giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this afternoon, a discussion with south carolina republican senator tim scott on financial inclusion and what steps the public and private sectors are taking to expand access to capital and services for those who have been excluded from the financial system. watch live coverage at 12:30 p.m. eastern. our >> coming up on today's "washington journal," we'll talk about the biden administration's economic policy with the "new york times." then the aspen institute on that organization's new report on digital misinformation and disinformation. and then native american

priorities and the recent white house tribal nation's conference. join the conversation host: fri'y verdict in the kenosha order trial of kyle rittenhouse and the trial rep in a been jerger -- georgia brought into focus the issues of citizens and law enforcement, open carry laws, the anti--ism, armed self-defense. gun laws range largely among states. the increasing proliferation of firearms may make cases like those much more common. good morning it, it is monday, november 22.

welcome to washington journal. we will start asking you your thoughts on the limits to armed self-defense. the lines are for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001 four independents and others, (202) 748-8002. you can also send us a text at (202) 748-8003. we are on facebook and twitter. we are talking about the trial of kyle rittenhouse in wisconsin. we will up date you on the tragedy in waukesha at the parade there in just a moment. the opinions of the wall street journal on the kyle rittenhouse trial. this was their piece on saturday.

host: that is from the wall street journal. we are asking you, are there limits to armed self-defense. (202) 748-8000 four democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans. this is a piece from the christian science monitor that came out after the verdict on friday. the headline, vigilance or vigilante ism? -- vigilante-ism? that is from the christian science monitor. after that trial ended on friday, the defense attorney

mark richardson spoke to reporters. this is what he said about the verdict. >> it's been a long day. it's been a long three weeks. we are very happy with the verdict. we are happy that the jury took the time, put in an incredible amount of effort. there were times we doubt of the case. there were times we were confident. to say we were relieved is a gross miss understatement. kyle is not here. he is on his way home. he wants to get on with his life. he has a huge sense of relief. for what the jury did to him today. he wishes none of this would've ever happened. as he said when he testified, he did not start this. we are thankful in more ways

than one that the jury finally got to hear the true story. when i say the media, i'm talking about social media, the story that came out from the beginning was not the true story. that is something we had to overcome in court. we think we did that. host: that is one of the defense attorneys after the verdict on friday. our opening question, what are the limits to armed self-defense? (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8002 is for independent voters and others. let us know what your state says. what are the laws there in terms of allowing firearms, open carry, use of firearms in self-defense. back to wisconsin and the story

from waukesha. the parade there, the christmas parade, this is the reporting of the mill walkie sentinel. -- milwaukee sentinel. we confirm that five people are deceased, over 40 were injured. the numbers may change as we collect additional information. it was a parade yesterday and waukesha, their annual christmas parade. we will update when we get more information. political news, the house and senate are out ahead of the thanksgiving break. this news from vermont. the associated press reporting the only member of the u.s. house, peter welch, says he will run for u.s. senate held by patrick leahy who is not scylla

-- seeking reelection. let's hear next from karen in alabaster, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? good good. i know we asked the limits of self-defense. in the rittenhouse case, it doesn't matter what the wall street journal thinks. a jury acquitted him and said he was within his rights. he was legal to carry the gun. he was carrying the gun for his own protection. the other thing i wanted to point out, i think the gun laws in alabama are similar to wisconsin. i am not sure. you can walk around with a gun. there was another case though of

an african-american gentleman was accused of shooting a police officer. his defense was self-defense and he was acquitted. how come we are not talking about that? on the ahmaud arbery case, that was not self-defense. that was a murder. please talk about the african-american gentleman who was acquitted of shooting a police officer. host: i know the case you are talking about, a couple of years ago? caller: the shooting was recent. he was acquitted in the last couple of days. no one is talking about that. host: let's go to rob in michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think people are missing the issue. it's not the justification of second amendment rights. it's not a rationalization for white supremacy.

it's about our constitutional system. an accused person is presumed innocent. it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person is guilty. that person doesn't have to prove their innocence. a decision is reached by a jury. there were seven women and five men. the media says one person of color. they listened to the evidence and deliberative for three days. they reached a unanimous decision. if we discard that process, we are in a lot of trouble as a country and culture. when you throw away the presumption of innocence. host: thanks for the call this morning. are there limits to armed self-defense. (202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

st. paul minnesota, we go to diane. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. what i would like to say is i believe there should be a defense to protect us from everything out there. i am a licensed carry person. i will continue to be. the thing i am concerned about, we have two americas. one for people of color and one for whites. had that been a young 17-year-old black boy walking down the street with an ar-15, he would've been stopped, he would've been questioned by the police, he would've been taken into custody because he was out past whatever time. he was not an adult and he was in a violent situation.

i don't go into those situations myself. in minnesota, we don't have that kind of law. even if you are armed and carry, you are supposed to retreat. that is your job. if someone comes at you, your self-defense is not going to do you in court. they train us to know that. i'm not going to stop carrying my gun. i don't know what's happening out here in the world. i am 72, 73 years old. i'm not going to be a victim for anyone. host: how long have you been it carrying a firearm? caller: 10 years. i carry. i go and practice on the range every week. i have nine guns, different calibers that i have. i am going to defend myself,

with these people who are defend themselves. when people come across state lines, when we had that protest in minneapolis. we had so many people from other states that were running through our neighborhoods. we were ready. if they come for trouble, we are going to give them trouble. i don't protest after dark. that's not protesting. that's vandalism. in day time when you protest, i don't go in when they were at the governor's mansion. we had the white supremacists out there. i didn't go over there where they were. i knew that was asking for trouble. you've got to have common sense and all of this. there are two americas, one for white folks and one for people of color. if these jurors keep bringing these verdicts, it's going to show what this is about. host: we will go to stephen in

oregon. go ahead. caller: i just want to make a comment. the da was doing the cross-examination, there was a question about being overzealous. i could see myself in the same situation and not finding a person that's in front be. this child had no common sense. he did not calm himself down. he was panicking. it should have been lowered to manslaughter so he would face justice and not walk away. he had no remorse for these humans that are gone. there were mistakes on both sides. people should not of been setting fires. just because you see something doesn't mean you have to categorize yourself and put yourself in a situation. choose your battles. host: what do you think kyle

rittenhouse in that situation, what should he have done? caller: you have to wait for a situation to raise your arm, he should have waited. i wouldn't of raised it at all. they go right through walls. the precision round are precision bullets. they go through walls like paper. if he was doing good and putting out fires, awesome. taking arms to a protest rally is the worst thing to do, we have divisions and differences. you need to start thinking about the situation. understand people's pain. you can't be setting places on fire.

those people need to be held accountable. you can't be setting things on fire. you can't be hurting the police. they are already overzealous. we've got the fire department, they are limited. host: we appreciate your call. asking in the wake of the kyle rittenhouse verdict, a broader question. are there limits to armed self-defense. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. the washington post had this to say. they write this:

we will hear next from eddie in peoria. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: thank you for accepting my call. i'm amazed at the case. i don't know why the prosecution went after him for murder instead of violating -- i don't know if he violated the gun laws or whatever. it reminds me of the case with the guy in california that they went after the policeman for murder instead of true tally. -- brutality.

with this case, they only showed part of what happened. i didn't see where they showed he killed the first person. i watched the case. i saw the one guy chasing him with the skateboard. that's the other guy that got killed. i don't understand how they could go after him for murder instead of gun crimes. i don't know if they went for second degree murder. they should have gone after him for something less than murder. in my opinion. host: beth is in florida. this is the republican line. caller: i want to say i commend the jury for doing their duty.

i find it hard to understand how it came out like it did. i understand it was according to the way the law was written. let's talk about the laws. host: beth? caller: i'm starry -- sorry. i couldn't hear you. i want to talk about the laws. i commend the jury for doing their duty. i can't say i disagree with their out, because of the way the law they had to use in their jury room were written. i don't believe in those laws. i think they need to be changed. let's look at the laws. that night, kyle rittenhouse was

17 years old. he went to a city that was under curfew. i understand it's against a lot law to break curfew. it might be a misdemeanor or something like that. one of the reasons he was noticed for carrying the gun and stood out from other people that were carrying guns, he was chain-smoking and looking nervous. that was in the early part of the night, according to one of the guys who was a witness for the trial. i don't think he said that during the trial, he said it after, that's what caught his attention. he was chain-smoking. it's against the law for 18-year-olds to buy cigarettes. how did he get those? how did he get the gun? he had his friend by the gun for

him. -- buy the gun. that's against the law. he claimed he was a licensed emt. that's misrepresenting himself as a medical personnel. i'm sure there should be laws against doing that. even if he just bandaged a foot, which anybody could do. they don't have to claim to be a licensed person. what laws is this child going to obey? he drove from his home in illinois to his job in kenosha every day. he didn't have a driver's license. he testified to that on the stand. host: this came up on a number of the sunday shows yesterday. this is the headline from huffington post.

military style weapons, he was asked yesterday if he stands by his comments of 2019. here is what beto o'rourke had to say. he is running for office in texas in the next election. >> it was gun control, your number one issue. i want to play something you said on the debate stage in 2019 after mass shooting in your hometown. >> hell yes, we are going to take your ar-15. these are not going to be used against our fellow americans anymore. >> is that what you would still do as governor? >> we are estate that has a long tradition of responsible gun

ownership. most of us here in texas do not want to see our friends, our family members shot up with these weapons of war. yes, i hold this view. i've been listening to my fellow texans who are concerned about this idea of permit lists carry. -- permitless carry. despite the pleadings of law enforcement across the state, they said it would make their jobs more dangerous and more hard to protect those they are sworn to protect. we don't when extremism in our gun laws. we want to protect the lives of our fellow texans. when we come together and stop this divisive extremism we see from greg abbott right now, we will be able to do that. >> a wisconsin jury acquitted kyle rittenhouse. he claimed he acted in self-defense when he shot and

killed two people in wisconsin last year. what is your reaction to that verdict? >> this entire tragedy makes the case that we should not allow our fellow americans to own and use weapons that were designed for battlefield use. that ar-15, that ak-47 has one purpose, that is killing people is effectively in as great a number in a subtle time as possible. we saw that in el paso when 23 people were murdered by someone with an ak-47 just in a matter of minutes. we should not expect this as a matter of course in america. we don't have to. in texas, most of us grew up learning how to use firearms responsibly. let's bring that knowledge to bear.

