on her new book. at 9:40 a.m., heather long on the job -- june jobs report released by the labor department. ♪ host: good friday morning on this july 2, a getaway weekend for the independence day celebration as america marks the 245th anniversary of the signing of the declaration of independence. we wish you a safe and happy july 4 holiday. congress in recess. before leaving house speaker nancy pelosi announcing a formation of a select committee to look into the events of january 6. she pointed one republican, liz cheney of wyoming. your calls and comments ahead. should republicans serve on the january 6 select committee.

kevin mccarthy, should he appoint members to this committee. he could recommend up to five. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans, (202) 748-8001 if you are an independent (202) 748-8002. we are also on social media @c spanwj. you can also send us a text message, tell us your first name and when you are texting from. good friday morning, a lot to get to. thank you very much for being with us. we want to begin with some of the headlines. usa today, the makeshift memorial in surfside, florida as the death toll continues to rise. president biden at the site yesterday paying respect to the family members who lost loved ones. it has been eight days since the south tower collapsed. from page of the washington post, prosecutors allege fraud

at the trump firm, allen weisselberg. the manhattan das calling it a payment scheme and tax fraud. from page of the washington times, supreme court ruling upholding arizona's election law after the challenge by the committee. pelosi names cheney to serve on the riot committee. statements from the wyoming republican liz cheney, she said i am honored to serve on the select committee. congress is obligated to conduct a full investigation into the most serious attack on our capital since 1814 -- capitol since 1814. what about the house republican leader, kevin mccarthy? he is yet to decide what he will do at least publicly.

>> why should liz cheney lose committee assignment to serve on the committee to investigate what happened on january 6. >> you know how congress works. you get elected by your district and you get your committees. when jeff van drew left the party and became a republican, he lost his committee assignments from the speaker. when justin amash left, he got his committee assignments from the speaker. i don't know in history where someone would go get their committee assignments from the speaker and expect them to have them from the conference as well. >> andrew clyde said it was a normal tourist event that day. >> let me be very clear, i am

not threatening anybody with committee assignments. what i am saying is it was shocking to me that if a person is a republican -- they get their committee assignments from the republican congress. from somebody to accept assignments from speaker pelosi is unprecedented. host: questions to the house republican leader, had kevin mccarthy. our phone lines are open on whether or not he should appoint members to the select committee or at least recommend those members. democrats, (202) 748-8000 and four republicans, (202) 748-8001 . from punch bowl news, a look at potentially who could be on that list. this morning he is pointing out jim jordan, mike johnson, kelly armstrong from north dakota, congressman jim banks, elise

stefanik of new york, kelly armstrong, congressman john rutherford of pennsylvania. they are just some of the names being mentioned on this friday morning. john bresnahan from punch bowl news. we don't need a committee, we will use that in the midterms. republicans had a chance to create the bipartisan commission and they lost it. that is looking like a dumb mistake. we have a call on the independent line, good morning. caller: i just want to say i don't know why any decent republican would not want to be on this committee. their lives were in jeopardy too. just watch the film footage. for them to just want to sweep this under the rug like it never happened, i don't understand. as far as i'm concerned, they

have no souls to them. i just don't understand why they would not want to be part of the process of getting to the bottom of this mess and find out just what was going on and hold those people accountable for what they have done, thank you. host: nick is next from california, good morning. republican line. caller: it's ironic that liz cheney, whose father was a shill for halliburton and lied about weapons of mass destruction. he probably did more to hurt this country than anyone else. she runs into the arms of speaker pelosi so she could be used for political purposes for a sham committee. this is typical of the cheney's and typical of the way they operate. mccarthy should be commended for holding party discipline and

stripping her of her assignments. if she wants to get assignments from the democratic speaker, she might as will become a democrat. host: thanks for the call. this is from rick in washington sending us a text message. this should not be a democrat or republican political tug-of-war. serving on the commission would be a patriotic duty. the truth will set us free from the manipulations of the gop. pelosi appoints liz cheney to the house select committee investigating january 6. nancy pelosi announcing yesterday that liz cheney is one of eight members that she selected to serve on this committee that will investigate the deadly january 6 capital insurrection. the former chair was ousted from the leadership. she is the only republican handpicked by pelosi to serve on the 13 member committee. the committee will consolidate several house investigations.

it was formed after republicans blocked a bill that would establish a bipartisan 9/11 style commission. the remaining members will be picked in consultation with the house republican leader kevin mccarthy. between the lines in a closed-door meeting with freshman republicans on wednesday, mccarthy warning they would be stripped from their committee assignments if they accepted a position on that select committee with pelosi. that was from axios.com. we heard from leader mccarthy and his comments. we will go to earl in alabama, independent line. caller: good morning, thanks for having me. mccarthy is saying it is unprecedented that liz cheney accepted the position on the committee, i don't know that the republicans think that people can't think holistically. this was also an unprecedented task on the capital to try to overturn an election. they need to be very careful

about what they have to say. they are definitely misleading to those who are uninformed. to those who are informed, miss cheney is doing a great job and serves as an example for all politicians. host: this is from jason, think republican should serve on the committee? they tend to blame other groups, let them prove it. martha joining us next on the democrats line. caller: it is marsha. it's ok. i think if they want to find out the truth they should serve on the committee. mccarthy does not want to find out the truth. he obviously does not want to find out the truth. he wants to spread rumors but they don't want to find out the truth. that is what people need to be

aware of. caller: jim is next in franklin, pennsylvania, republican line. good morning, jim. caller: i remember you from hearing news. host: it has been a long time but thank you. caller: i think the republicans should serve, why not? i think there should be equal representation on the committee. i think they should be appointed by mccarthy, not nancy pelosi. here's a novel idea to understand more of what happened that day. have the government released the 14,000 hours of videotape at the capitol building and make it public. so everyone could see every bit of it. we need to know who shot the woman that was there. we need to know who opened the

doors and let them in, all of it. make it public. host: thanks for the call. this is from lou in washington. unfortunately for the republicans, mccarthy's defiant and will strip other republicans of committees. mccarthy and republicans had their chance, good for liz cheney. i'm not a fan but hate how she has been treated by mccarthy and others. we will go to wilmington, delaware next. independent line. caller: everybody calling them today wants to get to the bottom of what happened. there are two questions unanswered. the fbi agent and the crowd directing the insurrection. we have a right to know who killed her. everybody is worried about lives in jeopardy, that woman was killed and they won't name who

the person was. host: ed is next on the cult -- on the independent line. caller: it is the scam of the democrats, the scourge of our country. this is a joke. the only person killed was a veteran air force woman shot, the fake news keep saying there are four other deaths. none of them died from the riot as they call it. they are not even allowed -- there is a two justice system in our country. it is pathetic. the fbi, and cia are weaponizing against conservatives. these people are sitting in jail in solitary, maybe four years without even a hearing, anything. they are still there.

that is ridiculous. everybody's bailed out by the democrats. the vice president set up millions and bail. this is a scam. the country should be outraged about this. weaponizing a two-party system. it is a part of democrats and conservatives, it is terrible. a disgrace to this country. let the truth be that. caller: this is -- host: this is from william sending us a text message. the appointed saying yes it by choice but aware of repercussions. is it real leadership or power grab by representative cheney? this is a headline from inside the washington times leading mccarthy blasting liz cheney for accepting the appointment. eddie is next from mitchell, indiana on the democrats line. what is your view on all of

this? caller: i kind of think the last eight months of what we have seen out of the united states government kind of tells you everything that is going on. the only thing i can really say is that mr. mccarthy said everybody knows how congress works. sir, in the last eight months, the united states government does not work anymore for the people. thank you, sir. host: dan, good morning, your next from massachusetts. caller: thank you for having me on. i would like to point out here, i said this on your program before. the media and its lack of reporting. i just want to point out the fact that on the sixth they were

going through state-by-state to certify the joe biden win in each state. when they start in our for medical order, when they got to the state of arizona two senators stood up and said there was a problem with the voting in arizona. at that point -- that has never happened in the history of our country. two senators along with a bunch of people in the house stood up and said there were problems. at that point the certification stops. the procedures on the senate floor were laid out on what would happen next. what was on the agenda next was four hours and hours of conversation in the house in the

senate about what happened in arizona. as soon as senator langford stood up to start talking about what happened, the police let the people in the capital and the whole process got shut down. the so-called insurrection to stop the counting of the vote, that is propaganda. the certification stopped when they got to arizona. host: of course when the select committee does meet, which could begin as early as later this month after the july 4 recess, c-span will be your source of covering the select committee. if you are listening on c-span radio, we are asking should republicans serve on this committee? speaker pelosi making the announcement yesterday of her choices of democrats and one

republican, liz cheney. she explained the mission and the priority moving forward. speaker pelosi: it is important for you to know what our purpose is for this. that is the findings of the legislation speak to the testimony for the director of the fbi when he basically said there were more deaths on domestic terrorism then from global terrorism in our country. the department of homeland security with concerns that are out there. all of these institutions talking about -- i hate to go there and it's what they had said in terms of white supremacy , anti-semitism, islamophobia.

all of these attitudes that have contributed to what happened on january 6. you could go to speaker.gov to read the finding, which established a purpose of what we are setting out to do. to make sure this never happens again. host: that announcement yesterday from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. from her home state newspaper, the star tribune, the headline is cheney chosen to investigate the capital insurrection. congresswoman cheney had backed an independent, bipartisan committee to investigate the riot at the capital. an attempt to create a panel died in the senate after passing in the house. on wednesday cheney said a select committee was the only option f -- left for a thorough

examination. kevin mccarthy, who played a role in ousting cheney from leadership question her republican credentials. leader mccarthy saying i was shocked that she would accept something from speaker pelosi. i didn't hear from her, maybe she is closer to her then to us. the photograph of liz cheney, who is the loan representative from congress. this is from jodi. i would think republicans would welcome their day in court. if they want to sweep the insurrection under the rug, we will have to do it without them. maria is joining us here in washington, d.c. on the democrats line. caller: good morning. they should be happy to have the opportunity. this could have been an independent commission.

they need to remember that. totally separate from congress. every single republican, senate republican voted against it. it could have been independent. now, they're going to kill this thing and it will be over. this is what is happening now. as for the ashli babbitt thing, what is it republicans always stay -- say? don't commit a crime and you won't direct -- get arrested? these people broke the law, that is it. she probably wants to be closer to the truth. everyone should want to know the truth. host: jamie with a question, do bank robbers investigate their own bank robberies?

this from lynn saying kevin mccarthy could pick five republicans but nancy pelosi has the right to veto his picks. mccarthy better not sit on it. nancy will not allow anyone on if they are with trump. karen is joining us from new hampshire, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. my opinion is the fact that as far as cheney goes, what she had to say about tv for everybody to hear what she thought about donald trump and how she was going to make sure that he never served again in any position. which makes her -- the republicans know darn well that this is why she went.

they all think it is about donald trump. the fact is that he wanted there to be the military people there. on that day he said there was too many people there and the fact was all of the gear for the security guards was locked up in the van. i just think that when it comes to the republicans working with the democrats knowing that their whole thing is about donald trump never being in office again. it is a waste of time. the proof will be in the pudding and they will not get what they want. people need to remember way back when biden and obama were in office. it starts with that agenda 21. all of this has to do with that.

i thank you very much, have a good day. host: we thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. tony is in cal -- south carolina . congress should investigate as long as pelosi is called in as the first witness. the other story inside usa today, arizona's absentee vote law is upheld. the story pointing out a divided supreme court upheld the controversial arizona law, weighing into a raging national debate over voter rights by curving the landmark voting rights act. samuel alito wrote the majority opinion joined by the courts conservatives. justice kagan wrote the dissenting opinion. this morning inside usa today, more from yesterday's news

conference with leader kevin mccarthy. he was asked about what happened on january 6. reporter: you just named a number of entities that you think are to blame for -- questions about it. do you believe former president trump is responsible in some way for the events? leader mccarthy: have you read the senate report? did you have questions about the prep that we had for this? we're concerned about when they found i.e.d.'s in the morning and did not call the fbi? were you concerned about the idea that the sergeant and arms had intel provided by the fbi but was not passed forward? were you concerned that if we had that information, why didn't we have a different built here? if you were concerned about

riots, why would you put the riot gear in a bus that was locked? at the time the riot took place, why was there not communication that had direction from leadership. leadership -- there were so many failures along the way that happened days before that allowed individuals to get into the building. that is what we want to make sure never happens again. host: that was the republican leader in the house of representatives, kevin mccarthy. janet saying if the gop thinks the rioters were g -- nt for an blm you think they would be all over wanting to start a committee. caller: good to see you this morning. good to be able to talk to you again. i think we are getting some weather soon. host: we had it last night. we are sending it to south carolina. caller: it is on the way here.

