and then aneesa mcmilian talks about her group's efforts in the 2022 midterm elections. washington journal is next. host: it is "washington journal" for washington third. august 3. nancy pelosi went to taiwan to stand by taiwan as a defense itself and its freedom. the visit has upset chinese leadership and disturbed some political leaders in the u.s. you can give us your impression of the speaker's visit to taiwan, how it might affect relations with that country and china. here's how you can let us know.

if you support the speaker's visit, call us at (202)-748-8000 . if you oppose, call us at (202)-748-8001. if you are unsure about the visit, you can tell us why at (202)-748-8002. you can also text us at (202)-748-8003. and post on facebook and twitter, and follow the show on instagram. she landed on tuesday and the associated press reporting she has left the island country, saying nancy pelosi departs taiwan after visit heightens tensions with china. she had an op-ed today in the washington post talking about her reasoning. she writes in part saying, in the face of the chinese communist party accelerating aggression our congressional delegation visit should be seen as a statement that america

stands with taiwan, our democratic partner, as a defense itself and our freedom. our visit in no way contradicts the long-standing china policy. the united states continues to oppose unilateral efforts to change the status quo. she arrived on tuesday leaving the island today meeting with several leaders in the process. we will show you that and what is reported in the papers. tell us what you think about this trip. (202)-748-8000 if you support the trip, (202)-748-8001 if you oppose, and if you are unsure, (202)-748-8002. you can also text us at (202)-748-8003. one of those people asked about the trip was the national security council communications director john kirby.

he talked about it during the press briefing yesterday and if the president supported it. [video clip] >> john, now that the speaker is in taiwan, can you give us a sense of president biden's thoughts on the matter? does he support that? secondly, what kind of lines of communication are ongoing today between the governments? >> the speaker of the house is in taipei right now. she will be meeting government leaders. we have stayed in touch with our taiwan counterparts and we stayed in touch with speaker pelosi's staff as she has progressed through this trip. >> i met with beijing. >> i have not had specific conversations with p.r.c. leaders, but we have an ambassador and in routine

communication. i refer to the state department for anything they might or might have not communicated. i said this yesterday. the president of the former senate fully respects the right in the prerogative, frankly, the responsibility to include the speaker to travel overseas. >> that is a different question. does he support her going? >> he respects her decision to travel to taiwan. host: that is some of the statement from john kirby. you can see more on the website at c-span.org. some of you already responding on twitter. derek friday saying, there is only one trying to be competitive with china. this is a viewer that says the trip is a gutsy move. deborah clock saying, good for her. when it comes to this trip

specifically you can let us know on the twitter feed and, off of text at -- and comment off of text at (202)-748-8003. louis's unsure about the trip. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am unsure because the speaker and most of the democratic party seems to be doing things right for the country when it is to their advantage. for example, the trip of the speaker. just because her husband has the dui arrest and the others are the border. it seems the biotin biden the

administration is trying to fill in the holes. host: how does that relate to the trip? caller: the speaker is the spokesperson for the democratic party whatever she does everyone seems to follow her. except for aoc and the bernie sanders group. they do what makes them look good for the country. host: mildred, go ahead on the opposing line. mildred in st. louis, missouri. caller: i was on mute. thank you for taking my call. i oppose it because we have too much going on in america. we do not need more fires going on.

we already have china as an enemy. we need to take care of america because we do not realize how much we are burning. take a trip around america and see what is going on. why do you have to go somewhere else? take a trip around here because all of our enemies have enough weapons to destroy us. we keep on playing with fire like we are bullies on the world stage. one of these days one of our enemies are going to test us and then we as the american people are going to wake up and see. host: that is mildred in st. louis. axios reporting in light of the trip, as far as the response of china is concerned, chinese officials warning airlines to avoid airspace near taiwan as a

response to the speaker's visit, which she has left ahead of plan military drills that may amount to a blockade. six areas in the region were described as danger zones. officials in japan expressed alarm from the plans of beijing and that the chinese government is blocking imports in retaliation of speaker pelosi's trip. this was part of a multi-stop trip. from maryland we will hear from rick. caller: good morning. hope everybody is having a good morning. my gosh, i spent my entire working career working in the

defense department. she has no clue what she is talking about. first of all, the united states has a $700 billion a year they spend on defense. there is a reason for that. we have to be ready. that is why we have the best fighters, that is why we have the best nuclear subs, that is why we have fleets of aircraft carriers all over the world. we have to be ready and we cannot be intimidated. host: do you think the speaker's trip will aggravate tensions with china? caller: it does not matter. it doesn't matter because free is free. if they wanted to go to cuba, let them go. host: why doesn't it matter, specifically to china? caller: i really don't care about china.

we mined our business and we will be ok. host: but one of the reasons the speaker is visiting is to support democracy in taiwan. do you think that is a good effort? caller: i do. this experiment we call democracy works well over here. like i said, i don't understand why people talk her craziness. host: we will go to frank in new york on the unsure line. caller: the first caller was the guy in the second caller was the lady. he needs to understand american history. we have deterred tyrants. and for the lady that called

earlier, i don't know where she been. she is worried about making our enemies mad. we have had enemies since, what, this country was founded? host: you are calling and saying you are unsure about the trip. tell us why. caller: i am sure. nancy pelosi did the right thing. host: why is that? caller: because you cannot have dictators telling you where to go. let him tell his people what to do. lock down your people, you have a bad bank system, you cannot pay your people. host: how does that specifically go to taiwan? caller: well, he needs a show of force because he got trouble in china. he cannot pay his people.

he has got covid lockdowns driving the economy into the ground. i mean, the only thing he can do is threaten pelosi for making trips over to taiwan. xi jinping is in trouble and he needed -- what is that thing called? you start war? host: that was frank calling about the speaker's trip. (202)-748-8000 if you support it. (202)-748-8001 if you oppose and (202)-748-8002 if you are unsure. editorials commenting on the trip. this is the wall street journal saying, after pelosi's taiwan visit on tuesday, beijing responded with fury and

unspecified military threats but no direct engagement. that could change in the days ahead. china's reaction to the pelosi visit should concentrate minds in taipei and the u.s. of moving urgently to buttress the island's defenses. arms deliveries need to move faster and the kind that would do most to deter a potential invasion in the u.s. and its allies need to prepare in case china begins to employ a strategy of gradual economic strangulation or quarantine. you can find more of that in the wall street journal's editorial. other commentators too as far as the trip is concerned. we will show you more of their statements during the course of the morning. mike in indiana on the oppose line. caller: i have been watching this news and i don't know if everybody remembers, but nancy and paul pelosi made the insider trade deal on semiconductor

chips. if i'm not mistaken, taiwan makes all of them. that is why she is going over there. just as in liberty would be great, but i think she wanted to make a deal for her husband. host: why do you think that is the deal? caller: i just told you. they made a deal with the biggest semiconductor chipmakers and they are in taiwan. if they do that, it is going to piss off china. i think they are going to try to get the chip factory over here. host: like in indiana. one of the columnists opposing the trip, at least from his perspective, is tom friedman who writes in recent days about it. taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit.

a lot of bad things could happen. these include chinese military response that can result in the u.s. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear armed russia and china the same time. if you think our european allies, who are facing existential war with russia over ukraine will join us if there is u.s. conflict with china over taiwan triggered by this unnecessary visit, you are badly misreading the world. one of the thoughts yesterday on capitol hill was from missouri republican roy blunt. during a press conference of republican leaders in the senate he was asked about the speaker's trip. [video clip] >> i am about to use four words in a row that i have not used in this way before and those four words are, speaker pelosi was right. when she decided to include taiwan on her visit to asia or

if she had just been going to taiwan, that would have been right. highest ranking american to be in taiwan in 25 years. the last person to be at that rank was the speaker of the house newt gingrich when he went 25 years ago and he was right. to send that message that we believe in democracy and we believe the taiwanese people have a right to that democracy. that is exactly the message speaker pelosi is taking with her today. and china proved in hong kong there is no one country, to systems. if you are going to be under the control of china, you're going to be under the control of china. for us to make the point that taiwan is important to democracy, to our national security, to our economy, is a good point to make. i suspect others will be following speaker pelosi's example. host: other senators giving

their reaction off of their twitter feeds. this is senator lindsey graham saying, very pleased to see speaker pelosi in taiwan to reinforce our love for the people of taiwan. this is not a change in u.s. policy. it is reinforcing the long-standing relationship between taiwan and the united states. senator marsha blackburn say, it is joe biden so fearful of the chinese government he tried to stop her going to taiwan. we must stand with taiwan and i applaud pelosi for not backing down. senator jim inhofe saying, for decades members have traveled to taiwan. it is consistent with the one china policy to which we are committed. we are also committed to all elements of the taiwan relations act. that is some of the reaction from republican members of congress.

this is from andrew, richmond, virginia on the oppose line. caller: i oppose it, one, i am a retired intelligence analyst. i studied the region most of my career. the biggest reason i oppose it is because we have known for years china's intentions are to retake taiwan whether that be peacefully or forcefully. we recognize the one china policy as does the majority of the world. but the reason i oppose is because it is just going to stir up the hornets nest. xi jinping stated if we interfered, he would accelerate the timeline trying to take back taiwan. china does not care about its military troops. we place lives over objectives

where as china places objectives over lives. the biggest issue i have with this trip is, does it accelerate his timeline and tried to take back taiwan? if so, how do we support taiwan when china is willing to lose countless numbers of their soldiers to achieve that objective? i think this trip is out of line or puts the fire to xi jinping's military officials who say, hey, now is the time. we warned the u.s. let's do it. and then there is nothing we can do because we recognize the one china policy. it will end up as another ukraine conflict where ukraine was not a member of nato. we will provide them weaponry but they are on their own to fight. the logistic nightmare that it

is trying to supply taiwan with weapons, because china controls the south china sea, the spratly islands, and a good portion of the region where we would have to use to supply these weapons to taiwan. for that reason i oppose the strip. i think it is ill-timed, not advisable. host: is there a way to balance those concerns and support taiwan's democracy at the same time? caller: not realistically. in 2018, i helped write the national defense strategy of the asia-pacific, which kind of changed our view of who was our primary threat. ultimately, china took over as number one. china does not care about democracy even though they cared to claim about democracy. at the end of the day, there is no balancing act.

