[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government-funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment stuff that's why charter has invested billions, building infrastructure, accreting technology, empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front rosita democracy. -- a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," block chain association director kristin smith discussesefforts e

cryptocurrency. then, reid wilson talks about the census bureau 2020 compilation and data. join the discussion with your phone calls, comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal." the white house plans to send 3000 troops back to afghanistan. this, as the taliban took over two large cities of the country and the u.s. and other countries , still attempting to apply diplomatic pressure. for the next hour, your thoughts on this latest decision by the biden administration to send troops back to afghanistan. here is how you can call us. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

and independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you are a village -- veteran of the military and want to give your perspective, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. use that number to text us. for posts on social media, facebook and twitter, you can follow washington journal at c-span wj. about 3000 u.s. troops saying the decision to reduce the size and send troops back to the region amount to a remarkable turnaround for the biden administration, which has spread confidence in afghan security forces, even as those forces melted away. the taliban took over districts provincial capital. a week ago, the administration anticipated it would maintain enduring diplomatic presence to assist the afghan government to counter the taliban.

john kirby laid out the specifics. you can see the whole of that on c-span.org. here is a portion from yesterday. >> the president has ordered the reduction of civilian personnel at our embassy in kabul and the acceleration of the evacuation of applicants from the country to enable the safe -- the country. -- to ensure the safety and security of u.s. civilian personnel. i will break this down for you real quick. the first movement will consist of three battalions that are in the demand -- command of response billy. -- responsibility. one is a u.s. army battalion. two are united states marines. the next will consist of 1000 personnel to facilitate the

processing of siv applicants. initial elements of this -- movement of this element will arrive in cutter in the following days -- qatar in the following days. -- they will be postured and prepared if needed to provide additional security at the airport. we anticipate those forces will reach kuwait sometime within the next week. i want to stress that these forces are being deployed to support the orderly and safe production of civilian personnel at the request of the state department and accelerate the process of working through applicants. this is a temporary mission with a narrow focus. host: that was yesterday at the pentagon in washington. statements being released by members of congress, including mitch mcconnell, who put out a statement saying unless president biden adjusts course quickly, the taliban is on track

to secure a significant military victory. a hasty deployment of military forces seems like preparations for the fall of kabul. president biden's strategy has turned an imperfect but stable situation into a major embarrassment and a global emergency in the matter -- a matter of weeks. the cost and ramifications will echo across the world. a statement being released by michael mccaul, a republican of texas. he is saying this. for months, i implored the president he needed to take steps to mitigate the fallout from his decision to withdraw from afghanistan. the ministry put their hopes in peace negotiations that have not -- administration put their hopes in peace negotiations that have not yielded any result. he will own the horrific images

that come from it. more legislators putting out statements on that. we will show you those as the hour goes on. we can hear from you if you want to call us. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. for those of you who served in afghanistan in the military capacity, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. use that number to text message us your thoughts. glenn starts us off on the republican line. go ahead. caller: biden has always been a bad farm relation is man -- relationist man. we ought to send joe biden to afghanistan to fight off the taliban. that would be the best thing we could do. host: as far as the mistake, what do you mean by that? caller: he is a crook.

why did he leave the white house? the americans stick their mouth out on national tv and tell everybody and the world what they are going to do before they do it. and that is the wrong policy to have. host: ok. that is glenn in texas. we will hear from eugene in new mexico, independent line in albuquerque. caller: i think this is absolutely horrific that the taliban is taking power. it is a huge threat to our country. i am scared that being under attack is going to happen. i think the u.s. should stop naming russia and china as the number one enemy. it is clearly the taliban and what is going on in the middle east.

host: watch of the u.s. do now? caller: i get they should withdraw but they have to put the taliban on notice. the u.s. should probably just new afghanistan. -- nuke afghanistan. host: let's go to john in georgia. the publican line. -- republican line. caller: we are going to use troops to get out of diplomatic personnel. we should also, in the effort, bring out the civilians that assisted us in our mission to afghanistan.

where we have been, for 20 years. host: do you support this move to use the personnel troops to get the diplomats out? caller: certainly. we have an obligation to get our diplomats out. host: do you think more troops could be put into afghanistan? caller: absolutely not. we have spent an old total -- untold some on this treasury to equip the afghan forces. to defend themselves. now, you can supply all of the hardware and ammunition, etc., two people to defend themselves. if they have no will to defend themselves, how do you instill that in them?

host: that is john from georgia. this is dennis from facebook, saying when it comes to the efforts, he says get out of there for good. dave in illinois says the taliban was in control before we invaded 20 years ago. pulling out from afghanistan was always going to be dangerous. i trust president biden to do what is safe. joan from minnesota says we need to lead but there is a wrong way with no advanced landing and there is a right way and this is the wrong way. it is a disgrace to our military and our country. if you go to the website of the longboard journal, they featured an update. if you go by the key they are the red person -- portion is under taliban control.

if you look at the orange areas, those are listed as those under high threats, a moderate threat. that color gold, and then low threat toward the center of the country. that is what the current situation looks like as far as taliban control. that part, leading to the decision by the administration, with getting diplomatic personnel. from miami, florida, democrats line, don, your next. caller: good morning. i blame this all on george bush, the son, when he invaded afghanistan in order to hunt down al qaeda. we should have learned from the russians. we should have had contingency plans and a lot more education. i also feel for the women of afghanistan who have apparently made social games and

educational gains. i have no idea what will happen there. finally, i hope our intelligence is up to par for the future. we set up this homeland security with a so-called super cop who is supposed to have taken our intelligence agencies and all the -- and coordinate them and share information. that seems to have failed. host: do you think that presidents obama, trump and biden bear response ability for afghanistan? caller: well, of course. definitely, of course. each one inherited what the one before didn't do or did not do. host: that is don in miami, florida. we will hear from robert in fairfield, california. on our independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the united states has wasted 20 years to take care of their own country and the taliban is going

to take over the whole country. give it time. biden, this is all his fault. nobody else's. host: what should be done? caller: where are our allies at? have they been helping us fight this? host: as far as the u.s. responsibility, what do you think our response ability should be -- responsibility should be? caller: we trained all the people over there and they can't fight for their own country? the taliban is going to take over the whole country. give it time. host: robert in california, giving us his thoughts. insurgents control over half of the country's 400 district. the insurgents will control 13 provincial capitals, including another provincial capital and one in the northwest. it was a devastating 24 hours for the government forces in

afghanistan. the new york times add that k andahar and herat were heavily defended. they were reporting to be deserting or changing sides. kandahar is a huge prize for the taliban. it was the birthplace of the insurgency in the 1990's. more on that perspective when it comes to the troops presence. a statement being released by the u.n. security council, saying they are discussing a statement that would condemn the taliban attacks and threaten sanctions for acts that risk afghanistan's peace and civility. the text strongly affirms that the islamic emirate of afghanistan is not recognized by

the united nations and will not support any establishment that is imposed through military force or restoration. robert in california, our independent line. -- let's go to orlando, bedford, texas. caller: if we are going to pull out, we can't go back over there. host: what did you do in afghanistan? caller: [indiscernible] host: democrats line, this is

key in tunnel hill, georgia. caller: how are you doing? host: this -- caller: this was a mess waiting to happen. it is funny, a republican called in and said the same thing i believe. biden followed through. if they don't want to fight for their country, cut your losses and get out. thank you. host: no additional presence other than what we are seeing, is that what you're saying? caller: pardon me? host: no additional forces? caller: get our people out and get out of there! i can't defend donald trump but i agree with him. this is a craphole. you cannot educate them. the ones that want to get educated on the girls. these men live in a prehistoric mindset. get out. host: ok. that is keith in georgia. the washington post, as part of

their editorial, their lead editorial licking at the legacy of -- looking at the legacy of joe biden. he absolves himself of any response ability. it is up to afghan leaders to come together. they have to fight for themselves, they have to fight for their nation. the truth is they have been fighting but the united states trained them to do it. suddenly, this support is gone. they add, the editors at that leaving now means walking away from that responsibility. you can read that in the washington post. joe in north carolina says forget the talk about afghanistan. do not buy a long distance war. if you must defend and cannot put the enemy on the fence, you will lose. osama bin laden died.

osama bin laden, mentioned by craig in ohio. pakistani nuclear arsenal is in reach. peter in connecticut said i don't know why we are over there in the first place. it should have been international police action, he adds. let hear from harold in greenwood, indiana. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. it is a disaster and a fiasco. we keep trying to learn the same lessons over and over. we did not learn about the russians in afghanistan. 20 years, one trillion dollars, thousands of american lives. we supposedly have been training the afghan troops. we must not be very good troops. the quote george patton, the taliban is going through the afghan army. we are paying the afghan

soldiers. it is a disaster. host: as far as this decision by the biden administration, what do you think of that? caller: biden, i think he made the right decision. somebody has to say, like harry truman phrased, the buck stops here. it has been a waste. nothing has been advanced. we have lost a lot of money. i think the afghans are worse off now than they were 20 years ago. host: is that not a u.s. concern anymore? caller: we washed our hands of it. i believe we should let them alone and let the chips fall. i'm sorry to say that but i think that is the bottom line. host: another text from john in maryland says fall of saigon part two. tony in california says we should get out. it is easy to be drawn into wars because we play world police. the afghans wanted the money we

poured into the conflict over 20 years. we have a realtor must -- real domestic problem with the divisions we are experiencing. reston trump ordered the withdrawal and he was right. that is some of the text that has been posted on facebook. others of you, having conversations on twitter about this. you can call us at well -- as well, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us. that number is (202) 748-8003. and post on to various social media sites as you wish. we will continue with this topic until 8:00. we want to show you some of the diplomatic side of the decisions that have been made. a state apartment spokesman, ned price, talking about the situation at the embassy in kabul. >> the embassy remains open. we continue our diplomatic work, our diplomatic mission in afghanistan. we will continue to do the

priority functions. that includes supporting security, assistance, cooperation on counterterrorism as we have been talking about. especially in the context of the special immigrant visa program. we are always reviewing the environment and, especially complex operating environments. that includes kabul. today's announcement is really a continuation of one of our most important responsibilities. that is doing all we can to ensure the safety, security, welfare and well-being of our people. as you know, we went on order departure in kabul on april 22 -- 27th with an eye to the

security develop and. we are going to continue to priorities -- prioritized these areas, knowing our partnership with the afghan government and our partnership with the afghan people will be enduring. host: some reaction from members of congress, jim inhofe saying when the president of the united states made his decision to withdraw from afghanistan, it was against the guidance of nearly everyone, including top military leaders. this was a protectable outcome but it did not have to happen. representative dan crenshaw said president biden promised to withdraw by 9/11 of this year based solely on politics. as the taliban continue to advance, it is clear that by 9/11, they will control the same territory and likely more than they controlled at the time of the 9/11 attack.

a democrat says a necessary decision by president biden. the top priority must be the safety of the people who have closely helped us. but the quickening degradation of security in afghanistan is confirmation president biden made the right choice to bring our troops home. that is reaction from numbers in congress. rick in providence, kentucky, independent line. caller: it looks to me like it would be a good time to send in some b-52s while these guys are all out in the open. take out as many of them as we can now and destroy everything that was left behind that they are going to be using. host: aside from that, what do you think about the decision by the administration to send troops there? caller: get out, send in the air power, get them while we have them out in the open. host: what's the value of getting out? totally?