hope you're doing well. i'm a big believer in the rule of law and judicial law as it stands. i've always contended from the start that the january 6 situation should've been investigated immediately by the fbi, local police. if congress wants to establish a committee -- here's the problem. could members judge this thing without passion or president -- precedent? it sounds to me like pelosi is trying to lure the jory -- jury. use select a jury based on their beliefs and opinions, their politics. if you can find people without

passion or precedents, that is fine. bill cosby was just released on a technicality, however unfair that seems, that is our law. i remember after oj was found not guilty, people asked me what do i think? she said not guilty. 12 people sat in a locked room and decided he was not guilty. that was it for me. again, deep down inside i have opinions but i just keep them to myself. i knew -- ralph at the time was in the office and died of cancer. i got uncomfortable being on the jury. i said listen, i am trying to

get out of jury duty. i said when you are getting ready to put somebody up for a long time, if you as a prosecutor don't have every i dotted and every t crossed i will let them walk. it seems like every committee that has been established by congress to get trump -- the outcome has almost been guaranteed. host: do you think this is out to get former president trump or do you think speaker pelosi wants to find out how this happened, what led to it, and how to prevent it in the future? caller: both, i think they will find out what led to it was trump's comments. speaker pelosi said anti-semitism contributed to the riots. does that include anti-semitism by congressional democrats?

she should've chosen her words more carefully. i'm big on ruling on these things within the law and without passion or prejudice. if you could find something wrong under those conditions, that is fine with me. host: thanks for the call, don't be a stranger. we appreciate your continued viewership. the new york times, headline says liz cheney joining the january 6 investigation committee. next to that, and date has been set for that recall in california. the date is september 14. the recall is on governor gavin newsom. caller: good morning, this whole thing has been ridiculous. caller: this whole thing has been ridiculous. these people trespassed on the white house. cheney has every right to be on the committee.

like the gentleman before, they sent an investigator right away and mccarthy wanted to stop it. why don't people try to investigate mccarthy? he tried to be speaker of the house he backed out of it. somebody needs to be accountable for this. donald trump had every right to complain about the situation, but he complained about it too darn much. if he just took it like a man and realized, ok, it's over with , start over in 2024. but he carried it to foreign people believed him and they got so doggone angry they marched on the white house. in 1841, william henry harrison became president only for a month. vice --he had the national bank and vice president john tyler came in and he didn't want it. an angry mob marks on the white house. today investigate that?--did they investigate that? i don't know, but this happened

before. there is no excuse for this, and cheney has every right to be chosen by pelosi to be on this committee. political partisanship is what it is all about regardless of political party. host: "why doesn't the republican party want to know the truth?" we are getting new pictures and video of january 6, and the justice department releasing recent video. we will let you listen to a little bit of it. here is how the events unfolded from the perspective of these least bodycam video's--police bodycam videos the afternoon of january 6. [video clip]

[bleep] host: the scene on january 6. that video released just this past week by the justice department. you can see the combinations not only with d.c. please-- confrontations not only with d.c. police, but capitol hill police. brenda in south carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. i agree that the republicans should serve on the committee. one comment i would like to make before i get started -- the gentleman from south carolina, i think you guys on c-span need to keep it and a minimum when people are talking because he talked a little too long and he cut off somebody else who had an opportunity to talk. i agree that the republicans should serve on the committee, but i don't understand why mccarthy doesn't want any to serve.

it's hard to believe that what we saw on january 6 -- the republicans are trying to make us believe we didn't see that with our own eyes, that it didn't happen. and it makes me angry when i see the way they are operating when it came to the police officers being treated, because my son is a police officer. he is out there to protect us. i don't understand how the republican party can sit there and say it didn't happen, it was a cordial visit, whatever. and the young lady that got killed, she knew right from wrong. she shouldn't have been there. they were protecting the congress. i don't understand, i really don't. it is almost like they are hiding something and they don't want the american people to see it. i think there should be a committee. they had an opportunity to choose people they wanted to be on there. they chose not to. i remember benghazi. what is the difference? this is more badder then

benghazi was to me. they don't care about the american people. they care about themselves and donald trump in the party for all the republican party need to be voted out. get some young republicans in there who care about the american people. host: live view of the u.s. this friday morning. some of the callers eludes you a cloudy morning, but the temperatures are expected to heat up today, and dry conditions for the holiday weekend. if you're coming to washington, d.c., for the fireworks, the parade, the national archive, a tour of the museums. we will have more calls and comments in just a moment. should republicans serve on this select committee announced yesterday by the speaker of the house nancy pelosi? inside "the washington post" is more on the condo collapsed in florida. a photograph of the president and first lady, makeshift

memorial with pictures of loved ones lost as the rescue and recovery efforts continue. the president spending hours meeting with the victims and their family members. here is part of what he had to say. [video clip] >> the whole nation's morning with these families. they see it every day on television. they have gone through hell. and those that survived the collapse, as well as those who are missing loved ones. i realize i am a little late because i spent a lot of time with the families, a a lot of t iiem--whole lot of time. i apologize for taking so long to get here, because i think it was important to speak to every person who wanted to speak with me. after what you are covered when i open up the meeting, i spent the remainder of the time, and such incredible people. i sat with one woman who had just lost her husband and her little baby boy, didn't know what to do. i sat with another family that

lost almost an entire family, cousins, brothers, sisters. and you watch them and they are praying and pleading, god, let there be a miracle, let there something happen for me that is good. i have like you do some idea of what it is like to suffer that kind of life that so many are suffering. --so for that kind of loss that so many are suffering. they had basic heart wrenching questions -- will i be able to recover the body of my son, daughter, husband, cousin, mom and dad? how can i have closure without being able to bury them? jill and i want them to know that we are with them and the countries with them. our message today is that we are here for you as when nation, as one nation. that is the message we communicate. we will be in touch with a lot of these families continuing through this process.

there is much more to be done. we are ready to do it. again, i thank the governor, i thank my colleagues, senator scott, senator rubio. i think debbie wasserman schultz, for their trouble and --total and complete cooperation. there is no disagreement, no bickering. everyone is on the same team. it is what america is all about. host: that was president joe biden in south florida. front page of "usa today," the grief stricken family members awaiting anywhere. "it would take a miracle, as the time continues to dwindle. the threat of instability eating away the hope for rescues in florida. the operation was halted yesterday because of building movement and concern that the other tower was about to collapse. in confirmation of two children, one 10, one four.

their parents also died in that condo." front page of "usa today." joe is next from alabama, republican line. good morning, joe. caller: well, didn't have any republicans when they investigated trump for the russian conspiracy, so i guess they are not going to have any republicans on this, either. also, it's really strange when cops shoots a black person and kills him, the news has names of the cop, where he lives, for hours. and here this cop murdered a protester on january 6 and you don't hear nothing of who he is. you don't hear nothing. host: joe from alabama. this is from lee --

"democrats served on all benghazi committees. republicans should serve on the committee. what are they afraid of?" independent from hamilton, virginia. brian, good morning. caller: good morning. very interesting topic. i watched part of mr. mccarthy's news conference, and i heard a bit of speaker pelosi's also. one of the problems -- i think republicans should serve on this committee. if they don't, they will claim it is a whitewash. but i wish reporters when they ask a question, and asked mr. mccarthy, was he going to appoint republicans to the committee, and he danced around. he can't answer the question. speaker pelosi does the same thing, so they both do it. but i wish it would say, "sir, that is not the answer to my question. are you going to appoint republicans? if not, why not? don't you want to know the answers to this?"

he made a good point about the information leading up to the riot -- i won't call it an insurrection. i will call it a riot. and watched a lot of it on tv, live. they need to find out all the information beforehand, during it, what the president said, what the other speakers that day said. it all needs to be investigated, and why the republicans are trying to bury it is beyond me. host: thanks for the call. thank for listening on c-span radio. if you are outside the d.c. area, get the free c-span radio app. this is from mac in ohio on the question, should republicans serve on the committee. "definitely. the republicans would be the only honest members of the committee." more from yesterday's news conference with house speaker nancy pelosi. [video clip] >> yesterday we saw patriotism

on display in the house when it passed the to establish a select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the capitol . it has been our hope, all of us, our hope, and the work of artist in which the chairman bennie thompson, for us to be able to have a bipartisan commission. attached in the house in a bipartisan way--it passed in the house and a bipartisan way. we got a majority vote in the senate in a bipartisan way, but it did not get the 60 votes. they asked for another week, another week, another week, and at the end of last week we said we can't do this until 2023. we can't wait that long. we went right into motion to establish this select committee. host: that from house speaker nancy pelosi. the full conference available on our website at cspan.org. dorothy in raleigh, north carolina, on the democrats line. caller: good morning, and i hope

you give me a chance to finish. i want to make a few comments and i will make a brief. this is about right and wrong. what happened was wrong. when trump and that rally on the six about stop the steal, how was he going to stop the steal? what if they hadn't gotten in there -- do you think he was going in here and start hugging the representatives and shake their hands? no, they wanted to actually harm them. we don't know how much they --how much damage they would offend if they were successful in doing that. republicans don't want it because mccarthy had a call with trump. you don't want nobody to know what their conversation was about. i want to make one more quick comment -- we keep talking about the conspiracy about trump and russia. trump did meet with russian agents. trump in the white house wouldn't let no one from the press in there. he hired james comey to stop the

investigation of what the russians did. he asked russia to hack emails from hillary on tv. he met in trump tower with russian agents. he met with putin in helsinki and told him about united states intelligence. he was dealing with russia, it was in our face, no doubt about it. host: kathy from massachusetts, text message. "the incident on january 6 is still being investigated by the 30's and people are being arrested and charged. i think this committee is premature and a waste of my tax dollars at this point. totally partisan to be used as a distraction for 2022 elections." it is july 2, and that means u.s. troops leaving from afghanistan. this tweet with breaking news that all troops leaving the bagram air force base in afghanistan.

and this from the taliban, tweeting the following quote, " welcoming and supporting the exit of all u.s. and nato forces from afghanistan. therefore withdrawal from afghanistan will pave the way for afghans to decide about the future between themselves." an estimated 2500 troops leaving afghanistan. there may be some who stay behind as consultants. as far as boots on the ground, they are leaving former representative jane harman will be joining us later on the program, and she is out with a book called "insanity defense." we hope you stay tuned for that. we go to terry in woodbridge, illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. i hope you let me speak a little bit, like you did the woman that just went on and on about the russia russia. host: we let you all speak, absolutely. caller: my comment is that they just had -- republicans just had a hearing about the 600,000

murders of american citizens, and they are protecting china. that is what the hearing should be about. but what you are talking about is the public doesn't have to have hearings. all they got to do is look no further than the lawmakers, on both sides. all they do is stand up and lie to the public constantly about everything. democratic party is pushing the race against each other, dividing us constantly. people, there have been a couple million people bought legally handguns in the last few years. why do you think people is doing this? you have to stop with the fake news. the democrats need immunity taken away from them, all of them. it is the lawmakers that is causing all this problem. so what's -- and then you look

at the fake news, and look no further than c-span themselves. they are peddling this garbage constantly. what you going to do if there is a civil war? why do you think people's buying all these guns legally? host: what you think we are peddling --what do you think we are peddling? caller: lies! you take a little bitty stories all the time to keep something going so democrats use it to beat the republicans over the head with them through campaigns. host: such as? do you have an example? caller: it is very important that you have phones and programs about the internet. why are they stopping free speech? host: we have a program called "communicators" -- caller: democrat party lost at the supreme court. by the way, we got to pack the supreme court. it is the democrats and some of

the rino's sharing our country down, and pitting citizens against citizens. she spent, you should stop doing--c-span, you should stop doing it. the most important thing people need to know, not this garbage stuff all the time. why don't you talk about all the riots during the summer? host: we did. caller: all these businesses that lost their businesses. host: we certainly did. you can go back to the c-span video library and see the segment on the protests and black lives matter. your call is indicative of what this is about -- to have an open forum to hear all points of use, yours and others. we don't peddle anything, we are transparent network, we hear all sides. i would take umbrage with your earlier comment. we have this tweet from a viewer -- "how about some video of police assuring protesters into the capitol? i don't think nancy pelosi wants

to get to the bottom of anything. she wants to stop trump from running for president again." front page of "the new york times," allen weisselberg wearing a face mask and being charged by local officials, the men then d.a., 50 years of hiding perks and bonuses. charged with what they're calling and audacious tax fraud. alan from new york, democrats line. thanks for waiting, alan. caller: yes, i would like to ask the republicans to talk with for mer -- host: ok, we are having trouble hearing from you so we will go to a viewer from fairbanks, alaska. independent line. good morning. caller: hello, how are you guys today? i have been listening to everyone, and the lady who was