we do not recognize taiwan as a sovereign nation. we recognize one china. there is no way to balance whether we can uphold democracy while supporting them militarily in terms of providing weapons. if there was to be a conflict in taiwan, the first thing china would do would be to cut off all avenues of supply to get through taiwan. taiwan being the island it is, it is not feasible for us to be able to support them if china takes steps to cut off our supply routes. host: that was andrew in virginia. jerry called on the support line from broadway, virginia. you are next. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i support pelosi's visit . someone has to speak up for our

foreign relations. biden already received the money. he just has to deliver the goods to china. host: the washington post highlights trips from other leaders. in the last two weeks alone, foreign delegations have included a vice president of the european parliament, two former japanese defense ministers, members of the foreign affairs committee, the british house of commons. the guardian going the other way. taiwan's equivalent of house speaker has also made trips to democratic countries including the czech republic and france. china objects to all visits

to taiwan but especially concerned about the rising frequency of u.s.-taiwan diplomatic exchanges. on the oppose line, shirley in louisiana. caller: good morning. i oppose. i oppose it because they are going all over the world starting wars, getting us into trouble. i am going with the first caller saying she ought to take a trip around america. everything is putting this country in a position where we cannot get ourselves out without going to war. and who are they going to send? our children.

i just wish they did something to help the american public. instead, they sent $500 million to ukraine. i am tired of being used as a chess piece. host: darrell from north carolina on the oppose line. caller: good morning. appreciate you taking the call. i will start with a quote that has been in the news. congress has not found a war they will not fight. number two, i feel this is unnecessary for her to make that trip. with china increasing threats and tensions we cannot fight two proxy wars. they sent $60 billion to

ukraine and this is not a republican and democrat thing. this is the american congress. there playing with people's lives and livelihoods. i think our focus should be on the american economy. i get that china has a lot of control based off of their economy and the use of labor, but we have to create some type of way to get our economy back to where it should be to support the american people. recession or not, depression or not, we have to think of america first before we go anywhere. host: darrell in north carolina. the new york times highlighting the fact that ms. pelosi's visit has been awkward for president biden. as the leader of a coequal branch she has the right to go anywhere she desires. mr. biden's aids stressed he did

not want to see dictating where she can travel. but officials made it clear this could escalate tensions, including the possibility that china would use this to justify military action against taiwan. that is some of the reporting out of this trip in the new york times. we will continue to take your calls. numbers on the screen. if you support the trip, (202)-748-8000. if you oppose, (202)-748-8001. and if you are unsure, (202)-748-8002. you can also text us at (202)-748-8003. post on facebook and twitter feeds as well. in new jersey, nikyo who is ashore. caller: nancy pelosi goes into taiwan. is there going to be more attention between china and

taiwan now? host: some would say that. you're going to have to stop listening to the television and just keep talking on the phone. caller: i am going to have to pause. is there going to be more tension between them? host: some would say that. why are you unsure about the trip? caller: because i feel, like, nancy pelosi visiting could be good for the u.s. host: charles in brooklyn on the support line. caller: how are you doing?

my recent for support is i want to understand where in the world we, as americans, should ever be told where and when to go? we do not follow people. people do not tell us what to do. that is why we are in a free country. if she wants to go to taiwan to support the, why not? that is part of our strategic allies. i do not see a problem in her doing that. host: do you think it increases tensions with china? is that a cause of concern? caller: no. china has been threatening taiwan and god knows how long. just making this excuse makes no sense. just saying because nancy pelosi went to taiwan that it made the

tension worse, that makes no sense. if that is their excuse to invade? that is a different story. but to have one person from america to go to taiwan, i don't see a problem. she is only going for diplomatic reasons. host: jesse in florida on the opposing line. caller: hi. my concern is the one china policy and we say we do not support the independence of taiwan. to me, that says taiwan is controlled by china, not by us. i think china should have the right to dictate if foreign leaders can come into their country. the one china policy and the not independence for taiwan that was

supposedly support says we are wrong. host: meaning house? w so? caller: would you support vladimir putin coming into san diego without permission? certainly, they have the right to say who enters their country. you have to have a visa or some permission. you cannot just decide, well, i support this group so i am going to go into the independent country, china, not taiwan, and essentially go against the policy you support. i don't understand how we can rationalize one china and not independent taiwan and then

think we have the right to go where we want to. no, you don't. you have the right to go where you are allowed by the country you're going into. host: that is jesse in florida. many of you commenting in the first half hour. (202)-748-8000 if you support the trip by speaker pelosi. if you oppose, (202)-748-8001. and if you are unsure, (202)-748-8002. one of those people not supporting this trip was the member of the house armed services committee, republican michael waltz. criticized the trip itself and the political implications on fox news yesterday. [video clip] >> here is the big difference from prior years. we had this kind of dustups with the chinese visits to taiwan. back then, they knew and we knew

they could not do anything about it militarily. now the chinese believe and chairman xi believes they can match us. he told the military to be ready by 2027 to defeat us. that is the game changer and why we have to wake up as a country. first is the speaker and that it is trade routes, then pharmaceuticals they are manufacturing and then they dominate the world. host: that is michael waltz from yesterday. a supporter of this trip is larry in virginia. caller: good morning. i am not a nancy pelosi fan and i think part of the problem is the lack of coherence on our taiwan engagement strategy to provide them with f-16s.

then we try to pretend we should not visit when we need to. i am glad she is visiting. i think we ought to be putting our foot down with china more than we do. as far as the artificial islands that have built in the south china sea, we let that happen. i think we need to be more firm with china and i think this is a good way to do it. the two problems i have is that it seems like a political move, and that's ok, but that is transparent. the second is that it highlights the fact that we don't have a coherent strategy for taiwan. it is hard to say it is part of china but then you have the rights to provide them help. thank you. host: and virginia. let's go to delaware.

shaq is unsure of the trip. caller: good morning. i do not represent the united states government even though i am a government employee. i believe we should stay put here. all of the money we are spending overseas doing god knows what, going places where we are welcome, we could use the money back here. we cannot honor the one china policy and be in support of taiwan at the same time. you do not go to where you are welcome. you do not go to where you are now welcome. there should be a logical, realistic approach to this. every action has a reaction. what is going to happen should china decide to go off the handle? we already have russia and

ukraine going on. now it is going to be china and what? we really should stay put and fix what we have going on. there are so many veterans that are homeless. there are so many people struggling with drug addiction. all of this money being spent overseas on, in my opinion, not so much important stuff. america should come first. all of the money spent other fighter jets and the trips to taiwan could have been spent on taking care of american citizens. host: bloomberg has been covering the speaker's trip. a recent speech she gave before receiving an award from the taiwanese government, the headline says, the u.s. will not abandon taiwan in face of threats from china. the speech of the twitter feed for bloomberg, here's a portion

from speaker pelosi. [video clip] >> today the world faces a choice between democracy and autocracy. americans' determination to preserve democracy in taiwan and around the world remains ironclad. we are grateful to the partnership of the people of taiwan in this mission. i am very grateful to receive this award. i am grateful to you, madam president, and the people for their enduring friendship. we have many taiwan americans excited about the visit. when i came before in 1999 i came with them. we learned a lot and that is what we came to do, to participate in the asian-pacific initiative in a way that is appropriate for taiwan to be successful, whether in trade, security, etc. and to do so in a way that opens

many more possibilities. we came here to listen, to learn, and what did you know? i got this beautiful, beautiful, beautiful award. thank you, madam president. host: that was from the speaker's trip. you can see online more about the speaker had to say during her visit. reportedly now out of the country. she arrived on tuesday. we are asking what you think about the implications. lee in south carolina. caller: thank you. i think nancy pelosi is doing the right thing. we have to take the fight to these dictators and dictator wannabe we have here. the problem is people are

complaining about simple stuff that you have control over. get up every morning, go to work, provide for your family, and do the right thing. as far as china, these dictators, we have to do something about them. we have to eliminate them. they are the cause of all of the problems of this world. when we make excuses for them, that that is what they are looking for. there was a russian in the white house. what difference does it make if nancy pelosi goes over there? it does not matter. she is not taking a gun with her. people need to understand that we have to take the fight to the terrorists, to the dictators. eliminate them. that is the only way we are going to survive in this life we are living.

god gave us everything we need. we are supposed to utilize it for the good come out the bad. host: eddie in massachusetts on the support line. caller: i am republican and i support going to taiwan. but i am critical of the history with jimmy carter, who changed the status of taiwan. it was harry truman who lost it to the chinese dictator mao. that is the democrats for you. nancy screws up too by alienating the republican party by impeaching the president twice. this terrible inquisition she is doing against the insurrection. host: you called because you said you support the trip. why is that? caller: of course. you have got to support taiwan

because it is a major, major insurance on our industry. chips, we need them. we don't want china to take hold of it. they will control too much of our trade. host: on the oppose line we will hear from wendy in massachusetts. caller: i am curious as to why she needs to go over there? they keep talking about how they love the environment and they don't want to destroy it. but they are flying in these planes and people like nancy and taylor swift and the rest of the are destroying the environment for no reason. she cannot get her point across by talking on zoom? they do not care about the environment, so they should quit being hypocritical. science says there are only two genders and abortion is murder. host: that is wendy.