let's protect the second amendment but make sure we protect one another by having common sense gun laws. i know we can do it. host: from that same program, the washington times this morning. virginia lieutenant governor said sunday it's time to stop picking at america's racial scabs after a jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

that is from the washington times. our question, are there limits to armed self-defense? the lines are (202) 748-8000 four democrats. -- for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. a couple of comments on twitter.

host: in michigan, raymond on the democrats line. caller: you've got to spare me. they say we have to respect the jury system. if we don't have the jury system, we don't have the rule of law. and of the pillars is our electoral system. 70% of them on acknowledge the joe biden one by 7 million votes. they won't respect that, we will have to respect the jury. they made a makeshift thing for a couple of days. at 3:00 for the weekend, they came up with a decision. that's how well thought out it

was. they couldn't even come back monday with a decision. most people don't understand this. there is only one sentence in the second amendment, in the constitution that refers to guns. it's a collective right, not an individual right. justice scalia -- it was a collective right. the supreme court can go back and look at a 50 year president on roe v. wade. they can't review that decision in 2007 because it's noble. roe v. wade 50 years ago is not noble. it's insane. they don't respect the jury, they don't respect biden.

we've got to respect the jury system. host: in washington, the independent line. caller: i think kyle rittenhouse went into kenosha to instigate a situation so he could shoot someone. he was hanging around with white supremacists the day before and after. now he's become the face for the far right. i don't know. i'm very suspicious about all this. host: baltimore, maryland up next. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's funny. i was listening to your republican lady, south carolina, saying we need to move on and let things heal as far as racial

motivation may be going on in this country. you can't let anything heal, nothing will heal until people are able to sit down and talk about it and be open with everything as far as systemic racism, oppression, all the violations that people of color and other minorities have been through. the thing about the trial with kyle rittenhouse, i don't think he should've been charged with murder. i don't think it was the intention of killing anybody. i think there should've been other things he should've been charged with that he could have been found guilty of in terms of being underage and having a gun. it wasn't lawful for him.

i think there should've been some type of manslaughter charge involved. it's just another letdown for people of color. other people in this country who want to respect the justice system. when it comes -- like the one lady said, when it comes to the justice system, the blind eye of the law is always never sees the crime human beings commit. when it comes to people of color, it is forever seeing. host: we are getting a little bit of feedback on your phone. thanks for your call. for you who love presidential phone calls, we have a new podcast you should listen to.

the presidential recordings podcast launches today on the anniversary of lyndon johnson becoming president. it's a 10 part series that looks at the johnson administration. it starts with some of his first calls in office. presidential recordings share what he was saying in private. it lets listeners eavesdrop on the real president johnson, speaking with congressional leaders. president johnson was known for his mastery of persuasion. here is a conversation from 1964 with the peace corps director sargent shriver. he implores sargent driver to take on a second role. let's listen. >> good morning, mr. president. >> i'm going to introduce you at the press conference. >> i think it would be advisable

if i could have the weekend. i wanted to sit down with a couple people and see what we could get in the way of a plan. what happens is if you announce somebody, they don't know what the hell they are doing. >> well, just go away and figured out. we need something to say to the press. i've got to tell them what i talked to you about yesterday. you can just take off and work out the peace corps anyway you want to. you can have an acting operator, i will let bill help you. i want to get this behind me so i quit getting these other pressures. i think -- you can't let me down.

the quicker we get it behind us, the better. you can talk to the special assistant to the president as they piece administrator. tell them you speak for me. don't make me wait until next week. i want to satisfy the press with something. i told them i was going to have a press meeting. they are going to have all these damn questions. host: that was sargent shriver learning he is about to have a second job in the johnson administration in 1964. you can hear this call starting today on the presidential recordings podcast. you can find it on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcast. follow to never miss an episode. lyndon johnson became on this -- president on this day as john

kennedy was assassinated. he was 46 years old. he was in the third year of his first term, assassinated in a motorcade in dallas. our opening question is about the limits, are there limits to armed self-defense in the united states? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. fpr independents and others, (202) 748-8002. caller: god bless everyone. host: do us a favor and meet your television as you go ahead with your comments. caller: ok. thank you. i want to say god bless everyone. i noticed that what happened, it

takes us back to the abolitionist days when black slaves were trying to run for their freedom. abolitionists were being murdered that tried to help them. it's the same thing that's happening today. nothing has changed. even if john brown had done something today, they would still hang him. nothing has changed. they let this young man off. you cannot help black people become free. even john f. kennedy was killed partially because of his favoritism of blacks becoming free in america. nothing has changed.

it was a military weapon that killed him. host: to robert in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i have a couple of comments. i love when something takes place and someone gets killed or a terrible situation, people come out and talk about people of color. it has nothing to do with the question we are asking today. why believe in self-defense? i do. i'm a vietnam veteran. people walking around with veterans -- weapons for a war zone, absolutely not. i don't have a problem with somebody having a handgun. it's more likely, these major killings, people are arming themselves with large weapons. my main thing is, why do they

have to ring up people of color or race as a reason? there are people of color who commit crimes. look what people of color do in their own neighborhoods. i don't hear anyone calling them racists, which they're not. there are some bad people wherever you go. i always appreciate listening to your show. host: this is benjamin on the independent line. caller: good morning. a lot of people were talking about what is just for them. what is right for them. the question is the man was protecting his life. was he right? maybe not. was he wrong? maybe not.

the question continues to be not if he was smoking cigarettes or did he brush his teeth, was his wife in danger? does he have a right to protect it? host: columbus ohio is next up. caller: i just want to say about the rittenhouse situation, it's amazing how everybody feels about self-defense. he went there in another state. he was under age. he had to provoke those people for them to come after him. there were other people who had guns. they didn't shoot anybody. he went there and he had an intent. that was his main goal, people do not run up and down the street with an ar-15. you can tease a dog behind a

fence. by the time he comes out of that fence, he's going after that person. then you say he ran down the street. at first he was walking with everybody and he was in the mt, why did he lie about that? when you see him run down the street, he must've provoke them. -- provoked them. when he ran into that situation, he shot one guy who did not have any weapons. when i tell you if i see again i am going to cut your heart out and i don't have a weapon and you have an ar-15? it doesn't make sense. he shot one guy four times. then he ran again and shot another guy and killed him. he provoked that shooting.

host: if he had not been armed, if he was there volunteering or whatever and had been in a similar situation, if you'd wind up killing those two men in a fight or whatever, using another instrument, would he have been then within his rights there? caller: i understand what you are saying. the main thing is he said he wanted to help out the people that were wounded or whatever the fanny pack. he broke out and ran. i'm not going to go with an ar-15. if he had just been there to help out somebody, nobody would've ever run after him. when they ran after him, that's why he shot them. it doesn't make sense. host: this is the headline from the christian science monitor.

old laws are a legacy in the modern u.s.. host: let's hear from robin chicago. caller: good morning. i just want to mention, the trial should not have taken place at all until the jury makeup was half white and half

people of color. thank you. host: i always get that mame -- name wrong. very is in california. -- barry is in california. caller: if it was in a different state, he might have found guilty, especially in california. also, i want to say that if all this defunding the police thing didn't happen, if the public didn't feel they had to protect themselves, this probably wouldn't have ever happened. you've got these idiots that want to defund the law and don't want to have lost so they can riot. then you have public citizens that are going to go out and feel like they have to protect themselves.

this kids dad had business there. he wanted to go help out. he's over there with a group of people that all had guns. he's walking with them. it looks like the protesters singled him out. it looks like the protesters got him away from the group. they started harassing him. he didn't shoot and kill until he was on his back. they were trying to grab the gun from him. i don't know if that is self-defense or not. i'm not a lawyer. somebody should have done something instead of having the public going and defending their property. that's probably government

failure or local government failure. i believe the state should be responsible. the people who are voting for dismantling the police department and defunding the police, look what happens. host: after the trial, the attorney spoke to reporters. he was asked about how mr. rittenhouse felt about the shootings and the feelings for the families. >> watching kyle testify looked like a kid who got caught doing something wrong. what does kyle want the family to think? >> if some of the other people

had let kyle go to the police, there would only be one individual dead. they referred to him. anybody can look up the definition of active shooter from the fbi. the way those words are so charged, that's what they used. they wanted to paint him as that. i wish nobody died. i wish i never met kyle rittenhouse. this wouldn't have happened. >> whether or not he feels he had to do it, does he feel bad about it for the families? >> i think he does. we've talked about it. there is so much talk about whether the tears were genuine. all i can say is when we prepared kyle and we worked on his testimony, there were things we couldn't talk about in my

office because it got too emotional and he couldn't handle it. he is in counseling for ptsd. he doesn't sleep at night. remorse manifests itself in other ways. i don't think he can never say that because of his situation. i know him. i know what he feels. host: after the verdict, there was a statement from the congressional lack caucus. -- black caucus. it said in part this: our question is one of the limits to armed self-defense? the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independent voters and

othe(202) 748-8002. go ahead. caller: it's a shame what went down. i know he was defending himself. his mom took him there. my prayers are with him and his family and the victims. they lost their family during this gun violence. it's going to take jesus christ to really straighten this country out. you've got the country leaders who are fighting against each other and not getting nothing done. it's really a shame how the united states is. this is been going on for years. since african-americans have been in this country. enough is enough.

