>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including charter communication. >> broadband is important, and that is why charter has invested billions, building info structure, 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, even you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning, supreme court reporter lawrence hurley joins us to talk about the new texas abortion law and what it could mean for the future of roe v. wade. then a.r. siders of the university of delaware's disaster research center talks

about the cost incurred for u.s. taxpayers for natural disasters. later, george washington university's andrew mines on how isis-k and other militant groups in afghanistan will shape and impact the country's future. "washington journal" is next. ♪♪ host: at nearly midnight last night, the united states supreme court in a five to four vote that stand a new texas abortion law that would and most abortions in the state and make abortion providers vulnerable to civil lawsuits brought by almost any texas citizen. that action has effectively superseded their landmark 1973 roe v. wade decision at least for now and at least in texas. good morning, it's thursday, september 2, 2021.

in the first hour the conversation is about that texas abortion law in the future of the roe v. wade decision and here are the lines to use. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. for texas residents, we would like to hear from you particular. your line is (202) 748-8003. the same line can be used by anyone for text, just make sure you are including your name and where you are texting. we will look for your posts on facebook and instagram and twitter as well, @cspanwj. go ahead and start calling, we will get to your calls and comments on the court decision and on the new texas abortion law momentarily. the headline this morning from reuters, supreme court declines to block texas abortion ban. one of the authors of that is

lawrence hurley, who covers the supreme court or thomson reuters. late night for you, thanks for being up here on "washington journal." it is called the texas fetal heartbeat law. went into effect yesterday. what does it do? guest: pushed through by republican led states , banning abortions at six week, when women don't even know they are pregnant. abortion providers think it will lead to [indiscernible] not going ahead. the difference with this law as opposed to the other abortion bands, aside from being blatantly unconstitutional is it has a unique enforcement mechanism, individuals can

enforce it by suing the abortion providers rather than the states having a role. host: what was the intent of the legislature, including the provision allowing the lawsuits? guest: a few elements. it's harder for a case to come up that gives the court a clear shot at saying the law is unconstitutional. it also provides a way for the abortion providers to be under the threat of civil lawsuits. they have already started to not provide the abortion services they were providing previously.

it's already having a big impact in texas. host: explain for us the role of the supreme court yesterday. yesterday as the law went into effect, the court had not spoken but they did so in their decision, their order last night at nearly midnight, as we mentioned, so what is the court intending to do with this law? guest: there was an emergency application from abortion rights advocates. the court did not act on wednesday, the law did go into effect. eventually at midnight last night, the court did act and it just allow the law to remain in effect. the court was clearly very much divided on what to do with this

case as it was delayed with four justices dissenting. the chief justice saying that at this point litigation of the law should be put on hold because there are a lot of complicated legal issues and the law is unprecedented. with the precedent saying that they had a right to an abortion. the majority, including the justices appointed by donald trump, explained that the way the case has come to the court, that they are very jurisdictional and procedural issues, they didn't feel they can block the law at this time.

host: the court is queuing up a mississippi abortion law for the fall term. is that expected to finally settle whether roe v. wade is settled precedent? guest: texas law is in some ways setting the table for what's going to happen with shots from the conservative majority in the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade or at least cut back on abortion rights. the way it is now with the conservative majority, it seems some people think it's going to happen, that it is a quite likely possibility. the court will likely be deciding that case next june and be in a much stronger position to know what the future of abortion rights is in the u.s.

and by then this texas law will be a footnote. host: we know it has been a long and busy evening for you. we appreciate it very much. you can follow the reporting at reuters.com. thank you so much for the update. getting to your phone calls momentarily, wanted to point out that from the article at reuters , this decision illustrates the impact of donald trump's three conservative appointees, who have tilted the court further right. they were all in the majority last night and the law would amount to a near total ban of the procedure in texas, as 90% of abortions are obtained after six weeks and would probably force many clinics to close. looking for your calls and comments. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8003. texas --(202) 748-8002. texas residents, (202) 748-8003. democratic line, first up, good morning. esse, are you on with us? go ahead. caller: good morning. host: hi there. caller: the law in texas is crazy. i'm more about pro-choice, i'm a female and i feel what i do with my body is my business between me and god. it shouldn't be a law. a woman can go to a clinic and get an abortion. they want to force young women to go somewhere where they might end up dead, back alleys like they used to do it in the old days. it's just ridiculous. i believe that here in texas that greg abbott is just doing things when what he should be doing is making sure that we

won't freeze to death again this winter. here in the summertime, they are trying to pull it back out because of the heat and people pulling on the grid. they need to do things they should be doing. give a woman the choice about their body. i mean, it's my body. why are you concerned about my uterus? i have never understood that with these groups, leave it alone and leave it to god and myself about my choice. ok --ok. --ellen --host: ellen, you are on the air. caller: what greg abbott did, it's a hate crime against women. he doesn't have uterus. the people on the supreme court are elderly, old, not going to have children anytime soon. sorry about that.

this is a hate crime against women. this is ugly. we hear the horror stories of young girls, 11, 14, whatever age, being forced to carry a child to term while being a child. the idea that a woman who has a miscarriage will be possibly tried as a murderer is sick and disgusting. this is a hate crime against women. this has to be one of the most hateful things that could ever happen to women and the fact that it is happening in texas is heartbreaking but not surprising. these are the same people who were crying about my body my choice about having to wear a mask and now they turn around a few months later and do this to women? it's disgusting. host: dustin on the independent line. hello there. caller: this is personal responsibility. i don't know what's going on with these women calling up, but condoms are free. they've got next day pills.

if you are going somewhere to have sex, that's a responsibility. abortion shouldn't be on the table for something. these accidents, these women going to these clinics and just getting pregnant and having an abortion -- host: do you think that is what's happening in the majority of abortion cases in texas and elsewhere? caller: i work in the medical field. when you look at the stats, it's poor, poor, poor choices. even in the clubs in the restrooms in atlanta where i live. just put $.10 into the machine to get a condom to avoid all this. and it's unhealthy to be doing it late-term anyway.

host: here are some of the comments released by president biden before the court had ruled 5-4 in that early vote on this. not a decision on the case, it's their ruling in terms of letting the law take effect in texas. the president's comments, "this extreme texas law blatantly violates the constitutional rights established under roe v. wade and upheld for half a century and it will significantly impair women's access to health care --

host: we are talking about the texas abortion law that went into effect yesterday and was not blocked from going into effect by the supreme court in a decision vote last night released at midnight, nearly midnight last night, decision 5-4. this is the reporting from scotus blog that covers exclusively the supreme court in federal court, leaving texas abortion but ban in place, writing that nearly 24 hours after a texas law that bans nearly all abortions in the state went into effect, the supreme court on wednesday confirmed what it had previously only implied through the failure to activate night before, rejecting the request to block the law

host:host: let's hear from california, richard on the democrat line. caller: this is just a larger movement by the republican party, mainly, and these fanatics, against abortion. supported by now three new justices on the supreme court who should have never been on there, to tell you the truth. you are seeing their agenda, an agenda that will support a crazy law like that. even just to have the legal ramifications of being able to sue people, i mean how is that going to work? let alone the states dealing with the people who are maybe going to need an abortion. from what i understand it doesn't even eliminate rape or other things involved in that.

it's just going to send the whole state into chaos like the governor has by not taking care of like the electric red and now voter suppression laws, all these kinds of things. you see that. you see that this is mainly in republican run states. even arkansas, where they are dying of covid because of their policies there, they are going to file a suit against roe v. wade. this is a whole kind of like movement to try to like reverse roe v. wade, which would bring chaos to the entire country and all women. host: murfreesboro, tennessee, independent line. good morning to james. caller: yes. i feel the same way as the last caller. it doesn't even make sense. you have got a pandemic and these people are worried about women's bodies? you've got that man right there, greg abbott. he does women no good.

something is going on with these old white men and white women. thank you. host: janice is on the republican line in san diego. go ahead. caller: hello. i use to support abortion and i've actually had one. the thing i do not absolutely understand with the democrats, the they believe in anything lawful or godly? they take everything lawless and ungodly, they are supportive of or ignorant. at the end of the day, i believe the woman has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body. it starts with saying no, closing your legs. using birth control. being responsible sexually. there are cases of course where certain things do happen and

there are mitigating factors. but that is not usually the case. most abortions are out of inconvenience. that is simply because you were too lazy to take care of your business and handle yourself correctly. host: the law is called the texas fetal heart beat law, signed into law on may 19 by the governor. here's a look. [video clip] >> thank you for joining with us here today. our creator endowed us with the right to life. and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion. in texas, we work to save those lives. that's exactly what the texas legislature did this session, they worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that i'm about to sign that insures the life of every unborn

child who has a heart will be saved from the ravages of abortion. i want to thank the entire legislature, the republicans and democrats, for stepping up to stand for life and i want to thank the lead authors of this, senator brian who you -- brian hughes, representative soften, thank you for your leadership. i also want to thank all the pro-life groups who joined with us here today and who worked tirelessly during the course of the session to make sure this bill got past. and for everything that they do to cultivate a culture of life in texas. i want to thank the lieutenant governor and speaker also for their leadership in the efforts. host: that is governor abbott signing the law back in may. it went into effect yesterday. the supreme court took no action all of yesterday. last night in a five to four vote, they signaled they would

not take any action on the texas law. the headline here from "usa today," supreme court declines to block law that bans the procedure at six weeks. comments by text, joe from new york, this is the new gop, they don't care about the constitution, women's rights, don't care if you freeze to death or masks. what would jesus do? it's creepy that a complete stranger or neighbor could prosecute a woman for her personal choice. feels like an episode of "the handmaid's tale." from michelle and michael, as president obama said, elections have consequences. next on the line, mike. good morning. >> those people care about life until they are born about poverty and then they don't give adamma what happens to those kids. i would like to direct attention

to the roberts confirmation hearings. excuse me, don't have my teeth in. each of them said abortion was settled law and that they were not about to jump in on that. they were both emphatic about that. obviously it was necessary at the time of their confirmation. trumps three jokers declined to talk about anything like that. just take our word for it, we're christians. ok, y'all. little more love, little less judgment. thank you. host: judy is next on the independent line in magnolia, delaware. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thanks. how are you? caller: doing just great. i'm a nurse, i have worked in a planned parenthood and what people are not really addressing

is what happens to these young ladies and they grow up and have the guilt of abortion. abortion doesn't mean you are not apparent anymore. a lot of people think that because you get rid of a baby, you're no longer apparent, but that's not true, as you get older you grew up with what if and that's where i am in the psych ward, the people are so guilt ridden. these are women who are morning a murdered child. they are always going to be a parent in morning, morning what if, what could have been. as a young person they may have been pressured. but it's not about who's on the court and, you know, everybody's gotta quit calling everybody things because they don't agree with each other. this is about an unborn child and about the mother. and what the mother has to go through. she can't say she's no longer a

mother after an abortion. she will always be a mourning parent, always. the handmaiden's tale was fabricated. it was a movie. it's ridiculous to even refer to that. thank you. host: to the democrats line, next. surely, ohio. caller: thank you for c-span and thank you for people like judy who see both sides. i disagree with greg abbott. i see these young women every day making choices, bad choices. when they get pregnant, they are going to find somebody or some pill to jeopardize their lives trying to get rid of a baby on their own. these men don't realize what women go through when they are pregnant and they have nowhere else to turn. greg abbott does not care. if he did, he would have fixed

his electrical situation, his mask situation, his icu situation. these men do not care. the men on the supreme court are men and they are making decisions for women. as a woman, we have no way to make a decision for ourselves and we have people like clarence thomas and the likes of them sitting on the supreme court. thank you for your show. host: there are three female members of the u.s. supreme court. david is next in oakdale, new york, republican line. caller: i feel like women want to make a choice for the abortion, but they didn't make a choice before they got pregnant. they just went out and had unprotected sex, found out they are pregnant, and now they want to get an abortion. i don't think the federal government -- host: do you think that is