we continue with your calls. our support line is (202)-748-8000. if you oppose, (202)-748-8001. perhaps you are unsure, (202)-748-8002. while you do that, several states holding primaries across the united states. just to give you a sampling of the results and other things decided yesterday, in kansas, kansas city star reporting the right to an abortion will remain in the kansas constitution. the first test of abortion rights voters turned out in historic numbers to reject banning abortions across the state. the associate oppressed calling the race at 9:40 yesterday. the campaign led 61% to 39%.

government over to michigan, democratic governor gretchen whitmer running unopposed in the primary. she will be facing off against tudor dixon. dixon was out in an enormous lead. the conservative commentator will go head on in tough election briefs against the governor. . dixon defeated four male candidates in a race between little-known republicans. she was endorsed by former president trump. also, if you stay in michigan, former president trump can claim another win.

gibbs, who entered for the third congressional district, was backed by the former president. his opponent conceded yesterday. meijer part of the family that owns the grocery store bearing his last name. if you go to missouri, republican attorney general eric schmitt and trudy bush valentine will face in november. the u.s. senate seat schmitt defeated the scandal plagued governor on his way to the nomination. was winning with 46% of the

republican primary vote. his closest competitor is for the u.s. representative vicky hartzler. this is from michigan. randy is on the support line. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i want to start by thanking you and other men and women that bring us this great program. you are doing a great service for the nation. i believe nancy pelosi's trip scares the chinese because they are not used to dealing with strong women. when you look at who stepped up in the january 6 committee hearing, it was all the ladies in the country. now you have nancy pelosi. they do not know how to deal with someone like that and it scares them for they know how to deal with men because that is

all they deal with. they know what we have over here is a bunch of scared old men. but they do not know how to handle the strong women. i am glad she went. thank you, pedro, for letting me have my time. host: bill in maine calling on the unsure line. caller: good to see you this morning. dapper as ever. i am not sure what she hoped to accomplish. the united states and the relation to china has been voluntarily strangling themselves and offering them to china on a silver platter for years. to understand china, you need to understand their mindset. not that i am an expert on china, but i do think china is rather like this. they can say to the world, we have seen pyramids and pharaohs

that came and went. we saw a rome with the roads and their laws. they came and went. there is the new kid on the block, the united states. they will leave. china will remain. this is their mindset. they can wait. they are inscrutable and they do not have to tell us what they are doing. and america is fully killing itself and offering themselves to china. it would be odd if china did not take advantage. host: that is bill in maine. betty in south carolina on the opposing line. caller: i do not think the taxpayers are going to have to pay for her to go. i do not believe a word she says, not one word. none of the rest of them in that white house behind you.

host: mike in oregon is next on the unsure line. caller: greetings. i was wondering what she is trying to accomplish from this particular trip. is her physical presence going to cause something that cannot be achieved with some sort of other diplomatic endeavor? host: is the fact showing up as a representative of the united states and supporting taiwan's democracy, you do not think that goes far enough? caller: i think you are correct.

other than her presence i do not think it is supporting the taiwanese state. host: mike in oregon giving us his thoughts. we will continue on with these thoughts the next 13 minutes or so. (202)-748-8000 if you support the trip. (202)-748-8001 if you oppose. and perhaps you are unsure, (202)-748-8002. a viewer off of twitter says, republicans are in support of speaker pelosi going to taiwan, yet she had no republicans. she did the right thing by going to taiwan showing the u.s. is in support of democracy. unfortunate republicans did not join.

reflected by new york republican claudia tenney who talked yesterday on newsmax about this idea of hoping it would deliver a more bipartisan message. [video clip] >> i find nancy pelosi to not only govern as an authoritarian she views his power, she is not bipartisan. kevin mccarthy or maybe michael mccaul on the foreign affairs committee, or one of our intel committee members, should have accompanied her to show that our true bipartisan support of taiwan. everyone have been receiving confusing signals coming out of the white house. president biden says we will defend taiwan. his staff rolled the back and that happened a number of times. i refer to the taiwan relations

treaty of 1979 signed by jimmy carter that says we will support taiwan and help them in the event there is aggression from china. the aggressive moves from china by moving through the taiwan straits, one of their propaganda wings saying they were going to shoot down the plane, is absurd. but we need to stand strong and unified. a unified nancy pelosi with kevin mccarthy or other prominent republicans, noticeably absent, sends a symbol of weakness and authoritarianism and one side of this that dominates the culture in washington. host: the washington post highlights the fact the other people traveling with speaker pelosi on this trip was the house foreign affairs committee chairman, gregory meeks, and representatives from california, washington state, illinois and andy kim of new jersey.

the new york times highlights the trip. this is the headline, pelosi stood up to beijing -- good for her. what should the u.s. do then? do not back down. he goes on to suggest delegations ought to arrive every week for the next year, saying president biden should state what he has said off-the-cuff. the united states will intervene militarily if china seeks to invade taiwan. it also suggests the u.s. can provide taiwan with the easily hidden asymmetric weapons that have done damage to the russians. finally, that president biden should propose sharp increases in military spending and that should be for the navy. you can see more of that in the new york times. in massachusetts, this is jimmy who is unsure of the trip. caller: good morning.

i think nancy pelosi is just wasting our jet fuel. she should be here and drill for more oil. increase the licenses and permits for gasoline refineries. she is parading around. she is not doing anything over there. host: you do not think she is supporting taiwan by her presence? caller: the president should be supporting taiwan and he discouraged her from doing it. this is not america. where is our leader? host: she traveled independently on this trip as far as the president not endorsing or supporting it. she traveled independently of that. that is jimmy in massachusetts. this is from nancy pelosi's op

ed in the washington post. some of the reasoning she is leading the delegation. our discussions with our taiwanese partners will focus on reaffirming our support for the island and promoting our shared interest, including advancing a free and open into pacific region. she goes on to say american solidarity with taiwan is more important today than ever. not only to the 23 million people of the island, but the millions of others caressed and menaced by the people -- pressed and menaced by the people's republic of china. we make the choice between democracy and autocracy as russia wages mortgage ukraine, killing thousands of innocent. it is important america and our allies never give into autocrats. that was speaker pelosi's op-ed talking about the trip, why she is taking it. in florida, florence in

jacksonville on the support line. caller: thank you. i support nancy pelosi going to taiwan. one of the things we always have a complaint about is what our elected officials do. sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes the do the wrong thing. but if we think they are doing the wrong thing, why don't we run for office and we can do what we think should be done? but i support her. host: why do you think this trip is the right thing? caller: because, you know, i served 22 years in the military. i have been all over this world. and i have seen people, man, i thought about the way i was brought up and i looked at some of the people in all of these countries. if they need help, i think we

should give it to them. i spent five years in africa. thank goodness for the u.s. navy. i never would have went to none of these countries. host: but why do you think it is good to support taiwan? caller: because we are a democracy country. when the people are in dictator's country you can see the fear on their face. i was in haiti. i was in the philippines where marcos was in charge. i was in cuba and boy, these people look at us and say, i sure wish i was in america. host: jim in texas on the unsure line. caller: how are you? host: i'm fine, thanks.

caller: how much is this whole trip costing? i am not saying i am for this trip or against it, but we have got to weigh it. it cost a lot of money. do we know how much this cost? host: it is just the cost can concern making you unsure? caller: if it is an extreme amount of money, maybe we need to say it is not worth it. host: jim in texas. another supporter was senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, speaking on the floor yesterday. [video clip] >> i believe she has every right to go. it would be counterproductive for president biden to have publicly sought to deter her from doing so.

there is significant precedent for high-ranking officials visiting taiwan, including a past speaker of the house. beijing claims this is now unacceptable. they claimed that things have changed. it is certainly true. china has stepped up its aggressive actions. they are trying to change the status quo through force. that expanded militarily in the south china sea. they have invested in antiship and antiaircraft capabilities. they have manipulated and threatened neighbors with an all-out assault on democracy. beijing wants to dictate taiwan's future to its people. snuff out of the island's democracy and they are building the military capacity that would bring that about. that, mr. president, that is

what is provocative. and to hear these responsible complain that her travel itinerary is provocative is utterly absurd. host: that is mitch mcconnell, house minority leader -- sorry, senate minority leader. speaking yesterday. margin in west haven, connecticut say, speaker pelosi stated she is the leader of the coequal branch of government. she can go anywhere. she is undermining executive authority. tim and rhode island saying, i believe speaker pelosi's trip is a political stunt. speaker pelosi is trying to give democrats some credit for november. some of you texting your thoughts this morning about the trip.

and this is from sam in kentucky. saying, there are american businesses in taiwan. they are all of the stuff we buy in taiwan. the last speaker was newt gingrich years ago that went. we appreciate everyone who participated in the first hour. we will continue on discussing and talking about the political and international implications. joining us as lyle goldstein with the firm defense priorities. he will discuss the trip and implications next. and later on in the program, we will hear from priorities usa aneesa mcmillan. what progressives are looking for leading up to the elections and would talk to her about those issues. those conversations coming up on

>> book a tv every sunday on c-span two features latest authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. author, talkshow host and columnist larry elder is our guest on in-depth for a conversation on political correctness, the left. at 4:40 pm eastern, dan pfeiffer discusses his book, battling the big lie with his thoughts on how the left can fight political disinformation. watch book tv on c-span two. find a full guide online or anytime at book tv.org. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine.