the gun violence continues to keep going on. it is sad. he shouldn't have been there. he is underage. he was there. he felt like he was being attacked. he had to defend himself. that's what went down. it's going to take jesus christ to straighten it out. i feel that his coming is near. enough is enough. host: to florida and the republican line. caller: i am a registered democrat. i am going to be switching to republican because of the media handling this case. they are still showing false information and saying false information when they know there

has been -- if the people he had shot had been black, they would've been calling him saying black people versus leaving it off. for so long, so many people thought that he had killed black people because it was a black lives protest. if you are going to say that black people were shot, they should have announced white people were shot. the media has promoted the differences between the races. it's just -- it's getting so disgusting. host: to julius on the democrats

line in florida. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say, the instigators like the news media and the congress people, people that don't know what they are talking about. they should keep their mouths shut until they know the facts. nobody knows the facts until it's over. it's over. go on with your lives. that's the way i look at it. host: this is from the usa today. this is what they write in that piece:

that is from the wall street journal. a couple of comments on social media about her opening topic. on twitter: mlb says: i will try to bring that backup. let's go to ken in washington dc. caller: thanks for taking my call. the irony in this case and most

self-defense cases, i agree with the first caller from alabama who said at no point did he not do what he was entitled to do. she mentioned something about a black person defending themselves from a police officer. we can name a thousand cases for the one case she could mention. that's what happens when people are motivated to only find one cause. this young man decided to go somewhere he was not knowledgeable about, he wasn't aware. he could not reasonably participate in something that he wasn't able to handle. the gun became an extension of himself. he decided to go and lie under the pretense because most medics

want to help people who are injured. beyond that, he decided to go and celebrate at a bar. he showed no emotion other than when he was on the stand, he wanted to be found not guilty. you have a judge and jury that has to look at what someone reasonably believed. for someone to be reasonable, it has to make sense. violence in america, for white people in particular, is reasonable to them. when trayvon martin was killed, you had a biracial man, that's why he is still touring today, being celebrated by the proud boys that kyle rittenhouse was in the bar with after he killed two people.

in each of these cases, they bring the weapon to the party. they bring the weapon that is the demise of the person that was in fear. now the victim gets blamed for what they did. he is not complicit in anything he did. he's being celebrated and lauded. host: i wanted to redo that tweet from steve. -- read you that tweet from steve. jon tester on meet the press yesterday was asked about the self-defense argument. this is what senator tester had to say. >> let me start with the fallout of the trial. you provided a unique perspective.

you come from a rural state, one that would describe themselves as a pro secondment state. there are a lot of people who are ailing this is a victory. explain that divide as you see it. >> i wasn't in the courtroom. we are a nation of laws. there was a trial. the jury issued its verdict. i can't imagine the pain the families have gone through that lost loved ones in this incident. nonetheless, we need to respect what the jury has done here. we need to respect the decision. we need to protest peacefully. >> what is the issue? is it bad laws? >> i think everybody has the right to keep and bear arms. i think everybody has the right to protect themselves.

the debate on this issue, the debate is was it self-defense or was it provocation? >> we've also seen a redefining of these laws in the last 20 years. there are two trends all over the country. more open carry laws. more laws written essentially to allow self-defense to be used to defend using your firearm. how much do those laws contribute to the situation we saw in kenosha? >> i am in a situation where for 20 years i was a butcher shop operator. i got up and i used a gun as a tool. it has to be used responsibly. if it's not used responsibly,

bad things can happen. i can tell you some of the laws in the last few years i think enable people that are criminals, not people who are law-abiding citizens. honestly, as a gun owner and someone who has fewer guns than i want, we need to have laws that protect law-abiding citizens to have guns, when they are used improperly we need to enforce the law. the other thing i would say is there was a background check law that was up a few years ago to keep guns away from terrorists. that bill did not pass. i still can't figure out why. background checks are key to law-abiding citizens keeping their guns. host: another view in the new york times.

he writes this: you let's see if we can get one more call on our topic. what are the limits to armed self-defense. we will go to gary in kentucky? . caller: none of this would have happened if the mayor let the police and the governor did not

call the national guard in to protect kenosha from being destroyed. businesses were destroyed. if they had done this, none of this would have happened. as far as the couple in st. louis, a gated community was broken into. they were trespassing, they were threatening them. there is a lot more to it than just someone taking the law into their own hands. if the laws were enforced and there were police, none of this would've happened. host: ahead on washington journal, we will be joined by the new york times to talk about the economic policy, the fate of build back better, changes at the federal reserve. the aspen institute will discuss their new report and recommendations for addressing

digital misinformation. >> he's worked in journalism for 60 years. he was a correspondent for the washington post. on the cover of his new book, the subtitle, "america's deadly betrayal of the marshall islanders," it was those islands that served as a staging ground for nuclear tests conducted by the u.s. government in 1946 and ending in 1948. this is where america executed its largest detonation, 1000 times more powerful than hiroshima. announcer: pinkus on book notes

plus, available wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ announcer: weekends on c-span2 are in intellectual feast. every saturday you will watch tv. it's television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, weekends on c-span2. ♪ announcer: this afternoon, axios will host a discussion with the republican senator tim scott on financial inclusion. and what steps the public and private sectors are taking to expand access to capital and services for those who have been excluded from the financial system. watch coverage today at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online

at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. this afternoon, the chicago council of global affairs will discuss the middle east. watch at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. announcer: officials testified on deterring computer network attacks before the house oversight and reform committee. you can watch that tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: jim tankersley covers the white house right now for the new york times, focusing on economic policy and an economic

policy correspondent for the times. welcome. guest: thank you for having me. host: a big win on friday for the president, for democrats, wit the passageh in the house of the $2 trillion social spending measure. it is in limbo now because the house and senate will be off for the thanksgiving break, but what is ahead? what is the challenge for the administration and for congressional democrats in the senate? guest: well, i will start by saying it is a big win for them and like you were saying, clearing the actual vote in the house and advancing it was harder than it looked. it's a package with a lot of moving parts and not a lot of votes to spare. in the house, they have done it. now turning to the senate, they

have a couple problems with senators, mostly joe manchin, the centrist from west virginia who has had concerns all along with the size of the bill, with some of the spending programs, including some that were named after it passed the house. and also, to a lesser degree now, senator kyrsten sinema of arizona, who has had concerns with the revenue increases the democrats have put into pay for spending, including proposals for raising taxes on corporations. so, they have worked hard, democratic leadership, to address those concerns, but now what we will probably see is big changes, or at least small changes, to the bill in order to try to win the votes of the senators. and as a final wildcard, you have a change that was made in the house to the state and local tax deduction, which really

upset senator bernie sanders of vermont. so the left wing of the party, essentially there is a tax cut for higher earners tucked into the bill in the house, and may change in the senate. host: the president has had a big win with the signing of the infrastructure bill, so why is it important to his economic agenda to have this $2 trillion social spending measure as part of that? guest: if you back up think about president biden's mission for the economy, he's passed a couple bills to advance things, but it is not complete. the first was to shore up the economy in the midst of this recovery from the covid recession, and that is what the american rescue plan was for, the 1.9 trillion dollar plan he signed in march. then he took his longer-term

agenda, which is really about reimagining the rules of american capitalism and the role of government in it, in order to help the country compete in the 21st century, both on a worker level and on a business level. he cut that in half. the first half past passed, the physical infrastructure bill, for water pipes, internet, a variety of new infrastructure to support a decarbonizing electric sector, like electric vehicle charging stations around the country and improvements in the grid. all of those have been signed into law. the second part that remains is investments in people. the president believes if you want an economy that works for everybody, you need to support the workers better, so that means more education for young people, universal

prekindergarten, it means more support for workers once they are actually in the labor force, so there are measures to reduce the cost of childcare in here. for now, we will see if it stays, a federal. leave program for workers. and measures to help people cope with middle-class life, including affordable housing, and to top it off, a huge collection of tax credits and other incentives meant to speed that reduction in carbon emissions, both by climate change, and as the president has put it, to position american business to compete for the jobs in the industries that will dominate the global economy focused on reducing carbon emissions. host: it was interesting reading your pc couple days ago about the headline of which says, biden sells infrastructure improvements as a way to counter china. a bit of a foreign-policy story

here, but you reported that, and you talked to people about how much of the u.s. is spending on infrastructure, how much china is spending on infrastructure. why is that important? guest: the president talks about this a lot, and president trump talked about it a lot, as much as a bipartisan talking point is you can find right now in the country -- the idea that china has been spending big in the last couple decades to remake its infrastructure to have better delivery, to have -- to establish itself solidly as a global leader in manufacturing. and america, economists believe that america has under invested, allowed its infrastructure to decay, or cannot keep up. for example, back to electric cars, what the president addressed this past week, we are

very much behind china and europe in the buildout and adoption of electric cars. these are things that fit together in the mind of the president, if you let china beat you to the spot of where the new industries are going to be, then you are going to fall behind. and american business will not be competitive and will not make as much in america anymore, and we will keep losing their jobs to china, like we did in the early 2000. that's not what the president wants. president trump did pursue industrial policy in trying to bend the role of government to help certain industries develop in the idea that supporting policies that will not fall behind china in those industries. host: jim is taking your calls, your comments about the biden economic policy. for democrats, 202-748-8000.

for republicans, 202-748-8001. for independents, 202-748-8002. tell us about bernie sanders not being happy in the house. guest: this goes back to 2017, the republicans passed a tax cut measure that included a lot of big tax cuts, but it also included ways to offset the costs of the tax cuts of the were doing, and one was to cap and the amount that people could deduct of the state and local taxes that they pay from their federal taxes. this is something that primarily helps those in higher cost, higher taxed states like maryland, california and oregon. so, there was a lot of angst

from democrats, that you are raising taxes on our states and not republican states for corporations and individuals. and, the democrats won the a lot of house seats in part by promising suburban voters in new jersey and other places that they would roll back that cap. and now they are delivering on that. that's what they put into the bill. the problem for democrats, the thing that sanders is so upset about, when you roll back that limit on the deduction, it's actually a tax-cut, mostly for the rich, because they are the ones most hit by the cap, they are paying the largest amount of taxes and itemizing deductions on their federal taxes. so, the democrats suddenly have a bill that is meant to help people in poverty and people in the middle class, but also

tacked on, a tax-cut that will largely benefit the rich. sanders has complained about that, and i think you will see him attempt to change or tweak that, to perhaps cap the value of the deduction or do other things so it helps the top earners, but not the super 1%. host: what about drawing the line in the sand in terms of the price tag on the spending bill? guest: sanders has talked about it, but i cannot imagine he will be fighting against any of the senators who were the ones that reduced the overall cost of this bill down from the $3.5 trillion that was in the original framework the democrats had. i do not think that senator manchin, for example, is big on reinstating the salt deduction.