-- i don't know who was talking from, the one before the lady who just try to speak and wasn't able to get through very well. anyway, my god, all she does watches fox news or one of the other conservative stations that literally lie every time they open up their mounts. -- mouths. it is not real news. she was talking about fake news? i hope you are still listening, young lady. i know you weren't really young. but the point is, my god, i have had friends call me and tell me, all this stuff at the borders going on for 50 years. all this stuff that has been going on for 50 years, but it has been exacerbated to the point that it's president biden's fault! he did it! when ronald reagan was the first one to give free tickets to

everybody coming into the country in mexico and from other south american countries down there. that ain't what we are talking about, so i'm going to change, but i want to let that lady know, she needs to listen to something besides just conservative freaking opinions. me, i am a moderate. i'm an independent. i am on the independent station with you guys, or the call-in. and i really am. i'm what you call mediocre. i'm in the middle. here is my point. this whole thing we are talking about and they're talking about and it nancy pelosi came forward and is putting forth a committee. i'm not saying she's wrong or right, but i'm going to say this -- they don't need to have republicans with them on this, because like she said, for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks, all they did was ignore anything they had to say. they are not going to agree to

anything. mcconnell proved that way back when obama was president. "oh, we are not going to let him do anything." he was inaugurated, and he said "we will not say yes to anything." in the situation with this committee, they are not going to agree with or say yes to anything! host: thanks for the call from alaska. "thank you for everything you just set to dorothy from north carolina." also some political news -- j.d. vance, author of the best selling book "hillbilly elegy," running for the republican nomination, the senate seat by rob portman who is retiring. one of a number of republicans vying for that seat. this story in "the new york times." brian in stanton, texas, on the republican line. caller: thank you for having me. i'm just wondering, is everybody

forgetting about actsing wonders --maxine waters and all the rhetoric she put out there? why isn't she being investigated? host: thank you. north carolina. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i say they should not be able to sit on the committee, because if they run the committee in the same way they ran the impeachment, the democrats had control over subpoena power, would not lets the republican subpoena who they wanted to, and when republicans wanted to ask the witnesses questions, the leaders of the committee on the impeachment said no, you cannot ask that question. and when a republican would ask a witness a question, nadler or whoever was in charge of the committee said "you don't have to answer that question." so they wouldn't allow the witness to answer republicans' questions. that is why i say no, unless

they are going to run it in a fair way to where republicans also have subpoena power and are able to ask the questions they want to ask to the witnesses. host: thank you, russell. this is from greg in lexington, kentucky. couple of you made reference to the police officer involved in one of the shootings that took place inside the capitol as demonstrators were trying to strum closer to the house chamber. "by law, the capitol police are not required to reveal the name of any officer involved in the shooting. past practice has been that they do not report names. congress can change that practice, but they have chosen thus far not to do so." marketplace.com, more details on what is next -- gop leaders have the kind to say whether republicans will even--declined to say whether republicans will even participate. number two republican steve scully's urging members to vote against the-- steve scalise urging members to vote against

the committee, saying it is likely to pursue a bipartisan agenda. it could determine whether the committee becomes a bipartisan effort or ritual of division. the committee issued a bipartisan report with security regulations earlier in the month but did not examine the origins of the siege, leaving many unanswered questions about the event of the day. mccarthy is getting pressure from police officers to take seriously the attack." good morning. caller: everybody in america, if you are arrested for speeding, anything, burglary, anything, just say your name is hunter biden. you will get away with it and steve won't even cover it. host: we will go on to ohio, republican line. we cover everything. good morning, dennis. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? host: how are you, sir?

caller: having the time of my life i want to talk about that lady who called and said she was a moderate. if i would meet her, she is to the left. host: ok. gary on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, steve. you got a tough job, man. you got a tough job. the people that are coming in, i find it very strange anytime someone talks about insurrection, they say -- [indiscernible] to cover up what they are seeing. [indiscernible] the people tried to go into the capitol that was uninvited. the capitol police were trying

to do their job. why they're trying to make this woman ashli babbitt into a martyr? she broke the law and the officer was doing his job, plain and simple. we want to make sure this is done right and i'm glad that cheney -- she's a republican, but -- [indiscernible] i wish that our politicians would come together and do this thing together, because it needs to be done together as one. whatever we find out -- go ahead. host: thanks for the call. we are getting some feedback. sounds like you are in the car. caller: yes. host: listening on c-span radio app? radio? caller: yes, i am. host: 90.1 fm on the dial. we appreciate it. drive carefully.

"you cannot investigate yourself. the people died that day as a result of flash grenades and rubber bullets. there house will protect its own and eight consider the capitol police are part of them. let's see all of the videos two weeks before and two weeks after unedited. also need independent citizen commission created. so much more to this story." a year and a half after covid and washington, d.c., essentially shut down, the headline of the metro section of "the washington post" is d.c. is open for the fourth. washington, d.c., is open for them all. -- the mall. weather is expected to be terrific this weekend, so welcome back and watch the fireworks if you're at home. republican line. caller: good morning, y'all. i think what i find most disturbing is that there's no in-between on this, and all the

democrats are calling the republicans lives, republicans are calling the democrats liars. we are so split as a country, it's amazing. when it comes to this so-called insurrection, we have the right to protest. sure, they broke into a place. the only people that were harmed where the protester -- were the protesters. the nobility in congress ran like scared rabbits hiding under their desks. we treat these people like they are lords and ladies from medieval times. they are just citizens doing our bidding. that is the whole purpose of congress. and yet they don't. all they do is split up and divide the country. we all know what this was about. this is about elections, and this committee is going to do absolutely nothing, just like all the other committees do.

they do committee after committee, and nothing gets accomplished. all of the problems with all of the russian hoax, wit all of the stuffh that the democrats and the republicans did, and the republican said the democrats did -- who went to jail? nobody. we've got to look at these things through a lens that nothing really is going to be accomplished. this is all about politics, and they are all -- host: thanks for the call. speaker pelosi making the announcement, 8 membership pointed. bennie thompson will chair, and liz cheney, the only republican she appointed. the remaining five in consultation, as is the resolution is written in consultation, with leader kevin mccarthy. sheila is next on the democrat'' line. caller: good morning, sir.

first off, i heard you might be retiring, so i want to say thank you for your service and good luck whatever you do. host: at retiring, but moot-- not retiring, but moving on. i'm too young to retire. [laughter] caller: to get straight to the point, if we are talking about whetehr republicans should be on the committee by january 6, i completely think they should be. that is the democratic system, right? it's just finding who would be workable party, and that is the only thing. i want to appreciate the last caller because i think he made a lot of good points for both parties to think about, so thank you. host: thank you. sheila from pennsylvania. inside the style section of "the washington post," meghan mccain is leaving abc's "the view."

she's leaving after four years following rancorous debates with her cohosts. she's coming back to washington, d.c. we have our c-span presidential survey, it came out this week. you can check out all of the information. number one continues to be president abraham we can, followed by george washington--abraham lincoln, followed by george washington and franklin d roosevelt rounding out the top three. barack obama is number 10. you can check out the methodology of the survey. join us sunday morning with our four leading historians who took part in the survey, doug brinkle y, edna medford, richard norton smith, amity shlaes. they will take your calls and comments. sunday morning. check it out sunday with your calls and comments. there are social-media graphics you can share with your friends and loved ones. we will take a break and when we

come back and we will be joined by terry schilling of the american principles project. we will learn more about the group and its effort to build a lobbying arm for the american family. later, jane harman, nine-term member of the house in former president of the woodrow wilson center. her new book is "insanity defense." you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal ." we are back in a moment. we sure hope you stay with us. >> this morning a discussion about the biden agenda with anita dunn, senior advisor to the president, hosted by politico. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online at cspan.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. which presidents rank best or worst? join us sunday, july 4,

for conversation about the history of president--survey of residential leadership. we will discuss who is up, who is down, where the most recent presidents rank, and more join us with the professor doug brinkley of rice university, edna greene medford, howard university, richard norton smith, presidential biographer, and amity shlaes, president of the calvin coolidge foundation. before the program, go to cspan.org/presdientsurvey2021 to see the full results of the survey. >> on june 13, 1971, "the new york times" began publishing the pentagon papers, a classified history of the vietnam war. this event subsequently led to

the creation of a special investigative unit in the nixon white house, which became known as the plumbers. author michael dobbs, formerly of "the washington post," has written a book called "king richard," which takes a look at the special unit which led to the resignation of the president of the united states. dobbs spoke to that time in our history, an event well known today as watergate. >> aiko dobbs on this episode of "note--michael dobbs on this episode of "booknotes plus." listen wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from iowa is terry schilling, the president of the american principles project. we want to talk about the american family. what is your organization, and why was it founded? guest: thanks so much for having me, steve i've always been a big

c-span fan since i was a kid. it was founded in 2009, and we were a lot different back then. we were almost like an orphanage for these super important issues that politicians and conservatives were not really caring about it we had a gold standard project, immigration project. a few years ago we reassessed what the real threats were in the country, and we found that there was a major gap when it came to filling the political gap for family policy. there is a lot of great family groups out there who do a lot of good research and legislative work, and even ministerial work. but there is no one that was going into campaigns and elections running campaign ads against the bad guys and for the good guys and making politicians pay a price when they heard families with public-- hurt families with public policy. we revamped app -- there was a mini revolution, i would say -- and we wanted to fill the political gap for families.