caller: everything that we have spent over there, everybody that has been killed, they are not going to fight for their own country. the best thing we can do is take out as many of them as we can. host: mark in arizona, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, this is mark. i think it is time we got out of there. i think dick cheney and bush and blackrock started this whole thing. they gave us weapons of mass destruction. i worked in the inter-force as a civilian. i trained for years on those respirators and the equipment. it was all for none. it was a big waste to -- waste of time for money. it was a contractor war. host: as far as president biden is concerned, what do you think about his decision? caller: we have to get out of

there. why do we keep supporting these contractors? host: you blinged the bus -- bush administration, as far as the administration's of president obama and trump, do you think they take responsibly as well? he hung up. let's go to alex in silver spring, maryland, and afghan war vet. caller: i was deployed to afghanistan in 2011. basically, 10 years ago. one of the last year long deployments they were having for the army. at the time, this was under obama, it was right around the time that he started the drawdown, which is neither here nor there. just placing it in the timeframe. i was deployed to a province which i heard on the news this morning is under taliban control. which is ironic to me, because

during my deployment there, our area was the first to be transitioned back to local government control. before that, the whole area was under u.s. military direct control, as far as the police forces and the armed forces, which were supervised by the u.s. military. this was an experiment that, at the time, was going well. we did not have any attacks while i was there. i think there was one time in the whole year that we had a couple of rockets fired at one of our bases. they missed, basically. they missed everything and wound up being duds. host: what changed? caller: i wasn't there for a lot of it. i don't know. after 20 years of being there, i have heard all sorts of speculative talk about how we

lost focus when we went into iraq and so we just stagnated their and did not follow through with trying to get rid of the taliban. i think there is some truth to everybody talking about how the afghan people have to fight for it. it is complicated. there is so many different groups that are invested in whatever is happening in different areas of the country. for example, where i was deployed, the base that we were stationed at called camp stone on the main north-south highway was leased land, not from the afghan government, but from a local warlord. i heard an anecdotal story about the previous appointment that we took over for, saying that one time, they had mortars fire at

their base. the warlord who the u.s. military was paying to lease this land heard about that. and wound up going to find out who fired the mortars at the u.s. military base and had them and their entire family killed. we never have the mortars fired at our base again. host: the decision by the administration to send troops back, do you think that should end? caller: i think honestly, personally, it should have ended 10 years ago. i was there. i think what has been happening there has been a failed social experiment. i understand he is sending more troops. i doubt they will be seeing any fiery -- fighting in kabul because that is not the mission anymore. the mission is to be there and be intimidating.

host: that is alex. if you want to share your specific story, and the perspective you have, you can call us at (202) 748-8003. from rob, independent line in new york, good morning. caller: i have been listening to c-span for decades. i'm wondering who's side are you on? the most important story is the election that was stolen. mike lindell had a three day conference with tons of proof. host: i will stop you there because that is not the topic. if you want to comment on what is going on in afghanistan, you can do so. are you there? ok. let's go to randy. randy in pell city, alabama, democrats line. caller: how are you doing today? host: what do you think about the situation concerning afghanistan? caller: how many years have we had troops in germany and south

korea and all of those places? we ain't running to pull them out. let them fight. yes, i'm a democrat. but, the president we have is a democrat now and he can't take care of the american people here at home. host: by your comparison, you are saying leave troops to continue on as far as fighting in afghanistan? caller: put a base over there. we have bases in germany and south korea and all over this country. put a base there and leave them there. host: that is randy in pell city, alabama, finishing off the first half hour. again, the biden administration, sending troops back to help with evacuation of diplomatic personnel at the embassy. you can talk about that decision and the larger decision concerning afghanistan if you wish. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. john kirby said two marine infantry italians and one army battalion, 3000 troops altogether will deploy in the next two days. that is to help evacuate americans and embassy personnel. the troops are coming from areas in the middle east. according to mr. kirby, that additional 1000 army personnel will head to qatar. then, as a contingency plan, in case and embassy evacuation turns into a fight, the pentagon is moving an entire brigade combat team, 3500 troops from

fort bragg took away. if those troops end up in afghanistan, that would bring the number of american forces to 7000. more than double the number president biden announced in april that he would withdraw american troops -- number in april, when president biden announced he would withdraw president -- american troops and end america's longest war. caller: i hope he understands that not only do you put the afghan people at risk, but i think you put the united states at risk. september 11 and the terror stuff -- because of september 11 and the stuff we had. i think he made the right call. it should have been a slower process and he should have just

been a little more thorough with how the decision was made. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i mean that it should have been a slower process, so withdraw over a longer period of time, just so there is more stability to withdraw. host: ok. that is joe in los angeles. another editorial from the wall street journal, the debacle in afghanistan is how it is highlighted. it says the white house fails to understand what is happening. the military warned mr. biden. mr. biden announced its withdraw -- his withdrawal, aiming for the symbolic date of september 11. it highlights president trump issuing a statement, absolving himself of response really though he cut the bad deal with the taliban.

saying i had discussions with taliban leaders, understanding what they are doing now would not be acceptable. that is not what mr. trump said in the spring when he praised the withdrawal and claimed credit. both men were so determined to get political credit for bringing the troops home they failed to face the consequences. you can see more in the wall street journal's editorial parade -- editorial page. on the republican line, this is dee. caller: you're not going to like what i have to say but this comment is toward you. host: let's start with afghanistan because that is the topic at hand. caller: that's my point. what i want to say first is a republican goes off the subject and you cut them right off. it has nothing to do with trump.

you get democrat people on their and they mention -- there and they mention anything about trump -- host: i have asked both sides, what do you think about the decision about afghanistan? caller: you know how many people have already died and now we are sending more troops in now to save the ones that are still in their? -- there? the country is screwed up. other than that, have a great day. we knew the taliban was going to take over. we knew this. biden withdrew all the troops out. now, we are sending troops back in. he should have just left them in there or pulled everyone out

in the beginning. host: ok. let's hear from chip in colorado, democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say the present situation is so tragic and i feel terrible about it. i don't know that there is a good answer at this point. it is terrible to leave the people behind. i wanted to make the point that there seems to be some kind of collective amnesia in the media as to how this whole thing went down. after 9/11, when we first invaded afghanistan, long before iraq came up, we were successful. that was a peaceful place. i was reading stories in the new york times with the subject being why don't we hear more from afghanistan? the article would go into the fact that it was peaceful. the taliban was standing down. girls were going to school in peace. host: what do you think the difference is between then

versus now? caller: when we made the move to go to correct -- iraq, not only did we lose credibility, because the world did not think we should have gone to war and we shouldn't have. host: do you think the decisions to pull out by president trump and biden have led to what is going on today? caller: yes. of those pullouts have led to what is going on today. i swear, we have never pulled out troops to go to iraq -- if we never pulled out troops to go to iraq, we would have been successful. today, i am afraid we have to leave. it seems like too big of a mess for us to fix at this point. host: let's hear from raymond. raymond in orangeburg, south carolina. you are up. caller: it is hurtful to me. i am a vietnam veteran. we do the same thing -- did the same thing in vietnam.

my generation suffers from vietnam and my sons generation will suffer. host: so, as far as the decision by president biden, what do you think of it? caller: he had no choice. he is caught up in something political. that war should never have happened. i don't believe that we should have gone to vietnam or any of the other wars. i suffered from vietnam and this wore her my children. -- war hurt my children. host: there is an x up from an upcoming book by craig whitlock who reports on policy issues, -- it highlights a lot of what we are talking about. and it highlights the obama administration's initial

decision. president obama conjured up an illusion, with duties that relegated them to the sidelines. it will be published later this year. as the flag came down during the december 2014 ceremony in kabul, president obama's command emphasized the afghan army would take responsibility for the country's security. the pentagon carved out numerous exemptions that made the distinctions almost meaningless. in 2015 and 2016, u.s. military launched missiles and bombs on 2284 occasions. that is an average of more than three times per day. that is more of the historical perspective when it comes to the

events in washington on afghanistan. you can see it on the website of the washington post. let's hear from brian in st. petersburg, florida. the publican line. -- republican line. caller: afghanistan is always going to be a long-term investment because those people have never experienced democracy. you have to give them a taste of freedom so that they can fight for it. one caller said the women wanted to go to school and that they enjoyed doing that and the men were prehistoric. that is true but if you get the mental want to fight for their country, it's going to be a long term investment. host: u.s. troops should still be there in your opinion? caller: at this point, it is pretty much -- it is over. they should have done their homework prior to going into

this place and known it was going to be a long-term thing. host: we have been doing this for 20 years. when you -- wouldn't you classify that as a long-term investment? caller: it has to be longer than 20 years. even in their culture, they value relationships. that is just their culture. they want to make long relationships. they don't want people to just come and go. i think if they had known that in the first place, that it was going to be 40 years or 50 years -- once you have a couple of generations that know what freedom is like, then they have something to fight for. for thousands of years, those people have been subjected to tyranny and they don't know what freedom is. you can't give freedom to people

in 10 or 20 years. it takes a long time. host: republican -- brian on the republican line in st. petersburg, florida. rose says it was an unethical decision. she says president biden voted for this war. he has a responsibility toward these people and we rokita. slow it down. why do we wait so long to get our people out of afghanistan? it makes no sense we have waited this long. from donna in michigan, i don't see the argument for president -- saying president biden is doing the right thing by leaving. peggy in brooklyn says afghanistan's so-called military is abandoning their basis and running. we need to be gone from there, take care of the u.s. you can do -- those are people giving us their comments, you can do the same by going on our

twitter and facebook page and calling us. on the independent line, greg, go ahead. caller: this is a perfect opportunity for the biden administration and the democratic party to de-escalate the problems in our inner cities and send those folks over there to give them training. host: when it comes to the decision to send troops back, what do you think of that? caller: i have no problem with that because they are trying to get the people out that helped our country. i think that he is doing the right thing that way. we should never have been over there in the first place. i agree with the people talking about how george w. bush should never have gotten us involved in any of that stuff. host: benjamin from new york, in riverhead, new york. democrats line. caller: i think biden made the

right decision, getting the troops out of there. 20 years is too long. i'm a vietnam veteran and a korean veteran. host: do you think if the taliban continues to take over, do you think it becomes an issue for the u.s.? caller: we have been there too long. any time the country does not fight for their own freedom, and from what i have been seeing on the news reports, they have been surrendering their weapons and all kinds of stuff. they knew this was coming. they knew the united states was eventually going to leave. 20 years is too long. 2 trillion dollars, that money could have been spent for the veterans here and the people here in the united states. take care of your country first. we have spread out too much. germany, south korea, all over the place. they have paid in blood. biden made the right decision. host: we will go to todd on the

independent line. caller: i would like to make two comments. one, i have been watching c-span religiously since 1978, when it came on, in that. -- in that period of time. basically, it has stayed the same. and i like c-span, but i get my news from rt america. host: let's start with afghanistan, what do you think about the decision from the biden administration? caller: it sounds good but all of the past presidents have said that and they escalate it again. it doesn't mean anything. we talk about moxie, spreading democracy -- democracy, spreading democracy to the world, we don't know it ourselves. host: if there is an s collation

again, that is something you wouldn't support? caller: absolutely not. we have enough problems right here. i'm retired, i'm a veteran. social security is in jeopardy. it is all about the military-industrial complex to make money for billionaires. host: how does that relate to afghanistan? caller: it is all connected. it's all connected. it's all about the money. to be honest with you, what difference does it make what i personally think? why even have a format anymore? because, these people are going to do whatever they want to do. host: you are a u.s. taxpayer who probably provides to the financial efforts, does that give you a voice? caller: yeah but it is all misused. you can't account for the tax money. these billions of dollars being stolen. it's obvious. host: ok. another person commenting, when

asked about the efforts going on in afghanistan, responding to respondings of what's going on currently and the fall of saigon in 1975. >> what do you think the evacuation of the military will look like and how are you going to avoid the fall of saigon? >> what this will look like is what it is. the united states government looking after the safety and security of our people, first and foremost. and making sure that we, the military, a supporting the safe movement -- are supporting the safe movement of these people out of afghanistan, which we believe is a prudent step. we are not walking away from our commitment to the afghan forces.

