of jobs, so there is an imbalance in the job market. if you look at career paths and technical education area scott many times they can make more over a lifetime, above a minimum wage, and pursuing those career and technical education paths. let's make sure colleges publish the number of degrees issued in each area and the number of their graduates that are employed and the average salary of those graduates.

when you are asking parents and students to make massive investments of tens of thousands of dollars in degrees, they deserve to know what is going to happen when i receive that degree. what will i be able to earn on average in those areas? placing equal emphasis between college track and career education track is how we get a workforce that is out there and is not minimized in wages it can earn but has unlimited opportunity for what they earn and all the different areas, not just college track areas but also career and technical education track areas. host: this is from new york, independent line met mickey. -- independent line, mickey. caller: it became clear to me in 2016 that russia spent very few dollars -- they did not fire a shot, but they put their

individual and place. that was donald trump. through this information. now we are being attacked on a daily basis by cyber threats. cybersecurity, i doubt if it is 1% of the military budget and safeguarding infrastructure, our water supplies, or electric. we have to have physical -- we have to have men in place to fight in case there is a physical threat but the greatest threat to this nation right now that is being overlooked is the cybersecurity threat and the disinformation that is put out. when a whole party stands behind insurrectionist like donald trump's lies, when a whole party

is a party of grifters, obstructionists, and political patsies -- host: representative, go ahead. guest: the issue cybersecurity needs to be at the forefront. it is as important as what we do in generating our systems that can counter our adversaries in the conventional realm. we see a heightened effort in the cyber warfare realm from adversaries like china and russia but also in proxies, through efforts of supporting these nonstate actors and attacking united states systems. the amount of cyber attacks and cyber theft that takes place here just on the commercial side is unbelievable. in addition to the attacks we see on our defense systems. that has to be the top of the list. it has to be reflected in priorities and defense budgeting and there are efforts this year to increase the dollars and

resources going to the cyber realm. i believe it needs to be more than just defending our system. the private and public systems. it has to also be about what we do to deter cyber attacks. we will never keep up of all we do is try to defend our systems. there will always be somebody out there a step ahead of us in figuring out how to exploit any sort of opportunities in our digital systems. what we have to do also is be on the offense and make sure our adversaries have to defend their systems, that they have to expend resources to defend their digital systems, to defend their cyber systems. i think those things are important. there has to be a balance between offensive operations and defensive operations. we have to share information and all the different realms. the private realm has to share information with the public realm. the public realm has to share

information with the private realm so we know where these attacks are coming from, what we do to protect against these attacks. you will never have enough resources if all you do is try to defend your systems. you have to realize we have to be on the offense to require our adversaries spend time and resources to defend their systems. that creates a deterrent effect. host: a plan foot today on the establishment of a select committee to investigate january 6. where are you on that as far as how you will vote? guest: there was a previous bill that was not bipartisan. i have concerns about this select committee, first of all because they are continuing investigations with the fbi -- there are continuing investing asians with the fbi and other law enforcement agencies. there are house and senate committees that continue to look at these issues. i am not sure another committee is going to add to that. my concern is another committee just makes this even more political.

everybody wants to get to the basic facts about what happened that day. let's do that. i do not think you need another committee. host: there was an effort to put a commission in place. where were you on that? guest: i was not in favor because the independent commission was not truly independent. it did have an equal number of democrats and republicans, but the democrats would not allow there to be any republican staffers for that independent commission. we all know that most of the work goes on behind the line with staff. when all you allow our democrat staffers and do not allow republican staffers, it is not a serious effort to make sure the commission was bipartisan. i want to make sure things are bipartisan. i want to make sure we are getting to the information about what happened that day and make sure everybody can understand that. i am in favor of transparency, of doing full investigations,

but i'm not certain adding another committee gets us there. let's allow the current investigation and efforts to play themselves out. at that point, if that is insufficient, i think we can have a debate about having another committee. host: on the topic of committees and task forces, you have just been put on a task force. guest: it focuses on the challenges that our suburban areas across the united states face. infrastructure is at the top of the list, roads, bridges. ports and airports. but especially broadband. broadband is now the conduit we need to transact business. we need to make sure our education system can do the things it needs to do, that we are able to increase access to health care. all those things are important. our caucus looks at how we come

together to create policies that enhance the building infrastructure in this nation and make sure it covers all the bases of infrastructure as we see challenges across the united states states, especially in suburban areas. they are unique to suburban areas. we want to make sure that suburban issues, ideas, and solutions are at the forefront in policies and legislation that makes its way forward. host: you being from the commonwealth of virginia, what was your vote on the removal of the confederate statues yesterday? guest: i believe that states are in control of the removal of these statues. it was a states that voted to bring them in, and it is a states that vote to take them out. also the leadership needs to act when a state says take a statue out. take north carolina. charles acock, the legislature voted to bring in the statue of

reverend billy graham and that has not been acted upon, so it is obvious that the leadership has not acted. i want to make sure that it is states. and when states act, follow the directions of the states, and the direction of the state of north carolina has not been followed. i want to make sure that states are at the forefront of getting it done. host: representative rob wittman of virginia, thank you for this time -- for your time. to these last comments and previous question starting off the program we want to ask you about the vote that took place yesterday. voting to remove confederate statues from capitol hill, and if you support or oppose it. if you support it, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can also text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003. we will take those calls in just a moment. first, the house yesterday was led by an emotional debbie wasserman schultz as she paid tribute him -- tribute to the

victims and those missing due to a building collapse in surfside, florida. [video clip] >> i rise today with a grieving but hopeful hard. in the wake of an unimaginable tragedy in surfside, florida. as we gather you -- as we gather our teams, they are joined by teams as far away as israel and mexico to search for the survivors of the champlain south tower surfside. engineers, grief counselors and capes workers -- caseworkers have worked to assist in the search and rescue providing support to the families and to begin an investigation. for those still trapped, we hold out hope for the search to discover survivors. for all those who lost loved ones, we send our deepest condolences and pledge support and solidarity.

so many in our community fled nations where they faced danger. that makes this tragedy all the more painful. but we are resilient. we will be there every step of the way for the families of those missing in the rubble, but we know we cannot do this alone. i think the biden add -- thank the biden administration for the speedy delivery of many resources and the leadership that has been steadfast in this truly unprecedented crisis and our deepest thanks for the relented -- for the relentless first responders who were on that pile, searching around the clock in the hope of finding one survivor. madam speaker, the agony that these families are going through is beyond comprehension. so on behalf of the missing, those who passed, and their

families i ask for unanimous consent of the house rise and pause for a moment of silence in memory and honor of those who have been struggling through this surfside tragedy and crisis. >> the chair asked all members to rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of collapse for the champlain towers building in surfside, florida. [end video clip] >> "washington journal" continues. host: you can still find the back and forth of the house debate. they say it was the house of representative tuesday's voting to remove the confederate statues from public display in the u.s. capitol and replacing the bust of the former chief justice and the author of the dred scott decision declared of

people of african descent were not u.s. citizens. it passed 285-120. all democratic members supported the legislation and all no votes came from republicans. it rep -- he quotes the representative from california saying "my ancestors built this building, imagine how they feel more than 100 years after slavery was abolished we play homage to the very people that betrayed this country in order to keep my ancestors enslaved." that was about that took place yesterday. you can find the back and forth on c-span.org. in the next half-hour we want to get your thoughts on whether you support or oppose this effort. if you support it, all you do is call us at 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, give us a call at 202-748-8001. and then, you can also text us your thoughts at 202-748-8003.

feel free to post on our facebook page, our twitter feed, and if you follow us on instagram you can find out information about the show. the npr story goes on to state that -- to say that the legislation "would directly architect of the capitol to identify and remove all statues and busts that depict members of the confederacy from public display within 45 days of the resolutions enacted. any remove statue that was provided to the capital by a state would be returned to the state which could elect to replace it with another honoree. among the confederate statues there is a statue of jefferson davis, the president of the confederacy displayed in statuary hall and a picture is provided. you should also know that this would have to go to the senate side in order for it to pass in the senate. it would need 10 votes from republicans in order to gain passage.

that is yet to be determined as far as what it would take place. go ahead and give us a call. and then you can let us know what you think about this move, the removal of the statues for the next half hour or so. you will remember that earlier we showed you the committee chair of the house administration committee that would oversee this action. she was the one who led the debate on this bill. your are some of her thoughts from yesterday. [video clip] >> the united states capital is a beacon of democracy and equality visited by millions of people each year before covid hit, and soon we hope to be visited by millions of people again. what and who we choose to honor in this building must represent our values. chief justice tawney, who in the dred scott declared that african-americans could never be citizens of the united states and had no constitutional rights does not meet the standard.