eric schneiderman -- our chairman says we are the nra for families. we are not organizing gunowners in politics. we are organizing families in politics to protect family. that is simple as i can put it. there is lots of groups out there that do that for their own special interest was -- big pharma, big oil -- but there is no big family until now. we just launched our big family membership program -- like the nra membership organization that is going to be organizing families directly in politics from the local level all the way to the present. we care about families and strengthening the american family with public health people policy. host: you mentioned the nra and that is the headline from fox news, wanting to create the nra for families. what you mean by that? guest: when a politician, for

example, is supporting gun confiscation efforts or gun control efforts, the nra alerts its members and engages them and organizes them in politics to make the politician pay a price and unelected the politician. that's in the message to the other politicians that when you do something to hurt gunowners or take away second amendment rights, you're going to pay a price electorally. steve, you and i have both been in politics for a long time, and is cynical as i can be at one times, politicians care about one thing, there reelection. all we are doing is playing by the rules, and we want politicians to take into account reelection efforts when they vote for bills that have an impact on the family. if it is going to hurt the family, we don't want them to vote for it and we want them to know they will pay a price for it. if it helps families, we want them to vote for it and we want

them to know they will be a price if they vote against it. this is very small, but we are off to a great start. 3500 members signed up in the first two weeks. there is a lot that we still have to do, but i think it is going to change family policy and politics for a long time. host: let's talk about policy. give us one specific example of a policy you want to see either changed or enforced. guest: well, first of all, the big we have been focused on is stopping the equality act. across the country, states of the local level all the way up have been passing what is called sexual-orientation and gender identity law, nondiscrimination law. these laws are having an adverse effect on other roots of american citizens. you take our daughters and our girls in our women. you passed a gender identity nondiscrimination bill at the local level, and what happens is

males who were born male who identify as women are able to not only compete in women's sports against girls, they are also able to enter women's private facilities. this is a drastic change from where america has always been. when we started passing these laws to segregate bathrooms on the base of sex, it was feminist -- women didn't have their own hybrid facilities--private facilities. feminists wanted their own facilities. this is a big change. we want to fight those laws, we want to change those laws and keep the federal government from passing those laws because it is going to have an adverse effect on our women and daughters. host: the website is americanprinciplesproject.org. one example of the work you are doing is this. [video clip] >> victory comes with sacrifice,

struggle, determination,, sours, training every day---countless hours, training every day, waking up at 4:00 a.m., developing skills. nothing is handed to you. everything earned. driven by the desire to win, to overcome the agony of defeat, to achieve, to succeed. it is one of the strongest human emotions. i just want a fair shot. i want justice. but joe biden and the administration would make me compete against biological boys in sports. the american principles project is working to stop it. they want to protect girls' t sports. be an mvp for girl athletes everywhere. go to protectgirlsports.us to make a contribution. host: elaborate on this debate

that is becoming front and center in the country right now. guest: what this ultimately comes down to is there is a political movement in this country that seeks to erase all differences between the two sexes. and that has formalized itself into this gender ideology, gender non-binary movement in the lgbt movement. what they are seeking to do is pass these laws which basically eliminate the legal distinctions and protections that we have carved out for women. it is absolutely disaster -- it is a self-evident truth that we all know to be do that women and men are equal, but they complement each other because they are different. you can be different and still be equal. these laws are going on all over the country, they are very harmful. we were trying to figure out how to stop them, and there's a lot of really bad things that go

along with these bills. i mentioned the private facilities and sports. you look at women's prisons. you pass this bill and what happens is males, even if they are convicted sex offenders, if they claim to be women in prison, they get to be moved to the women's prison facility. that is not only wrong, that is dangerous. that is harmful. some would say that is evil. we need to do a better job of acknowledging reality. there are certain things you can't change, regardless of how hard you try. we have to do it because it is about protecting our kids, protecting our daughters, protecting our women, making sure they have equal opportunities, they are safe. there are a lot of biological differences at the genetic level between men and women, including men. men are taller on average, stronger on average, they have more muscle mass, they have more bone density. they are totally different, that is ok. you can still be equal and be

different. these laws erase the legal distinctions that women and men had to work so hard to achieve over the last 260-some years. that is what we are dealing with, and that is why we are so motivated to fight against it because it is actually hard for. host: i -- absolutely harmful. host: i want to remind our viewers they can join the conversation. we have a line for independents. you can send us a text message. we are on twitter, @cspanwj. do you want to follow-up? guest: we tested a lot of the stuff in the harm that comes with this including the religious freedom aspect, and we found that the messages that voters responded most to that would actually change how they vote was the issue of fairness, safety, protecting children. that is what we have based all of our campaigns against these laws on.

you will see us running ads on protecting women's privacy, protecting women's safety, also protecting women's opportunities when it comes to athletics and academics. host: i want to get your reaction to the transportation secretary pete buttigieg, who is openly gay, and he spoke at a gay pride event talking about transgender issues. [video clip] >> and especially dangerous political strategy in some states right now where some politicians try to gain advantage by picking on transgender kids. some of the most vulnerable people in this country. there are consequences when politicians and other leaders responded to transgender people's search for equality and belonging by basically denying that someone can be transgender at all. telling america the transgender people do not exist amounts to telling very real transgender people that they should not exist. and if you are a person in a position of responsibility, you

need to understand the weight of your words. you need to understand that if you go around signaling to people that transgender youth shouldn't exist, transgender youth will hear you, and some of them will believe you. so this is a matter of life and death. host: that from white house event, the transportation secretary. terry schilling, your reaction? guest: first of all, i think he built a strawman. that is an unfair argument for . no one denies that there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria, where they feel uncomfortable in the body they are born in. frankly, i'm not motivated by anything besides wanting to give the appropriate and best care to people who identify as transgender or people who suffer from gender dysphoria. if you look at the two sides of this debate, you have pete buttigieg's side, which is actually causing the harm here. they are telling young children that they were born in the wrong

body. for a little situation is the fact that they were a mistake from the beginning, that there was something wrong from the beginning, is incredible harmful itself. but it goes further -- this agenda from the transgender lobby, they want to get these little kids on puberty blockers which cause permanent sterilization. that is something kids can't even come for a -you can't even comprehend-. they can't consent to that. we always say that children cannot consent to sex and sexuality. by allowing them to opt into these treatments like hormone blockers, they are permanently sterilized, giving of their ability to ever have their own kids, it is so evil and harmful. that is what i want to stop. how i would put it employees democrats and the left one---- put it simply is democrats and the left want to -- you have

kids who are uncomfortable in the body so let's change the body. make alterations so you don't feel uncomfortable. my solution is simpler and much more scientifically based -- i want to change your mind. i want your mind to accept your body as it is. you are perfect in every way. need to talk you through some of the confusion that is going on. we shouldn't make any permanent alterations to your body. you are perfect in every way. if my child -- i have five kids -- if my child was suffering from other type of body dysmorphia where they felt like they were too fat or uncomfortable in their body -- by the way, feeling uncomfortable in your own body is something every teenager goes through. it's a very natural thing, is normal part of puberty. my solution for my child that feels uncomfortable in the body would not be to change the body, it would be to change their mind, to get them to accept himself, to get them to love

themselves, not make permanent alterations. i think pete buttigieg is being extremely disingenuous, and his movement is going to cause a lot of harm. i tell people that in five to 10 years when all of these little kids who have been rushed into these surgeries -- and they are being rushed into these treatments -- when they start to regret that and feel like they were taken advantage of, they will be coming to people like me who will be their best ally. i want to make sure that they get paid for the damages done to their body with permanent alterations and sterilizations. i want to make sure there is justice done. this is a temporary thing where the left and the democrats appear to be the allies of people who have gender dysphoria but they are really the worst nightmare and worst enemy. host: without background, let's bring in-- with that background can let's bring in our viewers. terry schilling of the american principles project. he has worked for members of congress in the house and senate

and his own father served as a member of congress. he is joining us from iowa. tim is on the phone from toledo, ohio. caller: i just wanted tell you i think you're doing an excellent job. i couldn't do your job. i just have one question, and i'm not pro- or anti-gun, i'm indifferent. but i want to know, when there was a time about 150 years ago in this country that an armed man shot an unarmed man, he might be tried for murder, and if not, at least considered a coward. when did that change? when it is become a right for an armed man to shoot an unarmed man in the country? the old gun culture where men were men, i like that better. today, i don't know. if an armed man shoots an

unarmed man, he is not a man for me. host: bring that into context for our subject. caller: he said we should have an nra for families and talking about guns, and that is my thing right there. i work in construction and i know a couple people, three of them to be exact, but they are all big-time right-wing supporters and they all believe in guns and they all will not go anywhere without a gun. i work in construction and there are certain things you can't do, certain jobs you can't be armed at. you can't have a gun in a parking lot. "oh, i going go anywhere without a gun--i can't go anywhere without a gun." when did we become such a coward society? guest: i have to explain my comparison year -- used the nra

-- not the only person confused by that. it is not just the nra -- we are like the aarp for families as well. i want to reiterate, every group in a d.c. has a special interest group. seniors have the aarp, gun owners have the nra, teachers have the national education association. everyone has their own group. i am trying to create one separately for the american family to advance family policy and be a reliable ally to our friends and formidable foe to our enemies. host: bob in arlington, texas, independent line. caller: good morning, steve. first thing, i appreciate your 30 years of service to c-span. susan and brian did a great job bringing this to us, and i really hate to see you go. hope you have a wonderful

career. host: thank you, bob. appreciate it. caller: i think terry has a perfect example in that we now -- his family is the most dysfunctional family that ever existed in the white house. it is unbelievable that the press lets him get by with saying "it's a personal matter." he has a three-year-old granddaughter, will be three in august, and he will not acknowledge, joe and jill believe in and test, it doesn't have to be-- in incest, it doesn't have to be blood, hunter took his dead brother's wife. it is so dysfunctional, i can't imagine. we are going to be so messed up at the end of joe's term. it is frightening to me.

i thank you for what you have done. pages you go. --hate to see you go. host: thanks for the call. terry schilling, the reference to the president and his family. your response? guest: i tend to stay away from the personal problems our president has full and much more concerned about the actions that president biden has taken that are going to her the american family. on day one he signed an executive order into law that would allow for boys to compete in girls in girls sports and basically threatening every school in the country, and if they didn't allow that to happen he would pull federal funding. i am more concerned about that type of thing. i understand there's a lot of problems with the biden family. i will say that families across the country have these types of problems. hunter biden is an extreme example of this, i would say, but families across the country

deal with these problems every day, and the only reason they are able to solve them is they have a strong family situation. all the dysfunctional families, they actually reinforce the idea that we need strong families, because of strong families -- i got my girlfriend pregnant in high school, and it was my family and my girlfriend's family that helped us through all of that. if we didn't have a strong family, it would have been a total nightmare and disaster. strong families help you solve problems. we are all human beings and make mistakes and do bad things. it is the family structure that helps you work out those problems, and you just have a lot of problems and dysfunction when you have dysfunctional families, or even as we are experiencing out, no family formation, which leads to loneliness and lack of health and lack of ability to get resources to help you get through these problems. those are the issues i'm concerned about. host: pennsylvania, republican

line. ann, thank you for waiting . caller: hi, good morning. i'm glad there is a group that is forming to take care of -- watching which each politician does and reporting out on it. i agree with mr. schilling that children should be protected. i'm not saying that we should not treat them with love and kindness, but i think it is a very confusing issue for children. and i really don't think that they are capable of making lifetime decisions prior to being adults. this really concerns me that we are allowing children to make these decisions, and it doesn't seem like they are getting both

sides of the information. for example, i think transgenders have a more suicidal ideology. this came out from the american psychiatric association. host: thanks for the call on the republican line. let's add a democratic voice and we will get your reaction. will from wilson, north carolina. caller: good morning. i want to know if you just concentrate on social issues that affect the family, or do you concentrate on other issues? affording health care, getting a living wage for people? thank you. i would like to hear your answer. host: william from north carolina. guest: that is my favorite question so far.

on, we are-- no, we are not just social issues. we go into education and economic issues such as health care. we want to make it easier to get married, have babies, and protect our kids -- that is how i put it six simply.--one succinctly. one of the biggest problems in the country, and i would say the republican party is at fault here, is how we treat corporations versus how we treat families. at a bare minimum you look at how corporations are taxed. corporations are taxed on their net revenues. families are taxed on their gross income. that is not a fair system. if i'm a corporation and i provide a company card to my employees, i don't pay any taxes on that. i get to write the cost off of the taxes i get to pay. when i am a family and i have my third child, or my fourth or fifth, and i have to upgrade to

that minivan, i don't get you right the cost off of that-- to write the cost off of that. i want to make every part of this country prioritized towards families and focus on helping families. the family is the basic building block of society. once you go beyond that, you will have a lot more division. we need to make sure that families are supported economically, public policy reflects that. we do need affordable health care, we do need good paying jobs. on these issues we are going head-to-head with corporate america. corporate america is killing the family not just on economic issues, but on social issues as well. you turn on tv and pride m onth, nickelodeon, for example, drag queens and all the stuff that is offensive to people that they don't want their children to be exposed to.. we also focus on education. you look at what is going on and

out kids' schools and you have the critical race theory going on, the 1619 history problem. kids are learning that their parents are racist based on the color of their skin come that was founded on slavery, not on the declaration of independence on the fourth of july in a couple of days. we are focused on every issue that affects the family economically, socially, or through education. host: let me follow-up on two points. this headline from "the washington post" -- you mentioned children's television. a family with two dads on "has misread" -- "sesame street" during pride week. guest: when it comes to kids, i think they should be free from all of these sexual ideas.