we are still going to have diplomats there. we are still going to be doing work as net price said earlier. the military will remain committed to protecting the diplomatic presence in afghanistan. we are not walking away from it. it is doing the right thing at the right time to protect our people. host: this is from linda in concord, new hampshire, saying if we had gone with the marshall plan in afghanistan, we would have a reliable ally in the region and the afghans would have a functioning country with no interest in medieval fanaticism. i watched saigon fall. the blood of the women and girls will be on our hands. the associated press, providing photos of the 1975 fall of saigon. also, the helicopter, airlifting people from the embassy there.

-- over concerns of the controls of the taliban within the country. we thousand troops going back for that effort. we will ask you about that for the next couple of minutes. dave on our republican line, in hammond, new york. good morning. caller: i'm on the road, a beautiful view of the capital from the woodrow wilson bridge. host: as far as the situation in afghanistan, what do you think about that? caller: we have to protect the personnel that are still there and get out the rest of the folks who want to get out that were helping us. i have no problem with that. i think the famous expression comes in that those who ignore or forget your history are doomed to repeat it. the history of afghanistan is that nobody wins there.

we may as well quit trying in that regard. i heard from a taliban leader who was talking to an american counterpart and he said we own all the time. host: why not a stronger u.s. presence there? caller: why not a stronger presence there? host: right. caller: i don't see the need. they understand life a whole different way. they have a different understanding of life. they don't understand the democratic freedoms and liberties that we have in the constitutional republic like ours. how do you expect them to come around to our way of thinking? you can't change it in a generation. we have been there 20 years.

you have guys that were there in the early going and then some of their sons are going back now. historically, it is a different part of the world. i guess americans don't understand. host: let's hear from sue in kentucky. caller: i feel sorry for those in afghanistan. they have not learned in 20 years and the united states has tried to help them and they gave them money and a lot of our soldiers and everything got killed over there. i just think that, you know, like i said, i really feel sorry for them. host: as far as afghanistan's future, what do you think the responsibility should be? caller: i think they should get out like the caller before said, the ones that want to come, and get them out of there. and let them fight their own battle, as grandma used to say. we can't teach them nothing.

they're not going to listen to us read in 20 years, they're not going to listen. host: one of the people commenting on the current situation was craig. you may remember him. he is with the american enterprise institute. he wrote an op-ed in the new york times this morning, saying president biden could have stopped the taliban. saying, mr. biden's further expending of u.s. resources is a recipe for being there indefinitely. he writes president trump had a few good options by making -- left a few good options with him making a terrible deal with the taliban. adopting a more judicious approach would have required mr. biden to accept two things in addition to a longer timeline.

the temporary deployment of additional u.s. forces and the slightly increased risk of american casualties. when the president ordered the pullout of 3500 troops in afghanistan, 1000 or 2000 additional troops deployed could have made a difference. instead, he ordered a hasty withdrawal as the taliban offensive was moving into its major phase. you can read more in the new york times. caller: good morning. i am a historian. i want to do a quick historical backdrop on this. 9/11 happened. president bush said we are going to get the people responsible and that was our mission. our mission was not nationbuilding. somehow, under president bush and continued by president obama, we began this idealistic nationbuilding effort, which put

at risk many afghans, in the event that we would leave. we should have known that. colin powell said if you break it, you own it. he said that about iraq. that is also true about afghanistan. we have broken it. therefore, we own it. host: what does that mean for the current situation? caller: i think we should have a force there, permanently if necessary. in the manner of the article that you read him the newspaper -- from the newspaper, we can't leave these people to their own devices and entail a mass slaughter of people we made promises to. host: many people have commented that we made this investment in afghanistan for 20 years to no avail. caller: it is not to no avail. it is to protect those people.

we are being impatient. the number of casualties of u.s. soldiers has diminished since we lowered our footprint in afghanistan. we have less of a footprint. host: what about the taliban's increase of their footprint? caller: that has to be stopped and we can do that with a minimal number of crude -- troops. we signaled to them to take over. that was done by trump and biden and reversed by biden. he should have seen the consequences. i voted for biden i am disappointed in the way he has handled this. host: that is paul in connecticut, making his case. dustin in georgia, independent line, you are next. hello. caller: these people in the middle east and afghanistan have been fighting each other for thousands of years.

many of these societies in the middle east, they never got out of the bronze age. host: as far as afghanistan specifically, what should or should we not do it? caller: the biggest thing is where is nato? where are the other countries? we have to pull out. it is chaos. these people have thousand year beefs. they won't drop it.

[indiscernible] they were living under thousand year codes and would not drop it. host: this is from harry in mount lebanon, pennsylvania. he is a vietnam veteran and says how may times have we heard the u.s. government say limited mission, narrow focus? from greg stevens off our facebook, saying the administration did not have a plan for their exit strategy and the country is going back to pre-9/11 afghanistan. -- that country is going to pre-9/11 afghanistan. dickie says there too coward to stand against the taliban on their own so they deserve to be ruled by them. the afghan tribal culture has prevailed.

those are comments from the social media and texting service. bill in new jersey, republican line. caller: i'm old enough to remember the fall of saigon. that's what this reminds me of. for anyone who does not remember and is too young, you might want to look at a video called the last days of saigon, or a book called decent interval by a cia operative in saigon at the time of the fall of saigon. host: what does this mean for afghanistan? caller: well, the situation is similar. i don't think there is much that can be done to help the afghans. president biden has said the afghan army has more soldiers than the taliban and yet the taliban seems to be winning. it just reminds me of saigon and

i think they are going to be pictures in the future -- there are going to be pictures in the future of americans who were left behind. there will be calls to get them out and there will be other pictures of the abuse of the afghan women. it is just a sad situation. host: that is bill in new jersey. our final call, this is earl, in georgia. saying we have trained and armed and we still have troops in harm's way. to all of you who have participated in this hour, thank you. our first guest will talk about congress. you have heard a lot of debate, infrastructure debate. the topic of cryptocurrency, kristin smith of the blockchain association will join us, not

only to talk about what congress talked about when it comes to cryptocurrency, but the future of it. later on in the program, we will hear from reid wilson of the hill. about nuisances numbers that came out -- new census numbers that came out and what that could mean for redistricting. ♪ >> with c-span's studentcam competition, -- that answers the question how does the federal government affect your life? c-span's studentcam competition competition has $100,000 in total cash prizes and a shot at a grand prize of $500,000.

-- $5,000. for more information on how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> british writer charles dickens is credited with creating some of the world's best-known fictional characters. over 2000 scattered throughout his 14.5 published novels. american authors, journalists, and politicians often refer to situations as being dickensian. jenny hartley has published three books on charles dickens, the most recent titled a very short introduction by oxford press. we asked professor hartley to tell us about his life and accomplishments, including his two trips to the u.s. in 1842

and 1867. >> author jenny hartley on this episode of book notes plus. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is kristin smith, the executive director of the block chain association and here to talk about congress and the recent discussions they had on the topic of cryptocurrency. thanks for being with us. guest: great to be here. host: what do you do and glad to have you back? guest: we work with our 46 different member companies who are part of the cryptocurrency industry, and we work to figure out the public policy positions

of the industry and advocate for those policies before congress and federal agencies. host: when it comes to the cryptocurrency itself, what is the best way for the average person to understand how it works? guest: cryptocurrency does take a little while to understand. i encourage people to google terms they do not understand. it is a digital asset. it is something you can and give to other people -- can own and give to other people. the big innovation is that you can make transactions online in a way that does not involve a middleman. it creates a lot of efficiencies, and there are different applications that can be built around this technology. they are in the early stages today. in the future, it will lead towards a better financial services system and better internet computing platform. host: when it comes to the

currency itself, what gives it value? guest: the value is derived from a couple different things. that coin is the most popular cryptocurrency. bitcoin's value is derived from the fact that it is scarce. there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. bitcoin is akin to gold. when you look at some of these other cryptocurrencies, they power decentralized networks that offer specific services. there is something called file coin. that is like an amazon web services. the value of file coin is derived from the value of the underlying service. host: if there is a dollar figure to be attached, how much is out there with regards to cryptocurrency? guest: it fluctuates. this year we reached the $2 trillion threshold. it is a little less than that now. it is a growing asset class.

there are new digital assets that are being created all the time. the ones we have are growing in value as well. it is definitely an exciting and fast-growing space. host: one of the issues amongst the debates before congress in the infrastructure built and reconciliation built was this idea of how to treat cryptocurrencies, especially brokers. guest: if you think of your traditional stockbroker like charles schwab or merrill lynch, one of the services they provide is they send you a form 1099 that tells you how much tax you owe for the capital gains from buying and selling stocks. in the cryptocurrency world, there are crypto exchanges, cracking, finance u.s., and with those types of brokers there are no regulations today for how they are supposed to issue

something similar to the 1099. for these companies it is important that we get regulations that give them the guidance they need to offer this service to their customers because this reporting goes to the irs, but it also goes to make everybody's life easier. the problem we had this week in congress is that the language that was included that would help provide this type of reporting for traditional cryptocurrency exchanges included a new definition of the word broker, and the way it was drafted was so broad that it would actually pull in other people who helped with the operation and maintenance of the decentralized crypto network that do not have customers and don't have information to report. as a result, these types of disease would not be allowed to

operate in the u.s. because it would be impossible for them to comply. that is with the guidance is about, getting clarity on this definition of a broker so it applies to those cryptocurrency companies that truly are brokers but leaves out the software developers and validator's and other network participants that are helping keep the network up and running but don't have that customer relationship. host: kristin smith, our guest with blockchain association coming here to talk about cryptocurrencies and related issues. if you want to ask a question, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. perhaps you own cryptocurrency and want to talk about your experience, (202) 748-8003. i want to play a little bit from senator ted cruz of texas, one of the people that went to the floor of the senate and talked

about this idea of regulation of crypto and admonishing other senators. [video clip] >> let's exercise a brief shining moment of common sense and less recognize that if we have gathered all 100 senators in this chamber and have them articulate two sentences defining what a cryptocurrency is that you would not get greater than five who could answer that question. given that reality, the barest exercise of prudence would say we should not regulate something we do not understand. we should take the time to understand it. we should consider the consequences. we should not destroy people's lives and livelihoods from complete endurance. my amendment is simple. it does not add anything to this bill. it strikes these provisions.