always the woman's choice? if it's an agreement between the woman and her partner, she was forced into it? caller: i don't know. i think the end result is they want the choice of aborting it. maybe they are under age maybe they feel like it's the 60's, free love. i don't know what's going on in their head when they are having the sex. i mean if it's a married couple and they had unprotected sex and the woman got pregnant and she feels you know she's got six kids in doesn't need another one. host: here's the story from "the new york times," the ruling came down last night at midnight, supreme court breaking silence, won't block texas abortion law. it was just before midnight on wednesday that they block to the law prohibiting most abortions less than a day after it took effect and it became the most

restrictive abortion measure in the nation, voting 5-4 with john roberts joining the three liberal members in dissent. the majority opinion was not signed and consisted of a single long paragraph saying that the abortion providers who challenged the law in the emergency application to the art had not made their case in the face of complex and novel procedural questions host:host: somerville, massachusetts, we hear from mike, next. caller: this is a sad day to be

talking about this. i just hope everyone keeps their heads up. i don't think texas in any way represents the majority. texas is a highly uneducated, backwards, religious, religiously zealous place and i just can't relate to, i can't relate to any of this. i think, i think that the angry people who live with their feelings, this is what we get. i don't understand. i think they are a minority of the people and they are just brainwashed. it's really weird to me. i can't, i can't even imagine stepping foot in that state. it just feels so backwards,

everyone is so filled with rage and so miserable. this has been going on for a while. i hope everyone knows that if you need abortion pills, there are organizations that will mail them. so, fight against it. don't, don't accept these people as being in any way relevant. they are, they are insane to me. host: similar negative view of the politics in texas from columnist dana milbank in "the washington post," this morning. "democracy canceled in texas." "texas this week showed us what a post mock receipt america -- post democracy america would look like. this is what the trump america party wants

host: california, democratic line, this is rachel, good morning. your thoughts on the abortion law? caller: i am pro-life. that is why i have never had an abortion. all these people talking about earth control, women's responsibility, they don't realize the failure rates of them. they think they are 100% effective, they are not. i know this, personally, as i

was conceived while my mother was on the pill in 1974. also, i would like to add that if states and the government decide to take away this constitutional right to women, than they need to provide free morning after pills and free contraception and for people who think they are on a higher moral compass, i used to be republican so i know that way of thinking, if they honestly think that they think -- they care about life so much, they would be vaccinating themselves and wearing masks. in the last 12 months, how many years of abortions would have to happen to equal the number of americans killed by those who decided that their freedoms were more important than saving the lives of children, the elderly, and someone in my family. thank you so much.

host: next is paul, richmond, virginia. go ahead. caller: first of all, the supreme court is not to make law. that's up to congress. i think the supreme court did the right thing in joining greg abbott on this thing. thank you very much. host: yesterday at the white house, the press secretary was asked about the new texas law. this was before the supreme court wrote last night. here she is. [video clip] >> how does the administration plan to defend roe v. wade? >> we put out that statement this morning but let me reiterate the key points and i will of course answer your russian. the president said this morning that this extreme texas law blatantly violates the constitutional rights

established by roe v. wade and upheld for half a century. significantly impairing the access to the help they need for individuals with low incomes and communities of color and it deputize as private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone who they believe has help another person get an abortion, include and family members, front desks staff, health care workers, or strangers with no connection to the individual. this further isolates individuals facing the tough choice and i would note that for those who didn't see, people who report, these private citizens, could get up to $10,000 for reporting someone seeking an abortion. our focus in the president's focus is to reiterate the deep commitment to the constitutional right established by roe v. wade five decades ago and continue to call for the codification of row, something that -- roe, something they spoke of on the campaign trail in this highlights the need to move

further forward on that effort. host: in this first hour we are asking you about that supreme court vote last night and that texas abortion law that went into effect yesterday, september 1. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8002 is the line for republicans. --(202) 748-8002 is the lot --(202) 748-8001 is a line for republicans. (202) 748-8002 four independents and all others. if you are a texas resident, (202) 748-8003. the law went into effect yesterday, banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, about six weeks, most people say . no exemptions in the law for cases of rape or insist and it allows private citizens to sue any abortion providers or anyone "aiding and abetting" abortions. anyone successful in suing is

able to, entitled to $10,000 under the law this text is from jr in oak park, saying it violates personal liberty to be forced to deliver a wedding cake but not a rapist's baby? and omaira, the only one i know who who has the right to take a life is god. comparing this to mask wearing is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. abortion kills a living being. guess what, don't want a child, don't do the act or use birth control. from dave, the supreme court has begun the march backward to reverse all gains of women and nonwhites. loretta, cleveland, democrats line, welcome. caller: good morning, bill, good morning, america. i'm dumbfounded, i really am. i can't wait to see what republicans come up with next.

while i personally don't believe in abortion, if they are saying that god will judge you and all this, then leave it to god. why do they have to pay people to turn -- i don't understand that. my main point is that black and brown people already outnumber white people. republicans cannot argue about the numbers when it comes to voting. we don't have a hate crime law. blacks are being killed daily in the streets by police. abortions are performed in hospitals daily for white women. it's just insane. no one has the right to force a woman to breed. host: marian hillman, michigan,

independent line. caller: hello. i wanted to mention something about the men that are calling, it's kind of rich. you can tell when they are for abortion. that's because they are just happy that the gal that got pregnant by them is going to get the abortion so they don't have to do child support and take on the responsibility. the other thing, on the others of the coin, in the 1980's in washington state, where i used to live, a lot of gals used it as birth control. they would get an abortion 3, 4 times a year and i think it's ridiculous, so. that's my statement. thank you. host: florida, beth, go ahead.

caller: i will say offhand to begin with that i'm a republican and i have been a republican for 50 years. registered in the state of florida, state of texas, and state of ohio. i'm old enough to remember when roe v. wade came, became a law. i know girls i went to high school with that had abortions. i know women that i knew in my 20's that had abortions. i don't know anyone who really wanted to have an abortion. but having roe v. wade meant that you could go and have a safe one. this law does not stop them from having an abortion. abortions have been forever, age-old. when i was 20 years old 50 years

ago, abortions were thought of as a rusty coathanger until roe v. wade came into effect. roe v. wade was a way to have a safe and sanitary abortion. i am not pro-abortion. i think a child is the greatest gift anyone can be given. unfortunately, i was never given that blessing. but i do not believe that this law will stop at abortion if a woman really wants to have an abortion. we will see more women die because of it. basically, we have made everybody your neighbors keeper. who is going to judge you and turn you in? are we turning into the new

taliban? is this the new sharia law for this country? thank you. host: staten island, new york, elizabeth, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm upset about the new law taking place in texas. i just think this is going to take women back so much. as the woman said before, it's not going to stop them from getting an abortion. but it will start women dying again from abortion like they did before roe v. wade. i just think that when men tell women what they are going to do with their bodies, it's really something. we don't tell men to go have the vasectomy's. the responsibility is all on the woman? now we will not have access to

abortion. we are going to go get an illegal abortion and we are going to bleed out and we all know what happens when an abortion is unsanitary. these same people who don't want women to seek a safe abortion, they are not going to want to give them health care either. not only that, but let's say that we have the baby. these are the same people who want to reverse all health care for women. black and brown. even poor white people. i just don't get it. do republicans think it's only democratic women having abortions? it's republican women, also. this is not a republican issue, a democratic issue, an independent issue. this is strictly a woman's issue. how can you tell women what they want to do with their bodies? don't have sex? that's great. are we telling men not to have sex? host: similar sentiments here

from linda in georgia by text, who says this, after listening to some of the males on the show, why weren't the men wearing protection? why are they blaming women? it takes two to create a pregnancy. this from dave -- i'm pro-life but early sex education needs to be mandated so the pregnancy will not happen and in cases of rape or insets, it should be up to the women. why don't men have a vasectomy? six weeks is too early but by 12 weeks you should know. let's enforce the 12 week deadline. renee in newport news, this is tragic to say the least, especially devastating for a woman or girl who is pregnant by rape or incessant. dealing with males who force their bodies on women is bad enough, but forcing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies on them is catastrophic. if this doesn't prove once and for all that not voting or

voting for the wrong people has consequences, i don't know what does. this is the headline this morning from "usa today," looking at the term ahead, states test the limit of roe v. wade, they write that when it comes to approving abortion restrictions, texas is far than alone. the lone star state drew considerable attention

host: cherry hill, new jersey, linda, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is that many people who are right to lifeers who refused to wear a mask or get a covid shot have the potential to infect a lot of people and kill them. they don't want anyone telling them what to do. they want to have choice. they are hypocrites and i want to say that the republicans are quickly turning me into a democrat. host: delaware, next, republican line, this is darrell. caller: good morning. it looks like hypocrisy on full display. talking about a law, correct? let's look at it from this perspective. if texans passed -- if texas passes this law, they mandate

what's going on with abortion, correct? what i would like to know is why democrats are in big favor of mandating vaccines, but not then mandating abortions? in other words, they are in favor of the government telling you what you have to put into your body but they are opposed to government telling you what you can take out of your body. so, i don't understand how they can look themselves in the face, in the eye in the mirror and tell them that they are operating from a -- the same perspective on this issue. they are crying about 600,000 americans dying from the covid vaccine, from the covid pandemic, which is tragic, but how many millions of children were killed from abortion? could not have one of those children could have been born and perhaps developed a cure for covid? or breast cancer? or any of the other myriad

diseases that plague humanity? but we have decided from convenience and birth control to slaughter these children before they even have a chance to develop and grow into our society. we don't want to educate kids today, teachers unions don't even want to put them in school but we are sitting here crying crying about saving lives, innocent lives that cannot protect and defend themselves and at the same time we turn around and tell people men and women that you had better put a shot in your arm because the government says so. if the government tells you that you can't have an abortion, you should live with that because you are all in favor with the government telling you you should put a shot in your arm. host: tony is next, connecticut. caller: good morning. i'm a democrat, but i'm also a catholic. i think seriously that we need

to look at strengthening our adoption facilities and adoption procedures. there are many, many, many people out there that want a baby and cannot have that baby and they could take care of that poor baby. the other thing is, please, the people talking about men and women and republicans, you just showed on tv the people that voted for this in texas were male and female, republican and democrat. come on, let's have an honest conversation about this. thank you. host: on the independent mind, we have dustin in nevada. hello there. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i just have a few brief comments about this. i have not read the law and have to rely on the news, but my understanding is that it legalizes abortion after the point of detection of a

heartbeat, the six week limit. i do not believe this law has a significant impact on roe v. wade, as per my understanding of the court decision, roe v. wade is a decision allowing the right to abortion, while this law only brings regulation to the abortion. i believe that i should also comment on my opinion of roe v. wade in that i simply wish to say that jane roe later recanted and said that she was encouraged by her friends to lies so that she would have the right to abortion. however, under roe v. wade, she herself was not permitted and abortion. that is my thought on the matter and i thank you for taking my call. host: this is the lead opinion piece from "the new york times" this morning.