we don't want our country that is hostile to gay americans. it is a lie, because we just went through pride month where every corporation and organization was out with a rainbow flag waving it proudly and supporting the gay community. there is not a need to go after the gay community, but there is really not a need to go after children when it comes to these kinds of sexual ideas. on top of that, i have an inherent issue with the whole kids being raised in gay households -- it is not i think they are abusive or evil. it is not that. i think kids need the complementarity of a mother and a father. this goes back to the issue we were talking about earlier -- there is a group of people in this country that don't think there is any difference between men and women. they think men and women are exactly the same and the only difference is we treat them different socially. that is not the case. mothers nurture their children

-- teach them how to care, how to be compassionate. it is important. fathers teach their kids hard work, sacrifice, how to play. i am not saying mothers can't teach that as well, but it is just a more natural fit for both of the sexes, and in the same-sex households, there is no diversity. i think kids should be exposed to diverse marriages, where you have a mother and a father giving the kids what they need, the experience of dealing with a mother and a woman, and a father, and a man. you can say i am old school, to traditional, but i think they are self-evident truths, men and women are different and offer different things to the world. what we are doing is not religious-based. we are factual based, focused on the family.

i think kids need a mom and a dad. host: our guest is terry schilling joining us from leclair, iowa. you brought up critical race theory. i want to go back to that. but first we go to karen, who has been patient. connecticut. what is on your mind? guest: i feel like other -- caller: i feel like other countries take care of their people so much better and that is why the u.s. is number six and canada is number one. they put everything into education. i would rather see everything public rather than the voucher system if you want to go to a religious school or whatnot, and they all have something in common, which is universal health care. i think that would help us, and at least let people have a choice, do you want to be group insurance, universal health care for you by private.

i think making profits off of human being all the time is where america is going wrong. host: thank you for the point could i want to go back to an earlier point unless you have a response to what you have --she had to say? guest: one thing i would say, in terms of economics and systems, especially with schools, number one, we spend a lot of money with kids in our school system. fairfax county, virginia, where i live, they spend over $17,000 per year per pupil and our kids are not doing that great. for $17,000 a year, my kid should know latin, but they barely know english and math. i think the whole thing has monopolized -- i don't think the whole thing is to monopolize everything in the public sector pit we should have diversity. parents should be empowered over the public sector. host: this headline from

national public radio, a top general defending the teaching of critical race theory in the military. i hearing we covered is available in the c-span video library. you brought up the issue. here is what general milley had to saying we look at your reaction. [video clip] general milley: on the issue of critical race theory, etc., i have to get much smarter on what the theory is, but i do think it is important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open minded and widely read. the united states military academy is a university and it is important that we train and we understand -- i want to understand white rage, and i am white. i want to understand it. so, what is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the constitution of the united states? what caused that? i want to find that out and i

want to maintain an open mind. i want to analyze that because our sailors, soldiers, marines, guardians, come from the american people, and it is important that leaders now and into the future do understand it. i have read karl marx, i have read london -- that does not make me a communist. what is wrong with having some situational understanding for which the country we are here to defend, and i personally find it defensive that we are accusing the united states military of being quote "woke" because we are stuttering some -- studying some theory studied at harvard law school and propose there were laws in the united states that led to a power differential with african-americans that were three quarters of a human being when this country was formed pit we had a civil war and emancipation proclamation to change it. we brought it out to the civil rights law.

i want to nope your dye respect your service. you and i are both green berets, but it matters to the cohesion of this military. host: the issue of critical race theory taught in the military at the u.s. military academy, west point, also the naval academy and among the ranks. you brought up the issue earlier. terry schilling, your thoughts, your concerns. guest: my concern number one is the military has made a series of moves and decisions recently that start to suggest that they have become woke, that they have adopted a lot of left-wing ideology. his comments about wanting to understand "white rage," and how a group of people could storm the capital and try to overtake the democracy. let's rewind because he said a lot of things. i reject the entire notion that was an insurrection. there were no guns. we were not the ones with the guns. there were no bombs.

it was a bunch of hooligans and ne'er-do-wells. they stayed in the white line at the capital. they weren't trying to destroy it. they were outraged. it is not white rage that drove what happened on january 6. it is a feeling that the system is rigged against the american people. if you really want to understand how people can go and stormy capitol building -- storm a capitol building, go to the founding of the country when people stormed the british, took over tea ships and had 18 party in boston -- had a tea party in boston pit our foundries -- founders were righteous, and they were freaking out taxes on stamps, taxes on tea, taxation without representation. they were upset about a lot of different things and i think those types of things motivate people to take action. let's look at black rage, then?

what has caused thousands and millions of people to go burn down cities, burned down washington, d.c., in the summer just before that? this is not about race. we need to stop treating every issue as if it is a racial issue. it is not. i grew up in the midwest. it is pretty white out here, but my heroes will all black -- were all black pair my hero was michael jordan growing up -- the greatest basketball player of all time. i would have done anything to meet with impaired i worked hard to save up money to go to his basketball camp. we are not a racist country. and that was 30 years ago pit we are not a racist country. you stop trying to force this on our kids. i will say that the military doing this, studying critical race theory and pushing it on a grown adult is completely different than pushing critical race theory on young children who don't have the ability to comprehend and debate this fully. the critical race theory in

school is a totally separate issue from critical race theory in our military. there are problems with that being in our military, by the way, but that is my initial reaction pit i don't think it was fair. host: stephanie in brooklyn, new york. thank you for waiting period -- waiting. caller: good morning pit i am calling to comment about transgender -- good morning. i am calling to comment about transgender in schools. i think anyone has a choice to be what they want to be. i don't get has to do with the family, it has to do with a individual as a child growing up and you keep using this family dynamics, family, yes, is very important, but it is the parents, the mother, the father, it could be both, it can be men and man, woman or woman -- it is the teaching that you teach that child. i also want to get into the race

theory. they do not teach critical race theory in schools -- public schools, private schools, or any schools. they don't teach that. they barely teach black history in schools. so, i don't know why the republicans keep coming up with this concept of critical race theory when they do not teach it in schools. we have to -- as a black american woman i have to teach my kids about my history, which is not taught in schools, so you all keep going on about this, and it is not happening, so stop saying that. host: stephanie, thank you for the call. terry schilling we are short on time. your quick response. guest: on the transgender issue and individuals versus famished -- number one, when it comes to kids, parents are in charge until they reach the age of 18 or whatever the age is in their state, so parents should be firmly in charge of their kid's

well-being and their education. secondly, i don't know where to begin. beasley, critical race theory is being taught, which is why it is being opposed by these parents. school boards are voting on it, and that is what is driving these parents across the country to show up. i wish the republican party was trying to tackle these issues, but it is a slog. i am trying to convince a lot of republicans to fight this and they don't want to because i don't want to get involved in controversial issues, as important as they are. third, black history -- i don't know where you grew up, maybe it is broken, maybe you have really terrible schools, but where i grew up, i knew all about slavery, the founding, civil rights, how important the fight was, how evil it was pit i learned about emmett till, and how horrific --it was. i learned about emmett till and how horrific that was pit i don't know where you went to school, where your kids went to

school, but you should go to a school board meeting and start taking that over we would love to have you join. we would train you to get involved in school board races and hold them accountable. host: our last call, alan. good morning. you are on with terry schilling. caller: i wanted to bring up the student loan issue. this country is $1.8 trillion in debt, mostly to the federal government, and i can tell you firsthand this is ruining families, not only are families not able to be formed, but the largest growing of -- segment of these loans are made to parents. these loans are unconstitutional. don't have bankruptcy protections, statutes of limitation, and the federal government is profiting on defaulted loans. i have not heard the american family guy say anything about this very important family ruining debt instrument.

i think they should be canceled. the government can cancel these without needing one penalty from the treasury. what does he say about that? guest: i totally agree. i'm sorry, it is a limited timeframe issue, they need to be brought up. we need to address that. i don't know how i feel about canceling everything. i think we need to stop pushing college on kids. we are pushing kids into college when they should be pushed into trade and they are not graduating college so you have these young kids with $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 worth of student loan debt, and they are

not graduating, and now they are stuck and have to work a dead-end job. we need to tie the student loans to the universities. universities have been profiting. there has been so much money in the university system. they need to be held accountable and have skin in the game, to pit i want to hold everyone accountable, but i also like we should stop pushing college on kids since it is not that great of an investment. you can make more money going into plumbing, electrical work, trade unions. i love trade unions. they are great. they will be rebuilding this country and saving our kids and families a lot of debt. host: terry schilling is president of an organization called the american principles project, giving us part of his holiday week and a family reunion in iowa. we appreciate his time. please come back again. guest: two for having me. host: i want to share some new numbers with jobless claims, the u.s. adding about $850,000 --

850,000 jobs in june, exceeding the expectation of 700,000, but the un-implement rate is higher slightly from 5.8% to 5.9%. we will talk about that later in the program. jane harman is joining us next, former representative with the house of representatives, her new book is called "insanity defense." you are listening to c-span's "washington journal," a getaway weekend pit we are back in a moment. -- weekend. we are back in a moment. >> saturday on the communicators -- >> want to talk about digital oppression i am putting it in a way in which technology is being used to be a coercion and other means to accomplish political goals, basically for leaders who are not democratic -- with antidemocratic expirations.

>> watch the communicators with stephen feldstein, senior fellow at the con again that ash endowment -- at the carnegie endowment. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> book tv on c-span two has top nonfiction authors every weekend. saturday, on afterwards, former xerox ceo ursula burns, the first black female ceo of a fortune 500 business company. she is interviewed by amazon's senior vice president. sunday, on in-depth, join our two-conversation -- two-hour conversation and she talks about american presidents, slavery, and emancipation. her prize-winning books include "the hemmings of monticello,"

and her latest book, "on juneteenth." watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. " washington journal" continues. host: joining us from boston's former congresswoman jane harman , the author of a new book called "insanity defense: why our failure to confront hard national security problems makes us less safe." thank you for being with us. guest: thank you and good luck at the bipartisan policy center. i'm getting this is your second to last broadcast you will be missed. host: what is your overall message? guest: i was in congress for nine terms and i headed the wilson center for nine years and that spans more or less three decades since the cold war and ted, my premise is after the

cold war ended we had no strategy for what the world would look like. we won, russia lost, everyone wanted to be us, and we missed china's rise in the 90's p i was in congress than. --90's. i was in congress than. then came 9/11. we were surprised, which we should not have been, then we over militarized our response, which is going on to this day. so, "insanity defense" means doing the same thing and expecting a different result. my point is we have been doing the same thing and have not made the country safer. host: you were very honest at the end of the book. you did not come up with the title, did you? guest: no, we all have to credit our children -- i was going to call the book "the war on terror," but my journalist daughter, said that is boring,

please call it "insanity defense," and she was right. i'm glad i listened to her. host: let's take a deep dive. you write "consider the track record of the last 30 years, blowing off multiple terrorism warnings and then creating a homeland security apparatus neglected and misused by successive presidents and congresses." you go into great detail on the formation of the department first led by governor tom ridge at the time and how it asked you -- it has changed over the last four presidents. guest: well, three presidents. it was formed after 9/11, it missed the clinton presidency, but i do make the point it is four presidents that have not had a comprehensive security strategy, and we now have a chance with joe biden who is our first truly experienced president and foreign policy since george h w bush, and george w. bush was one of the people credited with ending the

cold war. host: also in the book you write the following -- "considering the track record of the last 30 years, running the intelligence community is what you described is a 1947 business model, reforming it after the iraq debacle, and undermining it through repeated purges of experience career leadership. explain that. guest: i did not answer your question about the homeland mission and staff either, but what has happened since 9/11, when we took some important steps to set up a homeland security department, which we did not have before, and to reorganize our intelligence community with a joint command structure across 16 intelligence agencies is that the leadership has been mixed. we had some good folks. i described who they are and what their skill sets were. we had someplace best folks placed by the last president whose mission it was to use the agency, or use the intelligence community for political

purposes. that has cost us lives. host: you write also "allowing successive presidents to ignore additional checks and balances most egregiously after 9/11." explain that point. guest: bad on congress pit my last chapter is the incredible, shrinking congress. i served in congress for nine years. i love the institution of congress and i have many dear friends that still serve there. the point i make in the book is the business model of congress is broken. the business model of congress is to blame the other side for not solving the problem because if you work with the other side you are dreadful, bipartisan, something you are going to address in your next tax good if you are bipartisan, you often get primary, and that is a word that did not exist in the english language 20 years ago.

