comcast support c-span along with these other television providers. >> live today on c-span, the house is working on a bill for the chip industry and increased funding for science and technology research to better compete with china. on c-span two, the senate judicial nominations. and on c-span3, a house panel -- the house panel meets for a discussion on price gouging during the covid 19 pandemic. coming up this morning on washington journal, we discussed efforts to reform the electoral count act law with michael

morley from fortis to university. then -- florida state university. then john sopko talks about reconstruction and relief efforts. join the conversation with your phone calls, text messages, and tweets. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for february 2 on capitol hill. senators heard from professionals on how the pandemic has affected those struggling with psychological and substance abuse problems. usa today asked if there was a mental health crisis in the u.s., the majority saying yes. your thoughts on the pandemic's impact on mental health and substance abuse. here is how you can let us know your thoughts. in the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000.

if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. if you want to comment on the impact of mental health, substance abuse by the pandemic and text us, (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. you can post on facebook. our twitter feed, @cspanwj. usa today release of the pole taking a look at the idea of if there is a mental health crisis in the united states. just to show you the headline from it, the overwhelming with geordie says the u.s. is facing a mental health crisis. when you break down the data from the pole, they ask specifically this question about a mental health crisis. overwhelmingly, people who responded to the poll said yes, 88% of those. 10% say no. 2% say they were not sure if that was the case.

if you break it down by political party in the united states, 80% of republicans say, when it comes to there is a mental health crisis, the answer is yes. 91% of democrats expressed that sentiment as well as 93% of independents. there was a hearing on capitol hill. you can find it on our website and app. the topic was mental health and substance abuse issues in the united states. a paper in pennsylvania picked this up, saying doctors told senators in a committee that there were issues before the pandemic but covid had made the issue worse. in that committee, the focus was on mental health and substance abuse problems. they heard from the american psychological association. part of his testimony, the u.s. has fared more poorly than most with the rate of suicides higher than any other wealthy nation on this planet.

you can find that hearing on our app. here is from that hearing yesterday. >> this is an issue that began before the pandemic with millions of americans experiencing emotional and behavioral symptoms we could have prevented. the u.s. has fared more poorly than most, with a rate of suicide attempt in the united states higher than any other wealthy nation on the planet. there is not enough mental health care providers. there are not enough -- there's not enough investment in science to know -- use what we know to prevent mental illness. today, only one in seven americans with mental health disorders is receiving treatment scientifically proven to work. the covid-19 pandemic has made this worse. children's hospitals in 2021 saw a 42% increase in self injury and suicide cases. school principal's report their staff are overwhelmed with children experiencing apathy, hopelessness, anxiety, and

thoughts of death. to say this is a mental health crisis is not enough. this is any chameleon of decades of neglect, stigma, and unequal treatment of mental health compared to physical health. we are at a turning point like we have not seen since world war two, when our country elected to make a serious investment in mental health by building the v.a. system and forming the national institute of mental health. that was over 70 years ago. the time has come again. we know bifurcated mental and physical health is based on antiquated notions. it is time to create a mental health system that reflect the 21st century. host: we will show you more of that hearing as the morning goes along. we are inviting you to give your thoughts on the idea of the state of mental health and related issues, particularly how it has been exacerbated by the pandemic. (202) 748-8000 for those of you

in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 -- (202) 748-8000 in the mountain and pacific time zones. you can text at (202) 748-8003. more data from that pole last january from usa today. it goes back to december 2020, saying it was back then that 51% said the u.s. would get back to normal and anywhere from a few months to the end of next year. a few months have passed. the end of next year has passed and here we are. the end of 2021 was characterized by the omicron variant running rampant any turn from optimism to pessimism. nearly two thirds of respondents say when it comes to the state of the united states that we will be back to normal in a few years or never. some of you responding to facebook to this idea of mental health and substance abuse issues in the united states. rhea on facebook saying it is a

terrible impact. the level of anxiety and depression is at an all-time high, reading to drug and alcohol abuse. the so-called experts refused to talk about it. if understanding the to syria -- the seriousness of this disease is one thing, -- that is just some perspectives. you can post on twitter if you wish. james in pennsylvania, you start us off this morning. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. my thing with substance abuse, i do not like calling it a disease. i think it should be more of awareness to when it comes to drugs.

host: do you think those issues have been made worse because of the pandemic? caller: here is my thing, without being disrespectful to anybody coming to the viewers or anybody. my opinion is i do not believe there ever was a coronavirus. i do not believe there ever was. i am 55 years old. host: you are calling and talking about what you think about the impact of the pandemic on mental health. you are saying none of that exists? caller: my thing is -- to tell the truth, i/o deed -- i od's a couple weeks ago on heroin. that was the first time i ever did that. i did too much. it was an experience. i do not know what to say about

that. host: we will hear from chris in new york. caller: this pandemic is really -- the stress from it is getting out there. my sister-in-law is a social worker where they do counseling and all. their office takes appointment from 7:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night seven days a week. not only are the people coming and more, but the social workers are getting more. i think the pandemic is just -- you can walk around when you go grocery shopping. i am ex military. we have that term, the thousand yard stare. you can see it a lot of people's faces these days. host: as far as the appointments

, you said that is a drastic increase for the pandemic or was she seeing a lot even before then? caller: i am saying as the pandemic has come on. they were able to have a normal workweek. now they are overwhelmed with people getting controlled by this. host: we will hear next from tom. hello. caller: this is a problem that is decades in the making. i wish we would talk about the number of children in school that are getting ritalin. that is my point. >> as far as the underlying issues of mental health and substance abuse, how do you think the pandemic has affected that? caller: hugely. the reason for substance abuse

is there is some sort of correlation between the number of children getting ritalin, which might be as high as a third of our population, and i am 62. thank goodness i never saw that stuff. host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: i think we are not allowing individuals to be individuals. caller: i think we are trying to do drugs that are trying to control behavior and behavior needs to be nurtured and not chemically induced. host: ray is next in california. caller: thank you. i think the pandemic has had an impact on mental health and generated more substance abuse.

we have had more opioid deaths this year than in previous years. overall, the quality of life here in the united states has plummeted. it has been decades since ronald reagan that the congress began really favoring the rich and the large corporations. some of whom do not pay any taxes at all. but as a whole will complain about poor people paying taxes. some people are working two jobs still, three jobs, and do not have enough money to pay rent. host: how does that relate to the issue of mental health and substance abuse today? caller: it cannot be healthy. there is the atmosphere of what we create as far as our society.

and how. the pandemic pulled the bottom out of the whole thing, the safety net, which is sparse. host: what do you mean by that? caller: for instance, unless things have changed, what was the food stamp program provides about half the amount toward the food and you have to do something else for the rest of the month. we have so many children on the food program at the schools because we have a problem with hunger in this country. the pandemic push people over the edge because they ended up having to cope with even more than they were coping when they were struggling before the pandemic. we have a shortage of nurses and

doctors. if you go to school to become either, you will be in debt for a lot of money. the pandemic sort of pulled away the scab on that, including public health. during the bush administration, it was hollowed out. all public health was talking about was terrorism. host: that is ray giving thoughts on the impact of mental health and substance abuse or heard her explanation. one of the people commenting on the state of children and their mental health was the u.s. surgeon general, who made this statement in december of last year, saying mental health challenges in children and young adults are real and widespread.

even before the pandemic, an alarming number of young people struggled with feelings of helplessness, depression, and thoughts of suicide. the covid-19 pandemic further altered their experience and the effect on their mental health has been devastating. the future well-being of our country depends on how we support next-generation as we work to protect the health of americans in the face of the new variant and we need to focus on how we can emerge stronger on the other site. more of that is available at the website of the hhs. on facebook, saying when it comes to those impacts, a lot is how she characterizes it. it has put the spotlight on the lack of mental health services in the u.s.. ruth from facebook saying the impact has been a negative one. let's hear from darrell in philadelphia. good morning. caller: this is darnell. host: i am sorry. go ahead.

caller: i believe socialization and mental health has been impacted by the internet. the internet, which everybody will acknowledge has created political silos i believe has also created personal cocoons. this has been exasperated by the coronavirus, where it was mandated that you stay in your room and thus losing touch with that socialization that i believe is a fundamental part of mental health. people no longer talked eye to eye. my favorite restaurant of 50 years was close down -- closed down. now, forced into my room again, by mandate by the coronavirus, but even before coronavirus people were building their personal cocoons and not socializing with people eye to

eye. i think that is an obvious part of mental health. the beauty queen who committed suicide, to imagine somebody in that stature would have mental health issues is just mind-boggling, but the one thing that has power in this conversation is the internet. people can stay in their room in their own cocoon, not only their political silo but their own cocoon and lose touch with reality. host: that is darnell in pennsylvania, mentioning the winner of the miss usa pageant. there is a profile out of philadelphia, saying on monday people remembered the former miss usa, spotlighting the importance of mental health. kryst died at 30 sunday morning. she jumped from her manhattan

apartment building was pronounced dead at the scene. we actually see is peoples depression still taking care of their family, doing these things, but internally they are struggling. that is according to an assistant professor at jefferson university. market in california, good morning -- mark in california, good morning. caller: i think the pandemic, and i use the term loosely, has affected everybody one way or another. i remember when it was first starting going to the grocery store and having the grocery store full of people but he could hear a pin drop. nobody was talking. people were trying to take as

little breath as possible so they did not get any germs. an old friend did not want to talk to me very long. this has affected all of us. it did not make sense to me why the gyms were closed as a non-essential business because they promote health and it is good to break a sweat and get some energy out. it boosts your immune system. it does not make any sense that churches are closed here when that promotes spiritual growth and hope. the liquor stores will -- were all open coach carrie whiskey, pornography. that did not make sense to me. that is all. host: from dori and washington,

you are next. caller: my daughter is 52. her husband three years ago left her in bad shape all the way around. she has lost babies and so on. her doctor told me three years ago to go home. i am 900 miles away. he told me go home, forget about her, and forget about my only child. i have tried sense to at least pay bills for her. i am running out. i have cancer. and heart failure. i am almost 90. i sent her the books by the end of mental illness. i sent it to her doctor, to my doctor. i sent it to the counselor

across the street from her. her neighbors sean her -- shun her. she has left voicemails from a different times. she does not operate a phone to keep in contact. i never know if she is alive. i have not heard from her since before christmas. the police went to their and shed -- went there and said she was there. host: does she live in washington state? caller: no, 900 miles away in california. her doctor took me into her office and told me to forget about her. that is what they do. host: why do you think the doctor gave you that advice? caller: she said she was not listening to anybody. she has a mental problem accepting the fact that she has any problem and her husband was unkind to her physically and

mentally and her neighbors will not talk. she will call me and say no one will talk to me. she is terribly lonely. she has some disabilities physically as well as mentally. the police say i cannot do anything. i finally got a call from somebody who was in contact with adult protective services. i do not know whether she will accept them. i tried to get funds for her. she will not let anybody in the house. she would not let me in the house when i visited her before covid. i cannot travel there now because of my health and because of covid. i cannot get her to get her shots. i am running out of money. i had to put my house in a trust so it does not go to probate because i cannot rely on her to accept my help when i have done

the best i can do for her is pay bills and so on. then she tells me i'm trying to run her life. or what i do is wrong and when i do hear from her at this moment i do not know whether she has accepted help from the adult protective services. i do not know from day-to-day if she is still alive. sometimes she will call me at 1:00 in the morning. sometimes she has a phone of her own. i have spent thousands of dollars trying to get phones for her. host: dori, i hope things get resolved for you in some way, but thank you for calling. thank you for sharing that with the audience. benny is next in california. caller: thanks for taking my call. my heart goes out to that lady.