neither do the white supremacists and confederates that we continue to honor with statues today. justice tawney's decision is in -- decision can menu -- continued and -- the expansion of slavery. those in the confederacy were willing to spell american blood for it. confederate vice president alexander stephens said that slavery and white supremacy where the cornerstone of the confederacy. there are no shortage of figures like justice thurgood marshall, the first african-american to serve on the supreme court, more deserving of the honor of being displayed in our capital. there are some who argue that this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. nothing could be further from the truth. we must never forget our nation's shameful periods of

slavery, segregation, and racism. this is about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on a pedestal and display as emblematic of our values. [end video clip] host: 218 democrats and mccarthy and scalise voting for the legislation. 120 voting against it including elise stefanik. eddie says "i was a black man who grew up during the time of the 16th street church bombing. george wallace and school integration, and i have worked with the bomber's wife. the statues need to stay, they do not need to be moved, let the history stay. moving the statues will not change the heart we must work to make tomorrow better." shirley says "if the statues are taking down the next step would be the burning of the history books, leave the statues alone." text us at 202-748-8003. call us on either of the phone

lines whether you support or oppose. starting us off is tommy from illinois, who supports this effort. caller: i support the removing of those statues. as a matter of fact, they should be in no place of honor. and the capitol building is supposed to be an honorable place. they should be in no place of honor. and abraham lincoln, when he allowed those nuts to get back into the union with a slap on the wrist. everyone of them he should've ordered them hanged. host: lexington, kentucky. paul, who opposes this effort. caller: good morning. well, locally we need to already -- we have already removed the statues. i am opposed to it.

i do not think we can sanitize history. this is just part of history. and we are a union, north and south. where does it stop? are you going to tear down the jefferson memorial because he owned slaves? are you going to take the statue off of the capitol building because it was made by a slave? no. we have to be realistic, not just remove everything. host: wayne in georgia who supports the effort. you are next up. caller: yes. so, based on what the last person who called said, we should honor people who deserve that honor of history. but people who have done things like support slavery, they

should not be honored. we could take those statues and put them in museums and explain to people what they did, and not destroy the statues. in terms of honoring them, they should have a position in history that is honorable. supporting slavery is not honorable. i believe they should be removed from public honors and put into museums. thank you. host: a similar thought from a text. this is from dave in orlando who says "i support moving the statues to a museum instead of destroying history. if we remove our past we will forget our past. we need to do better in the future even if it is painful." you can text us by 202-748-8003. that is how you do that. massachusetts on our oppose line. you are next up. hello. caller: good morning. i have a quick thought.

i hear people saying that we cannot forget our history, but it seems to me that the democrats have forgotten their history since all of those statues are from people in their own party. you know, they refuse to accept the fact that -- i have had two people that are friends who are liberals tell me will you do not hear about the big switch. when the republicans became the democrats and the democrats became the republicans. my god, if we are going to honor history let us get it right. the democrats are the ones, kkk, jim crow, talk about voter suppression, that is the whole reason the kkk was founded. for them to roll in white supremacy, which of course they have plastered as a republican sin, -- sin is ignoring history. thank you for giving me that

moment. host: similar thoughts made by kevin mccarthy yesterday on the floor. [video clip] >> the bill we are voting on today we voted on before. i supported it and i supported it now. let me state a simple fact. all of the statues being removed by this bill are statues of democrats. madam speaker as i heard the speaker talked earlier about removing of the four portraits of speakers in the hall, the same answer goes for that as well, they were all democrats. what is interesting, the statues that need to be removed were sent to the capital by states that were majority controlled by democrats, sent to a house that had a majority controlled i democrat -- by democrats excepting of the statues. i think the bill should go further. maybe it is time the democrats

changed the name of their party. and maybe, they should be desperate to remove her party from the sin of jim crow laws or supporting the kkk. let us be honest, at any place in any time if those fundamentals rests somewhere, we cannot let them. let us go through some of the words and actions of a few democrats. just a few years ago, then vice president joe biden praised democrat seminar -- senator robert byrd, the exalted cyclops of the c -- ku klux klan. in his eulogy he said for a lot of us he was a friend, mentor, and guide.

another leading democrat who praised byrd was speaker pelosi who called him a great friend, person, and great american patriot. [end video clip] host: charles's next from kentucky. he opposes the kentucky -- the movement. caller: i oppose everything to do away with our history. you know, all countries including ours was built from history. and we cherish some of those memories and some we do not like. during all of that, probably part of it, there is never a part of it that we like or love. however, it is part of our history just as much as the civil war, just as much as the revolutionary war. there is no reason to do away with anything that would contribute to our great country. i appreciate your time. thank you.

host: rob in independence, missouri. support line. hello. caller: i challenge anyone to raise her hand and say that they learn history by staring at statues. we do not learn history by staring at statues but by reading books. i think that books give us a better perspective on some of these confederate heroes that considered black people to not be fully human. kevin mccarthy is being a hypocrite when he talks his party is the one who is not one to investigate the january 6 insurrection. his party is shrinking voting rights for minorities. host: to the point of why you support. caller: the public square belongs well americans. if you are lack or a minority

you look at the statues and think that this nation is honoring those who stood for slavery and considered human beings less to be humans because of the color of their skin, that is why. host: jack from georgia on our oppose line. hello. caller: good morning, thank you for having me. you cannot erase history, even though i do not believe in slavery, and i mean -- excuse me, the confederate war, the civil war was not about slavery. it was about states rights. if you are race history, then our future generations, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never know what the struggle that people on both sides went through. as far as the statues, they are part of the history. and, even though things might be negative to you in some of the

people who see them, if something is a reminder that you we do not need to go backwards. and by erasing them from the public's opinion or areas, you are just putting up a band-aid over the history of this nation, regardless if you are for it or against it. but, we cannot forget the struggles that our founding forefathers went through on black and white issues, jewish people, and the american indian. every person that went through struggles, and you cannot erase history. host: that is jack giving his thoughts on the ruling on the statues. that vote took place yesterday. something to watch out for today is an effort led by speaker pelosi and house leadership to pass legislation that would form a select committee to investigate the actions of

january 6 after the effort to form an independent commission fails -- failed. when it comes to how republicans might approach the vote today, sending out a tweet saying that "the house gop is expected to stay mostly united during the select committee vote. other than a handful of defections, several of the republicans who backed the outside commission and voted to peach president trump including john katko and mr. gonzales told me they are likely to vote against a democratic led committee." watch for that to play out on the house floor. day close to our website at c-span.org for more of that. nancy in ohio, who opposes this effort. good morning. caller: thank you. i was wondering and perhaps i am not educated enough on this bill, why this business is being done so selectively. for example we have the

beautiful jefferson memorial on the mall, and everyone knows that president jefferson was a slave owner. my concern is it is not going far enough, and when it does does this mean we will be removing statues of our presidents or do they get a free pass because well washington and jefferson were presidents so we will look the other way, but these were confederate generals so we need to remove their statues? that is the discussion i do not hear going on and that one concerns me because in the future we need to think about our history, and i think history should be preserved. thank you. host: robert in brooklyn, new york. you are next up on the support line. hello. caller: are their statues to hitler's in germany? and matching flags? are there statues to in italy? host: the point is?