the problem is the house, so the question is, can they negotiate with the house, because theoretically those house members who are concerned about salt, say, if you touch this, we will walk and not pass whatever comes back from the senate, then the president would have a problem. that is the negotiation, but the democrats i talk with their is the thought that they can do a compromise, and still make progress for salt claiming households. that it would not be such a large tax-cut for the high earners. host: i want to ask one more thing before we get to callers, the president is said to make an announcement on the economy on tuesday, and if there is a word he will make an announcement about the federal reserve, including specifically on the chair, jay powell. what's your sense of what we

will hear and tell us background on that. guest: the white house has been saying for some time that a decision will come before thanksgiving, on a fed chair. it's late in the process, honestly, the job basically comes open early next year and usually by now a president would have appointed a successor, a replacement like president trump did when he appointed jay powell to replace janet yellen. or reappoint somebody to the office, which has often been the case. the background is democrats are divided over this pick. there's a lot of democrats who think that jay powell has done a very good job with monetary policy, has kept interest rates low, and has kept his foot on the gas to help the economy coming out of this recession in a way that has helped workers.

but there are other democrats who are worried about, led by elizabeth warren in massachusetts, who have expressed real concerns about jay powell's financial regulation, or in the case of senator whitehouse and senator berkley in oregon, they are concerned he has not made fighting climate change central enough to the fed's mission. there is pressure on the white house to pick a different fed governor, to replace it jay powell, and that that is what we have come down to, either jay powell will be reappointed or lil brainard -- lael brainard will replace him. it has felt like months now that it has taken the president to make a decision. but if we believe with the white house has been telling us, th ey will make a decision.

host: it is hard to read what the fed will do sometimes. any indication if he does pick brainard, how the fed would operate differently in terms of policy? guest: it is a real question about monetary policy. the general consensus among the democrats pushing for brainard is, you can have the interest rate and other monetary policy policies that you like from jay powell, she will continue those, but you can also get more aggressive with financial regulation. that is the argument from the democrats who support her. one of the arguments from liberals i talked to that support jay powell is she is a question mark, we do not know how fast she will raise interest rates. and she might have a different thought about things than chair powell does. the wildcard in this is inflation is currently running at a much higher pace than the

fed thought it would, largely because of the delta variant, resurges that nobody in the federal world would have that would affect the economy as it has. that's a headwind for the president and it has been part of the discussions now as he looks to pick the next chair. all these factors are in play, and it is not like they know for sure, well, if you pick option a, you were getting monetary policy a, and b with b. there is mystery to it. they do not know exactly what jay powell would do next year if inflation continues, so that is the injury behind all this. host: jim tankersley of the new york times. the lines are 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, and for independents and others, 202-748-8002. john in pennsylvania.

he's on the republican line. caller: biden wants to double the irs agents. right now, 61% of the u.s. citizens pay no federal income tax. what sense does it make to double the agents, when a lot of people are not paying income tax? studies for immigration in the united states pointed out that the child tax credit will apply to illegals, and more money than -- and they will get more money than u.s. citizens. that is not where i want my tax dollars to go. guest: i will take on the first question first, because it is a good one and i appreciate it. the president, and the build back better plan, does include $80 billion for increasing staff to the irs.

that will mean a lot more audits. but the idea, at least of the administration says, is those agents would be focused entirely upon the big drivers of what economists call the tax gap, the taxes owed and not owed. that would not be about the people who do not pay federal income tax, for the most part. what the administration says is those agents would be focused on corporate tax avoidance, high earners. there's very sophisticated tax strategies, some of them eu legal, -- them illegal, and the idea is they will train enforcement on that. the president said nobody earning less than $400,000 a year would be subjected to any sort of enforcement from this. the concern is that small businesses taking in more than

that could find themselves targets of audits, and that could be difficult for them, but what the administration has said over and over is the money is for the higher earners, the ones who are not paying what they owe, so that is where enforcement is meant to be. focused. on the second question, i have not seen the breakdown on the child tax credit, but for everybody else out there, the child tax credit version in the bill extends a credit that was created, enlarged in this in march, that goes to millions of american families to increase in the amount of money they get per child. it also is a refundable credit. so people who do not, who do not file federal income taxes, normally do not make enough money -- you have to file -- but

if you do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes, you can still get money back for a child tax credit. that refund ability would be made permanent under the new law, and the extended credit would be extended per year. host: a broader question from william in connecticut. "the laws on manufacturing continued for 30 years, however this administration bring back manufacturing dollars to our shores?" guest: it is a question i have thought about pretty much my whole career. back from when i was a reporter in toledo called the way through my time in washington. there is no easy answer on how to bring back those jobs. you are talking about trying to keep high levels of manufacturing production in the country, even if it means slightly fewer jobs, just because of the trends right now,

not here only, but globally, manufacturing more with fewer people. but the government has pitched the info searchable as a way to improve american manufacturing and make it easier to make things here. but like i was saying at the beginning, they are also making what they would call strategic investments, and there is a companion piece of legislation that includes research funding to try to boost america's research and development and market position and a bunch of sort of emerging high-tech industries of the 21st century, like semi conductors, electric cars -- there's a lot of, again, industrial policies. the president wants to have federal contracts, and federal advantages, towards the meaning can -- towards american

manufacturers in the hope that american factories can expand and we will stop importing from china and elsewhere. host: let's hear from frank on the independent line. caller: good morning. on taxes, the first caller was uncomfortable with tax dollars going towards illegal immigrants and image and those that do not pay taxes at all. you were talking about the extra irs agents going after corporations, wealthy corporations, and i do not think that is what he was implying when he said 60%. but i think we have a real problem here where republicans are always saying, they do not want tax dollars going towards the minority, the poor, but they

do not have a problem with subsidizing companies. i want to ask specifically, i am really curious, what or how long have we been subsidizing oil companies? at what cost -- that's what i do not want my tax dollars going towards, to those companies, i want them going towards green energy. that's what i want. my specific question is, how long have we been subsidizing oil companies and how much have we been subsidizing them? thank you. guest: great question. i was just in, earlier this month, at the glasgow climate summit as part of the traveling press corps following the president from the g20 summit in rome, then to scotland. one of the very big contradictions we saw was the president was talking to other

countries about how we need to -- and calling upon other countries to end fossil fuel subsidies, while at the same time, behind the scenes, pushing for oil producers to crank up production to ease gas prices in america. and not being able to follow through on his promise to eliminate all subsidies for fossil fuels in the u.s. tax code as part of the build back better agenda. there's still billions of dollars in subsidies, even after the moves they would make in the build to try to limit benefits for oil and gas companies. i do not know exactly what they are, but there's all kinds of businesses subsidize, and oil is one of them. the president did have a chance to levy an additional direct tax on fossil fuels earlier this year.

republicans, oddly enough, wanted to include an increase in the federal gas tax as part of a paid part of the infrastructure bill, the president said it violated his pledge to not raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 a year. but, it is true that the u.s. has done a lot of subsidizing of fossil fuels, as pretty much everybody in the world has over time, and that is the fight right now the global climate stage, how fast can you end subsidies, how can you bend the market towards a place where fossil fuels are no longer competitive, and no longer burning them. host: on the gas tax, does the trillion dollar infrastructure plan address how to replenish the highway trust fund? guest: it has a bunch of money for highways. in the build.

it is paid for in a different way than raising the gas tax. they have a variety of things in the bill, and the cbo says the bill is not entirely paid for, which is ironic because it is a think the republicans have been hitting on a lot on the other bill, which is almost entirely paid for, depending on how you count the potential revenues -- the cbo says it is not paid for because they assume the increased irs enforcement will bring about $200 billion gross additional tax over a decade. the administration thinks it will be more than double that. host: i want to get your thoughts on what the chair of the economic council had to stay on the price tag for the build back better plan in terms of now that it's in the senate if it will shrink.

[video clip] >> you expect this bill to shrink as moderates in the senate get their hands on it, right? >> this is a process that we have been going through for months, listening to members in the house and senate. the milestone in the house was a big in important step in getting this bill done, now we move to the senate. we will work with every member of the senate on this bill. but i think that because of that work over several months, we really now have a good understanding of where the consensus lies, it lies in lowering costs for american families, getting people back to work by actually addressing the barriers keeping people from doing so, like childcare, and it lies in making serious reforms that will restore fairness in the tax code. we have broad agreement on those provisions, so i expect as we see it move to the senate, we

will have momentum, we will work as the process does to get a bill through the senate. we need 50 votes. then it will go back to the house and the president's desk. host: what are your thoughts? guest: he was very good at not answering the question. i have questioned him many times as well. but i think that, in general, when you talk to democrats, including people in the white house, they expect that some of this will be scaled back, whether it is limiting the actual spending amount on that salt tax cut, or i think, it is not 100% certain, but a lot of democrats are of the belief that they will have to drop the paid leave program because senator manchin has repeatedly said he is against it. he may have other things he insists on. he's a fan of means testing,

phasing out benefits in a bill, so that they do not go to high income people. and there may be areas not yet tested in the bill that he will want to see tested. but we will see. like you have been saying, this is a complex negotiation, and so, i know the white house would love to get this done this calendar year. and they are feeling momentum right now off of the president signing the infrastructure bill and starting to sell it to the country, and they would like to also get a win with a bill that passes, so they can start talking about it. host: to larry in olympia, washington, on the democrats line. go ahead. yes, sir? caller: i have one question, since you have an economic

person on. and i also have a question for you as far as reporting news, or doing what you do regarding the news. and that is, why has there never been real reporting on what has happened it to the income tax over the years, coming from the 1960's and 1970's to the present day and how, how high income earners in the 1960's and 1970's paid it so much more in income tax? and how they were fine with it, because they made so much more than the average middle-class person. host: let's get a response. guest: this is something i have written about over the years. it's true, there were higher marginal income tax rates in the

1960's, 1970's. there were also more loopholes. but in general, the rich did pay more in taxes back then. now, that rate has fallen. i think it is notable that for all the things the democrats are going to do, if they pass the build back better at, they will not raise the marginal tax rate per say, it will still be at 37%, because of objections from senator kyrsten sinema. but they are looking to impose a sur-tax, additional income tax on those earning very high incomes, over $10 million a year, and that would apply to all income, including income from investments, which is taxed at a much lower rate than even the top marginal income tax rate.