i want to say first of all that everyone should get the shot. on the 20th of january, i tested positive for covid. because i have had the shot, i'm quarantining at home. i am on dialysis. i turned 70 years old in december. just being in quarantine is depressing, no one to speak to and cannot have visitors. it is depressing and i can understand the mental health aspect of it. i would admonish everyone to get the shots because the shots -- if i did not have the shot, i think i would be dead. host: are you saying you cannot interact with people face-to-face? what about phones or other means? caller: i can call, but all my

family lives in texas. i do communicate with them. i think i got this virus at church, so i'm not really sure where i got it, but i do quarantine and i just thank god that i did get this shot. i got the booster. i am quarantined at home. host: many people sharing their stories, particularly when it comes to mental health issues, substance abuse issues because of the pandemic. you are invited to tell us what you think about the state of the u.s. when it comes to those issues. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zone. (202) 748-8001 and the mountain and pacific time zone. facebook, twitter, and text also available. there is a profile of one of those people that testified in

front of the senate hearing on these issues, picked up by wavy in norfolk, virginia. a clemson of what it is like to be 18 struggling with mental health. in hindsight, it was terrifying to know i was physically harming myself and still unsure if i needed help. if you want to see the full testimony, you can go to our website or our app where that hearing is held. here is a bit of that testimony from claire rhyneer about her experience. [video clip] >> no one bully me or neglected me. from an external perspective, my life was perfect, but mental health was never discussed at home, or school. beyond take care of yourself and exercise. i kept telling myself everything was ok. why should i feel sad?

i am so fortunate. how could i feel this way? ultimately, i did not seek help because i did not know anything was wrong. i am more than an anecdote. when i tell a roomful of people i turned to google for help, icy nods. i need more than one hand to count the number who have experienced suicidal ideation. barriers to care do not discriminate. they infiltrate every home. compared to most, i am privileged. finding a community of peers let me know i was not alone. i was able to be focused on school, sports, my family and friends. i learned how to maintain my wellness and i have found people to say i know where you're coming from and to know that it is true. the people who did not find

these supports are not here. many of them will never be able to tell us their story. we have an obligation to make a difference. we need to support school counselors, station social workers and schools, fund wellness programs at universities come and introduce mental health curriculum. we must reflect on the way we separate academic success from mental well-being. we need to make care more affordable and incorporate it into primary care, covered by insurance. we need health care workers and diversity among providers. we need to promote early intervention, normalize mental health conversations early, and educate our youth, teachers, and parents. host: more of that is available at the website and our app. there is a story on npr talking

about how kids are dealing with grief of loss of a loved one, saying 175,000 lost a parent or caregiver according to a cdc study. kids of caller have been disproportionately affected by these losses with higher death rate in their communities. compared to white children, asian children were 4.5 times as likely to have lost a parent or another caregiver to covid. black children were 2.4 times as likely. that's trauma alone is significant. that is a quote from a child and adolescent psychiatrist and chief medical officer. going on to say when there are some children who have lost generations of family members, going into school and having to manage that stress will not necessarily having a therapist or school counselor or nurse, schools and many underserved communities have no mental health support. some schools have one counselor spread across an entire

district. let's hear from brad in minnesota. caller: good morning. i see you are talking about the pandemic and the pandemic's impact on mental health. that is misleading. the pandemic is not what is impacting on mental health. it is the media causing the problems of misinformation. you think about these people. they are suckers. they believe what they hear on tv, that if you take this shot you will not get covid. that was wrong. they say if you take the shot you cannot transmit. that is wrong. they hyped it up. host: so you say there are no

mental health or substance abuse stemming from covid and that is strictly a result of the media? caller: i'm not saying that there cannot be some there probably is, but the problem being there is more impact by the media about what they are doing, on mental health and substance abuse than the pandemic. think about this. they told us it came from a wet market. host: we are not talking about the history you know the topic. polly in saint petersburg, florida. caller: i will like -- would like to say that darnell is spot on. the internet has been an issue for some time. cybersecurity has breached the whole system and made it a worse problem than it ever was before

the pandemic. when my daughter was in elementary school at bus stops, children did not even interact. they were all on their phones. this was going on before the pandemic began. we have gotten to a point where we have issues and legal situations and violence more none of us feel safe, which is led to mental devastation. host: are you saying there is no direct correlation between the pandemic and those increases in mental health or substance abuse? caller: i think it just put it on blast. i think the issue was already there. i think everybody now was suddenly put on stop where they had to look at the problem. i think the kids were not interacting at school to begin

with. they were all on their devices to start with. it is not like being in person made a difference. they were not talking to each other in the first place. host: we will hear from jim in north dakota. caller: pretty cold out here. it is about templo today, so i'm going out the door shortly to work. i wanted to call about two quick points. my father passed away about six months ago. he was in a nursing home. he was 94. he did not die of covid. he died of just he was locked in a room and the isolation killed him.

my brother would visit him and had to talk to him through a window. he was not even allowed to go to the dining room. the calls i made to him were almost unbearable in the end. every time i would call, he was deteriorating and would say, i'm a prisoner. he was paying money to live in a nice assisted living facility, but they kept him locked in a room for the last six months of his life. he thought maybe a 94-year-old guy would be able to feel the sun on his face or my brother could take him to breakfast, but even after their vaccinations they kept them all locked up. i think of how many other thousands of people died as prisoners like that. host: and that was because of the covid protocols of the facility he was at? caller: yes, and pennsylvania where i grew up. that was hard to hear every day. i could not get back home because of work, so i did not see him for three years.

i am more concerned not about us. i am 58 years old, the last of the baby boomers. i am doing pretty good. what about the little kids who are five years old when the pandemic started? the first memory of these kids is not grab your galoshes but your mask. their first memory is there mom and dad telling them about this invisible entity that is going to kill them. i am wondering how neurotic these little kids are going to be by the time they are 20 years old, how many howard hugheses we are going to have who will be terrified of germs. host: how did your thought -- did that thought comes your mind? caller: when i see a picture like biden with that lack mask on and big giant head he has come if a little kid walked by the tv screen they would be terrified. when i go to the store, i am

wearing my mask, but i see people that wrap their kids and a mask and i'm thinking the kid must be terrified of all these big, six foot tall humans looking down at him with these black masks and stuff. i would be terrified if i was a little kid. just thinking how that is going to affect them. i think they might be a generation that will probably keep wearing a mask. i think 20 years from now they will still wear them. host: thanks for the call, talking what his father's experience -- about his father's experience and how kids might be impacted. sue saying you cannot just take away livelihoods and not expect -- while essential workers had to show up. we are still finding our way. those are some of the calls of

the 35 minutes we have been doing this as far as the impact of the pandemic on mental health and substance abuse issues. if you want to add yours to the mix (202) 748-8000, for central and eastern time zone. s -- time zones. she encourages people to reach out to the national alliance on mental illnessprogram. . caller: a lot of people are talking about the effects of the pandemic. what they are not mentioning is

the fact that the people who caught covid and the mental issues they had after they caught it. i had no mental issues whatsoever. i caught the virus back in october. to this day, now i have to see a psychiatrist. depression, anxiety. i am all messed up since i had this virus. i am wondering how many other people had no mental issues until they got the virus and now they have mental issues. host: you are saying you had none of those things before covid but you experienced them after? caller: none of them. i had none of them. i have lost half of my memory. i just drive around.

then i break down in tears and start crying uncontrollably for five or 10 minutes. the doctors do not know what is going on because everybody has had a different issue with it afterwards. so it is like everybody has a different problem after they've gotten covid. my memory is coming back now, but i still have issues remembering things. host: when you talk to people about these issues, is it face to face? is it through an internet connection, if you do not mean -- mind sharing? caller: it is an internet connection because they do not have -- you are going on skype or some thing like that and talking to them. it is not the same as really interacting, so they are kind of

going off what you are telling them. from the beginning, i have never experienced anything like this, so i am going off what you shake -- say i should do. right now, i am ok, but the mental problem is that i always feel like, when i'm going around the corner, it is going to hit me and i am going to get an anxiety attack, a panic attack. that mentally has messed me up. a lot of people who did not have mental issues now after the virus have mental issues. that is the problem. host: that is tim sharing his story in georgia. the new york times looks at how college campuses are going to deal with these issues now that students are back. they write, as cases search, the question is what campus life will look like in january. will classes be remote?

loneliness and isolation along with loss of motivation or focus are among the concerns of college students who have sought counseling during the pandemic according to data collected at penn state. some in ministry does worry there is a conflict between protecting students -- administrators worry there is a conflict between protecting students' physical and mental health. somebody says if we are not careful we will trade one epidemic for another and in many ways i think we are. many students come at the latest virus surge feels like a giant step back to the netherworld, where college was not college. more on that online. this is from josie in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have been listening intently. some of the things we need to take into consideration are this was a historic pandemic.

we have never experienced anything like this before. we have tried to fight our way through it as best we can. i think the vaccinating and masks were necessary to try to keep that in check. if we look at the statistics lately, the united states has the highest death rate of western countries and europe. it is amazing that we fumbled, but we tried our best. i know it has taken a toll on people. i know that isolation has been difficult. i think there are good things that have come out of it. we have reached up more within our own families. we have learned that we are stronger than we thought we were. i have to go back to my grandmother died in the 1918 spanish flu epidemic. that had a prolonged effect upon my mother, who was an infant when that happened.

historically, we have been able to rise above. the mental health issues i think we can address. we are stronger than we think we are. i think the gentleman who did not see his father for three years in a nursing home -- nursing homes were very vulnerable. i have a dear friend who is in a nursing home. she is 95 and has copd. to restrict people from coming there was to protect her and she just celebrated that 95th birthday. i go back to a character in the spoon river anthology. degenerate sons and daughters, life is too strong for you. it takes life to love life. i think we are stronger than most people think we are and we will come out of this. we will be hurt, but we will survive.

host: josie in pennsylvania sharing her thoughts this morning. this is from bill in massachusetts. caller: i hope you hear me out. i think this country is in a grave situation. if you're telling me a lot of black kids are losing parents and grandfathers and stuff -- i lost my father at 15. i went on to be an alcoholic and went into crack and all that stuff. i am doing great now, but the second time with death, i thought i conquered it. i got everybody into my mother's room. she was 64. my father died at 48. it helps the family out a lot. but it went on to find this

woman in the program. they tell you not to meet in the program, but my point is you will not believe this is a true story. my father died on christmas day, 2000. my wife died 12 days later. you say almost one million people died covid in the united states. my wife was a patient. she got a kidney and the kidney only lasted five years. she had one already to go and they would not let her in 2021, with the most covid, the hospitals overridden, and they told her when she has to come in.