"is this how roe v. wade dies"? host:host: that is from the --

of lauren kelly, new york times. duncanville, texas, go ahead. caller: i believe this bill has everything to do with race. like greg abbott and dan patrick, they are concerned about race and the white population dwindling and decreasing. that's what the whole bill is about. they want the numbers, they want the white population to increase. that's what this is all about. that's my opinion. host: republican line, that he is next in blacksburg, south carolina -- betty is next in blacksburg, south carolina. caller: i do not believe in abortion, but there's been a lot of children that's been, you know, that i've seen, that's been thrown in the trashcan, drowned, you know. if you want a baby and you can take care of it, which i got

kids and i had a deadbeat, they had a deadbeat daddy which wouldn't help keep them up. but anyhow, i don't agree with it, because i love children. i love babies. always have been like that. anyhow, i think it's a woman's right, of course. it's her body. but if they are not going to take care of them, they shouldn't have them. that's the way i feel. i don't think babies should have to suffer coming into this world and having to suffer. that's just the way i feel. host: tilton, new hampshire, we will hear from marian on the democrats line. hi there. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm only because mike and

abortion rights. i think that what they are trying to do in this is make neighbors and family members report on their friends the way that people did in germany when they spoke out against the fuhrer. it scares the daylights out of me for this country. thank you. host: north carolina, next, patrick on the independent mine. what are your thoughts on the texas law in the future of roe v. wade? caller: just rubric, i wanted to say i had a personal experience where i got a friend pregnant some years back and, you know, i offered to, there was a caller a while back that said dads don't want to take care of the kids and pay child support in that to me because at the time i told her that if she wanted to keep the baby, i would support her in be there, whatever i had to do.

unfortunately she had a condition, i forget the name, i apologize, with the fallopian tubes. they basically can't hot -- can't have children because of high chance of miscarriage and she opted to have an abortion and it was very traumatizing. it took curt two months to come back around and talk to me, see me face to face and it brought up a lot of emotions. but yeah, i mean i just, i really think that it doesn't need to all be on women. men are just as much to blame. i was just as much to blame and my personal experience and i think there should be incentives for men to have the vasectomy's. it's a lot easier to reverse then it would be for fallopian tube tying or women taking birth control, which can be more dangerous. you are no less of a man if you get a vasectomy.

it doesn't do anything to you other than make you incapable of having kids. host: on the woman that had the abortion, you said she was traumatized for two months. in terms of access, calling from north carolina, was it there and relatively easy for her to have the abortion? guest: yeah, -- caller: yeah, when she went, she came back and talked to me, she told me the experience, she didn't want to go by herself, i offered to go but she would have rather gone with a personal friend and i understood that but there were people outside the clinic who were there to oppose abortions and it was just, very scary. my girlfriend now has had an abortion and she kind of went through the same thing, where it's, you know, you are afraid to go to the clinic not just because of the abortion itself,

but because of the people outside and persecution and you don't know what those people will do or say to you. you are therefore personal reasons. possibly to save your own life. you know, a lot of people also in this world, i don't think they should bring kids into this world. that's a lot of -- well i'm not going to get personal, but it was very accessible in north carolina. host: how was she doing, this friend of yours today? do you touch base with her or hear from her? caller: i haven't really talked to her. i moved a while back and, you know, i do see her from time to time online posting things. she seems to be doing very well. she has surrounded herself with a lot of friends and, you know, extracurricular activities and things like that and it has helped her, it was something she was working on before i moved away. yeah. host: appreciate you, patrick,

calling in this morning and sharing your story with us. thank you for that. eva, dale city california, next. caller: gut morgen, we are facing another way sir. of our capitalistic system to capitalize on the week. they will one day have an abortion most of the time. they don't have a way to bring up those kids. it's between them and god. it's their body and their decision. same on the courts, who allow the people to shoot each other. thank you. wake up, people. watch how you walk. host: illinois is next,

republican line. caller: what i don't understand, that little baby, no longer your body, your choice. if abortion is outlawed, god will bless this nation. people worry more about animals in this world than people. it just, it hurts me. it's no longer your body, your decision. if that's the case when your son is 10 years old, you should be allowed to murder him. americans, we have to pray. thank you very much. host: you can send us a post on twitter, @cspanwj. this one from jill, it's not about being pro-life, it's about controlling and punishing women. fertility clinics in texas throw away fertilized human eggs every day and they aren't trying to shut those down. says linda, it's open season for

rape and incessant on women. pro-life happy with that? good for greg abbott, behind him on this. it's a life, we are not to take a life and if it's not our body, god loaned us the body and god loves his children. niagara falls, mike in new york on the independent mine. caller: hello, good morning. i just want to make a civil comment. i want everybody to hear this. it's a woman's right to choose, finish the sentence. it's a woman's right to choose murder. for the last caller about people carrying about animals -- caring about animals, who did noah fill the ark with? the innocent. thank you. host: michael is next on the

independent mine in orchard, washington. caller: i just want to say, this is michael. i'm so angry with republicans, i will not vote for them ever again. i just want to say that it's horrible what they are doing to women's rights in the states. i am in my 70's now and i am so glad i don't have to make that decision. i don't believe in abortions now, i have sons with special needs but i had to fight republicans to help me keep him fed and get the therapy he needs. not everybody has the availability and resources or in families that are not there.

please, do not end, do not implement any of these laws into any more states. it's very scary to women. host: on the republican line, sean in auburn, alabama. caller: so, people say it's a woman's choice, a woman's right, abortion. abortion, ok, there's a pro-life side and a pro-choice. it's not pro-choice, it's pro murder. these people who are calling about women's rights, calling and talking to you this morning, they have no clue, no idea what happens. these babies inside of the womb are cut into pieces and taken out. what are we? are we animals or something?

the people calling and saying this is a woman of color issue, this and that, all sorts of nonsense. abortion is murder. if you don't want to have a baby , take care of it before it happens. host: there is more ahead. next we will turn our attention to the continued natural disaster in the wake of hurricane ida and the role of the federal government in further relief efforts at this time and in the future and the costs to taxpayers. that conversation from a from ty of delaware. and later, andrew mines will join us to talk about isis-k and the other terror threats in afghanistan. ♪

announcer: the house homeland security committee will hold a hearing to look back at the 9/11 terrorist attacks and how the nation responded. coverage begins today at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, online, or listen on the free c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2, the best of american history and nonfiction books. on saturday, on the presidency, two programs on gerald ford, the only white house occupant that was never elected president or vice president. first, a visit to the florida presidential museum. then a profile of his life, betty ford, honored for her life's work with a special focus on the white house grounds.

featured speakers include the former first daughter. and then heirs due to two prominent political families talk about winning the vote for women and how that is relevant today. book tv features authors discuss in their latest books. on sunday at noon, author carol swain, vice chair the 1776 commission joins us for a live discussion talking about critical race theory, the 1619 project, immigration and her most recent book. and at 11:00, "the afghanistan papers." official documents and original reporting that examines another 20 year war.

watch american history tv and book tv every weekend on c-span2. find the full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: professor a.r. siders is with us, an assistant professor at the university of delaware disaster research center to talk about the federal disaster response and the cost. professor, welcome to " washington journal." tell us about the university center, what is your mission? guest: this is the oldest center focused on federal disaster, so our mission is to produce research that looks at how to manage disasters, the recovery, the risk reduction and how people experience disasters. host: you had a recent piece

looking back at 2020. we will get to hurricane ida soon enough, but the conversation was, after a record $22 billion of disasters in 2020, it is time to overhaul u.s. disaster policy and here is how. what -- with that figure, what made you say it is time to revise a u.s. policy? are we spending too much or spending it in the wrong places? guest: the challenges we are seeing so many disasters occur, one right after another, and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and we do not have good evidence to say that the money is helping, that we are reducing risk. the number of disasters is growing, the cost is growing, the government accountability office came out with a report that showed homes were over and over again fighting, and that number has grown.

so the question is, are we doing any good? host: in that regard, how much of that responsibility is on the federal government and live with that move into those more vulnerable areas for hurricanes or for fires, things like that? guest: the federal government plays a primary role in lending the recovery, but is local and state governments who have authority over deciding where a new development occurs and the building codes, zoning, those are handled at the state and local level. that is one reason why we see so much variety. some communities are very good, they have high standards for building codes, safety standards, zoning and are carefully about where to not build, so housing is not exposed to hazards. and other communities where they do not have zoning, so we see new development occurring in areas where we know that these

homes will be exposed to wildfires or other disasters. host: what is the law that allows or provides that the federal government to respond to disasters, and give us the range of disasters the government responds to. guest: the stafford act is the main legislation that authorizes u.s. government to respond to major disasters. it covers a variety of disasters, from hurricanes, floods, wildfires, drought. one challenge of the act, especially in light of climate change, is now we have new types of disasters the act was not designed to deal with. late coastal erosion, new flooding, things not in the original set of disasters that were contemplated. it does give broad authority, especially to fema, but other agencies to deal with disasters. but climate change, like with everything it is challenging. host: how much does political

pressure play in terms of getting the government to respond to disasters? guest: we have research looking at this. federal aid becomes available primarily after there is a presidential declaration of a disaster. first, there must be a decision at the state level, this is a state level disaster, then a presidential declaration. this can be politicized. it can be politicized both by the party of the president and the governor or the city being affected, but it can also be politicized in terms of thinking about disasters in terms of property damage. we think about, has this become a disaster primarily by the number of buildings destroyed rather than the people affected. host: our guest is professor a.r. siders from the university of delaware disaster research center. here are the lines. in the eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000.

it mountain and pacific, 202-748-8001. if you have been affected by hurricane ida in any way, because last night we know that new york city was flooded with record rainfall, that line is 202-748-8002, and we look forward to hearing from you. professor, back to your piece in the conversation. we want to show a map included in that piece of the disasters in 2020 that the federal government responded to. the western wildfires, the drought from the central plains, and numerous hurricanes along the gulf coast and along the east coast, including hurricane isaac, which struck south carolina. in that piece, you write -- this is where you are calling for revisiting the federal recovery aid -- "when infrastructure is

damaged, the federal government will pay for 75% of the cost if they damage exceeds a certain threshold. the idea is for federal systems to kick in when state governments are overwhelmed, however, that threshold is only $1 million, plus one dollar 55 -- plus $1.55 per person." is that stipulated in the law? guest: the threshold can be changed by the federal emergency management agency, by fema. they have a proposal right now to try to increase that threshold, because they recognize that it does not account for the increased cost of living and the increased cost of expense in the disasters people are experiencing. it is calculated while it is trying to approximate at what point state and local resources are overwhelmed. the idea is that local authorities should be the first

responders and of the federal government should be there to help when those areas are overwhelmed. how do we try to understand when a state is truly overwhelmed? that is a difficult thing to put a dollar value on, but fema has to try. host: your research center is the oldest in the country looking at disasters, when did the u.s. government first become involved? what is the first instance of the u.s. government responding to a regional or state disaster? guest: there are isolated incidents going back through the 1800s, but 1950 was one of the first times the u.s. passed a law that said the federal government would respond to disasters in a systematic way, so relatively recently, within the memory or lifespan of some people living today, that is when the federal government took this over. and since 1950, we have seen more of a shift toward federal responsibility for disasters rather than state and local. host: i want to ask about the

use of the national flood insurance program, the program that provides primary flood insurance, administered by fema. 5 million-dollar policies providing $1.3 trillion in coverage as of october of last year. in your piece, or otherwise, how do you think the national flood insurance program is performing or does it need to be changed? guest: the program needs to be reformed. and this has been known for quite a while. the program is reauthorized periodically to make sure it is working, and at last expired in 2017. and congress knows it is broken and they need to make reforms. so since 2017, they have reauthorized it 16 times, always with short reauthorizations. the next one expires in september, so next month we will see more discussion on how it should be reformed.

the major attention, when we think about reforming the program, is on the one hand we want to increase the cost of policies to reflect the amount of risk people actually experience in these flood prone areas, but we do not want to price out low income neighborhoods from being able to live in places where maybe that is the only affordable housing. so trying to reconcile that tension is what is making it difficult to reform the program. host: we have a line for those impacted by hurricane ida, 202-748-8003. the latest update, at least eight dead as ida swamps new york. flash flooding led to at least eight deaths and disruptive transit along the region. let's get to a call on the federal money spent and federal disaster response. first, glenn.