let's not do this until we know what we are talking about. let's be cautious. let's be reasonable. let's not be the number one economic developer for the communist party of china by sending cryptocurrencies overseas to our competitors because we made it impossible for them to succeed here. host: what is your reaction? guest: i think senator cruz is right. this is an important space and is going to be increasingly important in the economy. it is a complicated space. we have been working over the past couple years to educate lawmakers and other policymakers about this. it is not something that can be done in a 15 minute meeting. you need a series of conversations that happen over time, and the crypto community has not had enough people working on these issues in

washington to adequately educate all the lawmakers out there. we have been working with the irs to figure out how to do this type of reporting for centralized exchanges. what happened with this bill is the new broker definition was added at the last minute and had never been vetted by anyone in the industry. it does reflect the lack of understanding and knowledge gap that exists with certain policymakers as to how this works. we agree with senator cruz that it would have been nice to just take all of the language out. there was another amendment that was more of a middle ground amendment offered by senator ron wyden and senator pat toomey. this amendment would have kept that language in that would have paved the way for 1099 reporting

for traditional cryptocurrency exchanges. the difference is that it w as clear on that definition of a broker. if you are a software developer contributing to the open source code on the network or building wallet applications for a validator doing mining work or validations of transactions on crypto networks that those types of things were excluded from the definition of a broker. we believe that if we had been given a vote on that amendment, there were a majority of u.s. senators who stood behind it. i think this was from my perspective working on these issues, to see this play out on the senate floor was remarkable. i don't think anyone would have predicted we would be having this type of debate on the senate floor. this is something that should go through the normal process that we should first have ideas

introduced in legislation. you should have committee hearings and markups to discuss and improve those. this provision was tucked in at the last minute, and we were not able to get a vote on any of the amendments put forth to try to fix it prior to the infrastructure bill being voted out of the senate. host: one of the people commenting this week was senator elizabeth warren. she said cryptocurrency is the wild west and desperately needs rules of the road to protect the stability of our financial system. i am going to continue to engage the fcc and other federal regulators on this. what is the response? guest: there are parts of that we agree with and parts we disagree with. we agree the crypto industry, we want to make sure there are

adequate investor and consumer protections in place. we want to see that we have strong market integrity. we disagree that it is a wild blast. in the u.s., cryptocurrency exchanges are already regulated in many ways. they all have state money transmitter licenses. they have to have those top rate in those states. those are not easy to get. these companies are registered with the treasury department financial crimes enforcement center. there is a host of regulation that comes along with that. there is a lot of regulation in place today. where we agree is that this patchwork of regulation where you have some state and some federal does not make sense for cryptocurrency markets. we think having a fresh look at

how to properly regulate this in a more uniform way is definitely a conversation the industry has. we have a lot of ideas for how to do that. by doing this on the tax side, by pushing this provision through that does not make sense , by putting these information reporting requirements on to tease that don't have the information, that does not make any sense. that is going to stifle the innovation that is happening in this space because software developers will go overseas. investors will not want to invest in mining capability here. we are hopeful that as we go to the house that there will be an opportunity to change this language before the bill gets signed into law. it is important in the crypto industry. we think these crypto networks are important infrastructure in its own right. we need to make sure that we are

protecting the infrastructure of the future as well as the infrastructure that this bill is looking to fund. host: you can go to our website to see that debate play out. kristin smith of the blockchain association our guest. our first call comes from georgia, on the line for the democrats, you are on with our guest. caller: thank you for taking my message. my question is -- guest: there is no fdic insurance today for cryptocurrency holdings. host: what factors go into the gain or loss of a currency? guest: in terms of price movements? there are a lot of factors, just like with the stock markets or other assets. you have macroeconomic factors. you can have factors with how the network is operating.

sometimes there are larger investors that make different movements that have ripple effects. for better or worse, sometimes a cryptocurrency depends on what elon musk says. that moves markets. the markets are very complex. there are regulatory factors that move markets as well. this is not something that an investor should just jump into without doing their homework. there is a lot of thought and time that i recommend be devoted before investing in this space. host: from new york, this is frank. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for your explanation. it is very helpful. my question is -- i am not sure if it is related or not. the two modern monetary theories -- this is uncharted territory as well i think you will agree.

it is worrisome for me because we seem to not be caring about the debt the way we used to. the question i have is how does cryptocurrency interact with the system and this new horizon of modern monetary theory? guest: i know there are some investors in bitcoin that are attracted to bitcoin as an investment because of its scarce nature. right now there are about 18 million bitcoin in circulation. over the next few years, we will see an additional 3 million come into circulation. that is it. it is a scarce resource. it is similar to gold in many ways. for a lot of people when they look at the spending going on in washington and the money supply, they look at decline as

potentially the counter to what is going on there. bitcoin and cryptocurrencies is about the individual's ability to own their own assets. you can custody them just like you can hold cash, but -- there are some cryptocurrencies like dogecoin that are inflationary, but most of them are a finite number of tokens. that is where part of the value is derived. host: from maryland, republican line, victor. caller: i have a two-part question. number one in this infrastructure bill, i don't know which one it is going to be, but i have heard a couple stories that biden wants to put a new tax on 401k and ira

accounts, and for those who are not eligible to take any money outcome of this is going to be a new tax. host: i am sorry to interrupt only because the nature of our conversation deals with cryptocurrencies. do you have a question specifically about that? caller: no, because i'm not interested in cryptocurrency. i thought we had an open line. host: there is a viewer on -- texting us this morning, jim in california, saying, how do you prevent criminals from using cryptocurrency to get paid for ransomware attack's? guest: the criminal usage of cryptocurrency has been a popular topic in the headlines over the last few months. one of the unique features of cryptocurrency is the transactions are recorded on a block chain.

this is a public ledger that you can view online and see where all the transactions are going. there are specialized firms that law enforcement works with. chain analysis is the largest one. what they do is days are forensic -- is these are forensic experts that know how to trace transactions through the block chain. whenever you go from a cryptocurrency to a fiat currency, there is a name and social security number and address identified with that transaction because these cryptocurrency exchanges are registered as money service businesses. law enforcement likes it when criminals use bitcoin because it is much easier to track down the flow of the money and find the bad guys on the other end that are perpetrating the crime. host: that was one of the

concerns that gary gensler wrote in a letter to elizabeth warren. right now we do not have enough investment protection in crypto. at this time it is more like the wild west. this asset class is right with fraud and abuse. in many cases investors are not able to get rigorous, complete information. i worry a lot of people will be hurt. as far as rife with fraud, scams, interviews, how do you react to that? guest: i think that is not the case. it was the case in 2017 that there was a period of fraud where people were trying to take advantage of investors, but the sec cracked down on that. what we are left with today are the good actors that are building useful services and applications on top of block chain. i think one of the things that

is interesting about what played out in washington over the past couple of weeks is that there were over 80,000 phone calls and emails that went into senate offices over a couple of days. it is not just a cryptocurrency industry. there are all of these other individuals and small players that are contributing to the upkeep of these decentralized networks. there are a lot of users who feel empowered because they can actually own their assets. when you are using a bank, you do not feel you have as much control over your assets. there was a tremendous community response. it was not just an industry response, but a community response of users who care about these networks. what i think the senators have

seen for the first time and what hopefully gensler realizes as well is that cryptocurrency is not just something for criminals. it is not just fraud. that is a small portion of the activity, just like we have in many other industries. what we have here is a passionate user base that is excited about these assets, that wants to participate, that wants to help create them. i think where we are right now in washington is that for the first time the broader set of policymakers are having to rethink some of the preconceived notions they have about cryptocurrency because there was such a response from so many individual users across the country. host: can cryptocurrencies in fact the values of traditional markets? guest: i don't know that there is a direct correlation. i think markets will rise and fall based on broader

macroeconomic conditions. they tend to be sort of separate . it is not like the price of bitcoin might impact something else. the exception to that would be companies that are publicly traded that have some sort of relationship to bitcoin. those stocks sometimes rise or fall depending on the price of bitcoin. host: what did we learn about that from the gamestop issue earlier? guest: that is interesting because the social media has really allowed information to move quickly to very large audiences. we have seen this with some stops. we have seen this with cryptocurrencies, the meme driven investing is kind of an interesting space. with cryptocurrency, in the long run the value of the currency is going to be tied to the value of the underlying network. host: kristin smith with the

blockchain association, she serves as their executive director. you can call us and give us your thoughts. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independence (202) 748-8002. (202) 748-8003, call us on that line if you own cryptocurrencies. terry on the republican line, you are on with our guest. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. i have two questions. with all the cryptocurrencies, and the other one i have heard of is bitcoin. did they all start in the u.s.? did some of them originate around the world? if so, have those other countries put regulation in the place? is that part of the problem? help me understand if you can because i am trying to, should

we be thinking of these cryptocurrencies more as a hard asset like gold that you buy and sell that you can get cap gains on, or do we think of it more as a currency to use to pay for things like instead of using dollars paying with cryptocurrency, somehow trying to avoid the high bank transaction fees? can you help me? guest: we think of it in many different ways. bitcoin is a lot of different things to different people. there is a consensus that bitcoin functions similar to gold. there are other currencies called stable coins. there is one called u.s. dollar coin. that is backed by a reserve.

you can always exchange one ustc for one dollar. those types of stable coins are well-suited for payments. if you go to the grocery store, you could use a stable coin to buy groceries. you probably would not use something like gold to buy groceries. excuse me. several other specific cryptocurrencies that help run networks. you would use that type of cryptocurrency to access a very specific computing service online. those are considered to be more like utility tokens. those are different. going to your question on international regulation, these -- there is no bitcoin company. bitcoin is a decentralized network. it is not that these things are located in any one specific

place. if you have access to the internet, you can participate in these networks. what we see is that their computers are connected all around the world, and they are sharing and operating on the same open source software that allows the network to run. it really is a global issue, and regulators around the globe have looked at it. the u.s. has some challenges that make it a little more difficult to apply regulation than in other jurisdictions around the world because what we have in the u.s. is a different set of financial regulators. there are multiple agencies that each have a piece of this. there are other countries that have one financial regulator. it is easier for them to come up with a uniform system because they can do it in one place.

i think if the u.s. were to come forth with a more streamlined, conference of regulatory approach, those principles would be mimicked around the world. if this tax principle goes through as is, it will make it difficult for software developers and other network participants to work in the u.s.. we will probably see that type of activity fleet, which is why it is important to get this amendment passed in the house. host: this is jim from our twitter feed saying crypto will be accepted in the grocery store , until then it is the province of speculators. guest: there is a lot of speculation that goes on today. you have to remember if you think back to the early days of

the internet in the 1990's, it used to not be particularly easy to use the internet. you would have to make sure you were not expecting any phone calls, plug in your modem, get online. it was difficult and cumbersome. we see these kinks get worked out, and they become easier to use. there is greater adoption. the criticism today that this stuff is not very useful, well, this is the early days. there is a tremendous amount of research and development. there is application building on top of these protocol lawyers. what we are good to see is there are going to be new applications that are very low cost that allow for the movement of assets in a way that is quick and fast. you can do it any time of day. all of that is being built right now. it is hard to predict. i don't think in the early