you have to bring her in. i finally called the doctors and told them she wanted to come in today and they would not let her in there was not room. she died the next day in my arms. you have to fight it because basically you have to do whatever if you get into that stuff after you lose someone. there is hope. i am sober, but i am going to live. i have gone through a lot in life and this is all a true story. i have dealt with death. death is hard to deal with. you have to do it. that is what i tell the kids of america. host: dylan massachusetts giving his advice to young people, talking about those issues he dealt with. one of the issues was dealing with substance abuse and drug

overdose deaths during the pandemic. that was part of the exchange from the hearing yesterday. here is a portion. [video clip] >> listen to these statistics. i want the public to hear it mostly. 100,000 americans have died in the last year due to overdoses. many of them come if not most of them, from fentanyl. this is the part that is most shocking. in the age group 18 to 45, we have lost more young people from overdoses then covid, car accidents, and suicides. so it is another example of where spending money was not a solution. without real substantive directives at the source of it. we visited the southern border a little less than a year ago and we were going from record low illegal low -- illegal crossings

to about 70,000 to 75,000. that has leveled out at about 170,000, appalling. i have two questions. when it comes to not only the impact of losing lives but along with the workforce to boost -- to boot, i think we have lost close to 2 million prime age workers due to the fact that they are contending with opioid issues, how much of this issue is directly related to the policies we have on our southern border where illegal crossings are up. fentanyl comes along with it. how much has that contributed to this tragic loss of life. >> thank you for your question. my expertise rests with dementia treatment and recovery, but from

2018 to 2019 and south carolina we were making headway and saw the number of overdoses leveling off due to our efforts and federal funding. since then come and the last two years, our overdoses have skyrocketed and we estimate about 63% of our overdose fatalities in 2020 were a direct result of the fentanyl and the drug supply. in the last two years, we have pivoted to doing everything we can to keep people alive and implement evidence-based harm reduction and intervention services. we have naloxone everywhere we can get it, a lifesaving antidote with flexibility in funding support. we have been able to distribute fentanyl test strips to individuals who may not know what substances they are adjusting if illicit fentanyl

has gotten into the supply. evidence suggests people are better able to prevent an unintended overdose death if they use these test strips. they are using less of the drug. every interaction to get these supplies to people on the streets where they are is an opportunity to engage them in treatment services and get them on the path to recovery. that is where efforts are focusing now. we are not feeling defeated, but it has been a major setback in the last couple years with how dramatically things have shifted. host: about 10 more minutes to comment on the pandemic's impact on mental health and substance abuse. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and pacific time zones. david elliott from facebook saying, i see lots of people with mental health issues, more kids than ever before.

they are overwhelmed. the drug problem is even worse. from vicki in kansas, it has affected my mother severely with fear and isolation. she cannot even function without xanax. then from bird in i believe virginia, commenting, saying, defunding state mental hospitals in the 1980's is being realized today. the result of these mixtures will be interesting. let's go to sam in pennsylvania. caller: pedro, i want to echo the sentiments from the caller from massachusetts. he mentioned the word hope.

we have gone through this pandemic now for two years and there has been a lot of confusion and contrary reporting by the news media on what is effective and whatnot -- what is not. there was a gentleman there called in last week and had mentioned the interview, the hearing conducted by ron johnson with all the scientists and biologists and immunologists. you had made mention that c-span was went to look into whether you covered it. did you find that story? host: you can go to the website if you want to find out. i do not have anything to add to that point.

considering this is about mental health and substance abuse during the pandemic, what you think the state of that is? caller: if you were sincerely concerned about the mental health of people, you will report both sides of the story. you would give some people hope. you would take a more responsible news reporting physician on providing both sides of the story and letting people see what they are not being told. the only thing you see when you call in -- when you turn on your program or covid reporting stories and faxing reporting stories, if you give people the different opinions of these other people and provide some sort of hope, we may be getting through this month that there is some sort of nefarious workings on the part of the

pharmaceutical companies to simply sell drugs and make billions of dollars, if we were to complete the story and show people that this is what else we found out, we have been incomplete in our reporting and now you need to see what else we found out -- host: we will go to deborah in new york. hello? caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to offer a resource that might be a solution for other states. there was a caller from georgia who talked about mental health issues. i looked up the behavioral health line in georgia so he can call. 866-399-8938. they should be able to help him

with emotional support. i am a therapist in new york. there are a lot of free programs offering telehealth support because it is a challenging time , not just because of covid but everything else we are going through, the political turmoil, the economic uncertainty. specific to the york crisis, there is a project in new york called the harris project started by a mother who unfortunately lost her son to an accidental overdose and decided to take action. she set up a club and most of the schools in our county. it is the co-occurring disorder awareness club, which means not only substance abuse but substance abuse often goes hand in hand with anxiety disorders or depression, so that is a co-occurring disorder, when you have both at once. the harris project is kind of brilliant because it is a

scaffolding program, meaning she will go and can't do a training, provide a box of materials for the students and then the students go out to train the other students that are younger. each year, it can generate knowledge from one group to the next. without scaffolding, we have saved a lot of money. i think it is a brilliant program. i wanted to mention it because you had a caller talk about the tax credit in the state of virginia for the donation of professional services. i found that valuable and i am now try to get something similar in the state of new york. i wanted to share these resources. host: let's go to mike in florida. you are next. caller: i am sure the pandemic

is affecting middle health for kids and stuff, but also the weekly or daily active shooter drills probably affect them too. just one other thing, if republicans can count how many people are coming across the border illegally, suggest how we can stop them. host: we will go to maryland. caller: i was calling because i was concerned. we have little children having mental issues going on, especially with the pandemic. as adults, we need to look out for them and help them before it gets worse. if the treatment of how you talk to the children and certain things they can see on tv or in the news just can cause problems for children. children are just as smart as adults.

i have a four-year-old. she is as smart as she can be. and all the stuff in the news is making her unhappy. so what i have to do is sit down with her cannot give her lots of hugs can't lots of love, tell her i love her. she tells me she loves me. after i do all that, she gets a little better, but then sometimes she is unhappy again. i try not to let her look at everything on the news and what is going on with the pandemic and everything. i try to keep her safe from that coming getting the pandemic. she goes to school. she had to come home from school because somebody had covid. there is so much going on in our world and country and united

states. it is just mind-boggling. host: that is in maryland. this is steve off of twitter commencing substance abuse is just a symptom. when guns are more accessible than being a lightened by art and literature, the balance is gone. to find one's balance is a lifelong process. being in today for today is all anyone has. research looked at overdose deaths during the pandemic and they made these conclusions commencing while overdose deaths in the u.s. were on the rise before the outbreak of covid such fatalities have accelerated during the pandemic according to the cdc. nationwide, the monthly number of drug overdose deaths has never exceeded 2100 before march 2020. there were more than 7100 deaths each month, including nearly 9400 in may of 2020 alone. experts have pointed to several

possible reasons for the increase during the outbreak, including less access to treatment and rising mental health problems associated with the pandemic. let's hear from scott in michigan. you are next. caller: the mental health issue is going to get worse and the substance abuse since they legalized marijuana and all that stuff. it is no good. why these politicians are robbing everything with their big deals in the stock market and everything. host: that a scott in michigan finishing us off in this hour. thanks to all of you who participated. two guests joining us through the course of the program today. first we will be joined by

michael morley, an election law expert at florida state university's college of law coming here to talk about efforts to reform the election count act law. you will find out more about that law and how it works from him later in the program we will hear from afghanistan special inspector general john sopko. he talks afghanistan after the taliban take over summer. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." >> in early 2001, bethany mclean at the time, a writer for fortune magazine, asked the question in an article, how does enron make its money? her reporting along with others who wrote articles, led to a lot of inquiries that were put to enron management. within a few months, the company

was bankrupt. bethany mclean's subsequent 2003 book, titled the smartest guys in the room, became a bestseller. next a successful documentary. since 2008, she has made a career of writing about american financial crises. in january, she discussed her reaction to the theranos saga. she wrote quote, for those who believe she was guilty of a great crime, it is a disappointing verdict. >> journalist and author bethany mclean on this week's episode of book notes plus. but notes plus is available on the c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcasts -- book notes plus is available on the c-span now app, or wherever you get your podcasts. >> book tv, every sunday on

c-span2, features the latest authors discussing their nonfiction books. on in-depth, a georgetown university professor is live, taking your calls and is cussing race relations and inequality in america. her books include failures of integration, and most recently, white space, black hood. california democratic congressman ro khanna shares his book, dignity in a digital age, or he looks at the digital divide in america and offers of suggestions on how to close the gap. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2, and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by michael morley, professor at the college

state university college of law and also a member of the task force for election boards. thank you for your time today. guest: happy to be here. host: on capitol hill the last couple of days, something called the electro account act has been discussed greatly. could you tell the audience what that is and what is its importance to determining who the president of the united states will be? guest: the electoral account act is a editorial -- is a statue that was passed in the 1800s to govern the last stages of residence elections. voters go to voting booths on election day. in most states they press a button or fill out a ballot with the name of a candidate on it. under state law, they are not actually voting for that particular candidate. if you press the bowden -- the button for joe biden, you're not literally voting for joe biden. instead you are voting for the

slate of democratic presidential electors that was nominated by the democratic party of whatever state you are in. each state then tallies the results of its election, 49 states do so on a winner take all basis, so whichever candidate gets the most votes wins all of that state's electors. two states go congressional district by district, and they will tally the votes up separately in each district and whoever gets the most votes in that district gets the elector for that district. the electors meet in december, separately within each state on a date set by federal law, cast their electoral votes, determine which president candidate they will actually vote for, and many states have laws restricting who electors are able to vote for, requiring them to cast their vote in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in that state. those electoral votes get sent to washington, d.c., pursuant to

article two of the constitution of the 12 amendment. congress then meets in a joint session of the house and senate, in the same room in a joint session, presided over by the vice president and these electoral votes are counted and tallied and whichever candidate gets the majority of electoral votes, or receives electoral votes from a majority of electors appointed, becomes the president. the electro account act is a federal law that was passed about a decade after the election of 1876 where we were basically on the verge of inauguration day without knowing which electoral votes would be counted. congress passed this law to regulate that joint session, to provide procedural and substantive rules to govern that joint session, at which the electoral votes are counted and tallied. host: you mentioned the 12th amendment and impart part, it says the electoral's will -- the electors will meet in their

effective states and make distinctive lists of all persons voted for as president and of persons voted for and the number of votes for each transmit sealed to the president of the senate who will then open those certificates and the votes shall be counted, the person having the greatest number of votes, shall be president. what happened -- if there is a dispute much like we saw back from the most recent election? guest: the electoral account act has different sets of rules, depending on how many slates of electors or how many potential slates of electors congress has received from a state. when there is only one slate of electors from a state, congress 's only choice is to count it or not counted and the electoral account act is tilted in favor

of counting it. the default rule is that congress has to count it unless both chambers are able to agree that those electoral votes were not regularly given by lawfully certified electors pursuant to the eca and that is one of the issues with the statute, that these two terms, what does it mean for electoral votes to be regularly given and what does it mean for electors to be lawfully certified? these terms are not defined by the eca itself. there is not a clear lead state of history setting forth what they were intended to mean. part of the motivation for the eca reform effort is to try to clarify those terms with substantially larger proposals to get rid of those terms and establish stricter requirements. where there are completing

slates in front of congress, than the electro account act has more complicated procedures where the state has to -- for the joint session of congress has to determine if one of the slates is entitled to safe harbor status, which was one of the biggest issues in bush v. gore. congress has to see if both houses can agree on which one to actually accept. if none of the slates are entitled to safe harbor status, the chambers of congress have to determine if both chambers can agree on which one, under state law was actually the lawfully appointed slate of electors. things get more complicated when there are multiple slates submitted for a state, which makes the initial threshold question of what counts as a potentially valid slate of electors very critical, and that becomes another one of the main focuses of eca reform. host: this is michael morley

from fortis state university, to talk about the electoral account act and efforts to reform it. if you want to ask questions about the act, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8000 for democrats and (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can also text us your thoughts at (202)-748-8003. there is debate on potential changes. do you think potential changes are needed in light of what you said and if so, what should those changes be? guest: at a minimum there are certain technical aspects of the eca that absolutely need reform, because the statutory language is archaic, vague and unspecified and there are certain issues that are likely to arise that the statute does not address. among some of the low hanging fruit, and terms of eca reform, clarifying the requirements for

safe harbor status, a slate of electors is entitled to safe harbor status if there has been a final determination of any disputes regarding that slate of electors. clarifying what does and does not count as a final determination. if voters still have a lawsuit pending in federal court regarding the outcome of a provincial election in the state, does that prevent the electorates from that state from having safe harbor status? if a candidate has brought a lawful lawsuit try to challenge the results from a state, but the deadline for appeals or filing a petition has not run, is that sufficient to stop a slate from having safe harbor status? clarifying what is or isn't a final determination is a very technical issue, a very nonpartisan issue, but that would go a long way to resort -- to resolving some of the ambiguity of the statute.