go ahead. caller: good morning. i wonder if you did studies on the orville dam and the paradise fire, while the dam was still being rebuilt. and it was caused by edison. and the dam was caused by neglect from our democratic governor. our governor, gavin newsom, was meeting with lobbyists at the french lobby, and they got $23 billion in aid. and they gave shares to pg&e, but they have not made the people whole. they haven't paid the people for the forests burned down. and we have more fires right now caused by neglect and pg&e, and they have been bailed out by our governor. host: professor? guest: the challenge you are

talking about with the dam in particular is a major challenge. infrastructure across the u.s. is aging. when we look at levees, the average age of the levees is 50 years old in the united states. many were built to an older standard. some are being maintained, others not. so sometimes people who lived behind infrastructure they think is protecting them, they are not a safe as they think they are. they think it will cost $21 billion just to repair levees in the high risk category. and when you look at wildfires, there are so many points you raised, but it is a major challenge right now. it is a major challenge because many are started by human activity, about 85% to 90% are started by people, whether it is pg&e or a campfire, so it is a challenge to try to prevent those in the first place by understanding what systems are

malfunctioning that would cause those to start. host: in texas, emma says -- well, we lost emma. bob in massachusetts. caller: good morning. i would like to know if this bill is over $20 billion in 2020, and katrina cost whatever it cost, isn't inflation in there? can you actually say that we are doing more damage or this or that because it seems like everybody is making more. we have forest fires because they are not taking care of the land. the co2 levels are higher. and in the dinosaur's time they were 10 timess highe -- times higher. and all this climate change

stuff comes from 1950. so let me know what the prices are, how it changes. host: how do you factor climate change into your work? guest: climate change is at the core of my work. to the point on cost, when we talk about the cost those are calculated by noaa and they do use an adjusted price, so 2017 was actually the most expensive year, $334 billion from major disasters. climate change is making things worse. it's not the only factor. where we develop new infrastructure also plays a role. and we can see the same thing with hurricanes and storms. anybody with a humid summer knows that hot moisture carries more moisture, and that will carry more water, release it more quickly, so we will have

more rainfall and stronger storms. when we think about disaster response, my work is how do we think about paying for the last disaster, but also how they will change in the future and how we need to adapt more long-term to prepare for a future that will not look like the past. host: you have been an advocate for a policy of managed retreat, explain that. guest: it is the idea that in some places we have buildings in areas that are extremely high risk, and at some point it makes more sense not to have them there. so let's remove the buildings from places that are extremely high risk. for example, homes built in the floodway, basically in the river perhaps because the river has changed course, or upstream has changed the way the river flows. those homes are dangerous to live in. so the federal government has had a program since 1989, in

order to purchase flood prone homes from homeowners who no longer want to experience floods, we sell them to the local government using federal funds. and the local government demolishes or relocates the house and makes the land open space. i'm an advocate for this because there are so many people who are trapped. we see this in hurricane ida, but with other storms over uc stories from people who say i do not want to deal with this anymore, but i do not to sell my house to another family who will experience this all over again. one of the best things to do is take the house off the market, so nobody lives in a place that is that unsafe. host: these are some things that we heard from the former fema director yesterday, he was our guest yesterday and he talked about some of the decisions that people should make in terms of deciding where to build, if to build come in risky locations. [video clip] >> in louisiana, the governor

had already defined there may be parts of the coastal areas where they need to relocate or they may not be able to rebuild. it's not as simple as, you should never rebuild in these areas. because of the oil industry, shipping, the seafood industry -- these are areas we cannot abandon, but we need to make decisions about how we rebuild, where we should rebuild, and make sure we are building it for future impacts, not just building it back the way it was. host: would you agree? guest: absolutely. there has been a major shift in the way that countries like the u.s. and others are responding to disasters. we cannot build back exactly what was there before the disaster, because it sets us up to experience the same disaster over again. we need people to build back better, we have to do something different.

we will experience more hazards and we need to do things differently in order to be safer. some of that will involve some areas where we can say, but a seawall around that, or we can elevate a home if you are willing to live in an elevated house, or we may relocate, if you are willing to relocate this neighborhood or home somewhere else that's safer. all of those options will have to be used. host: tony texted us on this, but i suspect a number of people are in a similar situation. "i have a house outside of the floodplain, close enough if insurance was cheap i would buy it. it is so costly i do not purchase it. how does that help the program if i opt out?" guest: this is a challenge.

flood insurance is sometimes not available to people, so the fact it is even available to tony is a good sign, that means your community is trying to do something to address flooding. but it can be expensive. if the program is reformed, it could become even more expensive. this goes back to the challenge of how we make flood insurance affordable, and on the others if we make it to affordable people will not have that market signal about the risk they are facing when they live in flood prone areas. a tension between wanting to support the bolivian where they are and providing a signal. host: edward in ohio. good morning. you are on the air. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks. caller: here is the thing i do not understand. here we are quivering over money

during the middle of a national emergency. the thing is, we need to do what is right. we need to build back better, but we need to make sure that everybody is secure. we need to do it the right way. as you've said before, we can't build it back the way it was because evidently that did not work. we need to make it better, we need to make it flood proof. as far as the cost of flood insurance, isn't it legalizing companies to gouge you anyway they can, because everybody should be able to afford it. it does not matter what it is, it should be covered. you should have that peace of mind that you are covered through your insurance company. host: ok, any thoughts? guest: this is a great point to make, that flood insurance is rarely run through a flood insurance company. most often flood insurance is

provided by the federal government, run through the national flood insurance program, and it is exactly for this reason. in the 1960's, the companies said we cannot make money because it is so exposed, and they started withdrawing policy. the federal government said, we will offer flood insurance at a reduced rate so everyone can afford it. one challenge is over the last 60 years, we have seen offering flood insurance at low prices might give people some peace of mind, but it might give them too much peace of mind. it might make them feel safe in a not safe place. we want people to recognize that may be where you are living is not safe, so you take action like elevate your home. but we need to take more action. we have a similar pattern out west with wildfires. insurance companies are saying, we will stop offering insurance

for wildfire prone homes, and the government saying, hold on, insurance needs to be available. we will have that same balancing act, wanting to make it available but not giving people incentive to the exposed to risk. so this is one of the challenges with flood insurance. host: we have not talked about major earthquakes in this country for some time, but what about earthquake insurance? has that go into expensive for people who live in fault line areas? guest: most of the discussion is around raising awareness. san francisco had a raising awareness campaign where they tried to grade and might -- make people aware, are you living in a rental property that has been built to earthquake standards? trying to raise awareness about that. even before insurance, do you know how risky the building you are living in is. maybe it was built last year, or

maybe it was built 30 years ago and not built to building codes. same thing with floods, how do we raise awareness about risk exposure, so people can make decisions. host: on the building codes, earthquake, floods, are they mandated by the states? guest: yes, they are often done at the state level, sometimes at the county level, and sometimes at the town level. so there could be a whole variety. host: paul in new bedford, massachusetts. caller: hi. i was on a planning board a number of years ago and learned about this kind of dilemma between the verticality of the way the zoning laws worked. and one of the big challenges i thought was the kind of plan. the planning for it is more or less a rubberstamp for existing

codes and laws, but cannot really steer the operations towards better solutions. you can nudge them around, but the legal questions were, for example, one question i would have was how constitutional laws per state -- you touched on this earlier -- how that can interfere with the way that we plan. there's so many personal liberty issues, lawyers get involved, and it gets complicated quickly. one example that comes up is the land in flood areas, how can we preserve arable lands for food supply, let's say, instead of it being sold off to 50 lots of housing? i will leave it at that. maybe you can touch on some of these things, but it is a real dilemma. host: we will get a response.

guest: it is a major challenge. so, with planning boards, some have a lot of legal authority and others don't. legally, when we talk about this there's two different types of states, some provide towns with legal authority, so those planning boards can be strong. where those communities have a lot of power. other states say the state will maintain most of the power and local governments do not have control. i'm thinking about a town in nebraska that wanted to relocate their entire town, they wanted to move away from the river in order to be safe and estate government said, you cannot legally do that because the state has the authority, not the town. so there was a divide over who has that authority and it really depends state-by-state. and often times, planning boards can be given more legal tools. right now, we're looking at

zoning laws that can be used to protected wetlands, open-space or arable land for agriculture. all those laws that help zoning boards defendant that open-space can also help to guide development towards areas less risky. host: a follow-up to our flood insurance conversation, jennifer sends us this, "i'm an insurance agent you we sell private flood insurance. it is a new thing. it is pretty affordable, it's just not backed by the government." guest: it is great that private insurance companies are getting involved. thank you for pointing that out, because i do not want people to think they do not offer this, but many homeowners assume that their homeowners insurance will cover floods when it does not. it often has to be a separate policy. so if you are counting on home insurance to cover flood damage, make sure that you have a dedicated flood policy from the

federal government or a private insurer. host: michael morris in illinois, who has been impacted by the hurricane. caller: i have a piece of property down there that, i guess it is underwater. i do not know, i cannot get there to look at it. here's my question for the professor. we cannot even get people to wear masks with covid because they do not believe in the science. the science tells us there are areas that will probably flood because they are low. there's areas that will be subject to wildfires and so forth. i do not think you are going to get people to cooperate. wouldn't it be better to eliminate totally these flood protection and fire protection programs? and if people want to build in

these areas, go ahead, but when you are wiped out do not come to the rest of us looking for money, because i am in a blue state that sends more dollars to washington than we get back. and the republicans are always telling us, oh, we do not want to be giving money to these blue states that have these pension problems. well, louisiana is not very blue. host: tell us about your property. is it in louisiana? caller: an uncle of mine used to go hunting down there, so it is rural. and i would never have thought of building anything. we have had shacks on it over the years, just to sleep for a night or two while out hunting. host: professor, go ahead. guest: i agree, it sounds

tempting to say let's let the property owners do whatever they want and then deal with the consequences. the challenge is so many people live on risk prone property, not because they chose to or they wanted to be exposed to risk, it is because it is the only place at that their ancestors were allowed to build. some people are living there because it is the only place they can afford. 10% of affordable housing in the u.s. is located inside the floodplain. sometimes it is communities where their job is and it may need to be close. it is tempting to say, these people should deal with the consequences, but that is often not the case. they are not making the choice to be exposed. we need to change the systems that have exposed these people to the risk. and we need to deal differently with new developments being built now that we understand risk exposures than those employees 50 years ago, when the

flood risks and climate change were not as apparent. host: this is philip in orlando. caller: good morning to both of you. the guest, to me, is a breath of fresh air in terms of providing valuable information regarding the times we are living in. one point i want to make, then i want to make a statement. i just feel like we are not really adequately looking at the reality as a group of citizens on this planet. who are working together to try to control what is going on with the changes happening. it is frightening to think -- i was in florida after watching north carolina, the storm that moved up the coast, the latest one, ida -- what can happen to

this state. people are in denial about everything here, the masks, everything. just the climate change. when rick scott was governor, there was a denial by the government to allow people to talk about climate change as if it didn't exist. the former president was talking about denying climate change then, like it happens naturally. in your mind, as a young woman, very intelligent, what do you think is going to be the outcome of citizens here on this planet in the near future? i give it five months to five years if we do not get it together. guest: i am not quite that pessimistic, but it is a major challenge, educating people about climate change and having these conversations. they are difficult. and partly because our society so divided right now. we cannot have a conversation

about things that appear to be fact because we no longer believe in facts. we think that there are alternate facts now, or rake fact -- fke fact -- fake facts. it is a challenge when we cannot get people to agree on basic facts, light, how do you prepare for worst storms if you have to start establishing that they are getting worse. it is a challenge. but over the course of history science wins out, the truth wins out. the challenge is not, are we going to do with climate change? the question is will be deal with it quickly enough to prevent the massive suffering of that will occur every time we do not prepare for one of these disasters. that is the real concern. host: a headline says 2 million in louisiana without power. how has the utility industry, the energy industry, responded in recent years in terms of working to harden their