caller: that is the analogy i make to keeping these statues and flags and symbols of the confederacy. host: ok. that is robert in new york. one of the other comments made by kevin mccarthy yesterday and light of voting for the passage of this bill, but took his time on the floor to make other points as well or related points. here he is from yesterday. [video clip] >> madame speaker, today the democratic party doubled down on what i consider the shameful history. by replacing racism of the past with the racism of the critical race theory. they continue to look at race as a primary means of judging a person's character. we saw this just last week. summit -- senate vendor -- senate democrats voting to confirm a president biden appointee who said "we must do

everything in our collective power to realize dr. kennedy's vision for america." let me be clear about what that vision is. the author of how to be an antiracist proposed in his book that the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. that is what the person who is now in charge of the personnel of the entire federal government is endorsing. and, this divisive vision is not confirmed or confined to one divert -- one person or department. the navy included his book on its official reading list. and the department of education cited it as an example of what should be taught to our children. critical race theory is the governing ideology and -- of

what we are now finding in the biden administration. by advocating for it democrats feel hatred -- fuel hatred and division across the country. i agree with senator tim scott, america is not a racist country. america must reject critical race theory for the simple reason that state sponsored racism is wrong and always will be. it was wrong when it was segregated lunch counters of jim crow. it was wrong when it was segregated classrooms for critical race theory. [end video clip] host: here is ron on our oppose line. caller: i do not really believe that taking down statues of american history is very raw -- wise. i just cannot believe that as an american citizen that taking down statues from our history,

history is very important, and it is doomed to repeat itself if we do not remember it. host: lisa from laurel, maryland. support line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i do not know why we would want confederate statues to still be erected. to those who say we do not want to erase history, if we really showed american history and people hanging from trees, statues of people hanging from trees, how quickly would they want them taken down? that is my question. how quickly what they want them taken down. i do not know what white people are afraid of, because these are the facts. host: the topic at hand is within this -- the statues within the capitol complex. why do you support the removal?

caller: i think they should come down and be more reflective of the real america. if you want to show statues of america, show it all. maybe they should not come down, maybe we should add to them the things i am saying, people hanging from trees. people being whipped. maybe that is what we should be adding to the square so that we can really see thomas jefferson's black children. the woman that he raped all of those years. maybe we should have statues of those things. host: from new jersey, opposes this effort. go ahead. caller: i believe that democrats want to remove any evidence that confirms that they were behind slavery. that has happened with many people in this country. host: you are fading in and out.

could you repeat the last part? i do not know if we had gotten that. caller: i believe that they want to remove any evidence that is staring us in the face that confirms that they were the ones behind slavery. that would make them very unpopular. maybe if you would look at a statue it might make you look into the facts. and that would be that the democrats were the ones behind slavery. host: in indianapolis, indiana. our support line. go-ahead. caller: i and confused i hear a lot of callers saying that the statue are a part of our history and we do not want to erase history. if that is the case that 1619 project being taught in schools because that is where history, where i first learned the history of the united states was

in school. why are people opposed to talking about that project in schools? host: this is about the statues in the capitol complex. what do you think about the removal of those statues? caller: i think they should go because they do represent america, that are representing the america that these folks who want to keep history is putting on display of what their history meant, and it is trash. that is what i mean. host: from west virginia, this is from archie. archie and parsons on -- in portions -- parsons on our oppose line. caller: this is part of our history, and we can see by the statues of where we have come from from way back to right now how the oppression of the black people has been really something else. and i believe as the bible tells

us, we are reaping what we sowed. the white man is to be the top person and now the black and the asian, things have turned around and the white people do not -- i am white myself, but i do not know what is true or false. but, i think if you remove one, you should remove them all. you remove the union ones too rather than just the confederate because are two sides to each story. we can see from the history where we have come from. host: next is eric from maine on our oppose line. caller: good morning. i am sorry. i find it ridiculous that those who wants to keep the statues up do not want to teach the real

history, which is what they call race theory. i think everyone should be teaching the history of the united states because our history is appalling, and yes we can make it better. but to ask for the statues to stay up, but not really teach the history of slavery up through today is absolutely ridiculous. host: is that the intent of statues within capitol hill to do that? caller: i think the statues should be in a museum, something like the shame history of the united states and the civil war. those statues are there to intimidate, that is the only reason they are there. and, i think also that when folks call up and say what about jefferson in washington that is a different story. when you say that -- host: when you say the statues are meant to intimidate what do

you mean by that? caller: from what i understand the statues were put up during jim crow to intimidate folks of color to let them know that they have not really gone away, they are here still. host: harvey, south carolina in orangeburg on our support line. no ahead. caller: hello, i believe the statues need to be removed. it is clear to me that to the victor go the spoils, clearly if you have lost and you are vanquished, or a vanquished people in terms of fighting, if you want to honor your dad, take them to a museum or some other place, but not a place of honor. i do not think they should be in town squares or statuary hall, because these people were rebellious against the nation, and of course why would you honor somebody and put them in a place of honor if they are

against the united states of america? host: arkansas, chris on our oppose line. caller: good morning. i think that people are given too much -- are giving too much power to statues. we have a history, right or wrong, good or bad. if we remove those statues from that era then remove them all. i do not care what background, remove them all. if you want to erase history, erase history. if we keep the statues and not give power to them but use them as teachable moments and that is here for future generations. these young people who went around and defaced sony memorials and statues, they defaced some of their own history from bll -- blm and colored people. they did not know what they were doing. if you remove them you lose that people -- teachable moment. host: how do you transform them into teachable moments. caller: when you take your kids

to museums and kids ask questions, those are teachable moments. it is the same with the statues. right now people are giving a statues power. they are statues. they are there to teach people about our history, and like i said we have a history, right or wrong good or bad. when we teach history we should remember the facts. 1619 has been proven mostly fiction and it is wrong to teach that. but i think we do need to keep the statues and put them in a museum and keep them where they are at. host: that is chris in arkansas, one of the people on the floor of the house offering the view of u.s. history when it comes to this topic was the house majority whip. [video clip] >> let me close by reminding my friends, you know, most of us who studied history we know when the republican party came into being. we know when the democratic party came into being.

the older party is the republican party. i understand all of that. we also know that in 1948, 1948 they spoke against segregation, strom thurmond, the democrats left the party. they came back in the 1964 when democrats came together and decided that they were going to pass the civil rights act of 1964, strom thurmond left the democratic party became a republican and took all of those segregationists with him into the south carolina republican party. the south carolina republican party built itself on the confederate battle flag. those are the facts of history. we cannot deny those facts and we will not try to. we will try to do whatever we can to do what george admonished

us to do. learn the history and learn the lessons from that history, where we run the risk of repeating that history. what we should do today is relegate the statues to the dustbin of history. [end video clip] host: representative jim clyburn and all of that debate on our webspace -- website at c-span.org. joining us is representative john sarbanes who serves the third district of maryland. thank you for joining us. representative, good morning. that is -- we are having some issues as follow -- as far as audio is concerned. our hope is to have a conversation about the for the people act and the issues of

voting rights overall. that is one of the things happening and i will have that when we establish contact with him. to remind you of a couple of things happening, it is that vote on the select committee that closely has been advocating for, expecting the houseboat today. watch for c-span -- stay close to c-span.org to see how that plays out, particularly as it goes over to the senate and other things on capitol hill. you can find all of that at c-span.org. we will be back in a moment. ♪ ♪ >> on june 13, 1971 "the new york times" began publishing the pentagon papers. this event led to the creation

of a special investigative unit in the nixon white house which became known as the plumbers. michael dobbs, formerly of "the washington post" wrote a title -- wrote a book called "king richard" about that book. 50 years later he focuses on that time in our history and an event that is well known today as watergate. >> michael dobbs on this episode of "book notes+" listen wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. sunday at 9:45 p.m. -- the landmark place orlando versus

arizona. he was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape & date confession. they ruled that the confession was inadmissible because he was not notified of his faith and sixth amendment rights against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney. watch landmark cases sunday night at 9:45 p.m. on c-span, online at c-span.org or on the radio app. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is representative john sarbanes, the chair of the democracy reform task force. good morning. guest: good morning, good to be with you. host: you are also the author of the for the people act which has come under much discussion. remind people on what the goal is. guest: the for the people act, which has passed in the house of representatives twice in 2019

and again on march 3 of this year is an attempt to respond to the concerns and grievances that a lot of americans have about the state of our politics and whether government actually works for them or is working for somebody else. it has some broad categories of reforms that are designed to fortify and strengthen our democracy, making sure that people can exercise their freedom to vote across the country so they can access the ballot box on election day, early voting, or with a mail-in ballot without jumping through a lot of hoops. it addresses ethics and partisan gerrymandering. we want to fix partisan gerrymandering. people do not like that, the idea that voters are not choosing the politicians but it is happening the other way around, we want to fix that problem. it really takes on the corruption of big money in our politics. we know the super pac's and

lobbyists and other insiders are trying to call the shots on how we make policy in washington, and that pushes the voice of everyday americans to the side, it knocks them off the field of their own democracy. we want to get every day people back into the conversation about their own situation and quality of life and let them be the ones who call the shots on policy. that is the point of the for the people act. there is nothing in it that is controversial i will just observe. everything in their is supported by broad majorities of democrats, independents, and republicans. the controversy is that we have taken this long to get it together and over the finish line and that is what we are trying to do. host: republicans locked the passage last week and what -- and one of the people speaking out against it was west virginia's senator " ".