so, you would see a gain in the progress of the tax code at the very top. rich people would face higher marginal tax rates over time under this bill. but, again, because of the salt deduction, that is not necessarily true right away. that's part of why the taxes in this are still a work in progress, because even democrats, the party that has been campaigning on taxi the rich over the last several decades, are struggling to raise taxes on high earners in the way that the caller is talking about, going back in time, and that shows the difficult politics of this, even though it does poll well across the country, in washington it is tough for them to actually follow through on. host: david in orlando says, "we will never get ahead into corporate america pays taxes and brings back jobs to the usa."

he also says about green energy, "you cannot do away with gasoline autos altogether, it must be a shared market. it will take a century to cover green power, be realistic." guest: this is the president who believes that we can essentially have everything, every vehicle in the united states be electric by, i believe he said the end of 2035, or 2030. general motors says it will do so by 2035, only cell electric vehicles, talking about new vehicles, obviously. so there is an aggressive ambition to try to make that switch happen faster than the emailer is adjusting. but there -- is suggesting. but there are huge problems. we have an enormous amount of

gas stations in this country. that's not true yet of electric charging stations. you cannot find places to charge an electric car, they are not everywhere in the way that gas stations are. so that is part of what the president has talked about in building out the infrastructure, you both need an electric grid and enough juice and stations, to carry the amount of electricity that you would need to completely electrify your fleet. it is a really difficult problem. you have to be realistic about it. but i think that, i was at a gm plant last week, and they believe that electric is coming faster than may be people thought possible just a few years ago. host: richard in athens, tennessee, on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i'm off work today, so i was going through the news channels, and contrary to popular belief, republicans do not just watch fox news. host: thank you for watching, richard. caller: i skipped over to msnbc and they had one of their economic pundits on there, and they had a chart out and were explaining the deficit spending that the build back better plan is going to be over a 10 year time span. and i was shocked that they give this information out, because it was $150 billion a year every year over a 10 year period, and he was explaining the smoke and mirrors in the plan was it was frontloaded on spending, but backended on the feedback.

once you start a social program, it's going to be hard to end that. they were talking about how one will program would run for a year, then it would have to be funded. my problem is, as joe the plumber, a consumer of news, where do you go to get accurate information? because you hear the president whispering in the microphone, it will not cost anything. to fox news, saying we will fall off the. face of the earth then msnbc coming up with these numbers. host: we appreciate that. let's hear from jim. guest: i have to say that that is a great question. and iv that it is -- i think it is hard because we need to reflect the ambiguity of this. the bill, as written, is largely

if not entirely paid for, but the caller's right, if you were to extend all the programs it creates, including the expanded child tax credit for the full decade, there would not be enough money to pay for it. the question is, what's a future congress going to do? will they extend it without raising more taxes to offset it? the president said he will not sign a bill that extends things by borrowing money. or will they choose to let things expire? this was a problem we had in 2017 with the republican tax cuts, too. the republicans did the same thing. they made corporate tax cuts permit, but they set the individual tax cuts to expire in 2025. making them permanent would cost trillions more and they did not have an offset prayer that. they also did not have a

offsetn -- an offset for the tax cuts they had. i think it is fair to assume that there is a high likelihood that things will be extended. the question is, at what point do extensions, if they happen, be forced to be offset by spending cuts or by additional tax increases? we cannot predict the future, so all we can do as reported is convey it to you with ambiguity. we can see with the budget math looks like right now as the bill is written, the tax cuts there, but we can also see what could easily happen in an alternate future where the spending and tax cut programs are extended and not offset by other revenues. that would push the deficit up even more. so that's not made for an easy headline or segment on cable news, but that is the right way to think about it. the way the bill is written leaves possibility for future

deficit spending, but not a certainty of it, in the same way the 2017 tax cuts left of the possibility for future deficit tax cuts. host: the president last week tapped mitch landrieu to oversee for the executive branch the spending, the infrastructure bill spending -- the former mayor of new orleans, mitch landrieu. is it too early to tell how his role would differ from that of pete buttigieg, the transportation secretary? guest: his department actually did distribute grants, but what mitch landrieu will be doing a similar to the efforts that president biden pushed, when he was vice president and he was in charge of both making sure it was being distributed in a way that the administration meant it

to be, making sure it was effective, and in charge of championing it all the time. in 2016, championing the stimulus. i think that is more the role mitch landrieu will play, versus secretary pete, who is in charge of a large effort to get money out the door and into programs funded, just like other secretaries, those of energy and others, will have to play and getting money out into their departments. host: you mentioned covering the glasgow climate conference, what was a quick take away from the result of that, specifically for the united states? guest: i wasn't surprised the world struggled to come to, you know, as meaningful of

commitments as activists have been pushing for. the reality is we still, i mean, the president was on a split screen the whole time, trying to push the idea that america was back on the climate issue after president trump pulled america out of the paris agreement, but at the same time he was fighting at home to salvage the revisions of his build back better plan. so long as that is the case, it will be heard over the world to come to the type of agreements that scientists say you need to limit 1.5 degrees celsius, what activists are pushing for. but i think the general take away that i saw from smart people i know who spent the entire time at the conference, as opposed to a few days, that there were at least building blocks of progress. the u.s. and china had a surprise agreement on pollutants. so, these were steps.

that's the way i would frame it, small progress, less than what scientists wanted, but progress. host: caller on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have called my senators to vote against this giant welfare bill. on top of that, buried in the bill is amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. i'm adamantly against this. and any republican that votes for this should be booted out of office. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: two things. i appreciate the perspective. basically, every american congress hears it -- republican in congress hears it. we know that none in the house

would will for this bill. and the democrats have decided that they do not need the votes. just like the republicans did with the tax cuts, they're using their reconciliation process to vote on party lines. the only small thing i would take here with the caller's description is i do not think that democrats are burying the immigration provision at all, they are talking about it, and they see it as a positive. of course, it's a huge gap between the parties, but not something that they are trying to hide. it also could end up falling out of the bill. so we will have to watch that. host: jim tankersley covers of the white house, specifically on economic policy. we'll look for your reporting this week on the president's fed pick. thanks for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: happy thanksgiving. up next, we'll be joined by

vivian schiller of the aspen institute, talking about recommendations for addressing digital misinformation and disinformation. then later, we will be joined by national congress of american indians' president fawn sharp and discuss the white house tribal nations conference and new initiatives outlined by the biden administration to help tribal communities. ♪ announcer: stay up-to-date with book tv's new podcast on books. we look at transit through insider interviews, as well as reporting on the bestsellers lists. you can find all of our podcasts on the c-span now app. you can also watch about books on sundays at 7:30 p.m. on book tv on c-span2, or online at any time at book tv.org.

♪ announcer: you can be part of the national conversation by precipitating in the studentcam politician. if you are a high school student, we are asking you to create a five minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? it must show supporting and opposing points of view on a federal policy or program that affects you or your community, using c-span video clips, which are easy to access at c-span.org. the studentcam competition awards $100,000 in total cash prizes, and you have a shot at the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for rules, tips or how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ announcer: get c-span on the go,

watch the biggest political events live or on-demand, anytime, anywhere come on our new mobile video app, c-span now. listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts, all for free. download c-span now today. ♪ announcer: c-span offers a variety of podcasts and has something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. every week, book notes plus has interviews with writers about their latest works. while the weekly uses audio from our archives to look at how issues today developed over years. and our series, talking with, features conversations about historians, their lives and work. many of our programs are also available as podcasts. and you can find them now on the c-span now mobile app or

wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we want to talk about digital media and disinformation. we are joined by the executive director of the aspen institute, vivian schiller. welcome. guest: thank you for having me. host: talk about the aspen institute, the mission and how you are funded. guest: the aspen institute has a broad portfolio of initiatives and projects that range on everything from the work my program does, which is about the intersection of the media and technology world, to a wide range of issues on anything from public health to financial insecurity, to fellowship all over the world, all with the aim to increase understanding and follow societal problems. the institute is funded by a wide range of funders, including

philanthropic organizations, individual philanthropists, some corporate funding -- all with the stipulation that we maintain editorial independence on everything that we do. host: tell us what led to your creation, the aspen institute, and the digital department's creation of -- on information disorder? what was the impetus for that? guest: there has been a series of issues. if you go back to the origins of misinformation, you would have to go back thousands of years. but particularly in the last few years there has been a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation that has had a severe impact on every aspect of society, whether it is public health, voting systems, underrepresented communities. so our purpose was to pull together a commission and curate

the best ideas out there, and trying to elevate them to drive action. host: who is on the commission, how are they selected? guest: the were selected specifically to make sure that we had a broad range of experiences and perspectives. we are nonpartisan, nonideological. commissioners range from academic experts, like alex stamos, who used to be at facebook, to sophia noble, the latest macarthur genius, to politicians, such as former congressman will heard. to aaron ford, all the way to journalists like katie couric, rishaad robinson, chris cribb, the head of the trump --, and many others. host: aspen institute.org is

where readers and listeners can read the final report of the commission on misinformation and disinformation. talk about the key takeaways and the problems of information distortion, particularly in the united states. guest: we specifically call it information disorder, because we wanted to get more expensive view than to look at individual pieces of content from malicious campaigns, and look at the broader ecosystem. who creates it? who shares it? who spreads it and for what purpose? it is not just about the platforms, the media or government, not just about the public square, it is about all those things together. the commission wanted to be sure to include the context for information disorder, the root causes, and then a call for leadership to drive specific

actions that can help alleviate the worst harms of misinformation. host: how do we in our daily lives encounter it? guest: unfortunately, we see it any a lot of places. if you are on social media, whether it is twitter, youtube, or facebook or what have you, you are going to encounter -- you will see the polarization happening across the country, and unfortunately that is mixed in with false information, whether intentional or not. maybe it is about vaccines. about vaccines or other covid treatments. maybe it is about the results of democratic elections. you see it across various forms of media. the internet has brought wonderful access all over the world to all kinds of information, but it becomes harder now to know what to trust

and who to trust. we also see it enclosed groups, if you are in a facebook group or on next door, you are also going to see some disinformation and misinformation. there's so much it is becoming increasingly difficult to sort of have signals for the public to understand what they can and what they should believe. host: people have used the term information silos, whether it is a group on facebook, a stream that we follow, a twitter stream we are following, that people are more and more isolated in the silos -- all of us. all of us are using social media. did the report address that? guest: the fact that we are in silos is not an accident. the one thing we want to make sure is do not blame the public for the problem of information disorder.