infrastructure to protect against storms such as ida? guest: utility companies are preparing for climate change, they are trying to prepare for storms. i was in new york during hurricane sandy and immediately afterwards working with edison on how to try to prevent another sandy from knocking out power. the companies are aware of this. one of the challenges they face is trying to figure out how much to spend, because often the cost is passed on to the ratepayers and they do not want an increased electrical bill, but they want the company to protect their infrastructure. how did they balance the need to protect infrastructure with where does that money come from and not wanting to impose the cost on users. that is likely to be a slow transition because you do not want to increase the rates quickly too high, you want to do it slowly, piecemeal it over time in order to prevent overpricing electricity for users. host: back to your piece, the

chart tells the story. billion-dollar disasters. . "over the past few decades, costs have exceeded $1 billion each for disasters including wildfires, droughts and other severe storms." the chart shows it all, the real increase. and as you pointed out, these were adjusted for inflation. guest: the seven major disasters , the billion-dollar disasters per year over the last 20 years, but over the last five years we are averaging 16 billion-dollar disasters. in 2020, that was an anomaly. but this year we have had eight already, not counting ida. so we are all part to get up towards 15. and when you start thinking about that -- when i say a billion-dollar disaster, it is a

disaster that costs at least $1 billion, so they could end up costing multiple billions of dollars. host: you are a professor at the university of delaware, what got you interested in this field in terms of looking at natural disasters? guest: i was a fellow with the u.s. navy, the navy got me interested in thinking about climate change because at the time admirals were thinking about how the navy should be preparing for climate change and for national security issues. i had a law degree and biology background, so they said you should be working on climate change issues. and that started me on this. and i was living in new york when hurricane sandy happened and it helped me realize how we need to prepare for the next disaster we don't see coming. host: you are not far from new york city, did you get walloped by ida coming up the east coast? guest: we have had tornado

warnings and flash flood warning's. i have been fortunate that my home and office have been unscathed. my thoughts go out to those who have had it much worse. host: a caller in california, go ahead. caller: i would like her to answer my question as i stay on the line. i'm calling in reference to a call from four or five calls ago, when you talked about the temperance dam. and how the money -- is temperance dam built? guest: i have not been following that dam specifically. caller: then why did you comment on it? you said how much money, but we funded it for about 15 or 20 years now, to stop all of the

wildfires and to keep some of our water. but you mentioned it and you did not even say, well, it is not even built. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is a great point. what i mentioned is levees around the u.s. need to be rebuilt, those are old, like infrastructure in general. infrastructure in general, not specifically that dam, needs billions in maintenance. but you raise a point that even if the money is allocated, we do not have good evidence of the money is being used in the way that we need it to. federal agencies often take years to spend the money given to them after a major disaster. the accountability office has called onhud and other organizations to improve their ability to spend money on these kinds of disaster responses and mitigations. so the fact that you are saying a dam has had money allocated and has not been built is not

surprising. although i do not know the details specifically, i can say that example resonates with what we see around the country. host: let's hear from alan. good morning. caller: thank you. in all the discussion about the costs of the losses to public infrastructure, private property increasing because of climate change, we already have a debt posture in this country that is pretty outrageous from earlier financial and covid related problems. and in the course of that, the government, under some administrations, has still cut taxes on the income of the wealthy and on states, whatever industries they are involved in. there is a big gap in discussing who should be burying the cost of the increased climate damages. and there has been little public discussion, probably because politicians do not want to lose donations, media that does not

want to lose ads, of addressing the need to place these costs more at their stores with people who have caused the climate problems, who knew about it and denied it, who actively confused at the public about it. even in the last few years, without talking about climate science per say, people in the government have tried to cloud the idea of science in general, the idea of evidence as opposed to fantasy. and i believe some of these people are actually financed by carbon interests who want to create a climate where the public does not trust the evidence based process. and i am wondering how we will get this discussion courageously placed in the area where it needs to be to draw the resources from people who have been enriched by causing the climate problem, and they should be taxed not only on current income, but for the damage they

have caused and on assets they have been unjustly enriched by while deceiving the public. host: thank you, alan. guest: that is a great point, who is going to pay for these things? how do we distribute the costs? it is a major challenge in the united states. if you think is a challenges for the u.s., for the united nations, the conference of parties they talked about which country should pay, where the money should come from to deal with the effects of climate change around the globe. so these conversations are really difficult. and you raise an excellent point about we will need political courage in order to have those difficult conversations. host: i want to ask about water. a front page story recently from the wall street journal, "severe drought has there and do public supply in the west. the water elevation at hoover dam is at its lowest since

league mead was first filled. the opposite problem is happening in the east with too much water, but not enough drinking water." the new york times on their front page, "in drenched louisiana, a survival level and the hunt for drinking water." on the longer drought going on in the u.s. west, is this a slow rolling disaster for the u.s.? guest: it absolutely is. just, as you mentioned and speaking about the navy, an admiral used to say that climate change was all about the water, it is too much, it is too little, in the wrong place at the wrong time. so the fact we see major flooding and drought is what we expect from climate variability. the drought is an unfolding disaster and it will be a major challenge because so many legal, social and infrastructure systems are built up on the assumption that there will be a certain amount of water in certain places at certain times,

and that is no longer true. when we think about the ripple effects, so when the water level is low, can we produce power, do we have enough water to deal with wildfires? some areas have reservoirs so low that the firefighters cannot get water out to fight the wildfires. the challenges have compounding effects and they will have consequences for agriculture, for towns that are trying to get drinking water in water for recreation. and the effects will continue. so trying to get people to treat it as a disaster, the same way that we treat a disaster like ida, is incredibly difficult because it is so slow and it lasts for so long. it can be challenging to have that same motivation to act. host: let's hear from rick in idaho. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span, dr. siders.

i'm a retired marine. i have something that will help. it's a report from 2019, and when you open it up it is 33 pages. when you look at 28-30, you will see 1946 to 2017, the american taxpayer dollars go out and we get nothing in return. 1980, mount saint helens erupted and we sent out aid. not my job america. the earthquake in the bay area, we put out aid. what did the world do for us? here is the punchline. hurricane katrina, 2005, we put out $200 billion, $35 billion in foreign aid, and only one country stepped up to the plate and offered help. it was a noble gesture from japan.

and president bush said thank you for the offer, but no thanks. what did the world do? not my job. i want my federal dollars to go to your programs, fema, funding levees and dams to support america first and all of the victims from ida. i want my federal dollars to go to you. host: let's hear some final thoughts from the professor. guest: thank you for those thoughts, i am glad that you want funding to go to disaster programs. and obviously i think that is a great idea. in terms of foreign aid, when i was working for the navy i was working on their foreign investment programs, to build relations that we need in order to have defense mechanisms in those countries. so there is multiple roles there, but that does segue into the next section of the program. our disaster system is doing the best it can right now, but it is dealing with laws and

infrastructure that are outdated and we need massive change in order to deal with both the disasters we are seeing now and the long-term changes we will see due the climate change. host: it is the university of delaware disaster research center, and the assistant professor a.r. siders with us this morning. thanks so much. more ahead on the program. coming up next, andrew mines will join us to talk about isis-k and other potential threats emanating from afghanistan. ♪ >> we are at an important tipping point in this nation. what we do matters. and i believe that the 1776 project, that this project is an important historical moment and

we need people to get behind us. we need to make sure that our message reaches white, black, asian, hispanic -- everyone. america is a great country and we need to fight for it. announcer: on sunday, the former vice chair of the 1776 commission, carol swain, will be our guest. he most recent book is "black eye for america." other titles include "we the people." join the conversation for carol swain, live sunday at noon on in-depth, on live tv. -- book tv. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events on our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, book tv brings you the latest on nonfiction and authors.

it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. "washington journal" continues. host: andrew mines is a research fellow at george washington university. he is here to talk about terror threats coming out of afghanistan since the u.s. withdrawal. welcome. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will start off with a question of who is this group that we have heard it so much about, isis-k? guest: isis-k, i am sure that people have seen different acronyms for this group at this point, but this is the official branch for the islamic state that is currently operating in afghanistan. the k stands for correspondence, and historically that is a

region that covers eastern iran, afghanistan, parts of pakistan and elsewhere in central asia. the group for all intensive purposes now is focused on afghanistan. lee formed in 2015 when members of the pakistani taliban, the afghani taliban and al qaeda and other members of jihadis groups coalesced around one leader, who had been nominated as the governor or top leader to oversee this branch operating in afghanistan. not long after that, they embarked on one of the most deadly campaigns in terrorism we have seen ever in the region. by 2018 there were one of the top four deadliest terror organizations on the planet. host: the taliban has been allied with al qaeda in the past, what is isis-k's relationship with al qaeda? guest: these groups are of eminently opposed to -- are very opposed to each other.

there is a history where different affiliates were butting heads and for all intensive purposes, since then there has been a global competition between the two organizations. so that has played out in afghanistan, too. we have not seen isis-k and al qaeda necessarily butting heads with each other, but because of the relationship with taliban, we have seen isis-k going at it with the afghan taliban. host: hasn't the history of afghanistan shown as decades, if not centuries, of internal conflicts between tribal groups, groups that represent different sets of people? is that basically what we have here continuing today? guest: it's difficult to kind of paint it so broadly because we have also seen in the last 20 years, that this has been a time of significant hope and promise for them. at the same time, we have seen

competition between different jihadist organizations play out. in some respects, there are components of a that play out along ethnic lines where different factions decide which groups meet their agenda. but there's a global component of it, too, where the islamic state brand and al qaeda brand are playing out in the area now. host: it seems the administration is facing multiple threats from afghanistan, or was at that always the case? guest: historically, definitely in the immediate years after 9/11, that was pretty much al qaeda. over time we have been able to diminish that threat, but not destroyed it completely. any claims that al qaeda had been defeated tend to be premature and they have been that way for basically since the inception of the group. right now, of course, the competition between these two groups shows there is a multiple

threat. we have threats coming from the islamic state and threats coming from al qaeda. now they are focused locally on afghanistan, but if counterterrorism pressure is removed from either organization, if we take our eyes off, our own intelligence officials have told us that both of these groups could pose a direct threat to us, to our western allies, within 18 months to 36 months. host: without any military boots on the ground, and without any significant u.s. boots on the ground, how will the u.s. keep or continue counterterrorism, the u.s. and its partners continue counterterrorism efforts in the region? guest: we have seen from the biden administration, and now we are seeing more from the united kingdom, the over other horizon capabilities. basically what this means is the

u.s. air assets will be flying missions from different bases in the middle east into afghanistan to conduct strikes against islamic state targets. the other part of over the horizon relies on human sources on the ground to provide either locations for targets and win they will be traveling and so on. historically, we have relied immensely on the afghan intelligence for that. i think a lot of people in the last few weeks have discussed at the rapid fall of the afghan national forces. there is merit to that, but we have relied on those forces for significant periods of time, and without them now, the reliance on them is really an open question and when we do not have good answers to just yet. host: andrew mines is with

george washington university's program on extremism. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents and others, 202-748-8002. you have a masters in clinical psychology. does that bring you closer to trying to understand what is the mindset of these terrorist groups? guest: i am actually still working on it. yes, i am still working on it. this is actually my last semester. i think it has definitely helped with understanding a lot of the things we see on the domestic side and working on why americans decided to join these organizations, why they decided to attack targets in the united states. i think it's more comparative