bringing you the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department, as well as congress. we have international perspectives from the united nations, and statements from foreign leaders. all on c-span networks and c-span.org/ukraine. our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand, and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house generally sixth committee hearings, investigating the attack on the capital. go to c-span.org/january 6, our web resource page, to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings and our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigations. sixth, generally sixth, 2021. we have reaction from embers of congress, the white house, journalists and authors talking

about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch when you cannot see it live. "washington journal" continues. host: our first guests is lyle goldstein. thanks for giving us your time. a little bit about the defense priorities, what is it, and how is the organization funded? guest: i am a professor. i have been a professor at the u.s. naval war college for 12 years. i left with the intent to speak my mind freely about sensitive issues like taiwan. defense priorities is a think

tank, we are -- i would say, leading up the wave arguing for realism and restraint. i am not so well advised about our funders. i know that, unlike many think tanks, they are all american that are funding our institute. this cannot be fed in a lot of -- said in a lot of washington thanks take -- think tanks, unfortunately. host: you talked about speaker pelosi's trip to taiwan. what do you think is the intended purpose, and you think it means that -- and do you think it meets that? guest: i think it is a political stunt. like tom friedman in the new york times, it is reckless. the u.s. china relationship is

the most important bilateral relationship in the world. causing a storm in that relationship, you would have to have a really good reason. let's face it, the biggest issue facing our planet, climate change, the future of the global economy, nuclear proliferation and preventing some kind of catastrophic, great power or. these will be determined by u.s.-china relations. i was not pleased to see this. clearly, i am not an expert on u.s. politics. i focus on chinese politics. the trip is no doubt intended to boost the political fortunes of pelosi, and democrats going into the midterms. i think the biden administration was rightly every cautious, and with hoping that she would not go. we are going to see the consequences. i do not think this is going to lead to a war. it might.

undoubtedly, this is going to lead to grave tensions and an escalation and aspiring rivalry that could lead to war. i believe our nations are on a collision course. i think responsible leaders need to take steps to get us off that collision course, not to accelerate the process. host: what exactly about the visit by the speaker accelerates the process in your mind? guest: you are going to see the next few days, unfortunately. a host of large military exercises that demonstrates china's preparations for war. i do not doubt there will be some kind of counter reaction by the united states. our forces will be in closer proximity than ever, they are already in close proximity, but greater proximity. we all know we have seen a

brilliant example in this in eastern europe, how threats, counter threats lead to escalation. and, eventually war. we are looking at a simple repeat of that scenario. instead of watching it happen or pouring gasoline on the fire, we should be taking steps. we need to step back from the brink. i know compromise is a bad word in washington. that is regrettable. responsible foreign policy, we would embrace compromise. i worked for the navy for 20 years, i know what the military battles look like. i well acquainted with china's preparations in this area. this is not something -- taiwan should not be the stage for political theater. host: our guest with us until

8:45 if you want to ask him about the speaker's trip to taiwan. if you want to ask him questions, it is (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the speaker had an op-ed in the paper talking about some of her intentions for this is it. i want to walk through a couple of things and ask about them. she writes in part in face of the chinese communist party's accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation could be seen as an unequivocal statement that the u.s. stands with china -- with taiwan and defends itself and its freedom. what do you think about the statement in light of her trip? guest: this is this hyper, ideological viewpoint, call it

extreme neoliberalism. it has gotten us into a bad place. we have fought for what, two plus decades to bring democracy and human rights to afghanistan. what did it get us? it is worse off than ever before. many americans died many more afghans died. we have seen this over and over again. in vietnam, we were supporting the territorial integrity of vietnam. there are so many examples of this. taiwan, if you know the history -- americans are by and large ignorant to the history of taiwan. which is a shame, we might be fighting a war over it. china's claim is pretty good, they controlled the island well before american independents. that goes back pretty far.

i would not want to compare china's claims to taiwan to our claims to their eastern territory. anyway, i think here, a lot people in washington make the mistake of turning this into a messy struggle between good and evil. that is a wrong handed approach that will quickly lead us into world war iii with another nuclear power. that is not how international relations work. it is more complicated than that. it is a lot of gray. we are going to have to deal with that complexity, and use restraint and realism. we cannot wish china away. we cannot sit around and hope they will collapse or something like that, that is not what is going to happen. we have to be exceedingly careful. there are nimitz to american power. it is not to say we should put our forces back in the pacific. i worked for the navy, those

forces are not infinite. just as we cannot determine the future of afghanistan, nor can we control the future of hong kong. we should not try, the same is true for taiwan. we have defense commitments in the indo pacific, treaty allies, japan, the philippines. there is a much better place to draw the line. those companies are not threatened by china. although, they may indeed undertake some increase in expenditures to be proven. taiwan has spent well under 2% on its defense for decades. this explains why they are in the situation they are in, in many ways. they have more or less ignored their own defense, which is reckless on their part. more or less, there is not much we can do about the fate of

taiwan. it is similar to hong kong in that way. trying to do so is likely to end up in a catastrophic war that could turn nuclear. we need to talk about it in most serious terms. nine rhetoric is not going to solve this problem. host: we have some calls lined up. you are on with our guest, he is our asia engagement director. andrew in maryland, you are first. caller: i guess, let's start with the history of shanghai, exiled more or less to taiwan and the fact that moving forward, the chinese communist party did not fully follow through with the invasion of the island. my main concern is the fact

that the chinese government right now is in a weird -- between ever grands defaulting on their loans, the belton roads initiative, those investments have slowed medically. what else, i do not see how they can consider affording a war right now. also, have the taiwan semiconductor company, which produces i believe a lot of a and d processors, for example. have a big, -- we have a huge concern, semiconductor concern, in taiwan. as well as in china. you also have the fact that china holds a lot of american debt, another thing to consider with whether or not these tensions are going to rise to

the point of war. we are so tightly, economically connected that it is almost certainly sure to destruction, to some degree. guest: andrew makes a lot of great points. i agree with a lot of this, in a way, the u.s. and china are so intertwined that war should be unthinkable. unfortunately, a lot of people think inadvertently of china and the u.s. it is my estimate, both militaries are actively planning for war, and the u.s. is on the cusp of spending trillions of dollars on that rivalry. this is getting incredibly expensive. i would say, on the semiconductors -- some of the news in the past 24 hours is interesting. china is stopping the export of sand to taiwan. china and taiwan trade a lot. they have a reasonably good

trading relationship, and have some interdependence themselves. by halting sand exports, that may cause major trouble for the world economy as part of semiconductors. the more i hear this argument for why should the u.s. defendant taiwan, we have to defend the semiconductors or the global economy will be upset. i am not agreeing with that. my estimate, we should not risk nuclear war for semiconductors. global markets will adjust, and it would be a problem. when you are talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of american lives on the line, it should not be about semiconductor. which, could be produced elsewhere. of course, cars might become more expensive if the price of semiconductors go up. we are not going to fight a catastrophic war over semiconductors. andrew also mentioned, why

didn't china invade taiwan in 1949? they had plans to do so. january 1950, harry truman made a speech which i would advise all of your listeners to read that speech carefully. president truman outlined carefully that taiwan is part of china, which was a stunning ring for a president to say. he did so because he wanted to make sure the u.s. and china did not get into a war. six months later, the korean war happened. we put our own seven fleet in the straight, that is what prevented china from unifying with taiwan. they did invade the other large area on the island, a province of china. that is -- there is that history. andrew's point is important to consider. what this is is a civil war. you have them speak chinese in

taiwan, and some of the most important artifacts from chinese cultures civilization are aware of the national museum in taiwan, taipei. when we understand this as a civil war, which this is basically what it is, you realize the u.s. should have no role in it. like we realize we should have had no role in the civil war in afghanistan. you have the same thing happened in vietnam and many countries around the world. the u.s. always gets entangled in these civil wars, it is very unwise. we need to protect our own interests. fundamentally, the u.s. has no vital, international interest in the state of taiwan. that is the way we should approach it. host: let's hear from russell in south carolina, democrats line. hello. caller: mr. goldstein, i am a veteran.

i am an air force veteran, and i totally disagree that america does not have anything to deal with -- do with taiwan or the ukraine. i think general patton mentioned that freedom, the price of freedom is death. if you are not willing to die for freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, we are all going to be swept up into this totalitarian thing that is already here in the republican party, through many of the republican people like congressman greene, boebert. host: let's take a taiwan color. what would you like our guest to address about taiwan, specifically? caller: i think his posture of weakness is what caused the

ukraine war, and if america took the posture that he is setting out here, china will invade taiwan. last year, we have been spending $700 billion on the military if we are not willing to use it. we need to reemploy the draft, we need to build a 3 million man army and be prepared to fight if we have to. host: ok, that is russell in south carolina. guest: thank you, russell. thanks for your service, sir. i should clarify, i worked for the navy as a civilian. look, i understand your point. a lot of americans agree with you. honestly, i think we need to re-examine our assumptions about foreign policy. if we take a neo-wilsonian approach to where we defend

freedom at every corner of the world, that is a recipe for endless war and probably a recipe for catastrophic, nuclear war in the nuclear age. that was recognized by all the presidents during the cold war. eisenhower, with his speech about the military-industrial complex and so forth. they understood, we could not take this to extremes. when the soviets invaded hungary, czechoslovakia and so forth, they did not push us over the brink to war. they understood there were limits to american power, it would be reckless and extreme to try and fight wars all over the world to spread freedom. as i said, we tried to do that in vietnam and afghanistan, look where that got us. an entire generation of americans got their lives ruined by the vietnam war. i think that is the wrongheaded approach, sir. i could suggest a much more moderate approach. you said i was advocating for

weakness, that could not be further from the truth. i spent 20 years trying to strengthen our navy. i have advocated our navy be strengthened in various ways, including the number of attacks are too low. it is something like 55, i would like to see more like 80 or 100. we have to keep our powder dry, we have the strongest armed forces in the world. we want to keep it that way, but we have been reckless about how we employ peer die think war could have been prevented in the ukraine if we were more thoughtful. i think neutrality declaration a year ago would've made a huge difference. unfortunately, washington seemed to be reluctant, partly because people on the hill were pushing for more aggressive approaches. i think my answer on the following point, if the caller

is correct and we have to defend freedom everywhere, why didn't we go to war over hong kong? host: mr. goldstein, the speaker in her op-ed wrote this. i want you to comment on it. saying, our visit, one of our several congressional delegations to the island in no way contradicts the one china policy. the u.s. china joint communicates on the six assurances, the united states continues to impose unilateral efforts to change the data's quote. that is her statement in light of her trip, what do you think about her justification? guest: i think in some ways, she is right. that is not wholly consistent, and we would like if china would understand that this was not a break with -- we know newt gingrich when in 19 -- went in