she said this. defenders of this legislation fail to prove how allowing taxpayer dollars to publicly fund campaigns which would encourage people in the senate to make money would make it easier to vote. the federal elections commission would be turned into a partisan agency and would encourage more people to pull -- to vote. sibley put it is not about getting more people to vote but as a way for democrats in congress to power grab and fix problems that do not exist." how do you respond? guest: it is an attempt by those who support the bill to make sure that, for example, when you get up on the day that you are going to vote. when you wake up that morning that you have confidence that you can get to the ballot box without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or four or five contingency plans, whether your decision is to fill out a mail-in ballot sitting at your

kitchen table or going to an early voting center worse showing up on election day, you ought to be able to do that and exercise your freedom of vote -- freedom to vote without problems associated. that is all we are trying to achieve. when it comes to fixing how money operates in our politics, we are actually clear that no taxpayer money can be used in this bill to fund campaigns. what we do is we set up a matching fund that is actually created by putting a surcharge on corporate lawbreakers. the big corporations out there that break the law because they are not respecting their customers or people out there in the country. they are going to have to pay a small surcharge and they settle up with the government and that is what will go into the fund to match small donations so that everyday americans feel like they have power and the candidates and members of

congress are not running hat in hand to get money from packs and lobbyists. that is the way it should be. we ought to have the people powering campaigns and demanding that their lawmakers work for them instead of working for the special interests. we have been very careful in putting this bill together to make sure that it respects what the needs and priorities are of the average citizen out there in the country hoover -- who for too long has felt that their voice does not matter and washington is making public policy without thinking about the person out there who is just trying to make ends meat, trying to put food on the table for their family, have a good job and get good benefits. that is how we ought to make public policy, with those people in mind. host: if you want to ask him questions about these efforts on voting and other issues, 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. you said there was broad support for this but we saw actions as they occurred in the senate, is there some way to put together a package that could get more support on the senate side? guest: that effort has been going on for a wild, the effort to get some republican senators to stand up on the dimock -- for the democracy and join the effort. we cannot seem to get that done. for some reason the republicans in the senate are standing lockstep against this before them that could strengthen our democracy, as i say. so, in the end we might have to do it with the democrats in the senate and in the house. it is unfortunate, because as i said before, this bill is not

partisan. you get out of washington and you go out into the country and you talk to people, they want to make sure that voting can happen in america without running an obstacle course. they want to make sure it is -- there is transparency so we know where super pacs are putting their money in the politics. we want to make sure that they are protected against interference from foreign actors trying to hack into our elections. they also want to fix partisan gerrymandering. you go into the country, i do not care what part of the country or audience you are standing in front of, republican, democrat, independent. you talk about the reforms that we have put into this bill and you get heads nodding because this is the kind of thing that people out there have been asking for for years and years. it is incumbent on us in washington to get it done, and one way or another we need to

get this over the finish line. in the coming weeks i think there will be increased pressure from outside washington, and people out there who wants to see these changes, and then we will have to get it done onto the president's desk. and then, hopefully begin to rebuild confidence that people have in the country that there democracy, which they love and cherish, by the way. american showed up in force in november because they care about the democracy. it is up to their representatives now to show that we care as much as they do, by fixing some of the anxiety are broken. by fighting corruption of big money in washington, by fixing voting so that people can exercise the freedom to vote, by addressing partisan gerrymandering. that is our job if we are truly representing the interest and concerns of everyday americans. host: we will start off with

bill in connecticut on our line for democrats. good morning, you are on. caller: good morning, i am a lifelong democrat and yet something happens to the democratic party and everything that comes out of your mouth is disingenuous, and you have more in common with the chinese communist party than you do with the american people and our founders. and i am just letting you know is a lifelong democrat, it does not work. everything that you say is disingenuous. you have no interest in american democracy or liberty. big money is coming from facebook, twitter, all of these sources that sensor voices that are not in cahoots with the disingenuous behavior of your party. so, please, respect the truth and the american people. thank you. guest: you are right about one

thing, which is big money is coming from a lot of these huge corporations. they are the ones who buy influence in washington. let me give you an example, the pharmaceutical industry has three map -- three lobbyists for every member of congress. when they want to get something done or they want to block efforts to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, they just send lobbyists onto capitol hill , they pull the lawmakers aside and send campaign contributions and what do you know, we cannot get it done. that is why one of the big parts of this bill is to bring transparency and to put guardrails in place so the lobbyists are not calling the shots in the big money is not the one that decides what gets done on prescription drugs or what gets done on tax policy, the environment, or anyone else. big money has taken over politics.

super pacs, campaign contributions and the rest of it, and that means the average person cannot compete. their voice cannot compete with the megaphone that the big money has in the special interests. this bill is designed to push back on that. and i know it is a hard sell for a lot of people because they say you will never be able to unrig the system, the big money will always decide what happens, but we have a chance to push back and create accountability and make sure the voices of the broad public and every day americans are the ones that called a shot. i know it is hard to believe that we can get this done, but we have a piece of legislation that can accomplish that, we have to get it over the finish line. host: rhode island. claire, republican line. caller: good morning, i want to know that you are telling me that you are going to do iowa

wait -- do away with voter id. when people vote how do you know that they are not illegal people or not vetted to vote? how are you going to do that? when i go to the voting polls i show my license and i look at the thing and i identify who i am, and i am comfortable with that. but if you do away with voter id , anybody can come into this country and say i want to vote. or you can go and vote five times in different districts. guest: well, one of the things that we do in this bill is make sure that we modernize and strengthen all of the registration systems across the country so there is that ability to crosscheck. the thing you just mentioned would not be able to happen. the bill does not get rid of the voter id law that may exist in different states across the country. what it says that if somebody

shows up and they do not happen to have the id and it could be for a good reason, there are elderly people that do not have an id for one reason and the other -- or the other that they haven't opportunity to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury with a criminal penalty saying i am who i am. they sign that and they take an oath and they have the opportunity to cast their vote. that is not going to be a lot of people. in any event they are having to step up and make that statement. if they are making a false statement they could end up going to jail and paying a fine for doing that. so we are not trying to get rid of voter id laws across the country. what we are saying is that if something shows up and they have a good reason why they do not have the id being asked for at that time and on that day, they can sign the affidavit and that will give them the opportunity to cast their vote.

the vote is the most important thing that we have in a democracy. it is a fundamental right. and so we have to be careful in making sure we preserve that for everybody who has the opportunity to get to the polls, and that is what we are trying to do, no more and no less. host: in signing that affidavit, does not apply to all elections are just federal elections? guest: that is a good question. the changes that we are making and the authority we have is with respect to federal elections because congress only has authority over federal elections. but as a practical matter, the standards we are putting in place across the country on early voting, registering, mail-in ballot in you and so forth are ones that the states will adopt because it will be difficult for a state to have two completely different systems for voting within the state, one

for federal elections and one for state elections. for example they happen on the same day, typically. states would have an incentive to create a unified, coordinated voting system in their state. and then these commonsense standards would apply. host: from manassas, virginia, independent line. rodney. go ahead. caller: the biggest problem i have is that the federal government, in my opinion, is trying to change the voter laws and take over the states' rights, which the constitution gives state legislatures the rights to turn around and change the voting in their states as to what they want. when you get the federal trying to run the country, then you remove the states' individuality. eventually, you will turn around

and if you get this passed, the next thing you know they will go for another bill which will change the rights even more, and guess what? now are we are -- now we are going to get rid of the electoral college which is essential to the vote in the federal elections versus the west coast or east coast, which is the population vote versus the independent farmers and people living in the middle of the country. the numbers there are nowhere compared to where they are on the east and west coast. so i personally think that this needs to be re-looked at, and i would vote against it for the simple reason that the states have the right by the constitution, and the way i am looking at it you are trying to change what the constitution says that states rights are. host: thank you. guest: amen on making sure we

respect states rights, that is the federalist system we have in place and we have had it for over 200 years. this bill does nothing with respect to the way the electoral college works. it is not part of this legislation. that is a different issue that will get different attention from people as we move forward. there are debates over that but that is not part of the bill. the fact of the matter is that under the constitution congress has the authority to decide how federal elections, elections for members of congress are conducted across the country, which makes sense if you think about it. we should have the ability to regulate how elections are being done that send us to washington, and there is a particular provision called elections because -- clause in the

constitution which gives the congress the ability to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections across the country. that is the authority we are using with respect to federal elections. as i said a moment ago as a practical matter, states are going to put the same standards in place for state elections because it would be too cumbersome to stand up two systems, they could do it in theory. but, they will probably have a coordinated system. our ability is congress under the constitution is very clear as to what we can do worse was -- with respect to federal elections, and it preserves all of the respect that we should have as federal lawmakers for writes that states have under our system. so i think that whether you are talking about the 10th amendment and states rights or however you want to present that, this is exactly the right balance.