more clearly specifying the role of the vice president. the current statute says the vice president resides over the joint chamber of congress and has the statutory authority to keep order during this session. clarifying specific the types of actions or decisions the vice president can and cannot make, clarifying to the extent it needs to be clarified that the vice president is not the one who makes decisions about electoral votes or how to choose between competing slates of electoral votes. limiting the role of the vice president or clearly defining their role is another area where a technical aspect and i think you could find a large degree of partisan consensus. other -- of bipartisan consensus. there are more technical details about procedural rules that apply when you have multiple slates of electors. there are a lot of technical details about how you determine

whether a slate has safe harbor status, how you determine which of the multiple slate scenarios could use clarification. even the ultimate fallback is that if you have multiple slates from a state in the chambers of congress emily can't agree on anything, the eca has what is generally called the gubernatorial tiebreaker. that at the end of the day, if the chambers of congress are deadlocked and in disagreement over multiple slates of electors, you're supposed to go with whatever one is certified by the state governor, which is fine if you have one slate that is certified by the state executive. to the extent that this tiebreaker is supposed to be the ultimate fallback, flushing that out so it truly is comprehensive ash flashing -- fleshing that out so it is truly comprehensive. some other postelection action. you have multiple slates signed by the executive. fleshing out some of those nuts

and bolts of the worst-case scenarios so that congress isn't left in the midst of a hotly contested election, were you know exactly what to do, trying to make those rules ahead of time, behind something of a veil of ignorance are ways of improving the eca. the more fundamental type of reform would be addressing that central question. under what circumstances, if any, is congress permitted to reject a slate of votes from a state? the notion of defining what it means for votes regularly given, lawfully certified, defining those terms would force congress to address that ultimate issue. does the 12th amendment forbid it from conducting any substantive analysis of the electoral votes question mark as congress required to accept whatever the state submits? are there rare extreme circumstances where in both chambers of congress, there have

been pervasive fundamental violations of the 15th amendment or other constitutional kryst -- other constitutional restrictions? in terms of fundamental eca reform, that would be the issue that congress would have to grapple with. host: you have calls lined up asking about this question. this is jb in arkansas, democrats line. you are on with michael morley from the college of law at fortis state university. caller: thank you. when you have a system where somebody can get 3.5 million more votes than the other candidate and still lose the election, you have a system like that, that is an inherently bad system in my opinion. i think after 240 something years of having this electoral college thing, it is time to put it to bed. a dirt -- a direct straight election, one-for-one, it would

be so simple. if we had something like that, you wouldn't have a january 6 meeting. there wouldn't be anything like that. let's just get rid of the thing and go to a direct popular vote, and it will make it so much simpler. every state would be exactly alike. there would not be this mishmash of this state and that state. it doesn't make any sense anymore. i understand the reason why it was put in but that was long ago and we don't have that now. host: mr. morley? guest: the electoral account act is a federal statute that governs how congress deals with electoral votes within the context of the electoral college. what you are talking about, moving to a national popular vote where we abolish the electoral college, the most direct way of doing that would be a constitutional amendment. there currently is a proposal known as the national popular vote compact that seeks to circumvent the amendment process

, seeks to make work within the confines of the electoral college to in effect, -- there are a range of policy and constitutional concerns that have been raised with regard to that proposal. as of right now, the national popular vote compact specifies it will only take effect when states collectively possessing -- that have enough votes on their own to determine the outcome of a president election, it will only take effect when those states have signed on to it. states having about 190 electoral votes have signed on, so they are about two thirds of the way there but getting over that last hurdle, hitting those last states to agree to join the compact, i think will prove to be the biggest local challenge simply because most of the democrat leaning states have joined the compact already. the states that remain outside the compact tend to be either

purple states or more republican leaning states that generally oppose the compact, or at least the members of the legislatures in those states oppose the compact. host: from peter in new york, republican line. caller: mr. morley, i would like you to address the situation in pennsylvania. it is my understanding that a federal judge just had a ruling stating that what the pennsylvania legislation did with a law from 1877, that nullified the state constitution, regarding the election procedures, where the state allowed the election to go on further than it should have,

and also with mail-in ballot thing. it went against the state constitution. rudy giuliani was vilified because they said the judge refused to listen to their case, stating that there was fraud but there was no fraud implied by mr. giuliani. their argument was that what the state legislation did in passing that law was illegal and a federal judge just came down with a ruling saying it was illegal, and that is what the publicans wanted. -- the republicans wanted. host: go ahead, mr. morley. guest: so the ruling i had seen on that issue was from the pennsylvania commonwealth court, an intermediate state appellate court. if there is a separate federal ruling, i have not seen it yet. the ruling from the commonwealth court is subject to appeal to the pennsylvania supreme court.

as of right now, the proceedings remain at an interim stage we have to see what the pennsylvania supreme court will say. in terms of extending the election past the deadline, and terms of allowing absentee ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by election day even if they were received afterwards, that was something that in the middle of the 2020 president election, gave the supreme court pause. the u.s. supreme court issued an order requiring the state of pennsylvania to set aside those late arriving ballots in case it turned out they affected the impact of the election. the margin of president biden's victory in pennsylvania in 2020 was large enough that even if you didn't count those late arriving votes, he still would have won so as a result, the u.s. supreme court roundup not addressing the issue about whether the pennsylvania supreme court had authority to require

those late arriving ballots to be counted. this is ultimately issue about a conflict between a state statute passed by the legislature and what the state constitution says, and so there was a bigger picture question, especially in the midst of a hotly contested election. once voters have cast their ballots, and once voters have cast reliance on court orders and official directions from government officials, putting aside whatever the rule will be going forward for future elections, there is a separate question of can you throw out votes or should a court throw out votes that as far as the voter was aware and concerned were legally cast? in particular, should those votes be thrown out after the election at a time when there isn't even an opportunity for the voter to curate? there are legal concepts like due process that would say even if there was some technical problem under the state constitution or otherwise, with

the manner in which an eligible voter cast otherwise legal ballots, the solution isn't to throw them out after the fact. those are many of the couple kitting factors that courts would've had to have taken into account, and trying to consider those issues in the midst of an ongoing election. one of the advantages to the litigation right now is that rather than trying to deal with an ongoing election, courts are setting the stage in advance for future elections. host: from loretta, cleveland, ohio, talking about the electoral account act. democrats line. caller: good morning pedro, mr. morley, and america. nothing is going to work, because of state rights. nothing is going to work without federal oversight, because of the voting rights act and the

suppression laws that have been set up in red states already. democrats have to be careful not to lock themselves into accepting from red states -- lindsey graham talked about tossing votes. i had never heard of that. it hurt me when he said that. people standing in line for nine hours and he wants to toss their vote. then they complain about pennsylvania changing their laws. that is a states right. you like it when it justifies what you want to do, but then you don't like it when they do something you don't like. republicans like to play both sides against the middle. they practice arguments on both

sides of every issue, and they wait to see what democrats have got to say, and then they go over their notes and talking points. none of this electoral stuff is going to work. host: we will leave it there. to that point, mr. morley, does reform of the electoral count act in any way affect what happens on the state level as far as the process is concerned? guest: the biggest potential impact would be going back to the central issue of, is congress required, bound to the mast where whatever a state submits, congress has to automatically count? to the extent that state submits competing slates of it -- of electors, congress has to count whichever slate is certified by whoever has authority under state law to do so, no matter what. it is reduced to a purely ministerial role. or does congress have authority

under the 12th amendment and think it is a good idea as a policy choice to leave a pinky free, so to speak. that in the worst-case case scenario, if there is a widespread violation of clearly established federal constitutional norms or laws that have gone unaddressed, does congress have some discretion in the extreme case, to say this election was conducted so unconstitutionally that both chambers will agree to throw out those votes? that is the core issue. you can certainly frame it in terms of federalism and whether congress is bound by what the states have done. certainly prior to reconstruction amendments, there would have been a strong constitutional argument for that approach. the reconstruction amendments might make that position a little more difficult, insofar as the whole point of the reconstruction amendments is to not only establish new federal

constitutional rights, but to give the federal government and in particular, congress, the authority to enforce them. congress isn't necessarily going to trust states, at least in some circumstances, to be the final arbiters of federal constitutional rights. the question then becomes, should we leave it to congress or should we leave it to the courts? one of the big challenges of a law like the eca -- that will be the law for the next 50 or 100 years. trying to predict not just who in 2024 or 2028 we need to be concerned about a need to worry about, but we need to worry about and distrust 20 years from now, 50 years from now. trying to predict the future where the potential threats to the electoral system are going to originate from. host: michael morley joining us from fortis state university.

as far as the debate on capitol hill over this, i want to play two bits of sound from yesterday about where various legislators are in this process. i want to start with dick durbin, the senate judiciary committee chairman, talking about these efforts. listen to what he has say. [video clip] >> i would like to put together a bipartisan approach to this. we are trying to protect the integrity of the electoral college vote for the very reason i mentioned earlier, the january 6 assault on the capital by these insurrectionists was an attempt to interrupt this process. the house committee finding last week that there were some alternative false slates being created. that is serious. as far as i'm concerned, that is as close as we can come to insurrection and treason. >> and you addressed that in discussion? >> we do. i am open to suggestions from the bipartisan group. it would be great if we could come to a common agreement. [video clip] >> the best way to characterize

how i feel about the electoral count act is that it is flawed and needs to be fixed. where it goes from here, we will have to see. i think the bipartisan group is working on trying to come up with a proposal. i don't have any particular view beyond that, other than that particular law is clearly flawed and needs to be updated. host: you heard from richard durbin and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, both saying that changes could work and expressing that changes are needed. guest: absolutely. there are many aspects of the statute that deal with highly technical issues, procedural issues that do not have an obvious artist and prevail ance. the details being discussed are not ones that would advantage

one particular political party or put any party at a disadvantage. there are many respects in which it would be easy to achieve bipartisan consensus, at least as to many issues in the statute, and then in terms of more fundamental reform, the main question would be when it comes to that central question of under what circumstances, if any is congress permitted to reject a submission from a state? that would be the big question in terms of would congress be able to achieve bipartisan consensus on that fundamental issue, but there are other ways of improving the system from what we have now. there are ways of filling in gaps, clarifying vague standards, defining undefined terms. there are ways of avoiding different types of disputes that are possible, even if you can't reach bipartisan consensus. host: dale is in maryland, independent line. caller: good morning professor morley and good morning pedro.