politics and definitely history that is helpful to understand what is going on in afghanistan right now. host: do you think the withdrawal of u.s. forces there has emboldened people to take part to join the taliban there? obviously, the taliban has control in afghanistan. and what about isis-k, does this help their recruiting in that country? guest: on the al qaeda side of things, absolutely. they released a statement congratulating the afghan taliban, declaring that their al qaeda 20 year war against at the americans has paid off. that this has been perceived as a huge victory for the group. that's the top-down dissemination. we have also seen osama bin laden's former head of security, who was spotted in afghanistan, and that is not bode well for what the organization plans to do. and we have seen al qaeda affiliates in official and

unofficial channels, both are celebrating this as a huge victory, but also discussing a lot about traveling to afghanistan now to join al qaeda and the taliban. so that could mean problems because they will have expectations of the taliban, of al qaeda, and if expectations are not met, they risk being driven into their ranks of isis-k. on the other side we have isis-k , they are in a curious position because they need to show over the next few weeks and months, that al qaeda and the taliban together cooperate with the west and will be illegitimate because if they are cooperating with the u.s., as we see this play out, they will view this as a threat. at that risk is driving additional fighters into isis-k. if the taliban concedes on even

slight ideological issues, that is driving fighters into the ranks of isis-k. this is a precarious time for the region and i think that people need to wake up and see how precarious that is right now. host: let me read you another view, an opinion piece, "biden did not see the isis-k threat in afghanistan until too late." "the united states put the taliban and a potentially awkward position where they share the same enemy. should the united states work with the taliban against the islamic state? there are two paths forward. one option, which the ministration appears to be leaning to, his to cooperate with the taliban, including perhaps intelligence chairing -- sharing on drone strikes. or they could choose to do nothing and let allies and isis-k battle it out." guest: my colleague highlights

an important consideration, that there are no good options. if we let the taliban be and try to control isis-k by themselves, we have seen them engage with isis-k in traditional clashes, more conventional warfare were either groups -- where subgroups will go after isis-k when they have held positions in different areas in afghanistan. we have seen them do that, but we have not seen them secure and govern a city and pursue counterterrorism against another insurgent group in urban areas. we have not seen that yet. so their capacity to do that, we truly do not know what that is. at is a big unknown. and it has the risk o of being incredibly dangero -- risk of being incredibly dangerous. isis-k has a game plan to move

through anti-research and consolidate territory and coerce populations and conduct of violence. and all the things it needs to do over the long run to establish that same caliphate we saw in iraq and syria, to establish a version of that in afghanistan. on the other side, what happens if over time -- let's look out a few months -- what happens over time if we are sharing intelligence with the afghan taliban, and they are sharing good intelligence or bad intelligence with us. over time, the taliban, what if they get tired of working with the u.s.? and they start defecting over to isis-k. those are real questions into serious considerations we need to think about as we look down the line. there is no good answer. but that is the long and short of it. host: first up, jeff in cape coral florida on the republican

line. good morning. caller: hi. am i on the air? host: yes, go ahead. caller: justgo ahead, jeff. guest: ok. just the -- caller: just a few questions. why didn't we see any presence from isis-k during mike sills ran from 2014 to 2019, and what are the chances that we could see homegrown-based attacks since biden's failure? host: you mean homegrown here in the u.s.? caller: yes. host: thanks for your call.

andrew mines. guest: thanks for your question. to your first question of why didn't the bided the administration see isis-k coming , and the american public may not have seen this, but there has been a lot of reporting in different news outlets and there has been a lot of activity by the u.s.-led coalition to combat the group -- 2016, 2017 in particular, we have conducted hundreds of airstrikes in this organization -- against this organization. we have dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in our arsenal on this group -- the only time we have ever done that, by the way, in 2017. as well as, i should mention, on the ground, special forces operators working to take back territory that isis-k controlled. we have seen this group over time. we have been working with afghan

partners to degrade their capability. what that is going to look like now, i really can't tell you. in terms of your second question, the chances of homegrown attacks either from al qaeda or isis-inspired individuals in the u.s., i think certainly the chance has risen in the immediate future, especially as the online english-language propaganda from these organizations has come out and we have seen a lot of material encouraging supporters abroad to travel to afghanistan or to conduct attacks in their countries of origin. at the same time, over the last 20 years, our dhs and law enforcement partners have gotten better at identifying these attacks and we cannot omit the fact that we are much better prepared now that we have been in the past to identify and interdict attacked like that --

attacks like that. there is cause for concern, vigilance, but i don't think for panic. host: john. buzzards bay, massachusetts. go ahead. caller: high. i am john from buzzards bay, massachusetts. i am, kind of, like a news junkie, and i have been following this whole thing. biden is not very shy about, you know, cheap labor worldwide, being a pawn of wall street, george soros, all these type of people -- i'm just wondering if the money has spread to you, sir -- sometimes if you go on tv and say something that biden is about maybe we can get the minerals out of afghanistan

before the green new deal. biden and hunter love all this money they can get because they are and politics. host: paul in florida. democrats line. go ahead. caller: mr. mines, could you in some detail explain the components of the taliban -- the major components? host: thanks, paul. guest: sure, paul. i think at the highest level, the television is not monolithic. i think these last months, these last several years, that has shown us that. that is the highest level think. there are components of the afghan taliban, like the haqqani network, that are significant risks -- members are doing the

thickened risks in this period and overtime, but as a whole they have to deliver governance to the people, and if there criteria is not meant and their implementation of what they want islamic governments, they are at risk of joining isis-k or pursuing their own agenda. this is by no means a monolithic organization. the biggest fear we have heard from afghans on the ground, civil rights activist, general civil society activist, they don't know what to expect from the afghan taliban right now. they have seen different things in the north, the south, the capital, and elsewhere. what the afghan taliban does next will set the precedent for how different organizations and factions proceed through the next period, and the answer is we don't know what that is going to look like just yet. host: let me ask you about

recording in the wall street journal about broader effects in the region -- the headline is india warns of terror threat after kabul shift the taliban swift takeover has brought to power and afghan government more closely aligned with pakistan, stirring concern -- security concerns in neighboring india and raising tension between the two nuclear-armed rival. they have warned in recent days the taliban's return could make the country a haven for terrorists. the taliban said they would no longer allow afghanistan to be used against other countries, but indian officials are skeptical, saying "it was the same taliban that was there 20 years ago. india's chief of defense said last week on a meeting on the u.s.-india partnership. what you think of that view, professor mines? mr. mines? guest: i have not gone to the

professor status yet. thank you, though. that has been a risk that has widened. the important part from the u.s. perspective is what leverage do we have left to coordinate with our allies, the indian government, the pakistani government, to coordinate with other governments in the region, russia and china included, to make sure afghanistan does not become and continues to be a realm for proxy warfare, where different governments pursue different militant organizations to further their agenda. so, we will see. we will see what that leverage and what that coordination looks like, but it will be important now more than ever because we know that when rival militant groups clash, when they are funded and supported by external powers, other states pursuing their own agendas, it is always civilians -- it is going to be afghans who pay the price, and if the coordination is not pursued, we will see a lot more displacement, a lot more death in the next few years.

host: rich in centreville, virginia. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i was watching a wonderful show last night on netflix, and i would encourage everyone to watch it, the backup -- and the run-up to 9/11 and why that occurred and they talked about the mosher dean starting in the 1980's and work their way to the 2000's, and in their they talk about osama bin laden, who i think it was during president clinton's time, they came to the united states and said this guy is a bad guy -- you can have him, and they said, well, let's send him to afghanistan because that is pretty much a place in the middle of nowhere. he can't cause any harm there. so, the crux of my point is -- and then they said they could not bring him in because they did not have enough evidence on him. he was from a wealthy saudi arabia family, so there was

influence there, too. my question is, if we would have killed him or put him in jail -- kill him, not put them in jail, i wonder if we would have lost the thousands and thousands and thousands of people we lost, and spent the trillions and trillions of dollars. so, in america, think we are silly. we are not serious people. this is almost like a videogame of human beings. this has to stop. i can almost see it coming again where now the military-industrial complex, the cia, and everyone is going to try to find another way to get us in one of these messes. quite frankly, with president biden, the riot we had on january 6, i am sure, distracted them from planning better to get us out of afghanistan. host: thanks, rich. we will get a response.

caller: -- guest: rich, you raise an important point which is why do we conduct these wars and what is our role going back to the measure hunting movement, what is our role here, and since 9/11 what has been our role here? i think is the american public moves on from the war in afghanistan -- a lot of people in this country are just going to move on. a lot of people cannot. a lot of veterans, civil service officers, foreign affairs officers, who spent time serving overseas in afghanistan will not be so easily able to move on. afghans who have made it out and who have not so easily made it out will not just be able to move on from this. what is important right now is that those voices are heard. is that the narrative of why we do this, what have we learned, and should weepers -- should we be pursuing this in the future

-- that the narrative is crafted by people who have been on the ground fighting these wars, being victims of these wars, that the narrative is coming from them, and hopefully we can form a better understanding and better national memory of why we were in afghanistan and should be go back if, let's say down the road, and islamic state affiliate in afghanistan rises and the threat posed to us in our western allies becomes great. host: a headline this morning in "new york times" says -- reads that pentagon leaders are wary of working with the taliban. "this is a ruthless group." a briefing yesterday by the defendant -- -- at the pentagon talked about how they would treat the taliban and isis-k. [video clip] >> we don't know what the future of the taliban is, but i can tell you from personal experience that this is a ruthless group from the past,

and whether or not they change remains to be seen, and as far as our dealings with them at that airfield or in the past year or so, you and work, you do what you must in order to reduce risk to mission and force, not necessarily what you want to do. >> any coordination possibilities against isis-k, do you think? >> it is possible. secretary austen: going forward, bob, i would not want to make any productions. i would tell you we will do everything we can to make sure we remain focused on isis-k, understand the network, and at a time of our choosing in the future hold them accountable for what they have done. host: andrew mines, let me follow on that with a question from a viewer in north carolina who says can andrew discuss the ideological differences between the taliban and isis-k that makes them dislike each other? guest: sure.

the afghan taliban is focused on the emirate, a prominent islamic entity within the borders of afghanistan. they identify the afghan national boundaries as their country and they will be seeking to form and are starting to form governments within those boundaries. the islamic state movement overall is not recognized international boundaries. the world order as we understand it, nation states as we understand them, and as their boundaries are drawn -- we do not -- they do not recognize those boundaries and they view any jihadist group that works to form nationalist movements that are center-seeking for those boundaries, they view that as heretical. they also view aspects of how, in their views, lenient, the afghan taliban has been in accommodating different kind of cultural considerations and religious considerations that are specific to afghanistan and the region. they view those as heretical.

so, there are deep set differences between these organizations, and we are unlikely to see isis-k and the movement accommodate any of those -- we are unlikely to see them cooperate or reach an understanding with the afghan taliban. this rivalry is about to play out for the next several years. host: let's go back to calls and hear from michael in arizona city. good morning. caller: the democrats don't have to worry about donald trump taking the 2024 election -- there will not be one. there won't even be in america left. host: jean. louisville, kentucky. caller: yes, cia trained bin laden's people to fly planes.