#two get reelected, so they moved to the left or the right in order to make sure they do not get primary. that has cost us an enormous amount. it used to be back in the day when i was an aide in the united states 70's -- in the 1970's, working together was pride, members lived in washington, they were friends, and even if they disagree, they disagreed civilly and people were respected when they would bring their bills to the floor, and that seems like a quaint story from another century, which, guess what, it is. host: this is what you write in the book, congress weakened by what you call toxic partisanship, enabled its own demise, conceding other powers to the executive all at a time when bipartisan consensus and action are needed to take on america's hardest problems pit to the point of being a coequal branch of government, when did

that begin to taper away? guest: we have always had partisan fights. the parties, going back to the 1800s were form -- that was not contemplated initially when the government was formed, and had big fights, and presidential races were contentious, so on, and so forth, but most everyone believed, i think, the best i can tell, in the institution of our government and respected them, and wanted the government to function, not so much anymore. i think this this slippery slide into what we have now started in the late 1980's, before i was elected. a couple of things happened. i republican operative named -- a republican operative named lee atwater created the negative political ads, and they will tell you that they became easier

for candidates in both parties. the second thing that happened, the hearing to confirm bork to the supreme court became personal. there had never been that kind of approach by the congress. now, a lot of hearings are personal attacks and a lot of campaigns are negative. what does that do? again, it pushes us apart. that pushing us apart, reinforced by social media has created a kind of, tribalism in the country. i am not the first person to say this, which has sadly overrun the sense of community we have always had, certainly around foreign policy. partisan chen -- there was an old adage that partisanship stops at the water's edge. i think most people have not even heard of that anymore. host: what i'm hearing you say,

congresswoman, is a pox on both parties? guest: i'm seeing a pox on these practices. i am saying that i want a robust republican party -- not a call party. -- colt party. i have pride -- applaud liz cheney. it does not mean i agree with her on most things, but i applaud her for wanting that. i also want a robust, resilient democratic party. the democratic party seems to be in better shape than the republican party but each has its wings, no one is missing this, in tragedy for both parties in my view is the center is disappearing -- the center in our politics -- those are the folks that make the deals, and if we just have a very vocal, far-left wing, and a very vocal far right wing, i don't see much chance for prompt -- compromise. i don't think compromise is a dirty word.

i don't see much chance for country over party. i don't think that is a bad idea, especially around the hard problems that is the point. in my book. terrorists will not check party registration when they blow us up. that is not what they are after. they are after taking down what was a resilient and beautiful idea of a democratic republic that is the basis of the united states of america. host: we are talking with jane harman, former president of the wilson center. she served nine terms in the house of representatives. also worked as a staffer to the senate judiciary committee on capitol hill. earlier in her career served as a deputy cabinet secretary in the carter administration. is a headline from fox news -- developing stories today as u.s. troops pull out of afghanistan. there were an estimated 2500 that remained there. the deadline was yesterday. the taliban welcoming the move. your thoughts? guest: member, the title of my

book is "insanity defense," doing the same thing and expecting different results -- we have been in afghanistan for 20 years. i, of course, voted for, including members of congress including senator joe biden, every member but one, voted for the authorization to use military force in afghanistan, and we were effective. he went in there, we degraded those that attacked us, and 10 years later we took down osama bin laden, who had been hiding in pakistan. i think that another plus 10 years, even though we have surged troops and done other things, afghanistan is not much safer. it has a 300,000 person army or a military. it has a democratically elected government run by a technocrat who may not be charismatic, but he is competent, and yet the taliban surges. i think what joe biden did is

our least bad option. we have no good options in afghanistan. if by changing the mission, not eliminating the u.s. focus on and presence in afghanistan, but changing the mission, we have a better chance of helping the country, and moreover, we free up resources and save american lives to focus on the direct threats to the united states. host: let's bring in our callers -- ben, alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning, steve. good morning, representative herrmann. you are a treasure to our country. i watched you over the years when you served on the intelligence committee in our house and you are one of the few remaining states women in our countries -- in our country could i also watched you when you were deliberating on foreign policy and intelligence. i wish we had more people like you left in congress. our member the likes of david boren and hatfield back in those days, where compromise and

consensus where the word of the day. today, there was none of that and it is set for our country. i want to thank you. i think you are a great treasure in terms of intelligence, smarts, and everything else. we need more people like you now in our country. thank you. guest: thank you, caller could i wish my children were listening. very lovely. host: what surprise you the most in researching this book, congresswoman? jane harman that is a great question -- guest: that is a great question. nobody has asked me that. what surprised me -- actually i had a wonderful researcher, sarah scott, who according to bob gates, former secretary of defense, his favorite speech writer at ever. -- ever. sarah went through everything and came up with press releases and other materials that are remembered, but not so precisely. what surprised me was how much

of it there was and how much i did. it wasn't always successful. i do chronicle a number of my mistakes, including voting for the authorization for military force in iraq based on intelligence that turned out to be wrong and i think my vote was wrong, but the point is i sure tried to do so much, and i took it very seriously. it is a great honor to serve in congress. it is not easy to get there. getting elected does not fall out of a tree. you really have to work, and commuting from d.c. to los angeles on a regular basis, which i did over 17 years, is not for the faint hearted, either. host: dylan is joining us. independent line. texas. good morning. caller: yes. the leadership in congress is so terrible. speaker pelosi is just -- just seems like a very partisan person, and mccarthy is not much

better. up what can we do about the leadership in the congress? host: thank you. both of your former california colleagues. guest: that is true, and i know both of them. at this juncture i would disagree about pelosi. if you read my book, you would see that back in the day in 2006 she could have ended not make me the chair of the house intelligence committee. that was a blow to me personally and to some others that were supporting the action, and i thought i was qualified, but i understand, looking back, why she made that decision. she was trying to keep her caucus together, and the caucus was then and still is full of folks across a very broad spectrum. so, you can fault her for being partisan, but that is her job. she is elected to represent the democratic caucus, just as kevin mccarthy is. what is sad about this is there

is no reward for solving problems together. that is the sad thing. i am heartbroken that the 9/11 commission, that the 1/6 commission, modeled after the 9/11 commission which was supported by a number of republicans in the senate, including my close friend susan collins, did not pass, so now pelosi has set up an alternative 1/6 commission, but if we had had the political will to do the right thing, which is to launch a truly bipartisan, independent investigation of 1/6, which was, to become a threat to the fundamental fiber of our democracy, that would have been a really high point for the united states congress, and i think it was a tragic mistake not to do it, and pelosi was for it to be fair. host: but initially she wanted to be more democrats and

republicans, going back to the debate in january and february. what is that a missed opportunity to move more quickly? guest: i don't know if it would have made a difference. i think using the 9/11 commission is the model was the right end point, and as i mentioned, some republicans in the senate got to that point, and then their ideas started to get traction until it was shot down by, i think, minority leader mitch mcconnell. i think he was the one that was against it, but i was there on 9/11, literally there, walking toward the dome of the capitol, as the cochair of a special subcommittee on terrorism in the house. i later became ranking democrat on the house intelligence committee, and i saw our government unprepared, even though there had been ample warnings that we could be attacked. we had no evaluation plan and nothing going on -- evacuation plan and nothing going on men

and when we studied it later, when we formed the 9/11 commission cochaired by lee hamilton, former congressman from indiana, former chair of the house foreign affairs committee, we learned -- chronicled, and we learned the big lesson of 9/11. that is what we should be doing now. i think in many ways 1/6 was a bigger attack on american democracy than 9/11 and not disparage it all the tragedy of 9/11. host: bennie thompson from the state's secondary -- second district will be the chair of the committee. if you were on the committee, what is the one overall --question you would want answered? guest: i think we know what happened. i would like to know why it happened. i would not like allegations being made that this person, that person, our president, our

then president was responsible -- i would like to know how that claim is proved, then i would like to know why it has happened and what we can do to prevent it from ever happening again. i do want to commend the fbi and the justice department from doing investigations about why we were there, but i think a truly nonpartisan commission would have the most credibility to do that, just as the 9/11 commission did. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. our guests joining us from boston is jane harman, former member of the house of representatives, former president of the wilson center. her new book is entitled "insanity defense," why our failure to confront national secured problems makes us less safe." craig is on the line. thank you. good morning. caller: i would like to thank you and congress for providing

me 16 good years at trw, and my second question, what you think about space force and also gunned up and how that will help with -- el segundo and how that will help with national security? guest: i still call the aerospace center of california my own -- my home. i remember trw with great fondness. i thought -- it still lives in spirit, even though it has merged into northrop grumman, which is another great firm. anyway, space force, el segundo, great move. el segundo, named after the second chevron refinery in california, it is home to something called the los angeles

air force base in the aerospace corporation, and they are the place where we procure and shield missiles and satellites, and there has been a threat over the years that this whole capacity would leave california and move to other states, and why that would be a tragedy is that a really robust and competent aerospace capacity is just around it, and we have great universities there including ucla, usc, and others, to train the folks at work in the industry. so, moving space force to el segundo would help secure that facility, which is basically economic engine, and i would argue one of the national security engines for the united states. host: from oberlin park, kansas. bobby, good morning. democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? guest: fine, thank you. caller: i have to inject an

uncomfortable truth in the whole discussion, and i think we are talking about the space shuttle, but not the hydrogen and the oxygen that makes it go up. right now, i think about 50% of white americans want to keep the white hegemony and white privilege, and i think that explains the trump phenomenon, the january 6 insurrection, fox news -- everything. they want to do everything and anything, including get ready democracy -- getting rid of democracy to make that happen, and i think trump has promised them that, and they want him back. they don't care about trump aide they just want to make white hegemony, that is primarily the reason why you are not going to see people working together in congress because republicans have, basically -- they are in lockstep with the whole idea and they don't care if you bring in authoritarian rule. i think we are up against a very serious issue here in america,

and if we don't do something about it, i think democracy is going to be lost forever. host: bobby, thank you. guest: well, i think there are some challenges we are facing as a country. i am a daughter of immigrants -- i think all of us are. in this country, there were indigenous people here, sometimes called native americans, and all the rest of us came from somewhere else, and the truth is we are now a diverse country -- we are not one race. we are a variety of races, cultures, ethnicities, everything, and some people are having trouble adjusting to that. california has been the melting pot forever. it is now majority minority in los angeles, where i am from and grew up, and it has a gigantic population from mexico and i think diversity makes us stronger. i think we have to find a way to coexist, and i certainly think there are some of the republican

party, since that is what you mentioned, who, courageously, are trying to save that party from part of itself commend someone i would call out is liz cheney, who, by the way, is now joining the democratic group of members of this 9/11 commission, and nancy pelosi has been praising her, and i think that praise is deserved. host: i want to go back to something you mentioned earlier, the debate over the authorization of military force. here is how the debate unfolded. i want to get your reaction to two lawmakers. representative barbara lee on the house floor. [video clip] representative lee: former president bush told america that major combat operations in iraq and appeared in 2011 president obama brought combat troops

home, yet the authority remains on the books vulnerable to misuse because congress has not acted to remove it. the bush administration, yes, misled the american people by saying there were weapons of mass destruction, that iraq posed an imminent threat and draw a connection between the events of 9/11 and saddam hussein. those lies and misinformation had deadly consequences. domestics continue to haunt us today. once the war started, led by chairwoman maxine waters, we found that the out of the racks -- out of iraq caucus. many took protest to the streets, protesting the unnecessary, immoral war of choice. year after year we work for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. i share this history not because of nostalgia, but we have to remember why this authorization was passed, because it is, percent of members of congress now of the current house were not here to vote in 2002.

the constitution requires that we cannot appropriate funds for armies for more than two years. for more than two decades, we have failed to revisit these. to this day, our endless work continues, costing trillions of dollars, thousands of lives in war that goes way beyond any scope that congress conceived or intended." host: the debate on the house floor, june 17. and on the republican side of the house, adam kinzinger. [video clip] representative consider: we are debating this as if we all believe we will repeal this and come up with a narrow replacement that will authorize, when we cannot really agree that the sky is blue in this group, but i want to, for a second, looked back and say what would have happened when this was introduced originally. in january, 2014, this repeal was introduced.