1997. we wished china would see it the way we do, but they do not. they are looking at it, are we -- their approach is colored by the fact that this is not an isolated incident. we have seen a parade of senior american officials, i think it was a few months ago that a couple of senators went. what they see is, there is a gradual intensification of washington's campaign to basically get rid of the one china policy altogether. that statement you just made, you cited a lot of important laws and policies, but you did not cite most important one, which is the shanghai communicate from 1972, which is the bedrock of the staple of the

u.s.-china relationship. that one says clearly that there would be no official contact between the united states and taiwan. china's approach is that we have been steadily walking that back for decades, but in the last five years, that has greatly intensified. the chinese answer would be, when you did this in the 1990's, we could not do anything about it because we were not powerful enough. now, china is powerful enough to lay down major redlines. we better pay attention to these redlines. maybe if there were not nuclear weapons around, we could be cavalier about this. i do not have any doubt, if there is a war between u.s. and china, there will be nuclear shadows over that conflict. the same way there are in russia and ukraine. we have to be much careful -- much more careful about throwing around commitments and the rhetoric that we defend freedom

everywhere. we need to draw realistic lines and prevent a u.s. china war, which is becoming increasingly likely. i want to warn my fellow americans about another threat, we may bankrupt ourselves trying to defend taiwan. this is what, 7000 miles away, sort of like afghanistan. funding a war and afghanistan was exceedingly expensive. this will be -- how do i put it, 1000 times harder than that. i want to make sure everybody understands that, not only are we risking war -- nuclear war, we are going to bankrupt ourselves trying to prepare for that. host: this is our guest, lyle goldstein of defense priorities. from leah in --, independent line. caller: sir, i want to know why.

i lost three brothers during the second world war. they all fought the japanese and the germans. my brother fought for keeping the japanese from invading china. he was wounded, he died. i want to know why you are protecting china. i am 90 years old, born 1930's. i resent your comments. -- was a good man, from letters we have received, he may have been behind the times. he tried to keep the japanese out of his country. after the war was over, what happened? they went communist, china did. king die shack was kicked out of his country. i resent your implications about everything you have talked about this morning, i think you need

to go back and look at our history from when we started this war with germany and japan. host: that is leah in centerville, virginia. guest: thank you, i respect our differences and understand and value what your family has done for this country and my family also fought against nazism, and other parts of the family were wiped out by not. i understand what you're talking about. i'm not a pacifist, but i think there are circumstances where we need to use force. here i say, there may be a time where we have to go to war with -- dare i say, there may be a time where we have to go to war with china. i feel strongly we should draw redlines in the pacific. i think china is the worst place to draw those redlines from a historic point of view.

better to draw that line over islands in japan, or the philippines. eight couple of quick points, shanghai -- a couple of quick points. one of the first things he did to taiwan when he went over to taiwan, this is a civil war that is going on between -- the official title of taiwan is the republic of china, it is not the republic of taiwan. the official name in the constitution is the republic of china. if you have any doubts of the civil war, consult the title of this island. shanghai shack, he conducted a huge massacre of taiwanese people. it is a sad event. have memorials all over the country. it is well-known known. people should understand, i would not lower five -- i would

not glorify. he left an important legacy on the island. a lot of people resent him on taiwan himself. he was despised by many people on the mainland for mismanagement. japan and china, a lot of people, when they look at china today they are like, oh. just like japan tried to take over asia, that is what china is doing today. japanese and chinese culture are very different. i would urge you to look at the history and see that, whereas japan did go around invading its neighbors for many years in the 1930's, china has not done that. china has not resorted to the major use of force. since 1979, which is a pretty good record for restraint. i think we can get along with china, and we need to be

concerned about these sensitive spots, delicate points in the relationship like taiwan. i would remind you in the 30's, there were no nuclear weapons. today, the risks were huge back then. total war. today, the war with china, an all out war could very possibly lead to the end of the planet. the same is true with russia. we need to think very deeply about these things, and think with our heads, not our hearts. host: there is a map the new york times provided of training drills china is going to perform around the island of taiwan. some of those intersecting with waters taiwan claims. are these lead ups to something bigger, or is this rattling on china's part? guest: i am hoping this is saber

rattling, and not the real thing. it could be the real thing, just like russia cloaked its invasion of ukraine -- they said they were exercising, exercising, exercising. we all know now that was just moving forces into place. there is a danger of that. i think there are many reasons why china will not go to war right now at this moment. i think some of the caller's pointed out, there are problems of homes. she faces complications. there is a big party in the fall that faces tension. the ukraine war has had a sobering effect on chinese leaders. china does not want to go to war over taiwan on our timing. the u.s. has had several weeks to get ready for this crisis. i think they would go on their timing, not on ours. this does show some

similarities, this outlining of boxes that they are closing off so they can fire missiles and so forth. just have an echo of the crisis back in 1995, 19 96. on the other side, there are reasons why china might be eager to use force earlier, rather than later. i will call it a window of opportunity, if you will, from china's point of view from a military sense. i think china looks at what we're doing in ukraine, how we are pushing weapons in. you have heard these stingers, javelin, harpoon. we know these weapons systems now. china is watching and knows how effective these weapons are. i am concerned that china may see a claw -- a clock on the wall taking above them, saying they have to attack before a certain amount of these weapons arrive. china also knows a lot of those weapons shipments to taiwan have been delayed because of the war in ukraine.

we cannot rule out that china intends to use force or conduct a limited attack. these are possible scenarios of blockade. however, i am quite certain this is a show of force, rather than a actual use of force. host: here is joe in washington, d.c. republican line. caller: good morning. dr. goldstein, i am somewhat disturbed to understand that for 20 years, you have been preaching your worldview to students and naval officers in the navy education system. he mentioned japan and the philippines -- you mentioned japan and the philippines. china invades japanese still waters, it seized islands from

the philippines. it has an aggressive, expansionist plan throughout southeast asia. i am amazed you seem to ignore, it is only a matter of the u.s. and china having differences. guest: thanks very much for your call. you know, i had an excellent career at naval war college. i received the superior civilian service medal for my work, setting up the china institute. i am proud of my service. and what i endeavored there, not only to strengthen the navy, but make sure they have the understanding of china, including chinese naval development. which, many people underestimate, by the way. china has a -- has capabilities which are superior to ours, in some respects. i would say their frontline antiship cruise missiles are considerably better than our

harpoons. i wanted to make sure people understood the true characteristics of some of these weapons that typed 005 cruiser, better than our top line service combatant. anyway, would be glad to talk over my record with you if you would like to discuss it. but, you talked about japan and the philippines. yeah, i would this agree -- i would disagree. all great powers have problems with their neighbors. you might want to study the history of u.s.-mexican relations. if you doubt that, today we have an amicable relationship with mexico. that evolved over hundreds of years. that involved some serious scraps, including the u.s. military marching to mexico city. it is not surprising that china has a lot of issues with its neighbors. i consider these issues to be

exaggerated. a, whether japan and china constantly -- what are japan and china arguing over? two rocks in the sea that have lights on them. americans should recognize that for what it is. you know, i have urged u.s. policymakers and chinese as well , and japanese, to come to some kind of logical compromise. everybody should recognize that is not worth a war. it is somewhat similar with the philippines, mostly, we are arguing about rocks out at sea. i can imagine if i were in the oil drilling business or a fisherman, i would care a lot about those rocks and reefs.

indeed, and a lot of this is about fisheries and rights to offshore oil, exploration drilling. should the united states consider war, which might go nuclear, over rocks and reefs with maybe -- i repeat, maybe, oil and gas and lots of fish around them? absolutely not. yes, i am in favor of keeping our defense commitment with the philippines. that has a lot of history. we have a very friendly, deep historical relationship with manila. we need to be thoughtful about that relationship, it needs to be a defensive treaty alliance. we need to defend the main island of the philippines. as for these rocks and reefs, there was a crisis in 2012. there should be no serious consideration of going to war over rocks and reefs. host: independent line, this is

laura in maryland. good morning. caller: hi, lyle. i want to say, the biden administration has been disastrous when it comes to foreign policy, and the turmoil that has occurred the last 18 months has been -- for us simple full cup -- simple folk, it is unnecessary. this wouldn't be happening if trump were president. we have had weakness in this administration. i want to ask you two questions. the first thing is, i didn't think hello sees visit -- what was the purpose -- i didn't think pelosi's visit, what was the purpose of it? it appears as if this administration, the biden administration, is doing everything it can to weaken the united states. they are not securing our own borders, and all the drugs and

criminals and illegal aliens that are coming through. we need to protect ourselves. trump was absolutely correct, i agree a lot with what you said. we are not the world's policeman. who died and left us in charge? thank you. guest: yes, thanks very much. a lot of good points. it sounds like we have a bit of a similar approach. another way to put this foreign policy or more restraint policy i am advocating is -- let's speak softly and carry a big stick. i think that is generally a wise approach. we want to keep a strong military, most people are for that. i would like to see our military strength and, although i think the budget -- strengthen, although i think the budget could plateau. the money we did spend -- we do spend, we need to spend it wisely.