1990's anyone would have thought i could pick up a smartphone and hit a button and get a car that drives me from my home to the tv studio, but that is what i did this morning. what we do know is when you have these open networks, anybody can come in and build on top of them , and that is a layer of infrastructure we want the u.s. to have an active role in building because we think it is going to drive a tremendous amount of activity in the years ahead. host: can you explain how that transaction takes place? guest: that can happen in a couple different ways. if they accept bitcoin, than they have a wallet address. you can send money directly to their wallet address. what we see with a lot of merchants today is they actually take that bitcoin and immediately convert it into u.s. dollars, but it does not have to be that way. they can just accept it.

i can take my send address and send it to their receive address. the transaction happens. it is validated by a network of computers. it is added to the block chain. that block chain is immutable. we know the bitcoin is now there. host: rachel from maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you. i think this is an interesting conversation, but i see that the ultrarich are trying to find other ways of not paying taxes. us middle-class people pay our taxes. i agree with senator warren. we need more regulation. this is currency. it needs to be taxed. i think this is about the ultrarich, the wealthy paying their fair of taxes.

the advocates, the lobbyists, ted cruz, he is getting paid so that the ultrarich don't have to pay their taxes. host: rachel from silver springs, maryland. guest: i would say, listen, cryptocurrencies today are treated as property by the irs. this is a determination that was made many years ago. if you conduct any transaction in cryptocurrency, you have to determine if there is a capital gain or capital loss. if there is again, you have to pay taxes on that just like anything else. there are a lot of taxes that are coming into the government every year. if you look at the irs forms, it asks if you hold cryptocurrency. there is a lot of education about how to do that. what we were hoping with the infrastructure bill and what the industry wants is guidance on how the industry can provide the

right information to the irs and the consumer so they know how to pay their taxes because today it is more difficult. those taxes are still owed today. if you are transacting with cryptocurrencies, you need to have records of all of those transactions and calculate if you owe money at the end of the year. there are a lot of software platforms that have been developed that can help you analyze and do your taxes. if you are transacting in cryptocurrencies, you pay taxes whether you are in the lower middle income range or the ultra high net worth range. host: kevin in columbus, ohio, asks if you would explain in some detail with the process of crypto mining is. guest: there are different types of what we call consensus mechanisms.

with these cryptocurrency networks, you have all these computers that are working together to maintain a database or ledger of transactions. today, in the traditional world, something like a bank would be the one that keeps that ledger. everyone who works with the bank would have to trust that the bank keeps the ledger. what we do with these crypto networks is all the computers have to agree that a set of transactions is valid and add them to the ledger. there are different types of consensus mechanisms. with bitcoin, bitcoin uses something called proof of work. this is what we mean by mining. it used to just be your regular computer, but it has gotten much more sophisticated. it is now specialized hardware that ends up solving these complex math problems. through that process, it validates the transaction and

adds it to the block chain. it is a really remarkable innovation in computer science and one that is incredibly secure and is an important step forward. there have also been other consensus mechanisms that use other kinds of models. mining is the process of validating the transaction. the reward for doing that work is you actually get some cryptocurrency as a reward. it is the process of adding transactions for a period of time will create new assets. host: this is paul for kristin smith of the blockchain association. caller: good morning. this is fascinating. i just happened to bump into the show. thank you for the opportunity of calling in. i just had a general question.

it sounds like congress is trying to regulate this market like they regulate u.s. stockbrokers individually. my question for kristin is does she think this is actually going to happen at this point? if it does, how long until it does happen without hurting the crypto markets? it seems like from a customer financial standpoint this could be a real boondoggle because things are always quicker than regulation. it could be a real challenge to regulate. my final point, the hedge fund market is not overly regulated. that is huge and has been humming for years. thank you for this program. thank you for taking my question. great show. guest: i think what the next steps are are largely going to depend on what goes on in the house. we have this language that we

think is overly broad, that captures a lot of different actors that don't have the ability to function like a broker. what we want to do is now that the infrastructure bill has been passed out of the senate and into the house, we want to get the house to change the language. that is going to be an interesting process because there are so many politics going on with the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package, and now there is this new $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package. figuring out how that is going to work, it is unclear if there is going to be an opportunity to offer an amendment while the bipartisan bill is in the house. hopefully we will and will be able to change it. if not, it is possible this language will go into law. the good news is we do not expect the irs to immediately act. there will be a rulemaking period with notice and comment, and hopefully we can keep the

reporting requirements on those true brokers, those cryptocurrency exchanges that have customers because that is where that needs to be focused. we need to keep it away from the software developers and the miners. definitely stay tuned. this is something we are going to be watching closely. congress can always undo something later. it makes a challenging, but if this log goes through as drafted, we can try to get a second law passed that would narrow the definition of broker to where we think it would be most effective to helping with tax compliance. host: the federal reserve itself is contemplating valving its own cryptocurrency. what should they consider? how would that disrupt other cryptocurrencies out there?

guest: there is a discussion happening around the globe where central banks are discussing issuing a central bank cryptocurrency. at the blockchain association we think there is a lot of activity going on in the private sector that puts wrappers around dollars and makes it easier to transact. we are indifferent as to whether or not the fed considers creating some sort of u.s. central bank digital currency or cbdc. if they do go forward with that, one of the great features we have with cash today is that it is private. you can transact on a peer-to-peer basis with one another. you can do that without having to have the government peer into every single transaction you are doing. we think a cbdc should have

privacy around it. there are a lot of good reasons for that. sometimes there are private transactions, business transactions, embarrassing transactions. we don't want to have perfect vision into every single transaction. that is what china is doing with their digital currency. that is not the principle i believe we should have driving currency in the u.s. host: here is jason in san diego, democrats line. caller: good morning. very interesting subject. i just have a comment that maybe you could comment on. why is it that the preferred method of payment for these bad actors, for ransomwares and hostage takers, why do they prefer to get paid in these bitcoins? is it untraceable? they can hide with this?

it is easier to get away? can you explain why that is the preferred method? thank you. guest: ransomware existed long before bitcoin existed. it is not always that these types of attacks are asked to be paid in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. there are cash requirements or other demands out there. that being said, i think the reason they like it is because the money can move very quickly. the reason they should not like it is with bitcoin you can go through and trace the transaction history. it gives the law enforcement professionals a lot of ability to figure out where that money goes. i think a lot of the headlines we see are focused on cryptocurrency because it is new, but for most criminals the

preferred choice of currency are good old-fashioned u.s. dollars, and that is continuing to be a problem. with cryptocurrency, it is easier to trace these folks. on ransomware, there has been a lot of focus on we need to crack down on cryptocurrency because it is driving ransomware. there are other motivations besides financial motivations that somebody could have. i think it is more important that we address the underlying cybersecurity problems we have because we could have a terrorist group one day that goes to shut down colonial pipeline or something like that that you cannot stop by giving them money. i think it is really important that as we look at ransomware we want to continue to use those

tools we have. we need to figure out how can we ensure that there are good cybersecurity practices in place that prevent these attacks from happening? host: call from shreveport, louisiana, independent line. robin in shreveport, you are on. caller: i am sorry. hi, kristin. with this block chain system is crypto any sort of influence over what is called the quantum banking system? guest: i am not an expert in the quantum space. i know there is concern that quantum computing will go at the heart of these cryptocurrency networks. i wish i knew more about that topic, but i have not had time to do a deep dive. host: as far as next steps, what are you paying attention to after what you saw in congress this week? guest: we want to figure out how

to fix this issue. the good news is we have so many members of congress who want to learn about these issues now. i think over the next weeks and months ahead, we will be doing a tremendous amount of educating to get them the baseline level of knowledge they need to be able to make public policy decisions. also as you mentioned before with chair gensler at the sec, he outlined several different work streams he is looking at related to the crypto space. we are eager to participate in those conversations and bring ideas to the table and figure out a better way to regulate the cryptocurrency space. there has been a tremendous amount of new interest. we have new players in the crypto ecosystem that are wanting to get to washington. we are going to be doing the policy work and being a place where the crypto industry can convene in order to interact

with their policymakers. host: block chainassociation.org the website for the blockchain association. kristin smith their executive director. coming up, reid wilson from the hill will not only talk about what the numbers mean coming out yesterday but the potential impacts on redistricting. reid wilson of the hill joining us next. ♪ >> weekends on c-span 2 bring you the best in american history and nonfiction books. saturday on american history tv at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a discussion on the results of c-span's fourth historian survey of presidential leadership with douglas brinkley, edna crane medford.

at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, turn-of-the-century women journalists face societal pressures to balance traditional femininity and having a career in journalism. i was to university professor tracy lou talks about the challenges these pioneering women overcame. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, hear from authors attending freedom fest. opinion pieces and speeches in her book the ecstatic pessimist. national review columnist john fund with his book are broken elections in which he argues that liberals used the covid-19 pandemic to change the election

system and make it more vulnerable to fraud. deirdre mccloskey with her book bettering economics, which focuses on science and a better understanding of human action. futurist and economist george gilder talks about the future dominance of artificial intelligence in his book gaming ai. on afterwords, ben shapiro discusses his new book the authoritarian moment in which he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda in america. he is interviewed by eric schmitt taxes. watch american history tv every weekend on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: reid wilson is the national reporter for the hill. here to talk about information that came out with the 2020 senses and the impact it may have on redistricting. guest: thanks for having me. host: in a piece you put out, the five takeaways, particularly about the white population in the u.s., what does the senses show? guest: for the first time in our history, the white population declined. basically since the senses began in 1790, the white share of the population has been decreasing over time as america becomes more diverse and more people have kids in successive generations grow up. what has not happened is that the number of white people in america shrank. there are fewer white people in america today than in 2010. this is the first time the census has ever shown that.

people are having kids later in life. they are having fewer kids. that is what mogg refers are calling the baby bus. the opioid epidemic has taken a toll on rural america and now a broader toll on all of america. the life expectancy in the u.s. has shrank for the last three years even before the pandemic, which is something that has not happened in 100 years since the spanish flu. there is a minor technical change in the census and that they gave more people the opportunity to call themselves multiracial or members of other races. no matter how you slice it, there are fewer white people in the u.s. today than there were a decade ago. host: the second take away on the flipside of that is that every state in the u.s. got more diverse. guest: all of the growth in the u.s. over the last decade

because that white population shrank, all the 27 .2 million people of the u.s. added over the last decade came from minority populations. the hispanic population grew the largest. they are up to 18.6% of the united states. the african-american community group a smaller amount. the asian-american community is the fastest growing community in america. a lot of people will say this is driven by migration. it is not. among hispanics, three quarters of the growth we saw over the last decade came from what we call a natural increase, people having kids. only about a quarter came from immigration. the asian population grew largely from immigration. all of the growth we saw in the last decade came from the minority population. host: as far as the birthrate is concerned, among minority

violations, more births, less in white populations. guest: one of the things that always comes out of the census is the median age. the median age of a white american is in the mid 40's. that tells you the median american is getting close to the end of their childbearing years. the median age of a hispanic american is in the low 30's. the same for the median african-american and asian-american. that tells you there are more women in those minority communities who are in the childbearing age. they are more likely to have kids and expand their communities through natural growth. there are fewer by percentage white people in that category. host: the wall street journal reported that when it comes to population growth overall, seven 44 -- 7.4% violation growth.