there's various platforms that are designed in such a way that the content that you see is algorithmically selected to feed you the kind of information, the algorithm has determined will keep you most engaged. the purpose of the platforms is to keep you online, because that is how revenue is driven. so, we are pushed into silos, quite honestly. and we are not all seeing the same content. some of our recommendations address that directly. for instance, we call for increased transparency to allow researchers and journalists to be able to study the raw data from platforms, to understand how this content moves. we are calling for other, for ad transparency, so that when somebody amplifies a post, to understand who provided that post and who it was targeted at.

or it might be disclosures, we are also asking for disclosures from the platforms around their content moderation of policies. and to also create regularly published, to publish the most high reached content, so we understand who is seeing what. host: vivian schiller is the executive director at the aspen institute. their new report is on digital, in particular, misinformation and disinformation. you can call at 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents and others, 202-748-8002. this headline from allie breland, who read the report, "disinformation is not just a tech problem, it is a social

one, too. a take away from a report that studies a crisis of trust and truth." how does disinformation online affect trust in organizations, whether it be in the government, media or other major american organizations? guest: because it undermines our confidence in institutions. sometimes that is warranted. and it undermines our shared foundation of evidence-based reality, quite honestly. information disorder is a crisis that exacerbates all other crises. in fact, the cochairs in their letter write that specifically. information disorder makes "any health crisis more deadly, it slows down our response time to climate change, it undermines democracy and creates a culture in which ethnic and racial -- are seen as solutions, not

problems." it is a force multiplier for exacerbating our worst problems as a society, and hundreds of millions of people pay the price. that's the open to the commission's work. and it really sort of crystallizes exactly what is at stake. host: how much time did the commission spend researching this and putting together the report? guest: it was a very intensive six months. to be clear, we started in march and we only recently published the commission's work last week. 16 commissioners met very intensely for six months, mostly over zoom. we provided them at the aspen institute hundreds of pages of research, of articles. we brought in experts to share their findings, to share solutions, whether it is academic people, people from

tech companies, you name it. the commission studied what was happening in other countries and how the impact was there. the idea was not to reinvent the wheel, or to deep -- but to deeply understand and research of the conditions and elevate the best idea. there's so much noise around misinformation and disinformation that it is hard for a policymaker, tech company or regular citizen to know what to do, so the attempt here was to distill the best idea and provide a roadmap for leadership. we consider this a roadmap, not a recipe book. it's designed for leaders to take a very specific actionable steps forward, that together will begin to alleviate this very serious crisis we are in. host: it seems that every other month, members,

representatives of social million companies are testifying before congress. does you support suggest changes or responsibility by those, particularly the media companies, in the area of disinformation? guest: very much so. as i was saying before, the fact the content is algorithmically targeted in ways that are not very transparent, and the way that content can be -- you can pay you the platforms to amplify content to specific, targeted groups has exacerbated a lot of the problems. many of our recommendations directly address the platforms, or address congress come on things they can do to legislate more transparency and disclosure from the platforms. host: let's get to our calls. tom in princeton, new jersey, on

the independent line. caller: i was wondering if the disinformation, such as what msnbc called out on the kyle rittenhouse case, if t in and revoke their license? if not, because they are a cable company, why can they not go after the main supplier, which is msnbc? guest: the fcc, you are correct in the sense that the fcc does not have jurisdiction over cable. only publicly owned broadcasts. there has been discussion about whether the fcc can have an expanded remit over other media. i do not know if that is going to happen anytime soon. it is a conversation that is happening. i will say that -- the commission did not want to do anything that would hinder free

expression. the commission's recommendations are mostly around public awareness, leadership, norms that discourage misinformation and disinformation and empower giving resilience to populations. host: next is don in jamestown, rhode island. caller: how are you? i would like to know how we went from the newspaper front page was just reported -- which just reported who, what, where, and white to opinions on the back page. guest: if you are talking about opinion journalism, that is not new. that goes back at least in this country to the founding days of america when opinion content

would be published and distributed in printed form. having editorials or publishing opinions is not a new concept. where we may see some slippage of norms is opinion -- for a high-quality news organization, the opinion is rooted in fact, so the famous everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not their own untruth, holds very -- hews closely to what responsible opinion journalism is there certainly is a love your responsible opinion media. host: let's go to george in fairfax, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my

call. you talked what information disorder and what that looked like. what is information order? what do we want in an ideal world of information? guest: that is a wonderful question. i had not thought to define the inverse of disorder. i would say information order is an information world where there is transparency, whether from a social media platform or from a media organization for a particular piece of content. maybe includes the underlying documentation. it might include the

affiliations or motivations of those that might be quoted in an article that will show up on a broadcast. it is a place where people can have greater confidence and control over their information ecosystem and not be driven into the silos we talked about. host: a caller had said i watched information on how this build back better plan -- how much this build back better plan was going to cost and msnbc presented this view. his response was, as a reporter, he is compelled to show there are both sides in that case and what people will think and it will cost. speaking about the

responsibility of the media, you talked about more sourcing, requiring more work reports. guest: journalism is hard work. it is a responsibility to the public. in the case you are talking about, a responsible reporter would say, according to this organization that represents this point of view, the cost will be x. there is some dispute. another organization uses data based on y and this is their outcome. you want to give the public tools and information and sources they need to make judgments about what they are reading. that said, not every story has two sides. in the case you are talking about, if there are legitimate estimates that differ in their

approach, great. some stories should not be on the one hand, on the other hand. the outcome of a verified, audited election does not have two sides. that is one example. host: let's hear from red, new jersey. -- redhook, new jersey. -- new york. sorry about that. caller: thank you for the time. i wanted to talk about if you think about the algorithm of social media. hasn't there always been this algorithm, if it bleeds, it leads? weren't we set up to walk into social media and have a negative outcome? i was wondering if you worked

with the center for technology as they work to tackle the same subjects. guest: they do good work. we are familiar with them. some of their work was part of the compendium of research we provided the commissioners. what you're talking about is true. i think it is a little different. somebody with a different background and expertise than i would tell you why people are so drawn to looking at the wreck on the side of the road. that is long-standing and not a new phenomenon that news organizations will lead with sensational stories.

there is a level of transparency to that that is not available when you're talking about an algorithm driven news feed. it is shocking to me that people think it is reverse chronological order of posts of everybody they are friends with on facebook. that is not true and certain content rises to the top. certain content is paid for by sources that are not necessarily known to the reader. a lot of times, it is for manipulative purposes. without a doubt the issue you are raising is real and long-standing. this is at a whole another level. host: the plague of misinformation is the worst aspect to social media. everybody wants to be an influencer. america used to be on the

forefront of the advancing modern world. we are now devolving into a nation of anti-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists. guest: there is a lot of that. we cannot put the blame entirely on social media. the commission report takes aim on a lot of things that tech platforms can do, but in many ways they are reflecting societal norms and long-held opinions from a lot of people. social media has also democratized content to a degree. . look at a 17-year-old woman who took a video of the murder of george floyd. were it not that she took that video and amplified it all over social media, that story may not have been known. there are advantages to social

media. it is also a hotbed of toxic information. host: georgia, independent line. caller: i have a question and comment. how come traditional classic media has gotten a pass for disinformation versus independent citizens as media as well? repeating over and over, telling someone on facebook is not social services that do not exist and does not help with inflation for people with fixed income. this is what i have found before i got terminated from facebook two years ago. that is another story. thank you for taking my question. guest: i am not sure i understood all the specific

references, but media is not regulated in this country in the way some might wish it were. anyone can publish with some boundaries pray much anything they -- pretty much anything they want. there is no -- nor would we want any restrictions on the first amendment in terms of -- other than things that are illegal speech, i do not know that we want some kind of regulatory body deciding who can and cannot publish. with that comes all kinds of stuff, good stuff, questionable stuff. a lot it comes down to helping the public understand what they

are consuming and to think before they share and look at sourcing and quality and motivations of the publisher. host: can you explain dark posts and tweets and how those can be used to promote disinformation? guest: a dark post refers to a post that has been -- where some entity or individual has paid to have that post amplified to target a group of people. it may be men between the ages of 18 and 25 who love boxing and drink coffee. that post is going to be targeted to that group.

if you are not part of the group, you are not going to see it. this is referred to as a dark post. that kind of opacity the commission seeks to remedy because this is how we ended up with millions of people seeing false information. researchers cannot journalists who may not have been targeted -- researchers, journalists who may not have been targeted have no recourse to put correct information out there. host: arkansas, and a minute line caller: i have been waiting for months -- independent line. caller: i have been waiting for months to talk to a lady who can answer my question.

we had cbs, nbc. anybody could rebut his statement we need to apply this not to social media because they are opinions, sean hannity, rachel maddow, anderson cooper, those are not news. those are opinions. they should have both print before the show starts. this is an opinion of the moderator. that would stop this propaganda cold. why was it gotten rid of? host: the fairness doctrine did deal with opinions on broadcast networks. guest: it was specifically for broadcast networks. the information landscape is so vast and broad.

aside from other reasons why it may not be the best path forward , it would be almost impossible to implement because there are so many different platforms and the media organizations would run into issues about how they would present the so-called other side. there are a bunch of reasons why the fairness doctrine would be difficult. there are remedies such as greater transparency and leadership of news organizations who put public interest before anything else. host: our guest has a background in journalism. how early did you start to concerned about misinformation?

guest: misinformation predates my life, it goes back millennia, but when did i start seeing it? i cannot remember. everywhere. but nothing like we have seen in the last few years. this is a national crisis and ended amends and action. -- and demands action. caller: i read a good article in the journal of foreign affairs about digital space and how digital space is shifting power away from traditional sources, especially media. my concern is i feel uncomfortable when i hear about disinformation and how to regulate it and identifying it.

you mentioned it is on the journalist to do a lot of research before putting forth an opinion. that also goes for the reader. they have to be well educated and do their footwork. when i'm saying is it is not a one-way street and we are not being fed information or disinformation. it is upon the individual. i decide what is fact and opinion. i may be wrong, but i will research it. i do not like this at all. i do not know what the problem is with facebook and other digital media platforms, but i did read an article. it is hard to control the masses but easier to control the media outlets such as facebook and other forms of digital space. that is my opinion. it is on the individual and not for anybody else to decide what i should and should not say.