on the navy side, we are way over invested in aircraft carriers. these large ships today are vulnerable, especially to the weapons china and russia could bring to bear. we need to move some of that investment to robot systems, but more to submarines. when we speak softly and carry a big stick, that involves speaking softly, not just carrying a big stick. speaking softly means pursuing diplomacy in earnest. as the caller points out, i do not think we have managed that very well in the last few years. i do give the trump administration some credit, they went to the brink with iran and pulled back wisely. we could have gone to war with iran in 2017 when they shot down

our drone. many americans wanted to go to war again, but we have been in endless war. we need to put a stop to this. i applaud the restraint used at the time by the trump administration. i would like to thank the current administration -- i would like to think the current administration could have used greater restraint. i follow the details of negotiations between russia and the u.s. in late 2021, i do not think they were substantive. i think the war in ukraine could have been prevented by smart diplomacy that looks seriously at the possibility of compromises. the same is true in taiwan, there are diplomatic solutions possible. it takes creativity, i do not think that is what pelosi did. i think it was a political grandstanding, and the hope that

this shaming china would lead to a unite in american coalition in the pacific, and create the robust, on paper, the isla -- the ideological -- rise of chinese power. in my estimate, this is a pipe dream. the reality is, china holds many military cards in the western pacific. we are going to have to deal with that and get serious about diplomacy. taipei needs to think about its ups, have not asked about what i want to do. i think taiwan can strengthen itself, try and make itself into a porcupine. it is all well and good, but it should also exercise some diplomatic options. people do not realize the leaders of taiwan and china had a good meeting at the end of 2015 in singapore. it was very successful.

the two sides had a lot in common. you do not hear a lot about that in mainstream media. this civil war, it is amendable to a series of compromises that the united states could help to facilitate with wise diplomacy. host: you talked about creative, diplomatic solutions. what would be one in your mind that could work? guest: for example, there were a series of -- besides the high-level meeting in singapore, there were confidence building measures between the two militaries, the taiwan military and chinese military, that included regular exercises together. that is how you start to build trust. i think other measures could include even arms control measures. there was a whole raft of trade benefits that came with a much better relations across the strait. at one point, i think it was in

2016, you had millions of mainland chinese going over to taiwan as tourists. seeing how beautiful taiwan was, seeing the sights, how clean the air is in taiwan. what better solution to cross s trait relations to show chinese that taiwan people are friendly, and welcoming? in that way, build a cross strait trust over time. host: one more call, from moses in washington, d.c. democrats line. caller: wow. all i can say is, wow. this man is a genius. we need people like kyle to prevent this disastrous war in china. i think -- this man is a genius. host: mr. goldstein, what are

you watching for in the next couple of days in light of the speakers trip, in light of these exercises? what are things you are looking at in particular? guest: thanks for that vote of confidence from the caller. i understand my remarks are controversial, and welcome a debate. it is while -- it is lyle, by the way. not kyle. what are we looking at? i am worried, this is unprecedented and extremely dangerous. again, it is too bad this occurred. if more thoughtful leaders had not done this, and had respect for one of the most bilateral relationships in the world. it is not just preventing a nuclear war with china, think about climate change. how can we ever tackle climate change unless we work closer to

china, and india? specifically what i am watching, it will be important to study how missiles and aircraft are moving around china. those are probably the best indicators of whether this is just a show of force, or a real conflict. i understand the chinese carriers are at sea, i think they will be used. the submarines lee, if the chinese submarine fleet exceeds in mass, i am afraid we could be on a path to war. i hope u.s. leaders will be cautious about going to war with china, or taiwan. we may need to draw a red lines in the pacific. we may need to defend japan and the philippines. it could come to that, i doubt it. but, it could. we should absolutely not draw that redline over taiwan. the first general who surveyed

gettysburg look at the ground and said, this is good ground. the union army can finally defeat the confederates at gettysburg because it is good ground. i cannot say strongly enough, taiwan is not good ground. we could well lose that war if we go to war over taiwan. host: our guest is visiting professor at brown university, lyle goldstein joining a set washington journal -- joining us at washington journal. coming up, we look at the midterm elections, particularly how progressives are looking at that. joining us for that discussion, aneesa mcmillan on the issues and topics. we will be having that conversation when "washington journal" continues. >> ♪ >> live sunday on in-depth.

columnist and talkshow host larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness, the left, and rachel politics in the united states he is the author of several books, including 10 things you cannot say in america, and a lot like me, and when more about his turbulent relationship with his father. join in on the conversation with a phone call, texts and tweets. in-depth with larry elder, live sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from more where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters.

america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> c-span's podcast rings you over 40 years of audio recordings from our video library. comparing the events of the past two today. >> in this episode of c-span's the weakland -- the weekly, we learn from catherine graham, specifically, her leadership secrets. and, the norm us respect she still has today. >> let's be honest. great leadership is a rare and elusive quality. composed as it is in so many different asked her to -- attributes that must come together at the same time. intelligence, courage, high standards, personal presence, the ability to communicate, among others. >> you can find the weekly on

c-span now, our free mobile video app or wherever you get your podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is aneesa mcmillan from priorities usa. good morning. guest: good morning. host: can you remind our viewers of the work of your organization and how you are funded? guest: at the beginning of this cycle, we committed $30 million to a digital effort focused on the general election in november. the investment focuses on governors races, as well as key states and -- i am sorry, congressional races, that will be key to protecting the majorities in congress for democrats. host: out concerned -- how

concerned are you at this stage about one or both sides of the house or send going over to the republicans? caller: -- guest: we are seeing great signs in our research and polling. one of the things we do as an organization, we stay in touch with voters throughout the cycle. we do not just bombard folks two weeks before the election with ads, we try to make sure we make key investments. research focus groups to understand what matters most to voters. cautiously optimistic, we know we have to protect the slim majority to get two senate seats, that is what we are focused on. host: as far as bright spots, what would you highlight?

guest: number one, what is happening now in congress. this has been for voters, a long road. we are here, we are talking about those issues particularly around climate and the economy. a lot of the senate negotiations we are seeing really speak to the heart of those pocketbook issues we hear about a lot from voters that matter to them. we are cautiously optimistic, but understanding that for us, the work is making sure we communicate that to voters, as far as what is happening on capitol hill. host: you did polling earlier this year, asking people about the importance of midterm elections. you described them as mobilization voters, and he found that -- you found that 76%

of mobilization voters say elections -- matter to them. when you look at low motivation low mobilization voters, 57% say it does not matter who wins. persuasion voters, 87% saying it doesn't matter who wins. as far as those numbers, what is the interest level of people going out in a midterm election this time around versus a presidential election? guest: we know from our research a lot of folks tuned out. we saw that across the board after the 2020 election. they showed up to elect joe biden, and after the chaos from the previous four - 5 years, everyone has tuned out. that is why our program is all digital.

we are talking to voters where they are on social media, streaming platforms. through google searches, other great programs where we are talking to them online. a lot of the ads you see on tv, almost 30% of those that are online, they do not see those tv ads. to your point, that is an excellent point. of course, motivation is key. we think that is by talking to them where they are. like i said earlier, making sure the message pertains to those issues that they care about with their families. we are doing that directly online. host: our guest with us, if you want to ask her about some of the issues leading up to the midterm, specifically from a congressional point of view, give us a call at (202) 748-8001

four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. aneesa mcmillan, one of the ads you talked about was bodycam. i want to show the viewers the ad. >> far-right extremist groups are recruiting across the country. organizing to take over congress in 2022 and returned trump to power. our boats can stop them, be ready -- our votes can stop them, be ready. guest: i think all of us were trying to answer the question, you want to vote trump? how much do you talk about him, how much do you keep that context to make sure you are addressing the key issue? one of the things we mentioned that we found in our focus

groups earlier is that, for us, we approached it as a means of trumpism, so to speak. that is, white nationalism, racism, violence. a lot of those things that manifest as mainstream ideals within the gop have become mainstream. if you can look at this from the primaries last night, what we have done and understand from voters, they are starting to understand those things are tied to a republican government in a way that helps them to understand -- you mentioned the polling earlier, it matters who they elect. that was an ad that we released i think around the beginning of the january 6 hearings. host: you talked about the

primaries last night. one of the things that was a result was kansas turning back on the abortion provision. you think those issues will become more at play as people decide how they are going to vote come november? guest: absolutely. it is interesting, that question was asked a lot when the dobbs decision was leaked prior to the official decision. we were already hearing from voters that abortion was going to be an issue. we built it into our programming, because a lot of voters were telling us in our focus groups that they were concerned about losing the right , as we saw with the dobbs decision and the supreme court decision made that real. absolutely, it definitely being a motivating issue. voters are telling us that often when we speak with them. host: aneesa mcmillan.

our guest comes from louisiana. go on with your question. caller: hello. i am interested in mr. goldstein's talks about what is happening throughout the world. host: i apologize, that was the last segment. do you have anything for our current guest? caller: i want to vote, vote, vote, but be concerned about our allies. priorities in the usa, we certainly should be concerned about nancy pelosi going to taiwan and our voting. there are sony priorities that have listed down here, priorities -- so any priorities -- so many priorities. host: dee in maryland, independent line.