afghanistan is 80% heroin. bin laden was not a terrorist, he was a drug lord. everybody sitting here talking about this and that -- to cut the story short, it is all about drugs, and it was all beginning there in iraq to fuel commercialized planes to fly over to the united states. now, this is all over drugs -- they are not going to fly over here unless we train the. host: andrew mines, how much was the opium crop, in particular in afghanistan, a part of funding the f -- the taliban? guest: this has been a significant source of funding over the years. monitoring reports have shown us that and they have also shown that over time our efforts to stem the opium trade in afghanistan -- the taliban's ability to leverage that trade has been successful at points,

but overall has not really moved, and in recent years has only increased, so, overall efforts to counter that trade -- the trading of opium and that sub economy and afghanistan have largely failed. host: a question from joe on twitter -- does the program on extremism and george washington university also monitor right-wing american terrorism because i get the impression there is more were january 6 came from. guest: thank you for the question. our colleagues have a database -- if you go under our researched have, we have a section devoted to the capitol hill attack. you will find it under capitol hill siege. we have been monitoring then we started monitoring that basically the night of the attack. you will find good reporting there and some analytical products we have put out. my colleagues have been looking

at right-wing, specifically neo-nazi and white supremacist organizations. one of my colleagues put out a great report recently about racially motivated, violent extremist attacks paid you can find that on our website -- extremism. gw do. -- extremism. gw you. ed you. caller: good morning pat i tried to give this a holistic look --good morning. i try to give this a holistic look and i am glad you brought up the issue of foxy wars. if you noticed come up until recently, if you look at the taliban they are armed with ak-47, rpg's, you had 47,000 taliban in afghanistan, you have boko haram, these people are armed with marxist, maoist weapons.

he fought these weapons in korea, vietnam. one question is where is the supply chain --where are they getting their ammunition? that is a narrow look. two, i think we should pivot away from china. i am tired of us supporting a communist regime. i think india is now key. this is the largest democracy in the world. one last question, did the afghani army, the 300,000 people -- did they have any women in their army -- i am sort of curious about that. guest: so, to answer your first question about taliban proxy supporters, we know empirically and what my colleagues have studied and have shown over time is that the pakistani military intelligence, the isi has been -- over time we have substantial evidence they have been one of the biggest supporters of the afghan taliban -- that has included providing safe haven

for them in weston pakistan when the afghan taliban was escaping u.s.-coalition led efforts in afghanistan. i think our failed efforts to leverage our relationship with pakistan to stem our support -- that is the key take away, and a lot of experts who have studied this longer than i have have also shown that -- i'm sorry, your third question was -- host: on women in the afghanistan army? guest: sure p we have seen women take part in police units. i don't want to misspeak, but i think there has been some local-level training for women the afghan army. don't quote me on that pad i will have to get back to you on that. but overall, these forces, the afghan security forces are overwhelmingly male. we do know that. host: next up.

nikki and rockaway park, new york. caller: good morning. you are an expert, i know nothing. the hotdog guy knows more than i do, but what role do you think religion plays in the role of extremism? in afghanistan we have religious extremists who want to shut women down. in america we have texas, which wants to shut women down in the name of religion -- in the name of religion. what is the difference between isis and american, right wing evangelicals? what is the difference? i don't understand. host: all right, we will let you go there, nikki. andrew mines, do you care to respond? guest: it is a very simple question -- it is one that people have been trying to answer for a long time.

you point to religion -- let's broaden that out to ideology -- the role ideology plays in extremism. we should move the conversation into how that factors into people's identity -- how they perceive the world -- their perceptions about in groups, who they identify with, perceptions about out groups, their enemies, who they feel are either, kind of existential threats to their existence -- this is a process that is well-played out across extremist groups of different ideological affiliations, of different ideological means. we see the same process happened. i think your question is good. the answer that we need to shift over to identifying identity, perceptions that people that are part of these organizations, part of these movements, that identify with these movements, how they see their ideology,

their own personal grievances -- the stuff they have going on the back room, how this all kind of fuses together, and why that pushes them to pursue violence, or to sit and nonviolently support, tactically, actively, those ideologies. host: wall street journal has a picture and headlines to go with that "u.s. to monitor how taliban use seized weapons," showing the helicopter and a weapon left behind in afghanistan. rick and montclair, california, expressing concerns on that, and says "i believe the threats of leaving weapons in afghanistan, and at the same time the open southern border are a trifecta for disaster." what do you think, andrew mines? guest: my colleague wrote a great piece about what the afghan taliban actually has now

and what are some of the myths about what they have now and how well they are able to use what they have now? the answer is they are able to use the majority of what they have now when we talk about light weapons, heavy weapons, like antitank weaponry, equipment like nightvision vision, and that sort of thing. what they do not have is the ability to -- they do have the ability to pilot some kind of simple aircraft, that were mostly part of the afghan air force. what they do not have is the ability to pilot some of the more complex helicopters and aircraft that we unfortunately left behind. what happens to those now is really up in the air. do they get sold to the black market, contract others to fly them for them? we will see. they are not able to themselves fly those aircraft, but i believe the video of them flying

the helicopter over kabul was a former afghan air force pilot being forced to fly that helicopter. the majority, i should note here, the majority of the afghan air force pilots were assassinated by the afghan taliban and the buildup to their takeover, flood, or very few of them remain in the country, so there are a lot of open questions, but coming away to the broader take away, as my colleagues have noted they are able to use the vast majority of what they have. host: indian appeared we go next. sean, democrats line -- indiana. sean pinned democrats line. caller: i am just curious. it seems like extremism in afghanistan has been a huge profit maker. a couple have benefited -- that being the media, these experts on afghanistan, and i think it is the government and people

associated, including the media. my question is, we find a lot of fault in the political move biden had to make, i think, for the benefit of the country. my question is, it seems like this is beyond the local happenings in afghanistan -- it is a profit maker for intellectuals and media people that went to the country -- they did not even want to stand up for themselves. my question is, we are doing all of this armchair coaching -- we are doing a lot of what we think should be done, and there are a lot of mines -- mines over the last 25 years that have gone there, a lot of media, no answer that makes basic sense as to why we are than why we have this the headline on c-span and every media outlet crying out for those people that are in the country. yes, it is said, and at some point we have to defend ourselves. given we have so many issues in

the u.s., these intellectuals, people in the media need to turn their attention to what is happening there because we are not so different from afghanistan on the ground and i would be just a to hear your thoughts on the economics in afghanistan. guest: well, sean this earlier, but right now one of the -- sean, there is a lot in there, but i think i mentioned this earlier, one of the biggest things that veterans have raised, civil service and foreign affairs officers have raised has been one of betrayal, and i think the simple fact -- this is not a comment on policy, whether the decision was right or wrong, but we live with after that is a sense of betrayal, and the second feeling, the second emotion that afghans themselves have raised is one of feeling trapped, as, kind of, refugees

in their own country. and, so, i am not here to comment on whether the decision to withdraw was the correct one or not. you are right -- we have a huge set of national and global crises to deal with at home. i am not here to comment on that. i am simply here to say that as we form this kind of memory and narrative moving on from the war in afghanistan, those voices are critical -- what happened, lessons learned, raising those, having good answers, and good public education to teach the next generation of americans about this war -- those are also important. the primary reason i'm here is also to say that if we do not keep our eyes on the terrorist threat emanating from afghanistan, it does not matter what we think about it because groups in that area, if they are able to seize control, we consolidate territory, build out technical operations over time, they remain interested in

attacking us -- that is the simple reality. my broader point here is the threat remains. it is not immediate. they do not have the capacity to do that in the immediate future -- there is very low likelihood that they do, but the threat of that building up over time remains. host: here is sylvia in clairton, pennsylvania. democrats line. sylvia. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to know the history of them, and why they hate americans. host: you are talking about why do the terrorists hate americans? caller: yes, what is the history of the whole country, why they hate americans. host: andrew mines, that, or any

other final comments? guest: i will come back to something i said earlier -- the social fabric of afghanistan, americans, we need to understand this, is not monolithic, and there have been massive segments of afghan civil society, women's groups, civil rights groups that have trusted us, worked with us on the ground to build those out. there is a large, large segment of the afghan population right now that is uncertain about the future, that feels betrayed, that wanted our help, that worked with us on the ground, so the immediate future to them remains unclear. so, things in their minds do not look good. host: andrew mines, research fellow at the george washington university program on extremism. thank you for being with us this

morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: ahead on washington journal, our open form -- we will ask you to call and we your thoughts on the issues we have talked with -- talked about today, including the decision last night on the texas abortion law, more on the impact of u.s. withdraw from afghanistan, and other public policy or political issues you are following. here are the lines. ♪ >> sunday night on "q&a," a conversation with usa today washington bureau speech on the life and political career of democratic congresswoman nancy pelosi. >> not many people knew this,

but she was planning, once hillary clinton was elected, she was making plans to step down. she was 76 years old, had nine grandchildren -- at some of the things she wanted to do, but the election night was a shock for her and so many others. she said that once she realized donald trump was going to win the election, it was like a mule was kicking her, physically. she did not say this metaphorically she said she felt like a mule was kicking her over and over again in by the end of the night she decided she was not going to go anywhere, try to stay, stand up to donald trump, and to protect democratic priority, including the affordable care act. >> susan page sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q&a."

♪ >> this year marks the 20th anniversary of the september 11 attacks. jonas for live cup -- join us for live coverage from new york, the pentagon, and shanksville, pennsylvania. watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal." -- washington journal" continues. host: it is our open forum. we will get to calls momentarily. we started the program talking about an issue reach late last night by the supreme court -- reporting from "the hill," supreme court declines to block

texas abortion law -- a sharply divided supreme court refused to block a texas law that bans most abortions, leading the country's moser strict of abortion measure intact. just before midnight, the court denied an emergency request from providers to block the law, issuing a 5-4 ruling with chief john roberts joining the court's three liberal justices in dissent. the majority citing procedural complexities, but the challengers had raised serious questions about the law's constitutionality. justice sonia sotomayor eddie in a dissent joined by her liberal justices called the rule stunning

let's get to your calls on open form, the political and policy news you are falling. warren, ohio to hear first from ron. democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. when i got up this morning i was not concerned about being killed by terrorists. we lost 3000 or so in 9/11. 2200 and afghanistan, and i was just curious, how many americans have been killed by americans over the last 20 years? it just seems to me that america can't protect americans, and we shouldn't be worried about other countries. thank you. host: north carolina. pamela on the republican line. welcome. caller: thank you so much.

first off i want to say good morning to you. thank you for your program. i would like to extend my heartfelt sympathy to all the families of the goldstar units, and all the ones that have had their lives altered from this whole, horrific experience we have experienced. my heart and prayers go out because i remember where i was on 9/11 -- i remember seeing our country in disarray, and it is a horrible thing to note that this build back better that was promised to us is more of a betrayal by biden and the ones we have elected, yet as everything goes into chaos, and our country, and obviously around the world now because of the cowardly way our elected official, biden, has completely orchestrated, i just want to let every service member know how

much i deeply appreciate everything you have done for us. it is hard to take and sit on the outside and critique what is happening on the inside without actually just taking a moment to remember there have been lives -- there have been americans, both home and abroad, that have been affected by this -- loved ones that went away to war so they can defend people that don't even care about the country that gives them the freedom to blast as they do. i hearts and prayers go out to everyone -- everyone, not just in america, but to the world, because this is going to be a moment that will define america -- i truly believe that. it is going to be the time that america will have to take and look at what we have done. host: pamela. we will go next to petra in alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. i had a question -- i remember

where i was exactly on 9/11. i am just curious how people will feel if and when another 9/11 happens, and i did have one fact on the previous thing -- i watched a video where six military afghan members were fighting out in the field, and they were fighting for their country, and they were left with no ammo when they called for backup, and when they finally surrendered after running out of ammo, they were slaughtered by the taliban. the afghan military did fight. they were left with no ammo in the field with no backup as we pulled out. if we -- i watched the video from the afghan news from the news on the ground, and i wish more people would talk to the people in afghanistan to find out what is happening there. host: el paso, texas. hello. caller: i just want to push back