my question is, basically if this would happen in any other country, we would be calling it an attempted coup. when you have the president of the noted states, going to the official in georgia and telling them over the phone that we need to get at least 11,000 votes. then you see all of these different states that are run by republicans, making it extremely hard for people to vote. you have some places where you can stand in line for 15 or 20 minutes and in other places, you have people standing in line for seven and eight hours. they need to have some type of nationwide one-vote for everyone and as far as covid goes, people

were so outraged by the last president that they felt it was almost the obligation to stand in line. host: that is dale in maryland. guest: that gets to one of the political issues that has been raised. eca reform what address the last stage of a presidential election, one select -- once electoral votes have gone to congress, how does that joint session operate? there are currently proposals on the hill right now. in fact two of the major proposals were recently merged, that would create new federal regulations, governing the electoral process, that would create new federal standards with regard to things like absentee voting, voter registration roles, that would seek to resuscitate section five preclearance under the voting

rights act establishing new statutory formulas for determining covered jurisdictions and practices that would be subject to preclearance requirements. one of the big political issues that has arisen is whether the democrats support of those types of bills should preclude them from agreeing to a republican overture to join in efforts to reform the electoral count act, but i would suggest that no matter what one's position, even to the extent that republicans oppose some of the measures that would increase federal regulation, to the extent that there is bipartisan agreement over the eca, that seems to be the low hanging fruit that at least as an initial step before congress debates or turns to other issues could improve the system from where we are right now, because at the end of the day, the notion that the rules governing electoral votes are unclear or that there is enough

room for people to try to claim unofficial, uncertified electoral votes from losing electoral candidates should have been the ones that were counted, at this day, after the electoral count act was first enacted, we should not be left with those holes. at the minimum, we can help resolve uncertainty and prevent certain types of disputes from even arising in the first place, by having clearer more ambiguous rules for counting those electoral votes to determine the validity of electoral votes at the end of the process. i would hate to see disagreement over other issues preclude bipartisan reform, well in advance of a provincial election, of the next crisis arising. host: one of those people disagreeing with this process playing out on capitol hill is a former president himself, saying

it is so pathetic to watch the unselected committee if the local hacks, liars and traders work so feverishly to alter the electoral college act so that a vice president cannot enter the honest results of the election. just one year ago they said that quote, the vice president has no right to ensure the true outcome. in other words, they lied and the vice president did have this right or could have sent the votes back to various legislative's for reassessment after so much fraud and irregularities were found. particularly the role of the vice president, and what he said. guest: the electoral count act makes the vice president the presiding officer of the joint session of congress. the electoral count act directs the vice president to open the submissions from the state. the language of the statute actually changes and says the vice president shall open the certificates from the states and then they shall be counted. that change in language from having the vice president as the

subject of the sentence switching to captive language ways very heavily against the notion that the vice president is the one actually responsible for determining the validity of the votes, certainly resolving any disputes. if there is one thing that is clear from the text and structure and history of the statute, it is that this was not a delegation of authority to the vice president, to unilaterally be the sole person to decide what of the votes are counted and whether the joint session can proceed. in fact, the electoral count act addresses the fact that once the process has been started, aside from brief overnight recesses for the first few days, there isn't a statutory mechanism for stopping the process. the eca itself contemplates that the counting of votes will continue until the outcome is determined or until all the votes have been considered. although there is some ambiguity

over certain aspects of the role of the vice president and overall i think glitter -- greater clarity and specificity would be a plus, as of right now i don't think there is an argument that the vice president is the one who resolves disputes over contested elections, over contested slates of electors or unilaterally deciding to throw votes out. the statute repeatedly refers to the chambers of congress themselves, separating to vote separately on issues and then back together -- you have a single slate of electors, it takes the vote of both chambers of congress to reject that single slate, which would in effect be disenfranchising that state in a presidential election. when you have multiple slates of electors, it is more complicated but if both chambers of congress agree on the right outcome, that is the outcome that gets

followed. if the chambers of congress disagree, you then fall back on that gubernatorial tiebreaker. the vice president's role is primarily ministerial. it's about keeping order and determining whether the requirements for objections are satisfied. the vice president is not given authority to be the final arbiter of what the outcome of the election is. host: from kentucky, willie is next on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i just have one question. it is about the electors. i think about seven states that sent a bunch of fake collector things. is that a crime? if it isn't, why not? guest: so one distinction that i have recently seen drawn in the press, and i believe there was a

statement from the pennsylvania attorney general addressing this. some of the electors slates said in the event the republican slate of electors winds up being certified by a court as the official winners, here are the electoral votes we are cementing just in case. my understanding is that some slates of electors from other states didn't contain that qualifying language, and so at least from what i have seen, the pennsylvania attorney general said that initial qualifying language, they weren't actually claiming to be the legitimate real certified electors but instead they were submitting these votes as a backup in case they wind up being certified in the court. he says that was a material factor that weighed against continuing the criminal investigation and criminal proceedings. the reason they would do something like that is that the constitution says that all

electoral votes have to be cast on the same day. this goes back to the founding era, where the thought was if you have all of the electors meeting separately at the same time in their distinct states, that would make it a lot harder for foreign powers, in particular european powers, from corrupting the electors, getting the electors to cast their votes for somebody who would be favorable to some foreign nation, rather than working in the american interest. the argument goes, if a federal court were to determine that the republicans had won the election after that day, that it would be too late in the constitution for the electors to cast an alternate set of votes. there was a historical precedent in 1960 in hawaii where there was an ongoing court ordered recount that was extending past the day on which electors had to

meet and cast their votes, and so there were two sets of electors that met, that certified and sent in certificates of electoral votes and in fact, the recount did change the outcome of the election, into the joint session of congress by unanimous content -- units consent decided to count that second slate of electoral votes. the main problem with the alternate slates of electors was there was not a factual basis for thinking the results of the election were going to change. president biden's lead in those states was substantial. the underlying objections had been litigated or were in the process of continuing to be rejected by the courts. there wasn't a reasonably foreseeable likelihood that the outcome of the election was coming anywhere near close to changing, and so even with those qualifications, it was still

unnecessary step and unnecessarily inflaming an already very tense or hotly contested postelection period, to have those competing slates. one of the main hopes of eca reform is to try and provide as much certainty as early in the process as possible, by having the rules be clear-cut and well-established in advance, to try to deter and alleviate any possible wiggle room for similar types of competing slates of electors in the future. host: our guest is a member of the national task force on election crises. what is that? guest: a bipartisan group of people with expertise in various aspects of the electoral process. law, technology, election organizing, election administration. they come together on a bipartisan basis to try and identify ways of improving the

system, ways of avoiding crises or once crises strike, trying to mitigate and lead to a peaceful outcome in accordance with constitutional requirements. trying to identify areas of objective bipartisan consensus where speaking as a bipartisan group, people with expertise in various aspects of the process, we can hopefully be able to speak with some authority in terms of being able to say certain types of arguments or certain types of conclusions are certain -- are simply out of bounds and there is no justification for it and that heading in a certain direction would be going outside the bounds of law versus saying here are certain gray areas. people in the bounds of law can reasonably disagree. it is a way of hopefully trying to provide some guidance and expertise and offer an objective neutral bipartisan assessment of

crises to try and mitigate them and hopefully prevent them. host: andrew in connecticut, republican line. caller: hello and thank you for having me. my question is, instead of a winner take all system, would it be -- having the electoral count votes, split along those percentages. to me, that would help political efficacy and stem some of the anger. do you think that is possible, or do you think that is opening a can of worms for the electoral accounts? guest: it is certainly possible. there are two ways of implanting a system like that, the first would be along the lines you suggest where you look at the percentage of the statewide popular vote that each candidate

received and allocate and according percentage of that state electors to those respective candidates. another way of doing that, i mentioned earlier is what we currently see in maine and nebraska where those states separately tallied the results of the presidential election within each district. they allocate an elector to the winner of each district and then whoever wins the overall statewide vote gets that state's two additional electors. the number of electors a state gets is based on the number of a president as they have in the house plus two more electors. typically when these types of proposals come up, two of the main rebuttals that critics raise, and effectively leads to states canceling out each

other's votes. even if a majority of that state's citizens or 53% of the citizens support one particular candidate to the extent that that state's electoral votes wind up getting just about evenly split between the two candidates, that state ends up being awash in terms of the overall election, and so the state is effectively reducing or potentially even eliminating its influence in the outcome of the election. the other main concern with that type of proposal is to the extent that each state -- that you have electors being awarded on a proportional basis in each state, it could dramatically increase the likelihood of recounts and postelection disputes, because even if one candidate is ahead by a substantial amount in a state am

aware the losing candidate would have no possibility of winning a plurality, there could still be enough votes in play in that state, where an additional elector could wind up switching from one candidate to another. to the extent that we are trying to minimize postelection disputes and we want to try and achieve certainty in the process earlier, having each congressional district in effect be its own mini presidential election or having the results of elections be determined proportionately across each state could actually exacerbate and contribute to more bush v. g ore type litigation across states that otherwise would be seen as being well beyond the margin of litigation. host: michael morley of florida state university. he teaches law at the college of law and is also a member of the national task force on election crises. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: later in the program we

will hear from the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, john sopko, on post afghanistan operations, particularly when it comes to humanitarian aid. up next, open forum. republicans, (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. we will take those calls win "washington journal -- when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> sunday on in-depth, georgetown university law professor will be our guest to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her many books include the failures of integration, the agitator's daughter, place not race and her latest, white space, black hood. joining the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. live, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital.