caller: good morning. according to some reports i'm hearing, hispanics are going over to the republican party in droves. would that be latinos or hispanics, and what is the distinction? thank you. host: ms. mcmillan. guest: in most cases, we make the mistake of looking at latinos and hispanics, as well as black voters that are mobilizing. we do not assume that anyone is going to vote democrat. what we do, typically, is make investments early. like we talked about, you will notice that the key things for a lot of what we say and what i

say this morning is that we make long-term investments. we are also doing the work to understand what messages they respond to online, where we can understand those distinctions, understand regionally what things matter to latinos and hispanics, people of color in general. it is not much difference than those normal, kitchen table issues that a lot of people are concerned about as far as we head into the midterms. that is a good question. for us, it is a long-term investment in making sure we understand what they need. host: a recent quinnipiac poll took a look at those issues people are concerned about leading up to november. 34% saying inflation is the most recent issue for them. 66% was disappointed in the biden administrations handling

in the economy. doesn't make a difference as to whether people decide whether or not whether they vote republican come november? guest:i spoke about it earlier. the packages that are coming from congress, from this administration according to our research is some of the most popular policies or well-received policies in decades. and of course we know that -- to pass bills in congress does take some time. of course we know and understand that we have to share the biden agenda with folks. and also talk about what has happened. the american rescue plan. the fact that the administration

has been able to get some things done early on into the cycle. those are things that we also communicate around. making that distinction between the republican party and democrats. we always approach our work with that in mind. realizing we do have some things that we can tout to voters that matter. host: on the line for republicans. this is dale in alabama. go ahead please. caller: i would like to know if ms. mcmillan, are you a member of black? do you contribute to black lives matter? host: what's the significance of the question? i will leave it there. you can answer if you wish. guest: no comment.

host: let's go to michelle in georgia. caller: good morning ms. mcmillan. i'm proud to see you. listen, don't buy into any of the negativity from whoever these crazy folks call in here. they want to set us back a thousand years. but we will not be turned back. we are going out in droves. numbers. joe biden's poll numbers could be at zero, but he will still get my vote. my whole household. every black person needs to know that they are dealing with the kkk. they have the grand wizard in the white house for four years. he wants to take us back to the plantation. -- go to hell.

host: we will leave it there. as far as the ads you are putting out, engagement, going door-to-door. you said you made your investment in digital. do you go as far as person-to-person when you are talking to people about november? guest: our investment is all digital but we do work with partner organizations across those states that we have outlined in our plan across the country. and they are on the ground leading a number of programs and so we have a huge network of partners across the country that help us in this work in different ways. as far as priorities of the organization, we are focused on digital. host: do you think biden should do a better job in the democratic party of touting its efforts?

guest: we are all working towards that. we know that this has been a difficult time where you have the dichotomy between trying to get your message out and the fact that folks have tuned out. so of course we are committed to that. we are going to be as an outside organization working to tell that story voters because we do understand that we have to make an appeal to them. particularly communities of color, a direct appeal to them to ask them to show up again for us in november. host: this is from don on the independent line in kansas. caller: hello. i want to say for one thing, i went out and voted against amendment two and was really glad to see it decisively defeated. we face a truly dangerous far right political movement in this country and they are not quitting.

i respect priorities usa. they have done a lot of good work in the past. but we have to -- we can't fool around. these people are mobilizing. unfortunately kris kobach won the republican nomination for attorney general. kris kobach is a dangerous human being. i would like to see more of an emphasis on class issues and less on racial and ethnic identity issues. we won't succeed unless we get some proportion of white people to vote for us and of course there's plenty of whites who do. that 80% of whites are right-wingers i guess. host: when you say class issues what do you mean? caller: i mean the continuing decline in the standard of life for about 80% of the u.s. population or more. the fact that people can't afford to go to school, they can't afford to buy a house. food has gotten very expensive. finance capital runs the u.s.

and they have no loyalty to our country at all. they are just extracting everything they can and they would like to leave us in a nightmarish chaotic dystopian country. host: ok. that's don in kansas. ms. mcmillan. guest: i wanted to take the question into two parts. we need both. i understand his distinction about class, but all of these issues matter to everyone. it's just that we do have to and we have a mandate frankly to understand how they impact different voting communities differently. especially for the democratic party where we have had such major success and long-term support of black and brown voters, it is still up to us to

also make sure that we understand how issues affect voting booths uniquely -- voting groups uniquely and how we speak to those issues. there are definitely kitchen table issues that impact us all. we have to just make sure we understand what individualized challenges folks across the country may face. host: we talked about inflation. do you think voters hold president biden directly responsible for that and is not going to be an issue november -- come november? guest: historically that's always going to happen. it doesn't matter who is in office. that is something that we hear about when we talk to voters and the reality is that history will tell us and has told us that that is a common thread. we know that inflation and gas prices whether it's fair or not are some things that are ultimately tied to who is in

power at that time. that's why i mentioned the negotiations in congress earlier. the bills that are being put forth will help alleviate some concerns and we are starting to see across the country gas prices drop to less than four dollars. like i said earlier, cautiously optimistic. but that unfortunately is just the historical reality of the party being in power. host: you talked about that climate legislation and other legislation that's being negotiated. as far as other things this administration or democrats could have done about the influences of both senator manchin and senator sinema of arizona. your thoughts on that. guest: i mean, it's difficult. they are two senators who have told us that they vote on issues

based on what they think their districts need. the reality is that no republicans -- supported any of these initiatives either. that's an important distinction. especially when president biden was committed to bipartisanship. and the reality is that the democratic majority was split to begin with and we are hoping to grow that. we need at least two senate seats. we are focused on that and i think we are starting to see some movement as a result of that. host: let's hear from pam in michigan. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my heart aches. i'm 67 years old. i used to be a democrat until i started really paying attention and that was when i turned 40.

we are starting fights in the same issues that these people claim they are going to deliver us from. they get your vote and then they renege on what they say. today. ok. the segment of people suffering the most from the policies that biden has put forth are the black and low class. for lack of a better term. they love saying that they are going to help you out of your situation. the kitchen table conversations and stuff. once they get in office, you all end up in the same position. and i have watched this for over 20 something years. when are we going to wake up, start doing our own research and start being accountable for where we are? host: that's pam in michigan.

ms. mcmillan, go ahead. caller: ok. i'm sorry. i hear that, i understand. i would point out progress is something that does take a long time. we all know that. but there is a groundswell of young folks across the country who are also more aware. and i think kansas, the abortion amendment that we saw last night is proof of that. that folks are starting to pay attention. and we as i said earlier are making those appeals to voters and we understand, this has been a tough few years on top of covid, everything that has happened. we definitely hear those concerns. host: this is from diane in ohio.

caller: could morning. is there a way that you could legally maybe put pamphlets out that would allow the information of what republicans are trying to do in terms of say for instance, address the senior citizens. they are trying to get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid. or when it comes to the white supremacists. when the rittenhouse trial was shown on tv. the three people he shot were white supremacists. what were they doing with the black lives matter rally? and number three. when it comes to abortion, according to -- journal in the year of 2020, 52 young girls under the age of 15 were raped at had to have abortions.

and we have the heartbeat law and the people in cleveland are having to put the kids that they don't have places to put them in , sleeping on the floor in their offices. what are we doing? host: that's diane in ohio. guest: i certainly hear your concerns specifically on abortion. there are lots of organizations locally that i'm sure we'll have some information. i agree. i think we are in a dangerous place specifically on issues of civil and human rights. host: one of the efforts priorities when it comes to voting rights. what's the effort that you are making?

>> -- guest: since 2015 we have led and supported a voting rights litigation program. we supported and funded a lot of the lawsuits that you saw across the country regarding protecting and expanding access. we know that after every huge republican loss, they cut back with these huge voter suppression laws across the country that specifically target black and brown voters. so we announced the investment at the beginning of the cycle. $10 million to continue our litigation efforts paid we are in court all across the country fighting those suppressive laws at the state level. there is a $10 million investment on just traditional -- i shouldn't say traditional, but online ads that walk voters through the process. one of the cornerstones of voter

suppression we know is confusion. causing doubt within the system. there is something to that. we have known this for decades specifically after the supreme court case shall be re-older. -- shelby versus older. if you need to know and understand how to turn in your ballot. we are going to be asking you to go to plan my ballot. we are going to be asking you to make sure that your voter registration is up-to-date so that you can navigate what will be a lot of very onerous laws that pop up across the country. host: one of the efforts you supported was to keep a voter id initiative off the ballot. what does priorities usa see wrong with voter id?

guest: i will talk about the ballot first. that was an interesting case where there was a petition being circulated that was trying to bypass the state legislature to enact voter ids and that in itself is problematic particularly because it bypassed duly elected folks who didn't have input on the measure. the issue with voter id is like i said earlier, not only does that impact black and brown voters, but a lot of folks get left out of the conversation and that is disabled voters. young voters. those young folks that are in college who may not have utility bill or something they need to be able to either register to vote or have an id to vote. it can be in most cases a burden to people who may not have

access to those pieces of id. and so that is where we stand. we believe that we should not be making unnecessarily harder for people to vote. and the laws are complex. i will say that. it seems like voter id may be simple. in certain states you have to have six different id requirements. that is where you start to see the burden being placed on communities disproportionately and we have been able to prove that in court on several occasions. host: in maine, republican line. your next. -- you are next. caller: good morning. joe biden made the statement that if you don't vote for him, you ain't black. do you agree with that? guest: -- i'm not going to answer that. host: in georgia, patricia.