guest: you should have a right to consume any media that you see fit. i agree with you. a number of recommendations get at increasing media literacy. not read this source but not that but to understand how the media works, how stories are amplified, how to look for sourcing, how to look for motivations and potentially conflict. that would help. it is a generations-long endeavor to help people help themselves. it cannot be entirely on the

public when the public is in many ways being manipulated. information disorder is a whole of society problem. it is on policy makers, members of government, tech companies, private industry, and communities, schools, churches, the public to get past this crisis. host: npr reports two fox news commentators are resigning from the tucker crossing program over a serious he is doing on the january 6 seizure -- siege. npr writes that two commentators are resigning in protest over what they call fabricated claims . in separate interviews, they pointed npr -- a breaking point

earlier this month, tecra carlsen's -- tucker carlsen's series that relied on fabrications and conspiracy theories to exonerate the trump supporters who participated in the attack. the interview is at npr.org. have you heard that story? guest: i read the story minute posted last night. -- when it posted last night. this is where it comes to individual -- where individuals can make a difference. i think jonah goldberg and stephen hayes exhibited leadership by saying they will not be part of an institution featuring and propagating content that is clearly based on conspiracy theories and false information, so tucker carlson

can publish the content but nobody can force those conservative journalists to be party to it. host: let's hear from diana. caller: if i put out a social media -- the statement in social media that was regionally released on johns hopkins that vaccinated english adults under 60 are dying at two times the rate of unvaccinated people the same age and have been for months, it would be taken off as misinformation. could you comment please? guest: i'm not familiar with that study, so i cannot opine on its veracity. i have not seen it. that said, the platforms -- they are private companies and have the right to remove or label any

post -- it is called content moderation on their platforms. i am not commenting on the study refer to because i am not familiar with it. there was a determination -- i assume they determined that account was false or based on full information based on consultation with experts. it is their right to take the content down. they are protected by the first amendment in doing so. host: we mentioned the report at aspeninstitute.org. vivian schiller, thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: ahead on washington journal, we are joined on the program by the president of the national congress of american indians. we will talk about the recent white house tribal nations conference and new initiatives

by the biden administration to help those tribal communities. ♪ >> axios hosts a discussion with south carolina republican senator tim scott on financial inclusion and what steps the public and private sectors are taking to expand access to capital and services for those excluded from the financial system. watch live coverage today on c-span, online, or watchful coverage on our new video app. this afternoon, the chicago council of global affairs hosts a discussion on the u.s. role in the middle east. watch live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online, or watchful coverage on our new video app. >> officials testified on

deterring computer network attacks before the house oversight and reform committee. you can watch the hearing tonight on c-span, online, or watchful coverage on our new video app. -- watch full coverage on our new video app. >> browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, and accessories. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or many times at c-spanshop.org. >> weekends on c-span to our intellectual feast -- c-span two are an intellectual feast. sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and

authors. it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. >> washington journal continues area -- continues. host: we are joined by fawn sharp, president and ceo of an

indian nation. guest: thank you for the invitation. host: tell us about the congress of american indians. how many tribes does that cover? guest: it represents 594 tribal nations. about 9 million people. host: you are president and ceo of a nation. where are we talking to you from? guest: the quinault nation is along the coast of the pacific. host: how did he rise to elected power in the nation and get appointed to the presidency and the congress? guest: i served five terms as president to the quinault

nation. our president has announced retirement so elders talked to me about running for political office. initially i was opposed because i have been trained and truth and justice and politics did not drive as my personal concept. someone pulled me aside and said you're running to be a leader and a leader brings virtues to office. i got elected. being an elected official for me tribal nations, i am eligible to run for the national congress of american indians presidency, so i did that in 2019 and won a second term in october. i'm in my second term for another two years to serve as the president of the national congress of american indians. host: it is native american history month in the united

states. the white house last week hosted the first tribal nations conference at the white house since 2016. were you part of that? guest: i was part of the opening. i was invited by the biden administration, the white house, to provide opening remarks. it was exciting. i spent the week prior in scotland working on climate policy, so i was still somewhat jetlagged but happy to join everyone and be part of the opening. host: what were some of the key issues discussed at the conference? guest: improving the relationship between tribal nations and the united states. the biden administration has responded to that. through the eight years of the white house conference, we are able to meet with the president of the united states during the

obama years. they renamed this from the white house conference to the summit to recognize the nation status of tribal nations. one of the policies we worked on was strengthening the government to government relationship. i was reflective of their commitment to continue to improve that relationship. we also made an announcement around treaty rights, around recognizing traditional ecological knowledge, and response to tribal nations' desire to ensure their sacred sites are protected as well as initiatives from agencies that create high-level advisory groups so tribal nations have a clear and direct path to express our views, our policies at the highest levels not only once a year during the white house summit but throughout the year

and working with the secretary that president biden has appointed. host: why was the tribal conference not held during the trump administration? guest: we are not sure what the reasons are. it was not for a lack of our request. i was an active member and i know we issued a number of invitations for president trump to join us at our annual conference even pre-election. we invited all the candidates. he did convene the white house conference -- council of native american affairs in april of his last year in office, but we never had any direct engagement with president trump. host: our guest is fawn sharp cannot president of the national congress of american indians --

fawn sharp, president of the national congress of american indians. for democrats,. republicans, -- for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001 independents and others, (202) 748-8002. also a line for native americans. that is (202) 748-8003. in one of those announcements that you mentioned, the headline from the washington post over the weekend, in alaska biden officials to propose -- they write that a tribal administrator of the organized village said in a phone interview that her village had supported the rule since 2001. we will have the resources needed to continue teaching our traditional practices. tell us why this particular law and plans in your view are important to maintaining your

tribes' traditions across the united states. guest: it is important for the villagers in alaska. they have lived there for millennia. they not only have a direct connection with that landscape, a physical connection, but there is a spiritual connection. all tribal nations who occupy our ancestral lands and territories, not only do we rely on the landscape for food and sustenance to nourish our bodies , our physical beings, but we have never relinquished that spiritual connection. we are always going to have a close connection. we are always going to be in a position to offer traditional knowledge and wisdom, timeless teachings that have been handed down. that is going to not only add to our ability to protect and

preserve the national landscape for the benefit of our children but the benefit of all children of the united states. that is why it is so important that our traditional ecological knowledge is part of these policy decisions. host: for our viewers, i will point out some of the points that came out of that tribal conference last week include tribal treaty rights, understanding -- joint secretarial order -- that deals with new mexico, tribes in new mexico. indigenous knowledge statement -- traditional ecological knowledge and executive order on improving safety for native americans. on most native american territory, who controls those issues in terms of criminal justice, public safety?

those are governed by tribes, correct? guest: the criminal justice jurisdiction is complex. one would think in our lands tribal nation would exercise exclusive jurisdiction like any other governmental entity like a city, county, state, like the united states, but we do not. tribal nations have a limited and narrow set of issues for which we have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal matters. those that involve our citizens as well as other native americans. when non-tribal citizens enter our borders, we do not have jurisdiction over those perpetrators and criminals. the violence against women act was amended to give tribes limited authority -- i would say recognizes. nobody gave that to us from our perspective. from our perspective, we have an inherent sovereignty and

jurisdiction. it is through a series of decisions from the u.s. supreme court that have limited that jurisdiction. there was a case before the united states court that severely limited tribal authority. until that point, we had criminal jurisdiction over nontribal citizens. the supreme court has whittled that jurisdiction away. in a subsequent case, the united states supreme court limited our authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over other tribal citizens. so with navajo came to quinault, we would not be able to exercise criminal jurisdiction over that navajo citizen. congress acted to restore that jurisdiction and has acted to restore criminal jurisdiction over all perpetrators when it comes to violence against native women, so it is our goal and objective two at some point restore the full spectrum of

criminal jurisdiction like any other sovereignty would. when you look at the decision of the court, it is based on rationale like having a jury of tribal citizens with a sitting nontribal person -- that is not a trial by their peers. we are human beings. it is those sort of rulings that have whittled away our jurisdiction in criminal matters. host: first, some news from the white house. the wall street journal correspondent tweeting this. president biden will reappoint jay powell as chair. lil brainard will become vice chair of the board. i'm sure we will hear more about that later. before we get to calls, you are president and ceo of the national congress of american indians -- of the quinault indian nation. tell us about what you are wearing today and is significance -- and

significance. guest: i am wearing a traditional cedar hat. the hat behind me was gifted to me on the first morning of a canoe journey in the pacific northwest. i am part of the canoe society where we gather annually. it was a vision of our elder who passed away. he had a vision of our canoes returning. for over a century, our canoes were not on the water. this is part of our traditional regalia. it is made out of cedar. this was gifted to me. a high school student made this and a quinault artist painted both of those. this is symbolic of my role in our nation and the work i do in our traditional spaces. host: we will go to kathleen in mississippi, democrats line. caller: good morning.

i am glad to get on. i have been calling since november first and could not get through. it is sad, what people are saying. we have people fixing on highway 49 to rebuild. they are trying to rebuild up the road. -- payday loans and no bank that can give us money. it is said about everybody telling lies. he done this. almost 800,000 people dead and they still say do not get

vaccinated, do not wear your mask. call when you get backs. that is my opinion. -- vaxxed. that is my opinion. guest: the devastation across the united states due to climate impact that has created these vulnerabilities and threats to natural disasters is something that affects every tribal region and nation. when millions of dollars were deployed through fema and the first part of august, we learned that 99% of tribal nations were excluded from that funding. we have worked hard to secure climate funding through congress. when the dollars are deployed through fema, we still have to advocate for our entrance -- interests at an agency level. we recognize the need and have

worked hard to try to not only render aid across indian countries to citizens in need but to eliminate barriers from the hard work we have done to secure necessary resources through congress. host: let's go to leonardo in alaska. caller: i support everything you say. i appreciate you coming on and answering the questions. i work for tribal associates here in anchorage. i have to commute to work. it is ok. i really support indigenous sovereignty over our data. that is one of the focuses we are identifying in our working groups.