we are trying to regulate with the authority we have over federal elections in our jurisdiction. states have the ability to determine what they do at the state level, and that is how the system should work. i appreciate the question. host: david from south carolina, republican line. caller: earlier you had jim clyburn trying to teach us history from dixiecrat stuff. he said that covid-19 was a chance we should not lose to forward our agenda and part of the agenda is to use the judges and governors to change state election laws that they did not have the jurisdiction to do. all of this is part of a large movement to eliminate states as an earlier caller mentioned. i wanted to ask mr. sarbanes, do we have a big problem. we heard a lot about

disenfranchised voters who could not get photo id in order to vote when photo idea -- photo idea -- id is required for food stamps and medicaid, and yet, how could the use of photo id be racist, explain that to me and why is it still required for food stamps and medicaid? caller: so, in terms of photo id , most people are going to have the id required when they snap -- when they show up. there might be some individuals that have issues accessing a photo id prior to their ability to get into the polls and cast their vote, and we want to make sure that there is an alternative opportunity or method by which they could cast their vote, which is for them to sign the affidavit over penalty of perjury. that is a criminal offense to commit perjury the way it is

written, to say i am who i am. and based on that they are able to cast their vote. now, a great majority of people who show up will probably have whatever the id is that is required in a particular state or location, what we want to make sure for something as fundamental as voting summary has the ability to swear under penalty of perjury to be able to cast their vote. and it is the case when you look at the data that there are certain categories of voters who for different reasons may have more problems than other people in accessing a voter id or, for example, an elderly person who might be voting for the first time, has not had the opportunity to get the id in place but wants to exercise their franchise. we need to have some way of accommodating that person. they are going to be an exception to the rule.

most people will show up and have the id they need and will go right through. if you do not and you are willing to sign the affidavit that says under penalties of perjury i am who i am, then there is no evidence, by the way , i just want to throw this in here because it gets raised a lot of the time, that there are people across the country who are trying to vote fraudulently. it was no data to support that. we think this is a good solution to the challenge of making sure that everybody has the opportunity to exercise their franchise, to exercise their freedom to vote in america, which at the end of the day is the most important right and opportunity and privilege we have as americans. the good news is, americans still care deeply about their

democracy. they get pretty angry when they feel like somebody else is calling the shots. that is why this anger at corruption in washington and big money is so deep. americans cherish this democracy. we love our democracy. we want it to be strong. what we are trying to do with the for the people act is to strengthen and fortify it. when it comes to voting, when it comes to fixing partisan gerrymandering, which people hate across the country, and when it comes to pushing back on the influence the big money crowd has in washington. host: representative sartre, and expected vote today on that select committee to investigate january 6. where are you on the vote and what do you think it would accomplish? guest: it is part of the same discussion -- what do we need to do to make sure going forward our democracy is in a strong place?

part of that includes doing an inquiry, looking back, and having some kind of review of what happened on january 6, the events that led up to it, where were the breakdowns in intelligence and information gathering, was there some coordinated effort to launch this attack? i think it is an important inquiry. as you know, we worked hard for that to be a bipartisan commission, but that was blocked. unfortunately, by the republicans in the senate. even after the republican leader in the house had initially said he would support it, even after the ranking member of the committee where they set up this commission proposal, republican, had said he wanted to support this and had asked his colleagues in the house to

support it. in the end republicans stood against it, for the most part. so, we can't let that stop us from doing this inquiry. that is why the select committee will be set up. i think i will do a good job, actually. i think it will uncover what happened on that day, and that is important information for us to have as we move forward in terms of protecting the capital, in terms of making sure we are addressing weaknesses in the system, in our democracy. look, our democracy is the bedrock of who we are as a country. people around the world admire us for it, but we can't take it for granted. we have to make sure we keep it strong. but we are trying to achieve with the for the people lacked, despite all of the ways people want to spend it -- spin it, the for the people act are dressing

things people out in the country have said we need to fix. picture voting can happen and i can exercise that freedom without it being a problem, nature lawmakers are behaving themselves when they get to washington, draw district lines in a way that is fair, and don't let the big money call the shots in washington. that is what people want. we built this bill based on the input that we got from americans of all political stripes, democrats, independents, and republicans. that is how we put it together. we did not concocted this in our own heads. we put it together into a comprehensive package. that is where the for the people act is, that is what we are trying to do to strengthen our democracy. host: representative john sarbanes is the chair of the task force, serves the third district of maryland. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up, we will have a

discussion about these recent u.s. military strikes in the middle east. joining us for that, defense one correspondent tara copp. we'll talk with her when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, elizabeth barron and william kurtz of the university of virginia's center for civil war history on their project, black virginians in lou, about black union soldiers fighting for emancipation. on lectures in history, uc riverside professor on the lives of women during the american revolution and the early republic. sunday on american artifacts, the arrival of the reconstructed

friendship at the 18th-century port of yorktown virginia, designed after the french vessel that brought major general lafayette back to the united states in 1780. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, tara copp

of defense one. she serves as their pentagon correspondent. keep joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we have heard about these strikes ordered by president biden. can you elaborate on why it was of concern for the united states? guest: first let's deal with the who. there are two militia groups. these groups are part of about 50 iranian-backed, it also militia forces that are in iraq that form the greater globalization forces that iraq has folded into its own government troops. a little bit of history there. these mobilization forces were key to iraq being able to defeat isis in 2018. they are predominantly she -- shia.

since then the iraqi government has tried to normalize them as part of the overall iraqi security forces, even as they come -- the country has undergone more iranian influence. you have this tough spot to be in where iraq wants to normalize relations with this group, but many of the constituents of the group are still heavily influenced and supported by, provided weapons by, iran, to be an irritant to u.s. forces in iraq and syria. these two groups, the location was right at the iraq-syria border, the eastern border of syria where the u.s. hit before in february because it is seen as a transit place for weapons. the u.s. on monday, after a series of attacks on its facilities in iraq, launched two

strikes at facilities in syria, and one in iraq to target what it said were facilities equipping and arming drones. to go back to the history here, this attack again put a rock in a very hard place. we saw some immediate reaction from iraq's parliament, because basically they are stuck in a proxy war. their country is being used as a proxy war between the u.s. and iran. host: a little bit more about that response from iraq. what did we hear from iraq? also, what did we hear from iran? guest: iran has had a lot of success arming these proxy groups, these proxy militias. they do not have to be in a direct conflict with the u.s., what are certainly targeting u.s. soldiers and facilities in syria and iraq. the u.s. still has about 2500 troops in iraq permanently where

they are continuing to support iraq's efforts to keep isis defeated, basically, to greet -- to keep the group from reforming and also training for missions. they are currently under the process of renegotiating the forces agreement that allows u.s. forces to be there. we shall see if perhaps these continuing attacks and the u.s. response makes it more difficult for the members of iraq's parliament to pass a continued resolution to keep the u.s. there. host: tara copp with us. taking a look at these recent offense involving the u.s. military. you want to ask her questions, you can join us on the line. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. four independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003.