let's say we passed it? what happened since january of 2014? in june, 2014, we began air against isis. we were able to assist allies to defeat isis in their capital of rocco, and we even destroyed a caliphate throughout the region. and though my colleagues to support legislation have the right intention in mind, but even president biden's own policy admits this repeal would have impact on military operations. that is why we don't call for a blanket repeal, but a narrowly crafted replacement, let's do that first. the bleak reality is without an authorization to fight terror, more innocent human beings will suffer. host: that, from congressman adam kinzinger. you were on the house floor when the initial debate took place. as you hear the debate today on two different sides of the aisle , including from barbara lee,

your reaction? guest: i'm glad you played such long clips. i think it is important. people can learn from this. barbara lee was the only no vote, the only against the 2001 authorization to use military force in afghanistan, and her view was there was a better way to respond to the attacks on us. she was from berkeley, california, as was her predecessor, chair of the house armed services committee when i was elected, by the way. out of moral conviction, she voted against the 2001 au mf, which is also still on the books . i agree with her about repealing the 2002 au mf that was. based on wrong intelligence. i voted for it, and as i said, the intelligence was wrong and i was wrong. that is in my book.

i think it should be repealed. i think the 2001 aum, which has beenf used to justify or support 40 military missions in 19 countries -- i am not making this up, against a bunch of groups that did not exist on 9/11 -- that is where adam kinzinger is right. that should be amended, repealed and replaced, or amended to authorize what congress, not some expanded executive authority under the president thinks is the right force for military missions in the future. by the way, joe biden supports repealing the 2002 aumf and amending the 2001 aumf, and to do that will be hard because as adam kinzinger points out, congress cannot even agree on

the weather, but it is congres'' duty to declare war. the article two branches supposed to carry out what congress passes it article three make sure both branches are consistent with the constitution. congress, in my view -- and this is why my last chapter is called the incredible shrinking congress, as advocated its response ability, and there are good signs of life. commerce wants to step up and be a partner of the executive branch in fashioning the future for the deployment of the american military in the world. host: jane harman spend nine terms in the house of representatives and serve in the house intelligence committee and homeland security committee. her new book is titled "insanity defense," and back to your phone

calls, from bakersfield california, james, good morning. caller: good money. can you contrast the drawdown strategy under president biden in afghanistan with the drawdown strategy by president trump? guest: i can. president trump decided he wanted to remove american troops from afghanistan, and he had a very capable envoy. what was wrong to this picture -- maybe the goal was right, but the negotiation excluded the afghan government. it is unfathomable why. we agreed under the topic nutrition to release 5000 troops

in advance of getting a final agreement from the taliban and the date for withdrawal was supposed to be may 1. so, biden is elected and he has extended the deadline to 9/11, but as of today, apparently the last of our troops has left afghanistan, which is not fair. have some troops in afghanistan to guard the airport an hour and the sea in kabul. we will have troops, but they have a specific mission. at any rate, biden extended the deadline, has included the afghan government in planning for our exit, and has invited the world to be a bigger part of the changed american mission, which will now rely on diplomacy and other forms of connection other than military. the intelligence community will still be active. it won't have the same ability

on the ground that we did when we had troops there, but we certainly have technical means to know what is going on and i do think human rights is a major plank of u.s. foreign policy and should be, and if the taliban, and this is predicted by some, turns on women and girls, we will have some opportunities to push back. one final point, and biden is doing this, and i don't think trump did -- he is now, in favor, and i think it is long overdue and very important to him, very delayed, of providing a way for the 18,000 people and their families who helped us as translators and others in the early stages of this war get out of afghanistan and get refugee status in the united states. it is a long process, but they will be helped to get out of afghanistan before the withdrawal is complete, and i

think that is an important move, long overdue, not done by the last three presidents and it should be done now. host: if asked, would you serve in the biden administration in some capacity? guest: i very much support the biden administration. it depends on what, but what i try to help the biden administration succeed and goes like this, absolutely. i would love to do that. host: this from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mark milley -- he testified on capitol hill last month about the withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan and the taliban. here's what he had to say. [video clip] general milley: two back up on the momentum of the taliban, so to speak, there are 81 centers that we think are currently under taliban control out of 419 district centers. there is no provincial capital under taliban control, and there

are 34 of those. it is true that the taliban are sniping at and picking off outposts, it several -- etc. and they have seized some district centers. 60% were seized last year, and the others since the last two months or so. so, yes, we are concerned, we are watching it, but there is a 300,000, plus were minus military force afghan army and police force and it is their job to defend our country. host: that from the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff -- the full hearing on our website. let's go back to your phone calls. grant here in washington, d.c., you are on air with jane harman. caller: steve will not like my preamble, but here he goes you have been a highly -- supporter of israel, and you were recorded

volunteering to an israeli foreign agent to help quash the well warranted intelligence committee -- who were caught using stolen dod information to create a pretext for u.s. attack on iran. my question to you is what do you say to americans who believe operatives for aipac and fellow travelers, and aipac was ordered by the justice department to register as an israeli foreign agent in 1962, but the idea that aipac and israel advocates in congress represent a far greater danger to u.s. national security because they continually lobby for u.s. military actions that serve israel, but not the u.s.. host: we will leave it there, grant. guest: ok. there is a lot in there and you have a right to ask that question, and i am ok with that, and i hope steve is ok with that, but my answer, and it is

in the book, too, in several parts, yes, i am a supporter of israel and have been since its formation, not that i was particularly old at the time. i think it has the right to exist as a pluralist, democratic society, which was the original intention. i am. . not a member of aipac 20's allegations were made, and they are unproved, i said it was a smear campaign against me. since then, just so you know, i have been told in writing by the justice department and by the ethics committee in the house that i was never the subject or target of an investigation, and i won five elections after that. most people looking back at that think it was a vendetta by some folks, and i describe it in the book. the two people under investigation whom i never met, i never intervened in the prosecution -- so far as i know, the whole prosecution was dropped by the justice department. nothing to do with me.

but, you know, politics is a bloodsport, and when people want to hurt you they try to hurt you, so i chalk it up as an unpleasant moment, but it was one that was unfair, and here i am, and i do think israel has faced some challenges. i am supportive of this new government in israel, and i am hoping that because it is basically a rainbow coalition it will listen to a lot more voices and carve a path for israel that achieves security. i am still a supporter of a two -state solution could i think that is the right idea. one comment, if i could, on the little piece you showed from mark milley, the chairman of the joint sheep, he said that afghans -- chief, he said afghans want peace on the ground pin they have to want it. they have to fight for it. same thing for israelis and

palestinians. they have to want it. they have to fight for it. i am for being helpful in the world to promote democracy, but focusing on the threats and interests that america has in a global way. we have to do that in -- with allies. i think the biden administration is trying to put forward a strategy that will accomplish that and i applaud them for doing that, with the experience and understanding that we cannot just be tactical here, technical there, and be buffeted around by foreign events. we have to keep our eye on what america's values are, live our values, and keep our eye on what the real threats are against our country. host: congresswoman, there is one sentence in the book that i think particularly stands out in light of what we have been doing with in this country over the last 18 months. you say if 9/11 was a wake-up call, then covid-19 a five-alarm

fire for revamping how we prepare and respond to security threats in the united states and around the world. can you explain? guest: yes, i can, because in a way they were similar. there were predictions of both. more predictions about a pandemic than about a catastrophic terror attack, but there were predictions about a catastrophic terror attack. i was a member of a national commission on terrorist, and coincidentally, on nine/10, 2001, literally one day before, had lunch with the den -- and then chairman of the commission, i was back in congress and we were decrying the fact people were not paying attention, in a day later they were. on the pandemic, we have had numerous pandemics over time, nothing as lethal as this, but there were serious preparations made starting in the bush

administration, going through the obama administration, a lot of the stockpiles and other efforts were not focused on during the trump administration, and we paid a colossal price. and what i'm talking about here is america's national security is not just a question of how many nuclear weapons does russia, north korea, or iran have -- it is a question of how resilient is our society and if we have tools we are not using to make our society resilient, shame on us. host: which is how you conclude your book with the following quote, "democratic societies focused on day-to-day concerns and appetites tend not to confront serious, underlying albums until disaster strikes. technology, you say, can be a major lubricant for needed change. can we do better, yes. will we, i would argue we do not have a choice.

insanity is not a defense. caller: i would like to give you a reason why january six happen. the media ran that -- saying that president trump was a russian agent, an illegitimate president. when you have a campaign against american people, events like january 6 will happen. host: to what he we will get a response. guest: i think it was more complement -- complicated than that. as fond as i am of the american media and i think c-span does a good job, and i think steve scully does a good job, but on both sides there has been room to criticize. i don't think your reasons for 1 /6 are fair, but i do think there is room to criticize, and that is another reason why we need another -- why we need a 1/6 commission that is founded

on principles, totally bipartisan. as allen baylor host: discolored -- our last color is from -- our last caller. caller: you and other people keep saying that israel is a democratic state. however, israel itself is a jewish state. moreover, declared that only jews have the right for self-determination. you and other people could be, could live in israel and become

citizens and they can even run for the parliament. but a person who is not a jew is not home. the prime minister, the fourth best the former one, and 2000 -- the prime minister, the former one, said israel is not a country of all of its citizens. a non-jew living in israel is not whole citizen. host: we will leave it there. we will get a response. guest: i was a little kid, but being the first world leader to recognize the existence of israel as a whole land for the jews. my family did not miss the horrors of the holocaust and forming a homeland for the jews

is so that we will never forget and will never repeat. i support that. you heard me say that i want israel to be pluralist democracy. i don't think it has achieved those ideals. being pros -- being pro-israel does not mean being pro everything the israel government does. you set a couple of things that are inaccurate. the rainbow coalition government includes the interim party which does have seats in the parliament. the israeli era -- the arabs have been part of the israeli population for years. they are a minority part, i will give you that. what do i want for israel in the future? i want a safe and secure democracy living alongside a palestinian state which is safe and secure and guaranteed and

has appropriate borders but living alongside and peace. we got very close at the end of the clinton administration when a proposal was made and it was refused by the then plo president. i think is possible in the future and i think the rainbow coalition government may, over time, begin to move in that direction. i also think the palestinians need to have new elections which they said they are going to have and i would hope for an opportunity to bring hamas back into the fold and for there to be a well-run palestinian's --

well-run palestinian where there is peace. i think that is the future and it would make the area safer. i think it would make for a much better relationship with the united states. host: the subtitle, with a half minute left. what is the overall message? guest: i want us to regrow a political muscle to confront hard problems. i think when you look at the history, the congress in particular has not done everything it should and everything it used to do. congress used to be an equal

partner to the executive branch. certainly on foreign policy. i think the bridge builder that we have, joe biden, stayed in congress for decades -- foru --four decades. that's why he supports amending the authorization to use military force. that's why he is changing the mission in afghanistan. i think if we can continue on that path while building allies and living our values. it's a hard thing to do. the country will be safer. we will confront the hard problems. maybe i was not doing it all right, but maybe i was the canary and the goldmine.