-- i am a native texan, and we are not all a bunch of goofballs here. texas is a lou state. -- blue state. a we are the state of the state of the great and richards, governor, i voted for her, it is just that our state got hijacked, and we are dealing with that, and it is painful. please don't paint us as a bunch of crazy people, because we are not. the abortion thing, every man who opposes abortion, i hope, i wish you have had a vasectomy, because aren't you guys all about personal responsibility? we are reasonable people, that is what i have to say. host: it is open forum -- your

calls on any public policy or political issue you are reading about are following on the news. this, an opinion piece this morning in "the new york times" by a daughter of robert f kennedy, rory kennedy -- "my father's assassin does not deserve parole." "i never met my father," she writes. this is the writing of rory kennedy on the pending pardon of

see iran see ron. -- he has not been pardoned yet. she writes last week's parole hearing makes clear his suitability for parole does not change. he still maintains he does not recall the killing, and that "it pains me to experience the knowledge for such a horrible deed, if i didn't fact do that." "if? the opinion of a daughter of robert f kennedy, rory kennedy, you and "the new york times." next is albuquerque, new mexico, the republican line. richard, go ahead.

caller: look, i have been noticing on c-span that lately, you guys have been avoiding the border. when president trump was president you were writing him hard, talking about him and against him every single time you came out on the show, but with biden and with kamala, you don't see nothing at all, period . let me tell you some that afghanistan did over there. they let the soldiers out before they got the citizens out. you and i know that biden's administration with kamala and pelosi, they are all murderers. they murdered the soldiers, got them murdered, and not only that, they are bringing opium over to the u.s. citizens. you know what is going on, we

know what is going on. you won't say anything about it. just want to keep hiding everything you guys say, but when president trump was president, you guys were all over him. why aren't you guys all over kamala now, and pelosi, and all those people in the democratic party? you continue to develop -- defend them. they are murderers and drug toddlers. you know what they are doing, but you guys are defending these people. host: we will go next from santa monica, california, to hear from harvey on the independent line. caller: good morning. you had earlier, this professor from rhode island on disaster satyrs. in reference to her work with

climate change, here, by the end of the year we are supposed to have climate elements in our plans for cities, counties, etc., and this is something that is way overdue. i know folks that have been trying to get solar elements and whatnot in for over five years. we have earthquakes here, as folks know, but we have had fires, floods in the valley, and the heat has gone over 120 degrees, and that was last summer, and then recently, about a month ago, it was one hunted 16 in portland, oregon -- 121 in a little town in british colombia. the air district here represents about 40% of the people -- four big counties, l.a., san bernardino, riverside, and orange.

recently, a couple of meetings ago we had a study done about what was causing the emissions and classified them as exceptional. they might have been exceptional 10 years ago, 20 years ago, but this seems to be the new pattern, the new normal. this is the environment. the environment changes. i think it is extremely important that we plan, and that is basically what we are talking about -- disasters in different areas. we have to take the bull by the horns, as the expression goes, and deal with this. this is the new reality. i am greatly concerned that it is not been considered as such, even by the point person whose environmental attorney, on both boards, the state air board, and the southern california air quality management district, as well as the head of the environmental committee -- he is arguing this is exceptional -- this is the new normal, real concerned.

basically, with climate, it is out there -- people can see it. host: this is from axios this morning -- january 6 select committee elevates liz cheney to vice chair. bennie thompson, the chair of the committee, announced today that he has named liz cheney as his vice chair. axios says why it matters -- "cheney, who was already the committee's top republican, is now the top -- second ranking member. in limerick, maine, we go to jane on the republican line. caller: yes, i would like to request that every time you and every other channel show a map of afghanistan that they label all the countries bordering afghanistan, and i look it up on the internet because there is no

labeling on the television screen. host: why do you think that is important? caller: so that we are a little more educated about what surrounds afghanistan, and what -- one of the countries that border it is china. how about that? host: let's see if we can bring up the countries. you are right, china is not on there, no is turkmenistan. caller: it should be. please label all of the countries. china is one of the countries bordering afghanistan. host: good morning pitta staten island, new york. donald, republican line. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my friends watching

c-span right now. what i am saying is i believe biden does not care about our military because during their funeral he kept looking at his watch, but if trump was president, he would be saluting them, praising all the hard work or this would not have even happened. also, i have a question -- why would you sleep -- host: we will go to "the new york times" staten island, they have been affected by hurricane ida. the area woke to a flood ravaged and largely paralyzed landscape today after record shattering rains brought by the remnants of hurricane ida left a trail of several states, shutdown transit, and exposed a new the region's vulnerability to a changed climate. "the new york times" write at least nine people rise as waters

rosen basins a tornado in southern new jersey leveled a stretch of houses. some drivers have been reportedly stranded since wednesday night and more than 200,000 homes in new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania remain without power. in imperial, new jersey, the independent line. this is anita. go ahead. caller: thank you very much caret i would like to remind people that -- much. i would like to remind people that mitch mcconnell and paul ryan work very hard to get funding for state legislatures to make sure that republicans had control of almost all of the statehouses and that they were able then to gerrymander the entire country. if you look at jim jordan's district, it is gerrymandered. i live in gerrymandered district. i would also like to point out that afghan women might want to go to a different country, and certainly not to texas, where

they will be treated like cattle and not allowed to use their brains. in this country, and in the world, we now have been petro circle is asian, we have surrogate birth, and all kinds of ways to add more people to the earth, but we don't allow women to use their brains about about -- about whether they wish to bring another life into the earth. as a result, we have endangered species. i also want the right to sue every person who objects to getting vaccinated, and everyone who helps them in any way. thank you very much, c-span, for being our town hall. host: you bet. wayne is next. michigan. democrats line. caller: good morning. amen to the lady that just spoke. what an amazing statement. thank you for taking my call.

like i have said before when i call, 99.9% of the people who call have no clue -- this gentleman from new mexico named richard -- did you hear the ranting of a madman? he is a literal madman. host: i hear you. is that all? caller: one more thing. they are talking about what biden did. trump let -- left the kurds to die. they were not fighting with us, they were fighting for us. he left them to die to turkey, and the other thing is he killed over 630,000 people with "it is just a hoax." thank you from -- for taking us from first to worst. host: new orleans. how are things. caller: good morning. host: robert, how are things in

new orleans? caller: not too bad. this is my fourth time calling c-span. i want to reach out to all the callers listening -- i don't know how many there are out there, do you know fukushima, chernobyl, the cleanup of the -- the 4000 veterans that cannot get medicare by being exposed to radiation. mike wallace 25 years ago -- he never helped us. we have been trying to get medical care for 43 years. i am a one under percent disabled veteran. the v.a. has to take care of me. i don't mind giving up my life for my country, but all the veterans that are not one under percent disabled,, they are destitute. they cannot -- we need help.

c-span, the v.a. -- no one is going to take care of us. we need the american people to take care of us. host: are you in v.a. facility now? caller: no, i am not. host: we will stay in new orleans here and go to don on the independent line. caller: a very good morning to you, and i would like to give a big salute to the weather channel -- they were in the heart of the hurricane reporting, and we appreciate their accuracy, the experts giving us accurate information and educating us on whether, even in california, the fires, the impact of weather on this hemisphere. the thing i want to say is when i heard the veteran talk about health care, that brings me to my question this morning -- what are we enforcing or encouraging in our tax-exempt institutions?

most hospitals are tax-exempt and that means they have to have a program that pays for communities to have access and education to health care issues, and even a higher education -- institution of learning, many are nonprofit institutions, and their mission should be the same in education, making the education affordable to those that cannot afford it, yet they are cutting budgets in many states if not all states for higher education, pre-k through 12, yet they are shifting the burden in raising tuition, so where is the tax exemption phase when you raise the tuition and force people into more student loans, which are paid off in 20, 30 years, if that, but they keep their tax-exempt status and some are raising billions of dollars in endowments. we have to realign our thoughts

and educate ourselves on what it is to be a participant. one of the other things about the storm that revealed a lot is our policy on oil and gas royalties as well. our whole country -- we need to reallocate thoughts, not at each other's throats, not condemn each other, but understand what it is to be an american citizen. host: don in stevensville, michigan. good morning. trump left it so he had done deals with taliban. he had set up a trap -- and if he had won the presidency he would've never gotten out of there because of the political

consequences. biden did. it wasn't great, it wasn't pretty. war is horrible. i hear republicans crying, though poor afghans, our soldiers -- god bless all soldiers, god bless haiti, immigrants, but they always point out disaster and turn it against the democrats when they had all kinds of horrible things trump did with the kurds, and just about 30,000 lives, which they never talk about. host: following on terry's point, news analysis from the new york times -- gop closeout -- pulls out from what they supported. the california house leader praised president trump's deal to pull troops out of afghanistan as a positive step as mike pompeo helped negotiate the agreement with the taliban. josh hawley pressed for a withdrawal as soon as possible. now the three are among dozens

of prominent republicans who with president biden seen the pullout through have sharply reversed themselves, assailing mr. biden, even as he keeps a promise mr. trump had made, and carries out a policy to which they have given their full-throttle support. the collective you turn represents mr. biden -- their eagerness to attack mr. biden and ensure he pays a political price for the way he handled the war. mr. trump reversed himself as the withdrawal group chaotic. host: sterling heights, michigan. patricia on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am listening to the democrats -- they think biden is the greatest thing that ever happened to us, and as far as afghanistan, why are we worried about them attacking us?

we have a million people flooding our borders. he is letting in 40,000 afghanistan. we had better worry about suicide bombers. when they get here, they will put those vests on, and they won't discriminate between a democrat, who they are. enjoy your president, because we will get hit -- our football games, whatever game where there is people. enjoy yourself in the next six months. host: louisiana next up. bobby. good morning. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say is that all of these people don't know what they are talking about. as far as the weather is concerned, why don't they go back and check and see -- years ago it was exactly how it is today and it changes with the seasons and god's permission.

they will not be able to control it, i don't care what they try to do. host: it is a couple of weeks before the house and senate come back into session, they are racing to get some work done before they return in a week plus -- democrats raise to resolve house-senate dispute on 3.5 trillion dollar mega bill. "political" writing they are fighting to finalize their spending plan during the dog days of summer recess, worried they will blow their target date to finish. speaker nancy pelosi has ordered committee leaders to battle it out with senate counterparts to resolve all major disputes this week on what will be included in the up to $3.5 trillion bill, but wide golfs remain between the house and senate on central pieces of the package including expanding medicare, showing up obamacare, raising taxes, and curbing tax -- carb -- carbon

emissions. lori. line. caller: yes. for the 100 -- for the 100,000 people that ended up leaving afghanistan, there are several that went to different countries. now, are they going to stay in those different countries, or are they coming and i also want to point out that 35,000 people miscounted when they first did their count. the number went up to 105000. the number one up to 45,000 people. that is a lot of people.

[indiscernible] host: i'm sure we will be talking on that more and upcoming programs. here's a call from independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call it i really believe in free speech and everybody has the right to their opinion. i wish we could agree more often. i think people should look into the greatest generation and study the history of how america came together to solve problems and not what we are seeing today . wake up, america, before we become something we do not want to be. thank you for my call. host: thank you for that call and for all of your calls this morning. we are back on friday morning at 7 a.m. eastern.

we hope you are here as well. have a great day. [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] >> a look now at our life programming here on c-span. in about one hour, the house committee holds a hearing on the 9/11 attack and the nation's response 20 years later. that is life at 11 a.m. eastern. they are, the pentagon will hold a briefing. they will be joined by an air force general. they are expected answer questions on the u.s. and its military mission in afghanistan. that's our live -- that starts

live at 3 p.m. eastern. you can watch on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> this year marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. join us for live coverage from new york, the pentagon, and pennsylvania starting 7:00 a.m. eastern on saturday, september 11 on c-span. watch on c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ the policy center posted this

one hour event. ja >> up next a discussion on the , september 11 terrorist attacks on the current threat assessment in the u.s.. participants include former senators and jeh johnson. the bipartisan policy center is the host of this one hour event. >> which took the lives of 2997 americans and changed our nation in many significant ways. we are honored to have two stalwarts tom daschle and trent , lott with us here today for an