how much information was given to congress and what was the reaction to congress, particularly of this latest strike? guest: monday's strikes, and the greater context of congress renegotiating authorization of the use of military force was passed in 2001. which various members of congress have argued needs to be renegotiated, needs to be canceled because they have seen it be used time and time again for military operations throughout the middle east. it is important to note that president biden on monday, when the u.s. announced these airstrikes, said that the stripes themselves were not conducted under the authorization, conducted under article two of the constitution, which grants the president authority to command the armed forces, and said president biden made this decision under that constitutional authority. host: as far as discussions in

congress over this authorization, what is the status? there were a couple of houseboats, but what is the status of the current one that goes back to iraq? guest: the current aumf is still in place. the house passed two bills undoing a gulf war aumf, then a 1957 aumf that was put in place to put 10 -- to prevent communist gains in the middle east. those have laid dormant since then. this is this initial baby stepped congress to undo these, with the goal in place to have a larger debate on the 2001 aumf. that aumf has backers. it has many democrats speaking out against it, saying it is

time to undo this authorization, however you psaki republicans in the senate yesterday saying that the rising tensions in iran's use of these proxy forces are why the aumf needs to stay in place. host: military folks in the audience, if you want to give your perspective as well, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. legislatively, are there efforts to make these changes? representative barbara lee had a bill that was passed. also abigail spanberger. could you give us a view legislatively of how changes might happen? guest: the spanberger one was the gulf war one. it would be part of this larger context of discussion on the larger aumf. you have seen for years now, members of congress have said, why is this 2001 resolution

still being used justify increased operations? whether it was against isis in afghanistan or against growing pockets of terrorism in africa? there is a sense that the aumf has gotten so large and undefined that congress has lost its foothold in being notified and being, basically asked whether or not they would authorize use of force in the expanding war. that is the key point between why you have this article two used by the administration and the aumf debate. under article two, the white house is arguing that u.s. troops were put in harm's way. these uav's they'd gone to al-assad, they were arming these drones with small bombs that had been doing damage to buildings, and in february when we had the

first round of counter strikes by the biden administration had actually killed an american contractor and injured a national guard servicemember. that is why the biden administration has gone under this article two authority to conduct these strikes, which requires less competition with congress, which has been a point of contention. host: let's hear from jim in little valley, new york. jim, go ahead. caller: ok, first of all i consider myself a free, constitutional american. i am a united states army veteran and i have performed things i still can't talk about that are classified. but i believe that the democratic party and some of the republican party have made our military and our security week by flip-flopping. they are such hypocrites.

i want the military out of afghanistan and the middle east. then all of a sudden they are in office, so they are going to invoke their right to send them back in under that protocol that miss copp just told us about. i don't trust any of the democrats and few of the republicans. i think we should tend to our country, stop people from coming in here over the borders, get our economy strong, make what we need here. you don't need anything from anywhere else in the world. we have got the technology and some of the brightest people in the world right here. it's rid of all the haters in this country that hate because of the caller of their skin or what name they call god. host: thanks. tara copp, go ahead. guest: so, the military

officials in the area of operations have argued for years now that it is because u.s. forces have been in the iraq, in syria, in afghanistan, that is why you have not seen another major attack on u.s. soil. there is concern that in afghanistan, where we are about to complete u.s. forces withdraw, that this might lead to insurgency you might see the next attack on u.s. soil be birthed. the reasons for the long-term u.s. troop presence has long been, not in just this administration, every administration sense, that that is how we have kept this countries borders secure since september 11 attacks. host: paul from florida, ahead. caller: tara, first i would like to remind you that the argument just made on behalf of military

officials and this and previous administrations really strange credulity, in particular when it comes to iraq. i would just refer you to the grounds under which the war against iraq proceeded in 2003. secondly, as to the article two determination, remember, congress and congress alone is the one that clears war. and it alone cannot cede that authority through an aumf. i just wished you -- i just wish you to be removed -- to be mindful of what the constitution says. lastly, i have to say i feel a little bit nonplussed that you are here, a sickly shilling for what eisenhower reminded us was the military-industrial complex

as it originally was worded. and you are basically working for a publication that shills for the defense industry. host: hold on, caller. we have invited our guest. if you are going to make those claims, that is fine, but what specifically would you like to address? you have accused her of several things. is there a specific thing you would like her to address? caller: i'm not accusing her. i am saying what happens here on c-span. host: we invite a lot of different guest. tara copp, if you want to address any of those things, we can go to other topics if you wish. guest: to get to the point of the aumf and congress's ability to declare war, i agree with the caller completely that that is a congressional power. but ever since 1950 and president truman, is administrations have found it increasingly tempting and viable to use this article two

authority to direct forces to conduct military strikes when they found it necessary to defend u.s. forces. he saw president biden discussed the strikes, the need for them. there was an emphasis that this was in self-defense. have -- you have had several members of congress question that. particularly representative omar, who says how can you be self-defense if you are thousands of miles away in another country? to give the more balanced take, there is certainly not all-encompassing support for this action and it does come in the larger context about the aumf and who has the authority to conduct these military operations and how much does congress need to be consulted? yesterday at the pentagon press briefing i was the reporter who asked spokesman john kirby whether or not sec. lloyd austin

was going to go up the hill to ask some members -- to assuage some members concerns. both he and jen psaki had said previously that if it is necessary they will be happy to brief members of congress. it definitely is concern about whether or not, you know, members of congress are being properly consulted, whether article two has become too expensive, but each administration continues to use examples of their predecessors. so far there has not been a legal challenge. host: tennessee, republican line. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: yeah, i am watching this on 700 club. why can't republicans do more to get them democrats from destroying our states, our country? host: caller, what are you talking about? caller: talking about, i'm not

hip on all of this, but i am a republican and i can't stand what is going on. now it is the u.s. military policy and i can't believe how democrats, you know, just carrying -- just tearing up america. and the people that just let them do whatever they do, you know? and i don't understand, you know? host: we will go to bob, bob in michigan. caller: i would like to say something about the aumf. you know, the logic behind your statement -- i think you were just stating a statement of fact . i don't know what you really feel. it is an absurd logic that the reason for this anti-american, you know, feeling in that region is our very military presence in

those countries. you know, to defend the troops that should not be there to begin with is about as logical as, you know, as the justification, domino-theory justification for the war in vietnam. to make both of these are absurd, absurd theories of our need to be somewhere where we are patently not wanted. host: ok. we will leave it there and let tara copp, a sense of being not wanted in that region? guest: there is definitely tension that has -- that is the counterpoint. if u.s. forces were not there, would we have been able to have, basically, this tension increased? i'm missing the point a little bit, what i mean to say is that it is for sure the

counterargument has been made that because u.s. forces had been in the region for so long, that is why we have seen these insurgent groups continue to be able to fuel information warfare. u.s. forces are here to take our oil, as had been suggested a few years ago, or that they are here only because it is profitable, or the defense industry ties, as one of our callers previously suggested. the counterpoint is, if u.s. forces are not there as a balance to help train, to help influence, at what risk does that put the nation losing its influence in the region? this is not me stating a personal view or point, these are views expressed by different foreign-policy thinkers. do you need a global presence to ensure u.s. security or is the u.s. more secure when it pulls back its forces?

i don't know the answer to that question and it has certainly been debated for decades. host: when it comes to issues of the military, you had a recent story about general miliband talking to lawmakers and the topic of critical race theory. can you talk about what the back-and-forth was? guest: sure. as you know, ever since the january 6 the tax on the u.s. capitol there has been this intense scrutiny on the pentagon as to whether or not it is properly fitting its forces for any ties to extremist groups, to extremist views, and whether or not that puts the force at risk. one of the aspects of that is taking a deep dive into whether or not members have ties to racist groups, racist ideologies. it is the counterpoint to this discussed by several republican

members of congress is that that is actually vetting too far. the military, as soon as everyone joins, you are one cohesive unit, you should not be condemned for thinking something that should -- that could run counter to popular culture. you have this intense exchange last week when defense secretary alston and chairman millie were testifying before the house armed services committee where representative matt gaetz basically challenged alston to why -- challenged austin. where they had to discuss their discomfort about racist views or whether there is white superiority, what role does this have in the military? he is challenging alston on whether or not austin really knew whether there were racial

issues within the military, which definitely struck a lot of us as a very strange point, because austin has spoke openly about the racism he saw in his own military career, particularly an incident where there were white soldiers from fort black -- fort bragg who targeted a white couple -- a black couple. there is an undercurrent besides the whole debate from withdrawing from afghanistan, there is very much a debate over what should be the appropriate role for u.s. forces at home and what sort of views should be welcomed or what sort of views should disqualify someone from serving. host: let's hear from a viewer in newcastle, virginia. good morning, go ahead, sir. caller: yes, i just wanted to talk about this mess with the gays and so forth.