every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works, while the weekly uses audio from our archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years. our series talking with, features conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find the ball on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to participate in open forum, you can also text us at (202)-748-8003. according to nbc news, the president today will announce a relaunch of the cancer moonshot program he started under the obama administration, to end the disease that kills more than 600,000 people a year. the revamped cancer moonshot aims to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years, and improve

the experience of people diagnosed with cancer and their families. he is scheduled to make an announcement leader today. he'll be joined by the vice president, kamala harris, the first lady and second gentleman. stay close to c-span.org and follow along on our app, c-span now for that announcement as well as the work of the house and senate. the president yesterday, talking with members of the senate judiciary committee, about his choice for the supreme court. he talked about what he is looking for a nominee, as well as timing of the announcement. here is the president from yesterday. [video clip] >> i am looking for someone -- this is not a static issue. i'm looking for a candidate with character, the qualities of a judge in terms of being

courteous and treating people with respect, as well as a judicial philosophy that -- all amendments mean something, including the ninth amendment. i intend to make this decision and get it to my colleagues by the end of the month. that is my hope. i'm looking forward to their advice and how the hearing will be conducted. thank you very much. host: in other news, cnbc reporting that it's new mexico -- a senator suffered a stroke last week and underwent brain surgery. he is currently hospitalized and expected to make a full recovery according to his chief of staff, in a statement. the 49-year-old senator felt

fatigued and dizzy before being hospitalized and found to suffer a stroke in the cerebellum. the cnbc story adds that joe biden is excited to announce that nominee for the supreme court by the end of the month, adding razor -- adding democrats on a razor thin majority in charge of confirming new justices and the chamber is split 50-50 between democrats and republicans. as long as the senator from new mexico is absent, they do not have enough votes to confirm a justice on a partyline vote. in this open forum, we will hear from gabriel in north carolina, democrats line. caller: good morning. always a pleasure. i wanted to mention two things that i thought were really important, about both how the messaging of the democratic party is falling behind so badly , and i want to say to fellow

democrats and independents out there and any of my colleagues on the republican side, too. we are really struggling on the democrat sector of the wing, to message to people powerfully. to give them something simple they can hold onto. it goes back to the basic principle of what is the definition of fairness? from the left side, fairness is about egalitarian and equality for individuals. that is not the same way that fairness stacks for the republican side. republicans are much more about proportionality, much more about fairness in terms of what you put in and what you get out. i just don't think the democrats really understand that message wholeheartedly. i just want to say if there any member -- any of those members listening, please message better and find a way to strike a

chord. host: gabriel in north carolina. let's hear from ken in oklahoma, republican line. caller: the fairness issue of the democrat caller is about big government taking over the elections. the democrats bill would federalize elections, and it does eliminate the fairness issue because the government would control. no id, stuffing ballot boxes. it is like the con job we have going in tulsa, oklahoma. we are freezing. it's going to be two degrees projected. we have ice storms and snowstorms. the conduct that al gore pulled on his inconvenient truth movie was -- we wouldn't have snow in

the lower 48, the seas were going to rise and in 10 years -- this was 15 years ago -- he started that con job on the american people. it's all about big government controlling energy, like how the democrat party wants to control the election. host: let's hear from john, louisiana, independent line. caller: i'm calling about the integrity of the elections. i don't see why we trust our banking and everything we do through our phone, we can't vote through the phone. it would be very easy for someone to place their vote on the cell phone, get a confirmation number and share that on a public list to see if your vote was cast the way it was supposed to be. that should not be a problem. host: we hear about cybersecurity issues quite a bit. you don't think that would affect the election process?

caller: that is the reason you look at the confirmation number. if we trusted enough to do our banking with our money, how can we not trust it to vote? i value my money more than my vote and i hate to say that most people do. host: that is john in louisiana. when it comes to money, that your times reporting about the national debt at $30 trillion, saying the breach of that threshold, revealed in new treasury department figures, arrived years earlier than previously projected as a result of trillions of federal spending the united states deployed to combat the pandemic. it expanded jobless benefits, financial support for small businesses and stimulus payments. the borrowing binge which many in congress viewed as necessary to help recover from the pandemic has left the nation with a debt burden so large the government we need to spend an amount larger than america's entire annual economy in order to pay it off. that is in the new york times.

if you go to the washington post this morning, 4.3 million people leaving their jobs in december, that is the headline with some of those industries most affected with people quitting or leaving for other jobs, a combination of food and service. 4.9% quitting retail. professional and business services, .7% of those leaving or quitting. the washington post is where you can pick up that story. baltimore, maryland, democrats line. caller: i have three quick points. i missed of the time when c-span used to have two guests at the same time, pro and con on an issue, so that they could check each other when they make false statements. that was a very effective way of doing it. i prefer to see, instead of one

hour of the pro and one hour of the con, to have two hours of the pro and con together, checking each other. i have two ideas for shows that would be informative. everybody talks about the cases that trump brought and they failed to go through the courts. it would be nice to have somebody for an hour go through these 60 cases and say what did he say happened and what was the result, what did the courts say? lastly, there were a lot of people to talk about voter suppression and these new laws in various states. i would like to have someone come on and say ok, this is specifically what one of these laws says. like for instance, it makes it like you've heard people say, it takes eight hours to vote but then you go to another section of the state and it -- and they walk in in 15 minutes.

that is obviously voter suppression. if somebody came on for an hour and talked about these kinds of things, where you could demonstrate voter suppression, that would be very informative. host: would you have two people debating the idea that voter suppression happens or not? caller: absolutely. in the old days, c-span always had or very often had -- host: often, but not always. sometimes we still do. caller: and i know they do it, because i heard one time on c-span, they said the pro and con congressman don't want to come together. they demand to only come if they can do it separately. host: that is not the case. sometimes it is just a matter of scheduling. trying to get a member of congress to give us some time in the morning, we have a whole team of people who call them to do that.

many times it is just a matter of scheduling. it takes a lot of work to put two, and sometimes we do. that is more the reasoning, as far as why sometimes you see two people and sometimes you see one, particular when it comes to congressmen. our next caller on the republican line. caller: i want to talk about the election. october 24, 2020, anybody can look it up. fake information. joe biden admitting to ridding the election. currently in georgia, we just heard about pennsylvania, the court just said that was illegal action they took. in georgia, they just opened up an investigation. brian kemp ignored it. he knew about it last year and he chose to ignore it, the governor of georgia. he just opened up an investigation. 242 democrats bought and paid

for. one of them has turned on them because they grew a conscious -- conscience. host: where did you read the claims about joe biden? caller: that was newsmax, oan. he was on video. brad roethlisberger in georgia has opened up an investigation. i guess you know about it since you just cut me off. 242 democrats, one of them grew a conscience and serta talking to the attorney general of georgia and in the middle of the night, they were dropping off ballots. this is all on camera now. a documentary is coming out next month, showing all these people on democrats line. hello. >> michael in tennessee. hung up. let's hear from rhonda. rhonda is in missouri.

republican line. >> hello. >> you are on. caller: my question is about voting. how come we don't have a system set up where you have to use a fingerprint to get a ballot and once you get the balance, you can use your fingerprint again, to put your bow in to count votes. right now, when i go into work, i have to use my fingerprint in order to work area every fingerprint is different. if we have a system set up, we could use a fingerprint to vote. all of this fraud would not be happening. host: as i mentioned to the last caller, you hear about cybersecurity issues. are you not concerned that that could be corrupted, as far as doing that system.

caller: i think our government is to put everything they have to make sure that we are secure, i think it would work. host: ok. rhonda in minority -- missouri. mitch mcconnell was talking about, as far as the events of january 6, he does not support shortening the sentences of any people who have pled guilty to crimes related to january 6 and the storming of the capital. also talking about the president's former remarks on the events of team rates six and elections and voting. here is a bit from mitch mcconnell. yesterday. >> i speak for myself, the election of 2020 was decided on december 14. electoral college certified the winner of the election. but we saw on january 6 was an

effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. one administration to another. that has never happened before in our country. hundred 65 people have played guilty to criminal behavior. none of the trials have been finished. 165 have pled guilty to criminal behavior. my view is that i would not be in favor of shortening any of the sentences ready of the people to pled guilty to crimes. host: president biden is directing the pentagon to deploy more than 3000 american troops to bolster the defense of european allies in the first major movement of u.s. forces in russia's military standoff with

ukraine. mr. biden is sending roughly 2000 troops from fort carolina to poland and germany while also revisiting part of the energy strike squadron with about thousand troops in romania and on the north atlantic treaty organization close to russia, according to officials. in addition, the pentagon expects to make other moves inside of europe with several thousand more troops on stan boy -- standby, according to officials. that strays from the wall street journal. let's hear from patricia on the democrats line. caller: i am tired of the big lie. everybody knows that he bought the election. [indiscernible] needs to support the ukraine. host: thank you for your

thought. here is john indiana. caller: i keep hearing democrats talking about coup attempts. two people not realize that trump fought a every day in office for four years. the whole thing. that was just a matter of getting the states to rehash and take another look at their electors because they had conflicting elections. they had conflicting elections results. it need to be look at again. host: you don't see it as a effort to stop the process? he hung up. let's go to brad in kentucky. caller: good morning. i want to bring something to everyone's attention.

it is been happening for a few months. i don't think he gets discussed a lot. we are firing police and fighters for first responders health care workers. all across the country. that is because of the silly on vaccine mandate. this is the policy that is in place. it is been put in place by joe biden. i think we understand, these are the people that are serving us in thankless jobs, as far as that goes. crime rates are up in cities, we are firing police because of vaccine mandates. host: how do you know that? caller: this should be widely known. you can find the story. host: how do you know that for certain? caller: it's not that i make the claim, you can find the stories

in this to see if i can do this. you can find a story in every state on first responders, health-care workers, nurses, being there. host: give me an example of the state. caller: you are, i think, recently, they fired 1400 out of one health care system. you can find them. i'm in kentucky. there are stories in kentucky. there are 12 systems in kentucky. they came together with the governor and bragged that they were throwing in with this policy. what i wonder is, this is a biden policy, but people should look it up at home that they don't know about it. the news is not covering it. you can find it in every state. host: ok. you made the claim. let's go to brad. when it comes to being money raised for future electoral events, a couple of stories.

here is from the new york times under a headline. the battle for current -- congress. we should limit the 2900 each for general elections. there is no limit for super pac's. billionaire liberals are to launch a political committee with 125 million. according to disclosures, it will be assigned that they will continue to be a major financier on the left it there also donors for the democratic super pac on the year. including executives. cofounder of linkedin. the philanthropists and developers. one million each. they also gave four votes to the democrats super pac. the top donors were patrick ryan , and insurance mag gate -- magnate, who gave timmy dollars. if you go to the party

fundraising, compared to fundraising, the campaign committees and the senate come alongside the super pac affiliates with, nearly 200 million combined cash by contrast, the democratic organizations reported 176 million. there were nearly 151 million at that point. about 6 million more than the corresponding group. let's hear from alexis on the independent line in wilmington was going. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to talk about voting rights because this 2022 election is going to tell the story us whether we have an autocracy or democracy. going into 2024. i say that because the ability

to vote and have your vote counted is at stake. people for each county , besides that, they want to change your vote. i have already gone through the legislation, because of the autocracy of state legislatures which, legislators would do. we no longer have a democracy. it is very important. we have to remember, landowners could vote, but slowly but surely, we got to a point where everyone can vote. yet, they are putting it to the vote. that i want to speak about whoopi goldberg because she spoke to racism. she said that the holocaust was

man's inhumanity to man. host: many were offended over those remarks. caller: she said that racism is something everyone should identify with. host: will leave it there. bill, republican line. caller: how are you? i want to give you a history lesson as fast as i can. i had the privilege of ending the vietnam war. i also wanted to bring the south vietnam to help lessen the niceties. we could not get any funds from the senate. certain senator scorch the funds, and in they were trying to get a donation for the south

vietnamese. anyways. the bottom line is that certain senator made fun of everybody and they had to get the south viennese out of there. there is one reason that affects a certain person to wait. it was the very last minute. the afghanistan. it was embarrassing, and he didn't want to have a happen again. host: that bill is the afghanistan reconstruction in the seat of afghanistan is a topic of a special inspector general. we will be joined in just a few minutes. usa today reports that more than a dozen historically black colleges and universities reported bomb threats on tuesday, remarking a second consent date of threats nationwide. it prompted a call for federal law enforcement to investigate

that campus lockdowns, in a statement today. to usa today, the fbi was told they were aware of the bomb threats from the country, we are working with law enforcement partners. we would like for my members of the public that if they observe anything suspicious, reported to law enforcement. immediately. that is usa today. will go to tony in delaware. democrat line. host: thank you. caller: i want to make a comment. republicans of been talking about how democrats stole the election. but if you look back, george bush, when he won the presidential election, democrats didn't want the recount with gore. he really won the race. then, you have hillary clinton. she won the popular vote. but donald trump one. when the democrats win, they

want to say that we cheated. we cheated and slippery we did this that. then you go back and check their own self. the republicans. you hear this every day. why don't they come up with a solution instead of saying this party did this, that party did that. come up with a solution to the table. stop the bickering on both sides. >> that is tony. one of the things they came out of the pandemic, from the point of view of the government, a paycheck program. $100 million, and if you look at this, you can see the program is highlighted in the year kinds. it is one of the most expensive pandemic relief efforts. the question being asked is if it work. one analysis found that only a quarter of the money spent paid wages that would be otherwise lost. government says it they were losing rules for how it would be used as the pandemic tracked on. jobs are two different things.