most counties lost population. six states and the district of columbia now have majorities of people of color, including nevada and maryland. talk about what is going on at the state level. guest: every state is becoming more diverse. the funny thing is of that data all 50 states became less white over the last decade. the only place that became more white was in the district of columbia. d.c., about 2% of its population -- the share of its publishing that is white is 2% larger. this is the one place in the country that is becoming more white. there are a host of reasons we could talk about for d.c.'s gentrification alone. at the state level, the big thing you just said is that more than half of the counties in

america lost population over the last decade. that is stunning. that has never happened before in american history. in a lot of places, the demographics of those counties show that they are never coming back. they are never going to start growing population again barring some massive change. all 10 of the largest cities in america and almost every county of substantial size in the u.s. has grown over the last decade, something that rarely happens. the 10 largest cities in america are now all over one million people, which is unique to this particular census. what we have seen, and this is a 10 year snapshot of the u.s., the census bureau releases annual surveys. those have shown a much different picture for those largest cities and counties. in the early part of the decade, those cities and counties gained

a bunch of population. in the last couple of years, that discussion is changing. people are starting to move out of some big cities like new york and chicago. over the decade, those places gained. america is becoming a less rural country. the share of americans living in rural communities dropped by 2.8%. it is becoming a more metropolitan immunity. people moved into metropolitan areas growing to 86.3% over the last 10 years. the areas of cities that are between 10000 and 50,000, they are struggling. they are on the line between growing and staying stagnant. host: reid wilson takes a look at these issues from the census data, what it means for redistricting. we will take your questions on this new information. if you want to give us a call,

republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. phoenix seeing its population increased by 11.2%. if these trends are continuing with the diversity going on, what are suburbs going to look like? guest: phoenix is a great place to start that escutcheon. my father-in-law is in the phoenix valley. 10 years ago when i started dating his daughter, his house, there was desert beyond. you go out there now, and there are miles and miles of subdivisions and supermarkets whether you go west or north or anywhere around there. those big metro areas are growing i leaps and bounds in that suburban area. the main growth over the last

few years has not been to an urban core or rural america, it has been to that suburbs. the census bureau looked at the 10 fastest growing cities in america, cities beyond the big metro areas, and almost all of them were positioned right next to a big metro area. a place like kent, washington, just outside of seattle, among the fastest growing cities in america not because it has its own industry facebook because it is that close to a big city warehouse impresses are unaffordable and people move if they want to get to a big city like seattle. host: the seattle times reported that it grew by 100,000 people in the last 10 years. guest: the city of seattle grew by 100,000 over the last 10

years, but king county grew by 300,000. 200,000 people moved to king county to get close to seattle. interesting enough, what happened in seattle, amazon grew by about 50,000 people. half of the growth in the city of seattle comes from those amazon kids. you see them walking around the south lake union campus with their backpacks and laptops. host: several naps, one shows black americans in the u.s. as a result of census data. guest: black americans grew by a substantial margin, a couple million, 3 million over the last 10 years. the interesting thing about all minority communities, not just black americans is the breadth of their growth.

minority communities grew in one particular area. and a lot of those counties, one of the reasons they did not lose population is they are coming from those communities. host: for minority communities, are they moving out to the suburbs, what is that tracking? guest: the funny thing is we had this debate about the suburbs, there is sort of an idea about the suburbs that they look homogenous and that they look like the 1950's. they do not. the suburbs of america are more diverse than the entire country itself. minority communities are moving to the suburbs and living there in greater numbers than they do

in urban course or rural america. host: this is mike from west springfield, massachusetts, democrat line. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning. i have a question. i recently read an article that the hispanic community, 52% of all hispanics are white. whites are so worried in this country about becoming a minority. how can that be because if you include 52% of hispanics as whites, wouldn't it mean that the population is actually growing more? why are

linda from texas said i was registered in the census between white and hispanic. guest: that's a good question. the technical term is when i say white, i should have clarified that that is non-hispanic white. when the senses euro asks what your race or ethnicity is, they will offer a list and you can write in your own if you want. there is a separate designate nation for hispanic. and then, are you white, black, asian or other. there are people in the hispanic community who consider themselves white or black. it's based on where their family heritage is from. somebody can be both white and hispanic and that is different

than somebody who is black and hispanic. they are both counted as hispanic as well as in their own category. the census bureau breaks that out based on race and ethnicity plus the hispanic and latino designation so good west and. host: andy is in new york democrats lin. caller: when did europeans become white? irish and italians were not considered white. it's going to be a country of color and they never tell you that. that's the way it was before the coming of the europeans. what year were eastern europeans considered white? guest: a good question.

there are designations that go beyond just the sort of topline numbers. we will get more census data later and it takes a lot of years to roll out the information they collected in the senses last year. basically, if you are of european heritage, you consider yourself white. there are sub-questions and the longer form where they ask you what your heritage actually is. you can write in your family designation so if you are of italian heritage or english heritage or french or german, you can write that in and the same one of the things i am interested in is the breakdown of the hispanic community in the united states and whether or not they consider themselves people of mexican dissent or watermelon dissent or cuban dissent or wherever they come from and how long that lasts over the generation. new migrants to the united

states might consider themselves or even their kids my consider themselves people of irish dissent were mexican dissent or vietnamese dissent. what do the kids think of themselves? do they take of themselves as pan-asian or pan-european or do they still identify with their home countries? that is always fascinating because it gets into how communities view themselves over the long-term that can influence their political base down the road. host: how many overall people ie united states now? guest: there are over 331 million. the united states grew by 22.7 million last year. that growth rate is the second slowest growth rate in american

history, that we have never grown slower with the lone exception of the 1930's which came after the great depression. the census bureau rolls out there numbers and there was an impact the great recession had. it into the 11 years ago and we are still feeling the effects of it stop there are fewer migrants coming to the united states. there are other political reasons for that but everything has slowed down because of that rate recession 11 years ago. people need to write more books about that. it is having a serious impact on the united states a decade later. host: considering the senses took place during a pandemic, how accurate are the numbers? guest: they are pretty accurate. the director of the senses

address this yesterday. release the results of a post senses survey. there were serious concerns that minority communities and hispanic amenities would not respond to the senses because of the whole dust up over the citizenship question. the trump administration wanted to put on the senses and the court struck it down. i think we can be pretty confident that these numbers are pretty close to accurate. no senses is perfect and there'll always be a margin of error even during an actual count where they want to count everyone, they will not reach everyone. one of the things that is important to remember is that they go back and try to correct this stuff. many states spent millions of dollars, california was north of $100 million to encourage everyone of their citizens to be

counted and that's because these census numbers are not just used for redistricting or media and entertainment purposes. they are also used to administer hundreds of billions of dollars in federal, state and local programs across the country. if your city has 10,000 people, it will get x number of dollars for a federal education program. if it has 12,000 were 10,000, five hundred people, it will get a little more. making sure everyone was counted was hugely important. host: let's talk about redistricting, what does the senses do for that russes? guest: that's a complicated question. this kicks off the redistricting process that state legislatures have their data down to the

block level of who lives where and how many people live in various places and they will use that data to redraw political boundary lines which could be congressional district lines but it's also state legislative district lines and if your county or city has a council or commission that is decided by district, then those lines get redrawn based on the population and they will try to equal everything out. how the process happens differs by state. in some states, the legislature draws the line and the governor vetoes or signs a bill in other states as an independent commission. it doesn't matter in some states because there's only one member of congress and i think only one state now, the state legislature is divided between democrats and republicans and that's the state of minnesota so they will have to become to a compromise how to draw district lines. the redistricting process is

filled with tradition and you will find that typically the state senate draws congressional lines and the house draws the legislative lines and vice versa. it depends on the traditions they have built up. we are about to see a fascinating redistricting process because it will be the most transparent in american history and the most free of guardrails in the last 60 years or so. it will be transparent because we all pay more attention to redistricting now than we ever have before. both parties have outside groups that are raking in tens of millions of dollars to focus on the redistricting itself to bring attention to it and motivate their activists to show up and lobby state legislators about how their lines are redrawn. you as a citizen can go online and draw your maps and in many states, the legislature has email addresses where you can send in your maps and offer your own feedback.

many independent conditions -- commissions good town to town and elicit feedback for themselves and how they should draw these lines where communities of interest exist. this will be a really transparent process. at the same time, the supreme court over the last decade has limited the influence of the federal government through the voting rights act and the federal judiciary in terms of how much they are able to influence or oversee these lines. what we will see is legislators having a freer hand now to draw maps and gerrymander which is a terrifying word, then they did 10 years ago. there will be more eyeballs on them. at least it will be a more transparent process that will be a bigger free-for-all. host: let's hear from louise in north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning, i have some questions to ask you.

after doing the senses, i think another state gained more congressional seats? am i correct on that? guest: yes, ma'am. caller: in the former president -- and the former president said it was inaccurate. how can it be accurate? host: that's louise in north carolina. guest: let's take her reapportionment russian. that's the numbers we saw from april where the census bureau released population for every state. there are 435 congressional districts in america. we we reapportionment those districts is everybody gets one and then the 51st state -- seat goes to the largest state. there is a complicated formula they used to decide the series

of seats of california guess the 51st seat and california gets the 52nd because it's so big. texas gets the 50 third. that's until you get to the 400 35th seat and it might be the ncaa tournament where you can see the states that just nearly got in the tournament and barely missed out on seats 436-440 if they exist. the broadest conclusion from all that was that texas gained a couple of seats, three seats, florida gained two seats and five other states gained a seat. i have to check that. a couple of the states, mostly in the northeast lost seats stop the outlier was california itself. they lost a congressional district for the first time it became a state. it basically had population

growth that didn't keep up with the rest of the growth in the country. to her question about the last administration and its efforts to stop count, the in person count is not the end of the counting process. if it were, then we would have the data sooner than august of the year after. what the census bureau does is they know they will not get everybody and they will not get everybody because they might not be able to find everybody, somebody might be on vacation or whatever. there are a million reasons why somebody might not be counted. somebody might not want to be counted. they go and fix their data in various different ways. there are ways they can basically walk down the street and see that there are four people in the house at 101 a street and for people at 103 a street.

they impute that there might be for people at 105 as well even though they can't get in touch with those people. there is a lot of science behind these numbers. they spend the better part of a year not just checking -- not just counting people but checking their numbers and trying to smooth out the data and figure out who is where and get the best possible count. i don't have the mathematical or educational background an specifics to tell you all about it but there is a lot of documentation on census.gov that probably goes over my head and i think you need a masters degree to understand it. host: here is a headline to show you about the congressional change in districts. guest: the population growth,

the states gained seats are mostly in the south and mostly in the west. montana gained a second seat for the first time in three or four decades. are again now has a new c2 game after washington gained a seat 10 years ago. arizona gained a couple of cycles in a row. it's the longer-term story of the american population. we are moving south and west and out of the northwest and into the sunbelt and west coast states by leaps and bounds. i pulled out a great statistic -- 100 years ago, the new york delegation was as big as california and texas combined and now new york has 11 few receipts in texas alone. that tells you about where people are moving. a lot of the northeastern states have been on losing streaks.