he used to be when i was in the military we said yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, ma'am. we didn't have to worry about if they were they were you or them or whatever. also we were a cohesive unit, whether it was white or whatever caller they were, this sexual mess is damning our military. host: tara copp, how was the military dealing with issues of how a person identifies him or herself. -- herself? guest: ever since the biden administration took office and secretary alston on his first day in office really made giving -- getting that inclusivity front and center, to where you

are not going to be discriminated against for your own personal sexual orientation or your own gender preference. all of the debate that happened in may 2017 and 2018 to whether transgender troops could serve, that has now been completely undone and transgender troops are now re-welcomed, and some are beginning to get corrective surgeries that were put on hold when trump determined in 2017 that transgender troops would not be allowed to serve. there is a consensus from senior military officers that as long as you are willing to serve and able to serve, how you identify or who you prefer sexually is not an issue they seek to get into. host: one more question before we go. the military has now made an issue of ufos.

what has been the response as far as what the military put out? guest: sure. this report on uap, these -- let's just call them ufos. it basically dropped on friday saying, of the many instances where pilots have reported these unidentified objects, one, they were afraid to bring them up and report on them and raise the issue because they felt disparaged because no senior pilot wants to be associated with essentially saying "little green men." the report itself found that it is either potentially higher technology by russia or china, or potentially drone activity here they don't know about, but it was enough of a threat and there have been enough incursions with military exercises and training that they have now formed a central collection site within the

deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence to get all of this stuff in one place and see if there is a bigger threat out there. host: tara copp, who reports for defense one. she serves as their senior pentagon correspondent. tanks for your time today. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: we will let you participate in the open form. if there is an area of politics that affects you, now is your chance to call and talk about it. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats and independents. he will tell you the results of the historian survey. all that coming up, after the break. >> here is some of our live coverage today. on c-span, house hearing on how

local supply chains have been affected by the covid-19 pandemic. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. house returns at noon for work on a commission to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol and a surface transportation bill. on c-span two, a hearing to examine proposals addressing potential abuse of the justice department's investigations into leaks of classified information. at 1:30 p.m., the makers discuss how investment in infrastructure can help solve climate issues. and at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, a hearing on the impact of cryptocurrencies on individual wealth. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is our open form, a chance for you to participate for the next half-hour. you can call us, and if you do remember a couple of things. if you called us in the last 30 days, hold off on doing so

today. also make sure that while you call you express and show civility and decorum. we would appreciate. had a caller earlier reference -- reference violence against members of congress. you do not condone that in the anyway. if you would, for the remainder of our time, make sure you show a sense of stability and decorum as you express your thoughts. the phone lines are available to you. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on our twitter feed and facebook page. follow us on instagram too. and to watch out for on capitol hill today, as we have been talking about, that vote on select commission on january 6. make sure to follow along as that plays out on the house side. you can follow and find out more at c-span.org. again on this open forum, mike starts us off. morning, you are on. he has hung up.

so, continue to call and feel free to do so. a couple of things to show you. in the commentary section of the washington times, an op-ed by the former president of the united states, donald trump, as he talks about issues concerning a border wall. you remember that he and texas governor will be along the border today to take a look at issues and talk about issues of immigration and border security. just to show you the headline, i built the wall, biden built a human catastrophe. again, that op-ed by the former president. from new york, republican line, this is tom. go ahead. caller: i was just wondering why the republicans and the american people are allowing biden's administration to do all of this line -- lying.

i would like to know why they think they can get away with now blaming republicans for the defund the police stuff when it was all about video upon video of it. thank you. host: from dale in texas, democrats line. you are next. hello. caller: yes, i am confused. we saw people with some signs take over our capital, and nobody on the republican side -- now, there was running and hiding when the people was taking over, but now nobody on that side would tell about what they did. if those people had been black, they would have been gunned down with machine guns and everything. host: we are going to stop there. again, a certain sense of decorum as we call in from the republican line.

this is neil. hello. caller: yes. host: hi, you are on. caller: i wanted to make a comment about the maryland representative that was on earlier. as regards to the for the people act. one thing that democrats have learned, that if you want to sell a lie, get the press to sell it for you. that is so apparent every time you hear a democrat speak about this they bring up the concerns about food and water being restricted to people in voting lines, but it is a false narrative and all it does is incite people against georgia's voting laws. and that is my comment. thank you very much. host: roosevelt from brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: yes, good morning.

i finally got through. i've been watching you guys for years. my concern is, i am a vietnam-era veteran and i served my country. i love this country. i am a third, fourth, fifth generation african-american. and it hurts me to know that each great empires always have had an achilles' heel. for me our achilles' heel is racism in this country. and it will be, eventually, the downfall of our great empire. so i pray and bake everyone, let's resolve this -- these racial issues. that's all i have to say. host: how do you think those issues get resolved? caller: well, they get resolved with this critical racial theory

. it should be taught. as long as it is covered up, it will just sit there and rupture. host: ok. on our republican line, you will hear from audrey in west virginia. hi. caller: good morning. i think everybody should look up what saul a linsky's eight steps to socialism. it was published back in the 70's. this administration is hitting every mark, all eight of them. the american people should unite against this. we are not socialist, nor do we want to be a socialist. host: so what convinces you that this administration is wanting to do that? caller: because i can read and i can see what this says, and i can check it off, and anybody who looks it up can.

they can check every one of the eight steps off that this administration is hitting every mark. host: can you offer an example? caller: yes. step number one is health care. control the people's health and you control the people. they want medicare for all. poverty. poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you give them what they need to live. all of these checks they are sending them, support the people , they don't want to go back to work. host: we have had health care and poverty issues and programs from government on many fronts of administration, democrat or republican. by this administration in particular? caller: because this administration is pushing each one against the people that want to be free. this will take away your freedom, and people are not paying attention to it. need to unite and stop this. host: ok.

let's hear from duane. democrats line. caller: hello. host: hello, you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i find it very funny that all of these republican people calling and talking about these liars, biden is a liar, donald trump told 30,000 lies. he was averaging up to 30 a day at the end of his presidency. also, the criminals in his cabinet, they just found out now yesterday that sonny perdue had some bad land deal. worth $5.5 million. payouts don't have to be like cash in a bag. they can be other things. as far as, you know, the republicans, they are all liars. was the only president ever ran out of office? that would be richard nixon. what was the only vice president

that was taking bags of cash in the oval office? that would be richard nixon. host: duane in michigan participating in our open form. we will do this until about 10:00 this morning. we want to take some time to tell you about our survey that has just come up. since the year 2000 each time there has been a change in administration have asked historians to participate. this morning we are releasing the results of our fourth historian survey. here to tell us more about it is project coordinator rachel katz. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. host: let's start with, what exactly is this survey of presidential leadership? guest: our survey started from a series we did in 1999, where we did an in-depth program on each of the presidents and their lives and administrations. and had a lot of great reviews.

we wanted to have a capper to that program. we decided to come up with this historian survey, where we reached out to professional observers of the presidency throughout the country and asked them to rate presidents in 10 different leadership characteristics. those 10 leadership characteristics are public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with congress, vision and setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, and performance within the context of the time. then we have a ranking of all of the presidents within each of those 10 characteristics, and also in overall ranking. i think it is important to note this is not a scientific survey. while the characteristics have remained the same over the years, the participants have changed. host: tell us about how often

c-span conducts the survey. guest: we conduct the survey each time there has been a change in administration. our first one was in 2000, and we did one again in 2009, 2017, and this is our fourth survey. each time we have had increased participation from the historians, both in terms of sheer number and diverse viewpoints. she we had 142 different historians and observers of the presidency participate. host: what is the goal of the survey? why do we conducted? guest: we understand it takes time once a president has left office to get a full assessment of the presidency, but we do conduct the survey soon after an administration so we have a benchmark, a window into what historians are thinking soon after an administration ends. as we continue to conduct the surveys we can see what change happens. we understand there is a high

interest in presidential history. this is a way to start a conversation, get people talking about it, get them thinking about what makes for a good president, about those individual leadership characteristics, and think about the presidents you like, that you think did a good job and see how you would rank them in those specific characteristics. it is to start a conversation. host: where did the former president, donald trump, rank in this survey? guest: this is donald trump's first time in the survey and historians ranked him at number 41 overall. you can see where he ranks in all of the 10 different leadership characteristics here. his highest one is coming in public persuasion and economic management. host: if that is the case for donald trump, what about other recent presidents? guest: the presidents that have made their debut soon after their administrations were president clinton, and in his first year he came in at number

21. he has moved up to number 19 here in the fourth survey. then george bush in 2009 he came in at number 36. he has moved up seven points, 10 number 29 this year. president obama has come into the top 10 for the first time, finding right at number 10. that is up two spots from his debut. nec donald trump, again, coming in at 41. host: this survey has a lot of content. if people want more, where can i go? guest: we have a website. it is c-span.org/presidentssurvey2021. there they will be able to select each president. you can also look at each of the individual characteristics and see how the rankings came out with those. you will see a list of the 100