host: giving full credit to your daughter who gave you the idea for the title. guest: she writes various publications -- she writes various articles for various publications. host: the book is titled "insanity defense". thank you so much for joining us. this is the headline for the june jobs report. initially set at about 700,000, but 850,000 jobs added in the month of june. there's a slight uptick in the unemployment rate. we want to get your reaction to these numbers. if you are still out of work and looking, if you are currently

employed, and all others. we are back in a moment with your calls. your reaction to this latest jobs report as the washington journal continues. ♪ >> american history seat -- american history tv. every weekend saturday at 6 p.m. eastern on the silver war. african-american union soldiers fighting for emancipation. it saturday at 8 p.m. eastern university of california river -- california riverside professor. sunday at 6 p.m. eastern on american artifacts, the arrival

of the reconstructed friendship at the 18th century port of virginia. exploring the american story. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span three. ♪ >> c-span's landmark cases explores the constitutional drama a supreme court decisions. 945 p.m. eastern, the landmark case. -- 9:45 p.m. eastern, the landmark case. the supreme court ruled that the confession was not admissible. watch landmark cases sunday

night at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span or online at c-span.org or listen to the app. >> washington journal continues. host: this is the headline from the washington post. adding 850,000 jobs in june. we will get your reaction to these numbers. our phone lines are open. we want to welcome heather. two things i want to get your reaction to. the expectation was we would add about 700,000 jobs, but 850,000 in the month of june. why? guest: what we were expecting to happen is finally happening which is people are getting vaccinated and feeling safe and content and the economy is opening. we are seeing job openings and opportunities and we are seeing

a lot more hiring. workers feeling like they are ready to return, like it's safe to return. that was a big part of what happened. 40% of the hiring in june, the bulk of it was happening in leisure and hospitality. restaurants and arts and entertainment, also a big surge in education jobs. host: also a slight uptick in the unemployment rate. guest: that's right. the basic story here is it did go up, but the take away is despite all of these job openings there are still a flat laborforce participation. we really don't have a lot more job seekers. people are still sitting on the sidelines. i often hear about childcare issues. i hear about people who want to

take a chance and go in a different direction so they are not taking the first job that is available to them. they are thinking about starting a business or going in a different direction. may be going back to school. that's a little bit surprising. that's why we see slight uptick in the unemployment rate. we are not seeing a huge number of people searching for work again. host: if you are unemployed, currently working and all others. we are going to go to this chart that is available at c-span.org. you can see a huge drop of people being forced out of work when we had a record high of about 52 million people working in february of last year. now based on your reporting, we are back up to 145.8 million. we are seven to 8 million short

compared to where we were before the pandemic hit. guest: the number i keep in my head is we are about 70% recovered. the good news is that's a lot farther along than most people thought we would be. things seemed very dark and we wondered if we were on the verge of a great depression. we managed to avoid that. there are still jobs left to go before we get back to the number of people employed right before the pandemic. there's also been population growth. that number could be higher. with this pick up in the hiring we saw in june, if we can keep this pace going we will be back to full strength in early 2022.

again, it's not great. we wish we could do it faster, but it's a lot better than most people thought only a few months ago. host: there's also a growing concern about how this will impact inflation. guest: that double-edged sword. we are finally glad to see some wages going up, especially in those lower paid sectors. there a crunch for restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues that are finally opening up. the average pay in that hospitality sector is up $1.30 compared to pre-pandemic. it's been 3.6% increase. we see those kind of numbers in a full year. instead we saw it in about three months. that's what helped drive a lot of that hiring. as those prices go up, often times businesses passed some or

all of that cost along. we have seen chipotle raise their menu prices. that's the real concern. at the moment, it seems like this could be a short-lived phenomenon. we will see what happens as we head later this year. do workers maintain that edge? workers sort of have the power. they are more in demand. host: tell us what you think. if you are currently out of work and looking, those employed and all others. you mentioned the hospitality industry. restaurants are still having a really hard time trying to feel those that's trying to fill those positions -- trying to fill those positions. guest: part of it is basic math.

millions of job losses. those don't all come back overnight. we had a really quick rebound of restaurants opening to full capacity the last few weeks in hiring. the other two factors that are plain big role. people, i've been calling it the great reassessment of work. we change what we want in life. it changed how we view ourselves. what we want our career work balance to be. i don't necessarily want to go back to it if i'm only going to make $10 an hour. that's why many restaurants are having to raise pay to $15 or higher to attract people back. i'm sure we will get some calls on this.

there's a big debate about how much of the unemployment insurance is playing and preventing people from going back to lower paying jobs. a great example is an applebee's worker in pennsylvania named stephanie. she is not going back to applebee's right now. she was laid off during the pandemic. instead, she and her husband are part of this growing trend. they want to start a new business. they are trying that out. the unemployment money has given them that cushion to try to live their dream. host: one final question. home prices are going through the roof. multiple bids on homes. can you explain what's happening? >> that's very simple. supply and demand. there is simply almost record low supply of homes on the market. at the same time, we have seen a huge surge in people buying.

millennials who are now starting families and want homes and this trend of moving out of the new york's and san francisco's of the area -- san francisco's of the world and moving to dallas and charlotte and austin. there are not enough homes in the area. those bidding wars. host: the headline today the u.s. economy adding 850,000 jobs. the labor market showing strength. we always appreciate your time and insights. let's get to your calls and your reactions. jason joining us i'm just outside of washington. you are currently employed? caller: yes i am. host: double sure thoughts about the economy. caller: i think -- host: tell us your thoughts

about the economy. caller: i think it's getting better. it's been a sad time, especially working in washington dc. if you walk around a lot of the town, a lot of things are closed. it's a sad thing to see. hopefully the industry recovers. please get a vaccine and let's continue this recovery. host: this is from mary. you can send us a tweet. she says those restaurant jobs don't come back when the restaurants are gone. good thing. ppp money. george in louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. housing costs.

my property values. don't do anything to add value to their communities. they ride the wave of the speculation bubble. anywhere within a mile radius of houses, you have apartments and they go up in rent. it's not just supply and demand. people speculate on property like they do stocks. it a fark dish it artificially -- it artificially causes houses to move up and rents to move up four to five times wages could move up and that's why we have to have rent control everywhere. that's why businesses can't staff. it's ridiculous. in 1960, 20% of your income. now it's over 40%. we call property moving up in

price equity. everything else moves up, we call it inflation. if we have lower housing costs, these businesses would have no problem staffing. host: she says i live in arkansas. i'm vaccinated but i'm only 38%. we've gone from 100 hospitalizations to 300 in a week with the delta variant hitting hard. if coronavirus -- if cv affects negatively only 1% of people who catch it, that means 3000 covid typhoid berries infecting 62% of arkansas. caller: good morning. i think the economy can be bouncing back and picking up more shifts of the workers. my best friend has been living

with me for a few months. he lost his job during the pandemic and also lost his parents who both died of covid. i think he just recently got employed. he has two jobs. both of them part-time and working for $13 an hour in the virginia area which is not a great salary. that's why he has to have two jobs. the recovery is tied to the emotional recovery of the country. my friend is a great desk is a good example of that. it took him a while -- my friend is a good example of that. it took them a while before he was able to get a job -- it took him a while before he was able to get a job. we are dealing with those recoveries economic and financial. host: we thank you for that.

bill says speaking of chipotle, i can personally say they pay far below what any man can make elsewhere in kitchens. relying on underpaid women who cannot get kitchen work anywhere else and they have turnover every two weeks. the details in the news 2021 c-span survey. you can check out all of it including who was number one. president abraham lincoln. number 10 is former president barack obama. on sunday morning, four historians who took a principal role in this.

we hope you tune in sunday morning at 8:00 a.m. we are getting a reaction to the labor department numbers. the economy adding 850,000 jobs in the month of june. those numbers released just of short while ago. russell is on the phone with reaction. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is statistics of a hundred 50,000 new jobs. i've never, and i've never -- and i may be wrong, how do we create 850,000 new jobs. you can never have a surplus as long as you have a deficit. i've seen a lot of this unemployment rate. more people make more money working from home than they do going back to -- going back.

government does not create jobs nor do they lose jobs. the reality of it is that the market of today's unemployment, our people are in the richest people -- richest country in the world don't even make $15 an hour. if they do pay you $15 an hour, you are solely dependent on yourself. it's the government who don't want you doing that. this is why the labor rate is what it is. when they replace these jobs before you can edit more, there are no new jobs unless you recoup the other jobs. host: the scene yesterday outside surfside, florida. a makeshift memorial for those who are believed dead in the horrific collapse of the tower. the president after meeting with

family members of those victims had this to say. >> the whole nation is mourning with these families. they see it every day on television. they are going through hell. those who survived the collapse as well as those who are missing loved ones. i realize that i am a little bit late because i spent the time that because i spent time with the families -- i realize that i am a little bit late because i spent time with the families. i thought it was important to beak -- to speak with every single person who wanted to speak to me. i spent the remainder of the time, such incredible people. i sat with one woman who just lost her husband and her little baby boy. didn't know what to do. i sat with another family who lost almost an entire family. cousins, brothers, sisters. to watch them and praying and

pleading let there be a miracle. i have some idea what it's like to suffer that kind of loss that so many were suffering. they had heart wrenching questions. were they able to recover this -- where they able to recover the body of my son, husband, mom and dad? jill and i wanted them to know that we are with them and the country is with them. our message today is that we are here for you as one nation. that is the message we communicated. we will be in touch with a lot of these families continuing through this process. there is much more to be done. we are ready to do it. i think the governor.

i think --thank the governor, rubio. there is no disagreement, no bickering. everybody is on the same team. it's what america is all about. host: that was president joe biden yesterday in surfside, florida. the june jobs report trouncing expectations. 850,000 jobs reported for the month of june. senator -- republican of iowa saying the pre-pandemic best economy started by the trump tax cut. it is roaring back after a virus interlude. the rapid pace of the vaccination is driving this huge job growth. vaccines are free, safe and will save your life.

eric from new york, good morning. caller: good morning. it's with a heavy heart that i understand this is your fault -- your final day -- it with the heavy heart that i understand that this is your final day. host: one more day after this. caller: i'm sorry that you will be added to the unemployment. i expect a book, a memoir. you have an amazing perspective all of these years. i have watched all of you guys try to be in the no man's land of the dialogue of our country. in other words, in the middle. understanding both sides and trying to have a coalition of consensus and thoughtful conversation. i tried to model myself after

ethos as given by brian lamb and you are a worthy assessor of that. i'm looking for that book. -- worthy predecessor of that. i'm looking for that book. host: i appreciate your kind compliment. caller: good morning. i don't know if this is the number but i am an employed person. i've been employed through the whole pandemic and the thing is i have a 1099 that i have received through unemployment for money that i've never even got. i've been on hold for over two weeks. i can't get through to a single soul. i put a complaint in and the website has locked me out because of identity fraud. i don't know who to turn to, but i want my money. i worked from the day of the pandemic.

my hours got caught. i should be part of the unemployment and nobody has responded or called. host: thank you for calling. we go to lexington. caller: take that thanks for talk test for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. a gentleman who said he was non-graduate. on his comment and his statements. these right on the money. how can we set up there and say we have a job growth when we had not gotten back to a point before the pandemic? there are jobs out there. i haven't missed a day since this pandemic. i have worked. there are people who need employees and they can't get them. they are not going to get them as long as the federal government and state governments are paying them to stay at home. host: thank you for the call.

this is a message from a viewer in georgia saying we started our own residential cleaning business in the atlanta metro area and are looking to hire. it's hard to find people who want to do the job. from north carolina, keith. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. one of the things is the unemployment, this a lot of jobs that can be filled when those people meant more to stay at home than they do to go to work. the thing that's going to kill is now with the gas prices and all that going so high that once again, you will make more money to stay at home and drawl meant to go to work. host: what you think the second half of the years going to look like? caller: truthfully, i think the

whole thing, as long as we keep making the decisions that our current leadership is making it's not good. you look at the, the state should open open -- should open up. they are recovering well. this ones that did not -- the ones that did not are not. i'm a teacher. up in face-to-face the whole thing. we shut down at beginning of the pandemic and went to virtual, but when the new school year started we were face-to-face. it was a mixture. we worked the whole time. watching the education unions, north carolina is bigger than your big cities.

watching them and all the complaints in teachers of not going back to work. that really irritated me because as a teacher i look as it -- i look at it as a doctor. you've got a service to the public that you chose to go into. we were frontline workers. host: thanks for your calls and comments. tune in sunday morning for two hours. conversation with leading authors richard norton smith, doug brinkley as we look at the c-span presidential historian survey. finally, we want to say goodbye to one of our dear colleagues. a longtime director and there he is. he has been a steady hand for nearly 39 years directing this program. he is a master. just look at him. political conventions, presidential and durations and so many other signature shows.

we were trying to figure out how many calls he has listened to. answer? a lot. we are going to miss his professionalism, good-natured, warm personality and all that he is brought over the years for the last four decades. on behalf of all of us at c-span, we wish you the all of the best in your next chapter. thank you so much for contributing to the c-span mission. that's washington journal. we are back tomorrow morning. check out all of our coverage on the web at c-span.org. up next, a playbook conversation with anita dunn. that's alive on c-span. -- that's live on c-span. >> we heard that jobs were created anitaun