an economic professor said that they lead the 10 member team, adding on, that we need to go. it would primarily go to workers and business owners. and their shareholders and creditors. let's hear from barbara in lewisville, texas. independent line. last call. go ahead. >> i just wanted to give you history lesson of the last two years. for the jewish community, the african-american community the native american community. all of them have been giving numbers our own history. our country. it was a common thread from nazi germany. we were reluctant to get into war because far political -- well you're doing in our country. giving numbers and genocide. last i checked, around six million american women were missing.

i think we should all get together, instead of fighting over who suffers the most, polite on her own history to see that his letter -- hiller got ideas my country. host: will look at afghanistan and the humanitarian aid. the inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. we will be joined back to washington journal area >> recorded conversations. there are many of those conversations on c-span snus -- c-span's new podcast. >> will focus on lyndon johnson. you will hear about that anti-64 civil rights act, the 96 to four presidential campaign. the gulf of tonkin incident, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they would be

recorded. >> certainly, the secretary's new because they were taxed with transcribing many of those conversations, in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you will hear some blunt talk. >> sir. i want to report on the number of people signed this on the day he died, and the number who died. i want them left and right, quick. that's my goal. i won't go anywhere. >> presidential recordings. on c-span now, mobile outcome or were every get your podcast. click sunday on him death. georgetown law professor cheryl

cassian will be our guest live to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her many books include the failures of integration, the agitator, and one space one good. join us with conversations and calls and tax. cheryl cassian, lives on sunday, book tv, c-span2. and before the program visit c-spanshop.org. you can get her book. >> washington journal continues. >> joining us now, the specter -- the inspector general, mr. stop code. welcome back to the program. guest: it's always a pleasure to be here. host: can you remind viewers of your role you play in afghanistan. guest: ind inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction.

we are in independent inspector general created by law. we look at all the money spent on reconstruction in afghanistan, that includes humanitarian assistance. we have a number of audience -- audits on reconstruction. and then we have authority. >> when it comes to taxes we formally ended operations in afghanistan, what is your role now? >> my roles to follow up on a number of ongoing investigations. we are issuing some audience -- audits next week. as well as congress, if they ask us to answer any number of questions they have, i think the american people have, including why, after under $16, the afghan government collapsed within a matter of months, why, after 80 or $90 billion, the afghan military collapse.

what happens with the money. blabbing the weapons. weapon to the people in afghanistan who believed in us. they became journalists and judges and civil society members, doctors, lawyers. there were number of other things. we are doing that. likewise, humanitarian assistance is not stop. has increased. we will be looking at that for a while. we issued a report to congress, and we listed 10 principles, or best practices, that you need to take into consideration see don't waste the 780 billion dollars that the u.s. government has now given for humanitarian assistance in afghanistan. >> because he said that, how exactly do you make that happen?

>> is difficult. this is the first quarterly report we've issued to congress where there is no u.s. presence in afghanistan. still, there is a humanitarian crisis. congress and the usaid, they are given money to the u.n., the world bank, and to international food organizations to help out. but we have to do is work through those international organizations to make sure that money is protected. what you have to remember is that we have a lot of leverage with these international organizations. we give over 20% of the budget. we could work with them, and i

think we work cooperatively with them. i'm not saying that we have force them, but we have to make certain that we do not makes -- make the same mistakes. >> about 782 million dollars as a figure for mentoring a -- is that a one-time payment, is that a yearly payment? how does that work? >> that is a yearly payment. with the details, it is not really set in stone yet. but the u.n. is asking for up to 8 billion. does the b. billion dollars. that is in humanitarian assistance. the fact of the matter. we don't make decisions. we had be me. i don't say we should do a. that is not my job. that is the job of congress and the ministration. my job is to offer advice.

to congress, the administration come on how to do it well. how to do it efficiently. we have the right to follow the u.s. money, even if it goes through the u.n. or the votes of the world bank, the asian banks. food organizations. houston rome. that is basically what were up to a what were doing. >> with reports in the past, there was modern abuse particularly with funds not getting to their intended destination. how do you keep that going as far as the humanitarian aid, making sure it gets for a needs to, with the taliban and control? >> it is extremely difficult. that is why we issued these 10 best practices. based on our experience of having identified, as he quickly said, we have issued 700 reports and a thousand or more specific

recommendations to the u.s. government over 13 years that our offices is been in existence. we have collected all of those, and we've talked to the united nations. we spoke to the usaid. we spoke to the organizations, and we came up with these best principles. it can be done. what is difficult is asking the innocent. there is a policy, and i understand it. i think there is a stated policy that we were to help the poor afghans who are actually starving to death, right now. they are in a trout. there is no money. it is a horrible winter. they cannot get food. there starving. do you and has said it may be the worst humanitarian disaster in history.

how do you get money to those poor people who are dying, without it going to the taliban? we do not want to see that money being given to them? that is difficult. we have done it to some success. there are other countries. we've done in syria we've done in yemen. we've done in somalia. we've done in the sedan. this is a situation where the host governments or the to factor governments which are sometimes a terrorist group, they are sitting there in power, but we realize, not just we, but the entire world, they realize the entire mentoring crisis -- we've utilize the u.n., we utilized other organizations, because united states government doesn't have people on the ground to get money fruit -- or

food or health care. it can be done. we think it would be done more likely than not. the u.n. and the usaid, the local banks, your national donors, they take into consideration those principles, best practices, that we sent to congress, sent to the american people. host: our guest is here, and you can ask questions, particularly to reconstruction money. , (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for republicans. (202) 748-8003 for independents. will take calls in the moment. when it comes to reconstruction eight, how clear is it as far as

x amount of dollars to a specific situation in afghanistan, does that help as far as making sure that money get there? >> yes. that was one of our first and best practices. make certain that you have a clear focus for the a. in the past, we have sent money over there but we didn't know where it went. we allow people coming back saying why am i here? that is one of them. maybe it would help if i went through some of those principles. but --. >> one of those needs to be transparent, and that is the issue, as far as making sure you know exactly where the transparency is. >> as absolute the problem. particularly, dealing with international bodies, in the past. i must say, i am so happy that the head of the u.n. and

afghanistan is taking a lead as a former canadian ambassador in afghanistan. she was one of the strongest proponents. sometime stronger than united states was. she was an investor in afghanistan, there was a lot of corruption in afghanistan. she was tough. she understands the problem of transparency because prior to that, we looked at that. the u.n. was handling law enforcement threats. and there was no transparency. there was no oversight. likewise, we looked at the world bank. they handled a huge billion dollar trust fund that the u.s. government gave money to. they were transparent. we will be issuing an audit.

it was the final audit we did. or that trust fund. the findings are relevant today because it highlights that the world bank has improved things prior to the audit. they still had a serious problem. i can going to all the details because it is not libel, but we need to learn from that. we are not try to point fingers, but we can all learn. that was the purpose of my coming today. in this quarterly report, there is talked about principles. one thing we've got to do -- we can keep doing things like we did for the last 20 years. we know. we failed. we know who we are -- 30% of the money went there. it was stolen or wasted.

we have to deal with the han solo. >> of that is the case, the people are actually doing it the right way, what are they doing that makes the difference? >> i think following these principles. i can say for sure how we are doing it because the u.n. is just starting. in the money from your national food organization is just starting. but they've reached it, we have talked to their people, and we are trying to understand. they are applying for these principles. they are trying to be transparent. they're coming up with realistic metrics. they're not just measuring the amount of food in the way. we are talking about what is accomplishing things. so, we have not done it all, with the u.n., but we are giving

positive signals that they are listening. i think that is really good. we are going to have to use the united nations and international bodies because we don't have any american presence in afghanistan. host: inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction journeys. bob, you are starting us out. you are on. go ahead. caller: yes. i think this is out of the guest wheelhouse, but is there -- there is a way that the united states can give my two afghanistan, and it wouldn't cost a penny. it's what the u.n. general secretary has called on to be done. freezing temperatures and assets is a lethal combination to the people of afghanistan. families are being forced to have one or more their own children in an attempt to survive. not only is the one calling on the u.s. to freeze afghanistan's

assets, but the aids groups are -- world health organization. they say that while it is extremely important, the eight alone is not able to keep pace with the speed of this. we must have money in banks for hospital workers, essential personnel, and civilians to get pay their salaries and sill of the cash to feed their families. this is a critical issue. it is not being addressed. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: you highlight a good point in a big issue out there. after the telegram one, they had money. in our treasury, they were keeping money here. they hadn't got over it, and i can't member the exact number, but it was in the billions. it is frozen.

a lot of other moneys were frozen because some of the people, leaders in taliban and other organizations, they are still legally doing this. people you don't want to deal with. that was a decision made by our government. a policy decision. policy decision made by other governments. not to unfreeze the assets. i don't take a position where the other. in inspector general's to make programs or to policy. we follow the policy as given us by congress and by the president in the ministration. but, there is money sitting there. the question is, and i just post this. this is why it is important to consider. pull the string, as they say. you release the 8 billion. where does it go. who does he go to?

will any of that money be given or turned into salaries or people like doctors, and they have food specialist. where does he go to support terrorists? this is an issue. whether it is 8 billion there or a building that was raised or 600 billion -- 400 million that the u.s. is giving to organizations. how do you get that money there? it often ends up in the hands or the bellies of the people who are starving. you have to have oversight. whether you unlock the 8 billion, or you get new ones, it is still going to be oversight. that is one thing. i think what the taliban has learned, since august, it is a

lot easier to give up the rule country. they had some serious problems with how to manage a country. how to run it. so, that 8 billion, it was unfrozen right now, and with no oversight -- i can't guarantee much of anything in just in. i've been here before. sometimes, i feel like it is really appropriate that today is groundhog day. i feel like bill murray. i keep coming back every year and saying were not learning our lesson. my fear is that if we just open the spigot, we let 8 billion go, where going to see that money just be wasted. that's what we did over 20 years. too much money too fast. too small country. you'll oversight. what we saw was mansions being

rep -- bill for corrupt officials but you could be a corrupt taliban as well as an old afghan. so, youth saw it. you saw a lot of money ending up in the beltway hand. so that is why i would urge you to consider. i went too long, but i think this is an important issue. host: paul in new york. independent line. caller: hello. thank you for your work. i say on c-span a few months ago say that the united states has so much money being raised. and you said because of u.s. rights in that contract. my question is, why is it like that? >> my second question is really for both of you. what is wrong in washington that $2 trillion over 20 years can not up for a total disaster. no one is being held to account. no one is being fired.