in terms of the size of their congressional delegation for 50 or 60 years. they lose one or two seats every time a senses comes around. people are moving to the south on the west. host: from houston, texas, go ahead. caller: yes, i think these racial categories -- my children are hispanic they are as white as the driven snow. i know you have addressed this before but i think it's true of blacks also. there has been a lot of intermarriage. why do we classify people and racial categories? i hate it. i just don't like it. guest: good point and one that the census bureau spent a long time addressing in their press conference.

they are talking more about what they call their diversity index. you can go to census.gov to check it out. one thing they are promoting is they are talking less about race and one population growing or shrinking and more about how diverse america is. i think that takes some of those points that people don't like to be classified by race a lot and they are doing something about that. the census still counts people by race because there are many federal programs that depend on race, there are still protections like the voting racks act, the civil rights act that requires certain things in certain cities and states, that they have a higher percentage of minority populations. the federal government wants to know who lives where basically,

but they are talking more about diversity and less about one specific race. host: one of the graphics from the census bureau as far as large groups in the 2020 census is whites from other race and that's followed by white american indian. all that is available at the census bureau. carol in st. louis, missouri, democrats line, go ahead. caller: my question was why do we go by race? this is ridiculous. it causes nothing but division and the other thing is when i give out my form, i put i am human. i am the human race and i think everybody should do that and that it would stop. host: let's hear from nelson in florida, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen.

i just have one question -- i'm 72 years old so i have been through a number of the senses. on every single one that i'm aware of, there has been an assumption that there is an undercount step+ what's the purpose automatically assume there is an undercount and how do you know there isn't an over count? it seems to me that this problem, i'm trying to assume that there is a political aspect to this. i'm wondering if you could address that a little. host: nelson in florida. guest: the people at the senses euro all have dr. in front of

their name and a phd after their names. many of them do and these are smart people who do a lot of statistical work to fix these numbers to figure out the closest, most accurate possible count. i don't know that there is an assumption of an undercount but they go back and look at the numbers and look at what they have actually counted over the last year or so were six months they get to go and count people. when they do, they frequently find an undercount. they find that they have missed x number of people in certain places and they try to fix that or rather they fix their processes to make sure those people are counted in the long run. at the end of the day, it's hard to count 330 one million people. you will make mistakes.

you will miss a street or somebody will not come to the door on the day the enumerator comes around step some people may just not want to respond. that happens. one good example is the count itself that we know of, the 331 million or whatever i said earlier, that's before covid. the camp was supposed to take place or did plate -- take place census date april 1, 2020. we had like 1000 covid debts that day and we are north of 600,000 that day and those people were alive on senses day in april, 2020. the population is constantly changing and someone is born or dies every minute. it's a complicated process of

these people are trying their best to make sure everyone is counted i don't think we can call it a political reason for the states that spend so much money doing complete count campaigns and urging everyone to get counted. instead, it's the financial reason you talked about step i heard a great stat that everybody counted by the census is worth $20,000 in federal money over 10 years. that's a lot of money and for a state like california or a state like rhode island which narrowly kept it second reginald district by only a few thousand people. their complete count campaign work and save them a bunch of money. whether or not the second member of congress is a d or an r, whichever seat they saved, is more money from the department of education or agriculture or whoever else is doling out the

cash. host: they tell us about 30 state legislators in the united states are controlled by republicans in 19 by democrats. how does that shift because of this new data? guest: the state legislators probably don't shift very much. they will have to redraw their own lines and there are a couple of states that are pretty close to even control or flipping one way or another. arizona is narrowly controlled by republicans and i think democrats could win it back if they get nine seats but none of this changes before the 2022 midterm elections. we just know the numbers now and it will be up to the legislators themselves to redraw the district lines as well as the congressional and voters get to decide in 2022. we will see how much influence the dreaded gerrymander has in this process. host: james in san diego, republican line. caller: good morning.

i think you misspoke a couple of times. in california, the redistricting is based upon the number of people, not citizens and therefore that changes the population of the state. you must take into account all of the residence, not citizens and therefore california wanted to get more money and more districting and secure the districting in a particular area to which there were. correct me if i am wrong but the constitution says all residents, not citizens. two citizens did not have anything to do with redistricting as far as politicians go, republican or democrat. i will take my answer offline. guest: first of all, you're exactly right and i would never miss speak on that. the senses does not count the citizens of america.

think -- they camp the population. the constitution says the senses shall count everybody who is here in more eloquent language then i just used. yes, no question about that, everybody is counted. the citizenship question the trump administration wanted to add to the senses was contentious because of that rest in. there were fears that many people who would answer no to the citizenship question would not fill out their forms and there is wet and whether that would shift political power based on where people live and some states thought they would get an extra seat if other states were denied because of their large noncitizen population, not hispanic,

noncitizen population. that question was not on the senses and at the end of the day, the constitution is crystal weird that the senses meets the count of everyone who is here. -- the constitution is crystal clear that the senses meet the count of everyone who is here. just the census meet the count of everyone who is here. the process happens by how many people live where and not whether or not they are citizens but residents. that's crystal clear the constitution. host: from california, independent line, good morning step caller: good morning, in my family, i am european and my wife is mexican and my kids ask what are we and i tell my kids and my grandkids that you are mixed together.

host: go ahead. caller: and i believe that everybody in the united states will be mixed again and intermarriages and into race and everything else. i don't know why we should have racial problems even. that's all i wanted to say. guest: he is a californian, there you go. host: jim and idaho, republican line. caller: yes, there is another heinz 57. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i'm another heinz 57. in our progressive liberals want to get away with our electoral

election and they have also mentioned they want a large blue state president to move into red states -- residence to move into red states to counteract the blue movement. that's what's going on. host: is there a trend showing is there a trend showing as far as people moving into so-called red or blue states? guest: people are moving to the sunbelt and that's clear. places like arizona and texas and georgia and north carolina are growing by leaps and bounds. states like illinois and west virginia are shrinking. new york, pennsylvania and ohio are pretty stagnant in terms of population growth. people are moving to places where there are jobs and cheap homes and where there is a good-quality life and a lot of sunshine. a congressional district in los angeles county moved to the

phoenix metro area over the last year. you talked to a lot of republican governors of these states in arizona and texas. i have had these conversations with governors who say on the record how glad they are that people are moving away from californian and into their states. you turn off the tape and they say i wish you would stop voting like you were in california. there are snowbirds, people who live in snowy climates who retire to more sunny areas whether it's florida or phoenix. or they are younger people looking for a new job and a home they can afford in a place like phoenix or dallas or austin which are some of the fastest growing portions of the country. i had a conversation with city administrators in areas outside austin and san antonio, the

fastest growing communities in america who will tell me they cannot build sewers fast enough, they cannot build schools fast enough to handle the influx of people because there are so many people moving in. there is a fun game to play. go to a shipping website like u-haul or a truck shipping website and check out what the one-way prices from san francisco to dallas and check out the other way. san francisco to dallas would be $1400 and it would be half of that going the other way. host: one more question from houston, texas, independent line, nancy. caller: how do you count all these aliens coming into our country that we had to take care of? how do you account for that on your census? guest: the constitution requires

that everybody be counted. this is the founding fathers rules, not me. the founding fathers wanted to know how many people were in the united states at any given time and that they meant everybody. they didn't mean just citizens, not just residents, they said everybody. that's what the senses does every 10 years. host: reid wilson took a look at the senses data. you can find more of his reporting at that hill and mr. wilson serves as a national reporter, thank you for your time. we will finish out the program with a half-hour of open forum. you can talk about maybe what's going on in afghanistan or other news as well, but -- but tickly of a political nature. here are the phone lines.

"washington journal" will return after this. >> sunday night on q&a, elizabeth becker tells the story of female vietnam war correspondence in a time when covering more was a male dominated profession. >> there is no and betting like we have now will stop there was no military censorshipper se so it was probably the last uncensored american war. for women, it was a gift because it was only because of this lack of codification, this openness that women can get through what had been the biggest barrier as

a war correspondent that you were not allowed in the field. >> elizabeth becker sunday night at 8 p.m. on q&a. >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you'll find events and people about our past. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. it's television for serious readers. discover and explore weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is open form until 10:00 a.m.

you can comment on issues of politics are things that interest you in this half-hour. a couple of pieces of news out of the supreme court. amy coney barrett denied a request by eight indiana students to block the big ten covid-19 mandate for the semester. she rejected the emergency plea for injunction without asking for anyone to weigh in, marking the first time the height -- the high court has weighed in on a vaccine mandate. another story concerning the supreme court -- a divided

supreme court thursday granted a request from a group of new york landlords to lift part of the state moratorium on residential evictions put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. the ruling came three days after a federal district judge in washington herded oral argument and challenged the biden administration's new moratorium on evictions in the state moratorium allowed tenants in your two avoid eviction that they had suffered financial hardship because of the pandemic. new york enacted the moratorium in 2020 and extended it to august of 2021. you can comment on that if you wish. michael is starting us off in albuquerque, new mexico, democrats line, hello. caller: good morning, i really enjoy your program. it's so informative. i had a couple of points to make about the senses. c --ensus.

in 1929, the population was 121 million in this country. it has basically almost tripled in 91 years. why isn't there an increase in representation in congress relative to the growing population? in 1929, they enacted the law of the currently put in 35 members of congress. it went to 437 -- it went to 37 when hawaii and alaska became states. i think the representation has decreased anonymously and almost 100 years. host: i think the guest touched on this topic so if you want to go back and watch it again on our website, he may have more to say about it. you can check out the interview anyway on our website, www.c-span.org. pittsburgh, pennsylvania,

independent line, go ahead. caller: i call because of the census.i don't see how it can be accurate. they are calling upon black because it's fashionable. host: i don't think that was the case proven by the census. caller: they say everyone mixed is black. white is white but everyone who is mixed is black. host: i think there are more categories than that and you can check out the website and check it out for yourself. let's go to rockville, maryland independent line. caller: good morning, i'm enjoying your program. with respect to afghanistan, i think we should take the advice of the old general curtis -- lome and that -- and bomb

them back to the stone age. the only thing the taliban respect is forced. if the united states air force words -- were to bomb them back to the stone age, perhaps they would stop overrunning all these cities of the democratically elected government of afghanistan. host: why do that versus more troops in afghanistan? caller: that's not a bad idea either but that's not what our elected officials want to do. they want to pull out the troops which is their prerogative if that's what they want to do. they were elected. biden and his secretary and secretary of state and company want to pull out the troops. i agree, i don't think it's a good idea. if they want to pull out the troops, just take thel advice of curtisemay.

