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 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 aff >> this will explore a program that affects your community. this competition has $100,000 in total cash prizes and a shot at a grand prize of $5,000.

entries for the competition will be received wednesday, september 8. for rules and 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

co