this seems incredibly to me -- incredible to me. is there something of the border. modern monetary theory that money doesn't matter? it is basically the u.s. anticline. how does the u.s. spend that much money over that. of time where nobody seems to be held accountable. host: thank you for the question. caller: again, feels like groundhog day. every year, i have been coming in for the show, talking at this you are right. a lot of people were not held accountable. we have indicted and sent to jail several people. but, a lot of people, we can catch. it is because it is difficult we are trying to do investigations

where they had a legal system that was the best law that money could buy, and we didn't buy it. it was a corrupt judicial system. try to get people back to the united states, which is much as we could, but we have a bigger issue. 3 trillion or 2 trillion, or whatever that includes a war. war biting is expensive. when you blow things up, that is expensive. i looked at the reconstruction, but the question you asked, is it working, that is what congress is asking us to answer right now. when we look at the house version of the authorization bill, we had a letter from the house oversight committee saying how good we asked the same question. how could we spend all this money on this government and it

collapses in three months? how can we spend all of this money, just on the afghan military. they all ran away. or they didn't exist. those of the kinds of questions we are trying to answer. that is why i am giving a warning. let's not pump 8 billion more in there without sitting with someone to look at the 700 reports sitting and coming up with the best practices. that is why i highly recommend that everyone go on our website. i'm going to forget it. thank you. it is a very simple website. take go to the reports. take a look at what we've been saying. all we can say -- and i am the guy who brings a horse to water.

i can't make them drink it. we have issued these reports, and maybe congress will look at them. many people in the administration have. i hope they continue, and they do something about this if you are asked, of you directly, can you explain why it is important with the reconstruction, and how does that benefit us. how do we host al qaeda? this isn't a question with sarcasm. i'm seriously asking the question. guest: right now, the only reconstruction going on is is humanitarian aid. the weight is defined as pride, we have had a number of auditors looking at it. anything that assists the afghan people it is not worth it. that is about was going on i

can't take aside on that. it is not my job as inspector general. no inspector general should be selling you policy. except, better management policy. so, you missed ration, and a lot of people in congress feel that po it to the afghans who are starving to death. that is what is going on. i will say, there is talk about starting reconstruction again, and again, i won't take aside on that. i understand the concern. that is the basic concern. how do you do reconstruction, or how do you do simple humanitarian aid. feeding people. make certain that the taliban doesn't take a cut of it at huge cut.

then he goes to terrorists. host: talk about what is going on on the ground, post a lot of the united states. he talked in the past about electricity availability, food availability, water, or education. what is the status of those things now? >> aaron horrible shape. i told you. they don't how to run a company -- government. that is not just our fault. i want people to realize that. i know people say, well, it is the government's fault. we did not let the taliban in. they were there. they have some responsibility. i don't think they are carrying it out -- the responsibility that uri or the viewers would think the government should. the schools are opened.

sort of. but not really for girls beyond like grade school. there is rampant disease because of the medical system collapsing. they can't afford drugs. they can't go to doctors or nurses. the system is collapse. there is drought. they can't get assistance in. there is no humanitarian aid. the only thing that is positive is that there is no war fighting. there is still a lot of information we are getting about retaliation by the taliban. against women, girls, on police officers, judges, journalists. those who are in hiding.

there was a situation with the news, we have to rely on local news and some very brave western journalists who operate there in afghanistan. we don't have people in the ground. but there are 20 or 30 women who were getting raped all over the country, and they broke in and arrested a lot of them. there were women who because they loved, believed in democracy, and human rights. that is a horrible situation. they are saying they are better, and they were before, but maybe they aren't. the proof is in the pudding. so far, we are getting some really ghastly stories coming out of afghanistan about the taliban and how they are treating people.

host: republican line. caller: yes. two questions. i hope you can answer both of them. the first one, it has to do with the suspension of investigations when the u.s. pulled out, in august. you mentioned if humans go about how difficult it was to do investigations even when we had a u.s. presence. number one, are any of the investigations that you have, are they ongoing? what status are they now that we have about. question number two has to do with the money that has been flowing into afghanistan since the u.s. pullout. where any of the investigations are using money and can be traced? that is to the intestine or simulant -- the intended recipient. can you chase any funding in

afghanistan? >> in good question there. a good question. our investigations haven't sees. we are still investigating people, and we can still find them if we have the evidence in u.s. courts. we have a number of orients -- warrants outstanding we are in a country where we can extradite, and we will. with the department of justice, and let me tell you, we are a full grown law firm. we have done more indicting and convicting of people who have worked afghanistan, because a lot of them are americans, and we can still do that. but we need your help. actually. the one benefit of this crisis

is that a lot of people from afghanistan have come western countries, so some of those people are giving us information about fraud and abuse. you can still to the investigations. some people who have gone to western countries and the united states we will probably indict. they were corrupt or krups. we really need your help. we need the help of a lot of people, so please go to her website. there's a button. you can push it. that is a hotline button. we are offering anonymity to those people. we protect the people who need protection. if you don't believe me, you can go and look up in the news. we had a long lawsuit with the washington post. i respected that newspaper, except in this instance.

we tried to get the names of people who saw anonymity to give us information. we fought them in the courts for years, and we won. we will protect people who need protection. we need help. we people. honest afghans who can call us and give us a website. honest americans who work there. tell us what you saw. we need that information. it's not just criminal information. we need the information for the collapse of the afghan government. what happened to all of the women. what happened to all of the money that they asked about. if you think you have information that can help us. go to that website. w ww. cigar, as iga are not with us people with and asked, or hit that button. host: bank of america reported

that one of the people you spoke to on the front, it was eight -- in to the president did he let country the hundred $59. is that the case? caller: i can't. we only talk about cases thato are done. we only do it when we are doing a case. thisrionm we wanted with allegations that been received, but the fact that they're looking allegations doesn't mean that they are guilty or innocent. we need to make sure we receive allegations about other senior government officials from afghanistan. so, i can't really discuss more about that, but if you have information that would be useful, please contact us. we will have a criminal investigator or analyst who would be happy to talk to you. >> did you talk to the aid? >> i cannot comment on who we

talked to. we talked to a lot of people. the more the merrier, but we don't really discuss ongoing criminal investigations. let's hear from the democrats line. caller: i am in the middle of reading a book called the afghanistan papers. are you familiar with the book? guest: yes. they're basically all of our papers. caller: it seems to me that you are part of the military-industrial complex. your job is to watch all the money that flows through the system and basically investigated, as you've indicated. it is very hard, and not much happens in your investigation. but why would you investigate the military people who lied and said that the war was going great.

the politicians who lion say the words going great. the whole time. the whole. of time that the war was going on. the military on the ground would report that we were not losing is bad. and along the way, switches over and the words coming out of the pentagon is that it is going great. let's keep going. i just don't see how you can live with yourself, and watch that happen and not do anything about it. i just like to hear your comment about that. caller: i think i have highlighted the problem with people exaggerating, and i think i've done that for the last 10 years. government officials and whatever. so, if there's anyone who has said more about the over

exaggeration and -- it has been me. i didn't know i was part of the military-industrial complex. do i get a chevron or something like that on my shoulder. i think that you are to read more of our reports. i've been talking about hubris. i was on the show, and someone said that this was a reward to describe afghanistan. i did notice mendacity. we over exaggerate. i think road -- i've been quoted as saying it we have too many general symbolic -- politicians, and administrators. they come up and talk about returning to court. we returned to the top. spinning like a top. i don't think you found any of

the government officials who have raised concerns about the over exaggeration. you can call lying. he caught mendacity. what happened over the years. let me tell you a bit about that. lois go back. in our country, we have laws. i can only state that if someone lied to congress, it is up to congress to contact the department of justice and do something about it. i don't enforce perjury laws before congress. i've worked for 25 years. in congress, i was an investigator and the chief investigate counsel. john dingell, sam nunn. and when they saw people lying to them, whenever they were

generals or ambassadors or businessmen, they did something about it. so, if you think that people actually are lying and perjuring themselves, before congress, i think you have to take it up with them. i look at reconstruction in afghanistan, and i don't look at the perjury statutes. not as they relate to congress. host: hello. caller: how are you? thank you for coming on. i just had a couple of questions. again, this is coming from an a listed point of view, someone who retired out of the federal government. i had a question. this was from things. were you given the verbiage to say from the government that the taliban won the war, and our government did not lose?

guest: what? caller: were you told to say this by the government? it's hard to save that the government sees that we've lost this war, and we've given the money to the winners of the war? the point i'm trying to make is that --. the humanitarian guest: the humanitarian question is not the united states fall. you have people there who claim to be the government. they have ways to run their government. their operations. collect revenue and support people. i think there is a -- there is a richer country, but there is a tendency after hearing that, for people who -- you know, the

taliban claims to be the government there, and i'm not wreck rising them is the government. that is not the policy of the government. but, they have responsibility. that is the point i was trying to make. host: republican line, go ahead. caller: i have three questions. hootie report to? -- hootie report to? -- who do you report to? guest: i report to basically congress and the president. i -- my reports have to go somewhere, so they go to the secretary of defense or secretary state, or the usaid administrator, depending on the issue, but also, i report to them. we are -- our budget is low.

hundred $50 million, and it goes down. we go down with employment. we used to have over 200 some people, and now we are at about 150 or 160. and all of our people, we go out of existence with the amount of money decreases, or one congress decides to lead a existence. we are on a path going down. budget as well as personnel. host: one more call. dave from las vegas, independent. but running short on time. caller: i comment is, first of all, we have problems in the united states. i don't think we should give a penny to afghanistan. the national debt is going skyhigh. who's going to pay for?

are the rich going to pay for it? you don't have people here, and they are in other countries. there something wrong. you better take care of your own before you start worrying about other people. that is my comment. guest: that's a sentiment that people have. i can understand it, but again, i don't make the policy. administration doesn't make policy ordered -- or budget, but that is why c-span is a great opportunity. we can hear about issues, and get energized. it is a peaceful manner. and contact her congressman. contact your senator. your senators. express your opinion. that is why c-span is so great.

that is why come on the show so often. host: before we let you go, as forests -- as far as, we have less than a minute, but you said with the future of money in afghanistan when it comes to humanitarian aid, in 30 seconds, what's the comfort level? guest: i don't have one. that's a decision that congress should make. you have to be honest about it. it is not risk-free. you are going to lose money. our estimate is 30%. we had a government we could work with. so i don't know what it is, but i think they should do it, and they should have that discussion with the american taxpayers host: the inspector general for afghanistan. reconstruction effort it you can

ai