congressman shares his book and looks at the digital divide in america and offers suggestions. watch book tv every sunday on c-span 2 and find the full schedule or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox gives families access to affordable internet. cox. bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a television service, along with

these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. 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 email >> c-span's washington journal, everyday we are taking your calls live on the air, on the news of the day, and we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, key midterm races that could determine which party controls the senate. a look at the economy, the biden agenda, and russia's threat to invade ukraine, and california

democratic congressman continues the conversation on russia-ukraine tension. and the biden administration's foreign policy. watch live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning on c-span, or c-span now, our new mobile app. join the discussion with the phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. >> live thursday on c-span, at 10:00 a.m. eastern, house subcommittee holds a hearing on sustainability and the livestock sector. at noon, the house continues work on a bill that provides aid to the u.s. semiconductor chip industry and increases funding for science research to better compete with china. on c-span2 at 8:00 eastern, president biden and vice president harris deliver remarks at the 70th annual prayer breakfast.

then join others at the event in the u.s. capitol visitor center. the senate comes back to consider executive and judicial nominations. on c-span3, a look at the washington commanders workplace culture after the team announced its new name. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can also watch online at c-span.org, or on the go with our c-span video app. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit organization. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> house and senate members of the helsinki commission held a hearing on tensions between ru