host: praise -- this is coming from the associated press that the taliban has captured the western capital of afghanistan. the pentagon announced they would send 3000 troops there to coordinate diplomatic staff at the embassy. it was the pentagon spokesperson talking about this new initiative from the biden administration. here it is from yesterday. >> the president has ordered the reduction of civilian personnel at our embassy in kabul and the acceleration of the evacuation of special visa applicants. to enable this safe orderly reduction, the state -- we will ensure the safety and security of u.s. and partner civilian personnel. i will break this down for you real quick. the first movement will consist of three infantry battalions

that are currently in the central command area responsibility. they will move to hamid karzai international airport in kabul within the next 24-48 hours. two of the battalions are marines and one is a u.s. army battalion. the next movement will consist of a joint u.s. army air force support element of around 1000 personnel to facilitate the processing of siv applicants. initial elements of this will arrive in qat ina the coming days. r the third movement is to deploy one infantry per grade -- brigade to supply additional security at airport. they will reach kuwait sometime in the next week. i want to stress that these forces are being supplied to support the orderly and safe reduction of civilian personnel at the request of the state department and help facilitate an accelerated process ofs

working throughiv applicants. this is a temporary mission with a specific focus. host: let's hear from arthur in michigan, independent line. caller: hello and good morning. i asked myself what becoming between the american flag and jesus christ. we all bleed the same. as far as the biggest threat to this country would be china. host: that's arthur in michigan. the food and drug administration reports they are authorizing a dose of covid-19 for certain people with compromiser menu systems -- with compromised immune systems amid a growing debate over there use and you can read more at the hill.

this is baltimore, maryland. caller: i wish that some of your callers would be a little more astute and think of what is happening in the country. i'm calling my representative, both republicans and democrats and i say to the republican aides for the congressman, your republicans are not doing enough to stand up against the democrats. also, we are headed if not into socialism, we are headed for that. the president re-sleep got up and said something -- recently got up and said something to the effect that although european people have come from europe, we will now have a better mix of people and this is the way it should be. i think he was referring to what's happening on our border which is a disgrace.

they said this is not just a texas problem. these people are going into four and five buses and being dropped off all over the country with covid. some are put in hotels and they have covid and the catholic charities are doing that which i don't approve of. i really think we are on the edge of a huge turn in our country where monuments are no longer sacred, schools are no longer sacred and i am a conservative republican and i want the republicans to pick up their phone and call their representatives. host: glenda in baltimore, maryland. when it comes to information from customs and border patrol, the washington post says when it comes to migrants in record numbers in july, saying among the 212,000 migrants taken into custody in july, over 82,000

family members and over 18,000 unaccompanied teenagers and children. it was an all-time high. let's hear from iris in michigan, independent line. caller: hi there. i just want to know, white our government has to broadcast everything they plan on doing like with afghanistan? why do they talk about moving air embassy to the airport? i just don't get it. i thought secrecy was the secret to winning a war and anything else -- you keep your business to yourself. they are not doing that. host: you mean the announcement of the assistance to help the diplomatic corps out of afghanistan yesterday? caller: no, i'm calling about

the taliban and we remove people but they talk about everything. every plan is put out there for us to know and over there, they know what's going on so they can for air. i don't get it. the loss-of-life, that's important. they are not coming home. caller: good morning, america and the world. president biden is pulling the troops out and we have thousands of people dead and we have lost more thousands wounded. we spent uncounted amounts of money. we have been there 20 years.

if we had pulled out right after 2001, if we would have pulled out or pulled out today, the afghanistan army has folded like a deck of cards. if they were interested in preserving their country, they would be more effective fighting force. we should've done this 20 years ago. we would have had the same result after 20 years of training, what did we gain? i think biden's right to pull out. obama, trump and bush the second should have pulled out years ago. host: ok, the hill reporting that when it comes to the debate over the infrastructure bill on the house side that a group of nine moderate democrats have sent a letter for will be

sending a letter to help speaker pelosi today. the lawmakers maintain their district simply cannot wait for the infrastructure spending to go out the door and demanding the senates bipartisan bill be adopted this month or they won't support the budget resolution.

let's go to robert in alabama, democrats line. caller: in reference to the older gentleman who was a european dissented and he said the united states should bomb afghanistan back into the stone age. if he had stayed in europe, we wouldn't have the bombing. i'm not talking about all europeans. some were exiled for europe and some came on their own. they want to bomb places. if your goes back, the europeans would go back to europe and we wouldn't have these problems. you cannot be white with blood in your veins. host: let's go to linda in utah, independent line. caller: hi, i just wanted to talk about syria and with us

leaving afghanistan and we left syria with the same albums, never to help them -- with the same problems, never to help them. we could be helping syria and what happened to the responsible leaving afghanistan? it's everything that seems to go on creates more wars or puts us into more places for war. it's really sad that we will leave all of the people that helped us when we were there to do nothing, to do nothing for them. it could be done and it is not impossible to be done. host: some people have said that after 20 years, the security force and denniston would not -- in afghanistan could not stand up to the taliban. do you still think it was worth the effort? caller: no, i don't think it was

worth the effort to stay. we should not have gone in there in the first place. that's the first thing but of course, we are an imperial power. that's how it happens. all over the world. host: that's linda in utah. the washington times reporting

republican line, south carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: how about yourself? caller: i am doing good. listen, i inc. we need to take care of our own and bring your men home and we need to take care of our own and let other people take care of their own. i think we would be in better shape. that's all i've got to say. host: ok, brenda in fort lee, new jersey, democrats line step caller: good morning, america. i have always been a democrat but i'll tell you something, i'm so disappointed with president biden and kamala harris for the

things they are doing with the open borders and not having people coming into our country which we are trying to get rid of the covert virus and they are letting them into the country and not even screening them for this. they have the children locked up in these cages. host: they are screening in some cases and inoculating in some races even though there are some reported cases of some still having covid, just to clarify. caller: well, yes, perhaps you are right and i think you are. what i'm trying to say is, if the president is listening, please just do something. do something with these people that are coming in. i understand we are trying to help them make a better life for themselves but how many people can come in here and we are not doing the right thing with the young children and the men and women coming in. it's just impossible.

i just wish with the trouble going on with sending the troops to get our american men and women out of there, please, i just pray that things get better. host: this is from union, new york, independent line. caller: hello, i am also speaking about afghanistan. i agree with the woman from michigan saying why do we telegraph our movements? this is war. you have to be crafty. it seems like that when we announce that we are leaving and we leave, they sweep in. it has only been a week and they are already talking about cities falling. why don't they announce they are leaving and as a feign move and

then when they move -- and then when they sweep in, they can get the taliban. you've got to outsmart them. every time we leave, they come in. i know they going to pakistan and elsewhere where we cannot find the taliban. host: president trump and president biden said they long declared their intentions of stopping being in afghanistan. what do you think of the posture taken by the american government? caller: it's been a long time, of course. i think we have to use -- we have to outsmart them because they are outsmarting us. every time we know what they are doing and they take over the country.

i know it's been a long time we have to probably leave soon but i wish we could have been more guerilla-like in our tactics and sweep in with her drones and paratroopers and get them when they start attacking a place. host: that's union, new jersey -- new york. a reporter putting out on his twitter feed schenectady, new york, this is pat, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just want to say that the united states did not have a problem with the taliban controlling afghanistan before 9/11. the military objective here was

to target al qaeda and osama bin laden and that mission was a compass a long time ago. it's time for the united states to move along. there is not a will by the afghani people to fight the telephone. -- to fight the taliban. our mission was accomplished a long time ago. we should been out a long time ago and a lot more american lives would have been saved it would just follow through on that instead of dragging it out 20 years. host: the washington post reporting

amarillo, texas, go ahead. caller: i don't understand why people in the united states don't they attention to history because this problem falls in the lap of bush ii who thought

he could establish a democratic state in afghanistan and it's the same thing that happened in iraq. their culture is different. this is not any different situation. i don't know what people can remember vietnam, the exact same duplication of occurrence is happening again. we could have a limited of the problem in iraq if we did not going there in the first place. it was perfectly content with air support. host: ok, that's tom and amarillo, texas. the washington post also reporting about senator rand paul.

bill in erie, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i voted for biden and i wish i didn't. what i've seen over the last few months is he has gone downhill with his cognitive ability. the guy -- we've got 1000

generals and admirals. biden didn't listen to any of them. i was in the marine corps in vietnam. what happened to us was the politicians pulling the rug out from underneath us and this is exactly what is happening in afghanistan but it's 10 times worse. now they are talking about putting 3000 marines back in their with no helicopter cover, no artillery cover. host: this is just to help get the diplomatic corps out of afghanistan. caller: let me speak. every time these people -- it doesn't have a thing to do with trump. i voted for biden and i wish i didn't. the guy does not listen to anybody. if he is dumb enough to put 3000 marines and he is dumb enough t0 marines in there, we will be back to hostages and by golly, it is all on joe biden. host: fill in pennsylvania.

-- bill in pennsylvania. this is kenny on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for letting me speak. if that guy before me was a democrat, boy -- that's hard to believe. this thing in afghanistan was a disaster from day one, when bush-cheney went in. 100 countries told us they would help us, but we told them no, we would do it on our own. why? it was there to make money for the industrial complex. we didn't have a strategy to get in, we didn't have a strategy to get out. and if we have been there in 20 years after training them and they do not stand up for themselves, we cannot make a country for them. host: kenny in north carolina finishing off.

thanks to those that participated and a thank you to all that watched the program today. another episode of "washington journal" tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: we can -- weekends on c-span2. saturday, on american history tv, at 2:00 p.m., a discussion on the results of the fourth historian survey of presidential leadership, with historians. the survey ranks presidents from

best to worst in 10 different categories. and at 8:00 p.m. eastern, turn-of-the-century women journalists such as nelly bly and dorothy dix face pressure to balance traditional femininity and having a career in journalism. a professor talks about the challenges these pioneering women overcame. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday, starting at 8:00, hear from authors attending freedom fast in south dakota, including carla garrick, on her short stories, opinion pieces and speeches in her book. then john fund with his book, "our broken elections," in which he argues that liberals have used the pandemic to change the

election system and make it more vulnerable to fraud. at 3:05 p.m., deirdre mccloskey with her book, "bettering hum anomics." and at 4:35 p.m., george gilder talks about the future dominance of artificial intelligence in his book, "gaming a.i." and at 10:00, journalist ben shapiro discusses his new book, "the authoritarian moment," in which he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda in america. he's interviewed by talk show host eric my taxes. what every weekend on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. ♪ announcer: sunday, c-span's

series january 6 continues with three more members of congress sharing stories about what they experienced that day, including dean phillips of minnesota. >> at that moment when the capitol police officer announced that we should take over, i stood up in the back of the gallery on the second level, and representative gosar was objecting. and at that moment i simply shouted at the top of my lungs, "this is because of you." i screamed it. >> this is because of you! >> i think i was representing four years of angst, anxiety and anger. many of us saw this coming from a mile away. i represented millions of americans who felt the same way.

at that very moment, the entire country, including myself, recognized the fragility of our democracy. i have an appreciation for the traditions and decorum in the congress. i do not like to violate it, but i do not regret it because it was what i was feeling and it was four years of pent-up anxiety about what was transpiring before our eyes. announcer: you will also hear from democrat jamie raskin of maryland and mr. fitzpatrick from pennsylvania. sunday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies, and more, including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it's way more than that.

comcast is partnering with community centers so students can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast supports c-span as a public service, along with other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ on journal." the white house plans to send 3000 troops back to afghanistan. this, as the taliban took over two large cities of the country and the u.s. and other countries , still attempting to apply diplomatic pressure. for the next hour, your thoughts on this latest decision by the biden administration to send troops back to afghanistan. here is how you can call us. (202) 748-8001 for republica.