42 historians who participated. all of the resort -- all of the results are anonymous, we are sharing who participated. we have a gallery of insights. more graphics, similar to the two we just showed you. host: again, you can find it on the site, and rachel katz served as the project coordinator. thank you for your time. guest: thanks, pedro. we also have four of our survey advisors coming onto the journal sunday morning. they are going to be live for two hours sunday morning on the fourth of july. they are going to go more in depth into the survey and results, and taking fewer calls and answering their questions. host: thanks a lot. guest: thank you. host: you can look for that segment on sunday. to find out more about this and comment on it, more information on the website as well.

shelley in west virginia, democrats line. hello. caller: hello. good morning. the most important thing for people to think about is voting rights, because if we don't have voting rights we don't have a democracy anymore. so, everything else is null and void. we may as well not think about anything else. the senate needs to -- at least -- carve out a portion of the filibuster for voting rights. and the lady that called from west virginia, talking about biden being a socialist, she needs to remember that trump also send out checks. i'm wondering if she is talking

about president biden in that manner of socialism, did she send her check back to the government? ok, -- host: ok, we will hear from patsy. independent line. caller: thank you for everything you are doing for us. my heart breaks when they talk against donald trump in the historian survey. whether president -- except for the spanish flu -- had to go through what he did with covid. as far as the gentleman on earlier speaking about voting rights, he never says that every american citizen has the right to vote. i don't think anybody would ever follow up on the affidavits if they were right or wrong. god bless america. thanks for what you are doing, and i love donald trump. host: again, the former president is heading to texas today to two with the border with texas' governor.

that is captured on the front page of the austin american statesman, a story looking at trump's visit, seen as boost. that will play out today as the former president heads to texas. the current president was in wisconsin yesterday talking about the infrastructure plan and his hopes for a passage of that. that is captured on the front pages as well. we will get it done. we will get that done is played out on that paper. one of the things said yesterday by the president, president biden talking about the bipartisan infrastructure deal. he was a little bit from that trip yesterday. pres. biden: we are really divided on a whole range of things. if you look back across our history, from the transcontinental railroad to the creation of the internet, you can see the truth in that idea about coming together. because america has always been propelled into the future by landmark national investments. investments that only the

government has the capacity to make. only the government, working together, could make. today happens to mark -- coincidental, but today is the 60th anniversary of one of those significant investments that changed the nation. 65 years ago today president dwight eisenhower signed a bill that created the interstate highway system. 65 years ago today. that was the last infrastructure investment of the size and scope of what i'm about to talk about today. it is time for us to write a new chapter in that story. after months of careful negotiation, of listening, compromising, together in the good-faith faith moving together, with ups and downs and some blips, a bipartisan group of senators got together and forged an agreement to move forward on key priorities of my american jobs plan.

one of them is sitting in front of me. as a result, this is a generational investment -- a generational investment to modernize our infrastructure. host: if you want to see more of that from president biden, to our website. gary in newport, kentucky. caller: good morning. he just had a representative on their talking about voting rights and congressional issues. nobody mentioned in new york right now, in a democratic-run state, and if we recall back in the iowa i don't think the results are even in from the iowa primary there run by the democrats. clean your own app -- own act up some. host: lewis in north carolina. hello.

caller: hello. top of the morning to everybody. i can't wait sunday morning to tune in. i'm sure a lot of the trumpians don't like that. i called just to say this. i thank god for trump taking all of these dixiecrat's from the democrats to the republicans now the republicans have to figure out how to separate themselves from the maga at wearers. they got a lot of red and white, makes the caller pink. white stands for klansmen and the oath keepers. host: how do you make that connection? that is a straight line connection, i don't know how you make that. explain that. caller: if you notice, he associates himself with proud boys. in his cabinet he had neo-nazis, and just look at steve miller. some of his statements. you can look at steve bannon, some of his statements. host: we will go to ed,

democrats line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i think kellyanne conway pretty much summed up the general consensus of current republican party. she said, alternate facts. listening all morning, people have been calling in and making assumptions. for instance, we don't have 100 something laws being passed to stop a purple elephant invasion, because there isn't one. yet we have those laws being passed to stop voter fraud, which there is no evidence of. the reason for it is the last three republican presidents have lost the popular vote and republicans are scared so, they promote someone like donald trump to draw new battle lines. unfortunately those battle lines are being drawn on races. and it is effective. the least popular president, 29 percent approval rating when he got out of office, yet he is still leading their party.

that doesn't make sense to anyone except for the republican party. thank you for letting me speak, c-span. host: conor in georgia, republican line. caller: hey, how's it going today? it is good to be on c-span. i wanted to call because i would like to see democrats put their money behind the terminal justice reform. i think there is a central solution to it. i think that the legalization of marijuana is 100% necessary, at least decriminalization. aside from that, i guess i also want to point out the irony of joe biden promoting the bigger government when the issue of criminal justice reform is partially because there is already too much government. everyone is bothered by how many cops are running around in the first place. host: ok, we will go to joseph

in chicago, illinois. democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to change gears and talk about the houseboat yesterday. i believe it was thousand five, about the removal of confederate statues -- 3005, about the removal of confederate statues. i think this was a great decision. it really makes you think why it took until 2021 to remove any confederate person from statuary hall and why in 2021 that we are even honoring any person associated with the confederacy and that even in the insurrection the confederate flag was carried into the halls of the capital, and yet we still

had 120 republicans -- republican representatives vote no on that legislation. and then they are going to talk to a democrat about law & order and patriotism. it is a farce and it is hypocritical. host: just to clarify, it still has to go to the senate for a vote, and from one i have read this morning, you will need 10 republicans to sign onto the legislation. you are right, 120 republicans voting against it. voting yes is 218 democrats and 67 republicans, including kevin mccarthy and steve scalise. steve scalise briefing reporters on capitol hill, talking about today's expected vote on a select committee to investigate the events of january 6. here is some of his perspective. >> on speaker pelosi's bill to

create a committee, will the republicans vote for that and will they participate on that committee in the any way shape or form? >> ultimately let's see where the vote goes, if you look at the last vote it was overwhelmingly opposed by republicans. what we have said is, there are standing committees that have jurisdiction. i think even the senate is taking the approach of having their standing committees look into it. speaker pelosi should be exercising that same ability. not going down a partisan route. we'll see where the vote goes, ultimately they have the ability right now, but on so many fronts speaker pelosi is not using her standing committees to carry out the will of the american people. i just talked about holding china accountable. not a single hearing by any standing committee can be having hearings today, including the select committee on coronavirus yet to have a single hearing on the origin of the coronavirus.

>> will republicans be on nancy pelosi's committee? >> i can't answer that question. host: also, this coming across the wall street journal, at the manhattan district attorney's office is expected to charge the trump organization with tax-related crimes on thursday. people familiar said it would mark the first charges against the presidents country since prosecutors began investigating it. this is just coming out. let's hear from tony, fort lauderdale, florida. independent line. caller: morning, pedro. first off i want to heartily endorse debbie wasserman schultz's words on the floor. what happened is a tragedy. i also wanted to talk about voting rights. and two things everybody skirts around. partisan gerrymandering. does that mean we are going to lose majority-minority

districts? those are gerrymandered. my district is gerrymandered, so i have a black representative. the next thing is, if they are talking about taking money out of politics and influence out, are they going to stop -- citizens united allows unions to participate in our elections. will they stop the mobilization of union members to go knock on doors, hand out flyers, campaign for candidates? are they only talking about money from people don't like? host: ok. let's hear from jane in florida. independent line. good morning. caller: hi. this issue affects everyone. whatever happened to politicians talking about the american dream? #renternation. what is going on in the our

country is hedge funds and even foreign entities are buying up homes in bulk. they want to turn us into renter nation and it is making it difficult for families to be able to buy a home. the rents are like $1800 and the south florida for a one bedroom, so young people will never be able to afford to own their own place. i think we need to do something to make that more effective. thank you. host: that is jane in florida finishing off the form. for those who participated, we appreciate, and for those of you who stayed through the show, we appreciate you also. that is it for today. another issue of "washington journal" comes your way tomorrow. we are going to take you to a house agriculture subcommittee. they are looking at the impact the pandemic has on local producers and farmers markets. thanks for watching.

chair plaskett: this