we have been reaching out to tribes for internet connectivity, emergency response , planning for a community development, and preserving historical documentation. i appreciate everything you do to advocate for the tribes and indigenous peoples and protecting our lands and our water and providing a mechanism or way to continue to lead into the future. host: thank you currently in ardo. guest: excellent points, all of the issues you raised. i appreciate that. you're forced -- your first point about data is so important. often we find the federal government will work on initiatives to help us but the issues we need cannot be done in a federal vacuum or state vacuum. we have to be partnership in

solving the challenges of indian countries. it is important that we have access to data so we can be effective in advocating for our needs. the broadband issue is another one. i had challenges this morning even making this connection. we had a number of storms that posed challenges. i had to travel an hour away to dissipate -- to participate in a global summit. we are going to continue to advocate for those things you talked about and use the knowledge and wisdom by securing data and making the best possible case we can to have a clear vision on how to solve challenges and have a seat at the table and let no barrier prevent us from being effective advocates. thank you for all those points. host: an extensive article in the washington post this morning about the indigenous place names

project underway. the headline of this piece, we are still here. and photos of a tribe in anchorage and some of the work the project is doing their and interviews from across the country of folks involved in other tribes as well in that project. let's hear from kansas city next. we will go to kevin on the independent line. caller: i was discussing with a friend of mine it couple weeks ago and the question was not why do we have native americans living in reservations but why do we still have indian reservations in america in 2021? when you think about it, native americans did not create indian reservations. those were created by a racist government as a place to contain and control native americans, so i told him, the government should have shut those places down 100 years ago and let those

people come out and live with the rest of society. if they want to intermingle with their own, they can do that. it is a discriminatory practice to have these places set aside for a particular ethnic group. we went through 300 years in this country. we do not have separate territories with separate benefits. the government should have set those places down and let these people live with the rest of society. your comment to that? guest: that is quite a perspective. i appreciate that perspective and the plight of your ancestors. part of that story of the united states thinking they know what is best for us as a people -- hundreds of years ago our ancestors here, our native american ancestors recognized the imminent threat of a new civilization that had values that were completely at odds with our values.

they knew what it meant when there was going to be an expansion of immigrants and people that were not living a way that was consistent with our traditional values. our ancestors had the wisdom to engage in treaty making, which we were able to do as tribal nations and indigenous people. it is a global standard. you can have indigenous people all over the world, including in africa. nobody gave the right to govern to us. we all have existed as a right gifted by our creator. those are values that transcend national borders. exercising those inherent powers, our ancestors wanted to establish a land base not only to protect us from the western expansion but to preserve our values, our relationship with the natural landscape. when you look at what is happening in the united states,

especially things like climate change, you can go to a reservation and see from glacier to ocean no development. you see a thriving community that has a healthy relationship with the natural world. our ancestors had the wisdom to know and understand there would come a time hundreds of years later where we would need to have a place to continue to live as we have. from the beginning of time until now, we have lived in a way that is consistent with our ancestors. had there not been that process, you would not have one remnant of any tribal nation. right now, indigenous knowledge -- leaders are recognizing that holds the key to solving the climate crisis. we cannot continue to live in a way that is disruptive. when you see the systems of climate change, hurricanes, tornadoes, those are symptoms of climate change.

it is an imbalance that began centuries ago. thank goodness our ancestors had the knowledge and foresight to ensure parts of the united states would be protected until the end of time. thank you. host: still time for calls. for republicans (202) 748-8001,. -- for republicans, (202) 748-8001. in new mexico, this is betty. caller: i have a question for you. i live by one of the largest reservations in the united states. in 2021, why do they not have -- i know they were funded millions of dollars during the covid, but they still do not have running water out there.

just normal resources that the everyday american takes for granted. why did they not use their money to help their people more? guest: another question that provides me opportunity to explain the plight of made for americans. two years ago, the u.s. commission on civil rights looked at every sector of life for native americans and determined not one federal agency is living up to its responsibility. there is a lot of detail around water access and water rights in that report. for example, it talks about access of the average native american to clean, healthy water is so off the charge to the average citizen of the united states. we are not even registering on that chart.

the number of times that agencies are able to regulate and audit water systems -- we just do not have that infrastructure. it is a result of long-standing chronic underfunding of congress to fund native americans at a basic level. when you add to that our trustees failing to fund our services like they would cities and states and others cannot tribal nations or try to exercise our own inherent powers to raise revenues to provide funding for basic services, like taxation. one would think a tribal nation will be able to exercise the power to raise revenue like a city, county, or state. that power is limited. we are not even in a position to raise revenue to provide for basic services. when you have a failed trusteeship and barriers that prevent us from exercising the full spectrum of governmental powers, you see conditions where there are pockets of poverty.

we are working to change that dynamic. host: here is candy on our line for native americans. caller: i am what you would consider a halfbreed. i was raised in alaska. people need to understand how it really works. native americans want to their own space but we also want you included in our space. people need to understand that we are not asking for more or less. we want equal. there is no right or wrong. we need to go back to waste not, want not. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate your words and the wisdom behind your words. that is reflected just about every time i speak publicly about our interests.

i always mention that tribal nations want nothing more -- one prayer is to just live as the creator intended on the land gifted to our ancestors when time began. we do not want anything more or less. we want to be able to live in our land, to provide for our children for the next seven generations. we are not asking for anything other than a basic level of recognition of our sovereign powers and ability to make decisive decisions and have a say on our land, territories, and resources. we still live in a time when the united states and even states will take unilateral action affecting resources about -- without our consent and over our objections. it leaves us in a position where we have no recourse other than to sue the united states and states. we are quite successful when we make arguments but often we should not be put in a position of having to defend that. you are right.

we want nothing more than to be treated equally and funded at levels all other citizens are funded on every sector. sadly, the u.s. commission on civil rights and broken promises, not one agency is acknowledging that. often we are treated at a degree that is much less than the average citizen per capita. host: we will hear from iris in michigan. caller: good morning. i was just wondering have you trace your ancestry back to where you -- your roots originally came from? when my daughter was born, i was living in new york. as a nurse. she treated my daughter like she was gold. nobody was ever treated like that. that kid was given royal treatment. at any rate, i had a good friend, chuck, an indian and

professor. when he would come over, we would sit out there and look at the stars and he would explain every constellation out there. i was wondering when this term indigenous came about. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: thank you. i have been able to trace my ancestry. not that far, but through my maternal side, my maternal grandmother is a quinault citizen. i have identified with my maternal side of my family -- my maternal grandfather was a tribal citizen. on my father's side of my family, my father was a member of a tribe in montana. we traced his line. i have a direct line to a chief in idaho six generations back.

i have a connection to that cheap. he was also a relative of sacajawea -- chief. he was also a relative of sacajawea. i have traced my ancestry as far as we can. beyond the 1800s, there are little records. i pretty that question and -- appreciate that question and honor all attributes of my native blood. host: this is mike, democrats line. caller: i was just curious how much contact the individual nations have with each other. i understand some have different economic situations like casinos that hope support tribes.

if they developed a coalition -- i believe there were 597 native american tribes in america at the peak. i am not sure. if you could have a coalition with each one of those, you would have a united states within the united states, but they are a separate nation now as it is. why can't they have alliances and why don't they? they have a lot to exchange with each other, good ideas. after all, they developed democracy before europeans showed up. host: excellent question. we have an iteration of what

you're describing in the pacific northwest. we have the affiliation of northwest indians. we have close to 70 tribal nations from california to alaska to montana. on the east coast, there are the united south and eastern tribes. internally, there are a number of intertribal organizations. all of those organizations legislate. they pass resolutions that are then forwarded to the national congress of american indians. that is where we really develop our national strategies. there are a number of tribes engaged in gaming. we have the national indian gaming association. we have a number of ways in which tribal nations worked together to advance policies. i would like to suggest that power and strength a

relationship is growing. i witnessed it during the course of my leadership. we are able to advance legislation around tax policy, around the trust relationship. as recently as this last month, i was able to represent not only tribal nations in this country but first nations in canada in the global climate negotiations. i was a u.s. delegate at the united nations advocating for over 1000 nations in the united states and canada. our global engagement with other indigenous peoples around the world is increasing. i worked with indigenous peoples from chad, siberia, norway. it is an exciting time for tribal nations to recognize the power that lies within our nations and the power when we come together not only in the united states but on the global

stage on the most critical issues affecting our generation. i appreciate the question. host: how many u.s. tribes have some sort of gaming that supports the reservation or their people? guest: over 300. we have a number of tribes engaged in gaming that are close to popular areas and centers. we have other tribes that are not close to -- in my area, tribes along the pacific coast are not near a population center like seattle or portland but lease machines to those tribes that are engaged in gaming. it is not every tribal nation in the united states and certainly there are other tribes that do not have the landscape or footprint to engage in gaming, but like our other industries

those are growing and tribes are seeking compacts and wanting to exercise that part of our economic strategy. host: fawn sharp is the president of the national congress of american indians. it is native american month. joining us from washington state, fawn sharp, thanks for being here this morning. guest: i appreciate it. have a good day. host: that will do it for this morning's program. we are back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern and we hope you are too. see you then. ♪ [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] >> this afternoon, axios hosts a

discussion with republican senator tim scott on financial inclusion and what steps the public and private sectors are taking to expand access to capital and services for those who have been excluded from the financial system. watch live coverage today at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at cspan.org, or watch coverage on c-span now, our new video app. this afternoon, the chicago council of local affairs hosts a discussion on the u.s. role in the middle east. watch live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at cspan.org, or watchful coverage on c-span now, our new video app. ♪ >> you can be a part of the national conversation by participating in c-span's studentcam video competition. your opinion matters.

if you are a middle or high school student, we are asking you to create a five to six minute documentary that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? your documentary must show supporting and opposing points of view on a federal policy that affects you or your committed, using c-span video clips, which are easy to find and access at cspan.org. c-span's studentcam competition awards hundred thousand dollars in total cash prizes. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. for competition rules and how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these taliban companies and more, including charter communications -- by these telecom companies and more, including charter

communications. >> empowering opportunity in communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up next, a senate confirmation hearing for president biden's nominees, including the deputy administrator of fema, rector of the postal realtor commission and comptroller of the office of federal management. several nominees for the superior court of the district of columbia also testified. this is about two hours.