democrat line. caller: good morning. i think the problem with the democrats is they don't put out the messaging. message is the key. the republicans are trying to do away with medicare and social security. and i think the democrats should be talking about this all the time. the republicans base everything on lies. like crt. this is something that is taught in law school. but you guys allowed the republicans to put all this false information and people better wake up because if you don't have your medicare and your social security -- the trump tax law they are going to expire for the average people. he made it permanent for corporations paid republicans are looking out for themselves. people better wake up. -- for corporations.

republicans are only looking out for themselves. people better wake up. guest: thank you for pointing that out. we are doing that. we talked about making sure that the message gets out and we are committed to doing that but thank you for your thoughts. host: ms. mcmillan, there have been several groups, some backed with progressives calling for joe biden to stay out of the 2020 four race. what is your impression of that effort and does priorities take a stand on this issue? guest: no. we believe -- joe biden has first of all said that he will run. both he and the white house press secretary have said that. we are focused on 2022. and making sure that we motivate and turn out as many folks as we possibly can. host: there is a group that made this case -- acknowledging they

are grateful for his defeat of president trump in 2020. aggressive's also need to keep demanding more executive orders from biden in the coming months that improve people's lives, beginning with student debt cancellation. -- the party in power for washington has to deliver for working people and soon. those calls for more from the president via executive orders. where does priorities fall on that? guest: we are focused like i said earlier on those issues. i have no doubt personally that joe biden will make the best decision for this country. he has said that he is going to run and it is important for us unless that changes for us to make sure that we are focused on what is happening around us. there has been a push for executive orders. the administration is looking into those.

i just -- we have to really make sure that we turn our attention to 2022 and understand what's at stake. host: from mechanicsville, new jersey. caller: shame on you, thinking black people are too stupid to know how to get id. i got another comment to make. obama and biden both said they were qualified -- the abortion and passed laws. they didn't. shame on your party for making money off the backs of dead babies. thank you. guest: i don't have any -- i'm not going to respond to that. host: from rhonda in new jersey. democrat line. caller: good morning to all my american families out there. i want to give a shout out to first of all to the election last night for the kansas republican women, protecting

their children and their grandchildren. to be able to have control over our reproductive rights. i would like to say the republicans that they are going to lose the white house, the senate and the congress because they overturned roe v. wade. that was the biggest mistake that they made in this midterm election and it's going to cost them. women are not going back to 1934. we are not doing it. and one thing i want to say which is so destructive about roe v. wade, this stops women from becoming lawyers. congresswomen. senators. there is no hope for them because they have no control over their bodies. which means they will have seven and eight kids, if that's the way these bigoted old men want

women to live. and women came out last night and made a powerful statement. i also want to give a shout out to rockstar liz cheney. i hope wyoming's aren't stupid enough to lose the best senator, should run for president. she would sure get my democratic vote. that's how much i respect this female. host: ok rhonda. thank you. we will let our guest respond. guest: i agree with some of what you said. we talked about earlier just the importance of abortion access and i want to point out that this will definitely disproportionately impact women of color, specifically black women that are already facing a maternal health crisis in this country where deaths are just

skyrocketing as a result of childbirth. it is a very important issue. host: this is loretta in ohio. go ahead. you are on. caller: good morning. good morning pedro. good morning to everyone, ms. mcmillan. i want to take this conversation back to some type of normalcy. i'm looking at kids that graduated every year from high school. are we registering those people? a friend and i, we have gone around to all the inner city high schools for the past couple of years explaining the voting process, showing them what a ballot looks like.

how to determine what side you are really on when voting you have to teach this. and i think that is something that we need to do. i think another thing that you need to do is black radio and black newspapers nationwide. everybody don't have internet access. especially in the black community. so we have to open up our avenues to reach people. and i think that there should be people at all of those food stations registering people, people down at the welfare office registering all these people. host: we got the point. we will let our guest respond. guest: she makes an important point. a lot of these elections are really close. every vote matters and that is

critically important to make sure that at the local level we are engaging folks across the spectrum. and yes, we do black radio and other ads in the past. host: with the digital investment you talked about, how do you know you are getting a return for the investment you are about to make? guest: it is targeted. for a little history, we have been investing in our digital efforts since 2018. we have a $3.5 million training program that not only teaches other folks in the progressive space how to target and make sure that they create and facilitate effective digital ads but that they also know how to go into campaigns and set up digital programs. these are long-term investments

that we are making. our training and fellowship program also is available to young folks who might never have had the opportunity to work in politics but specifically on digital ads. so these are long-term investments. what we have done is taken what we have learned from the past whether that is targeting, understanding how to deal with ads. it is so much more than just turning a traditional tv ad into a 32nd online ad and then just putting it out there online. there is a way that we approach it. so we have not only gotten that information through the work that we have done by leading in the digital space, but we also have created resources for other organizations that may come to us -- or just in general to help

feel that infrastructure that we need. host: let's hear from robert in panama city beach, florida. caller: yes. first time caller. do you support the no bail policy and the prosecutor -- l.a., boston -- not boston pit chicago and new york? please answer my question. thank you. host: we can broaden this to criminal justice issues if this is of importance. guest: we can. though had. host: go ahead. guest: the way the question was framed is obviously problematic, but of course that is an issue. we have just released some polling with voters across the country and they appreciate the efforts around the executive order that was signed. so that is still an issue in

terms of finding ways to address criminal justice reform and so it comes off -- it comes up often when we are talking to voters and the folks we work with. it is an issue that is i think concerning to most folks. host: the website for the organization is priorities.org. anisa mcmillan is the deputy executive director priorities usa warning us on the program today and we thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will finish off the program with open forum in our last half-hour. if you want to call in, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. browse through our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those conversations during season two of the podcast presidential recordings. >> the nixon tapes. part private conversations, part deliberations and 100% unfiltered. >> let me say that we have the main thing is it will pass and my heart goes out to those people who with the best of intentions are overzealous. as i'm sure you know, i will tell you if i could have spent a

little more time being a politician last year and less time being president -- i didn't know what they were doing. host: season two on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern, author, talkshow host and columnist larry elder is our guest on in-depth for a live conversation on political correctness, the left and racial politics in the united states. he's the author of several books including 10 things you can't say in america. former obama administration communications director dan pfeiffer discusses his book, battling the big lie with his thoughts on how the left can fight lyrical disinformation. watch book tv every sunday on

c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> washington journal continues. host: you can text us your thoughts during this open forum at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook and on twitter. the associated press reporting that the president is expected to sign today's executive order aimed at making easier for seeking -- women seeking abortions to travel between states for the procedure. -- to apply for specific medicaid waivers that would help treat women from out of state. attorney general merrick garland announcing yesterday that it was suing the state of idaho over a restrictive abortion band that would potentially threaten the

proper treatment of pregnant emergency room patients. you can see this on c-span.org and c-span now. >> today the justice department filed a lawsuit against the state of ohio. the suit seeks to hold invalid the states criminal prohibition on providing abortions as applied to women who are suffering medical emergencies. under a federal law known as the emergency medical treatment and labor act, every hospital that receives medicare funds must provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a patient who arrives at an emergency room suffering from a medical condition that could place their life or health in serious jeopardy. in some circumstances, the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient's condition is abortion. this may be the case for example when a woman undergoing a

miscarriage that threatens septic infection or hemorrhage or suffering from severe preeclampsia. when the hospital determines that an abortion is the medical treatment necessary to stabilize a patient's emergency medical condition, it is required by federal law to provide that treatment. host: more of that available on c-span.org. in california, independent line. debbie. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for this service. i have two points. in california, as an adult you have to have a form of id. just to be on the street they sickly. even if it's not a vehicle id, you have to have a california id. voting here is pretty easy in terms of that process. my second point is on abortion. i would like to let the viewers

know that because of this limitation on abortion in the federal government dollars not being used to fund abortion, there will be less stem cells because the stem cells from the fetuses that were being aborted were being supplied for medical use. host: that was reported earlier in the kansas city star. kansas rejecting a constitutional amendment requiring -- banning abortion. from richard in missouri, democrat line. caller: good morning. we had an election yesterday in missouri. i can understand what part of social -- everybody was against socialism. i don't know what part of socialism they don't like. they don't like social security? medicare? police department, fire

department, interstate highways? what part don't they like? everybody pays taxes into it and shares the cost of it. so that's socialism. i just -- am i talking to anybody? host: you made your point. that's richard in missouri. it was reflected as far as the race for roy blunt's seat. eric schmitt and trudy bush valentine will face-off in the november general election according to the results of the primary yesterday. george in massachusetts. independent line. caller: hey. being part of c-span and also your program. i just wanted to mention, i'm glad to see in the last month at least maybe the democrats and republicans know it's time to get something done for the election. with the bipartisan gun safety legislation.

-- passed the senate, the chips and science act also. the veterans bill that just passed yesterday. my question is, and i don't member the exact name of it. the inflation act coming up. i don't know if the senate voted on it. i just wanted to ask which you probably aren't going to answer, but do you think that kyrsten sinema will vote for it or what's your take on it? host: the inflation reduction act of 2022 is still being debated. there are several stories this morning in the paper about senator sinema. she has not responded to it yet as far as the reporting is concerned. you can catch up with her on various sites on that. the caller mentioned yesterday's vote concerning veterans. this is the associated press reporting that a bill enhancing health care and disability benefits for those millions of veterans exposed to toxic burn

pits won final approval in the senate. the senate approved a bill by a vote of 86 to 11. the president described the legislation as an expansion of benefits for health issues and the largest single bill to ever address the exposure to burn pits. from jim, republican line in florida. caller: good morning pedro. this is jim. i wish i could have gotten on when that young lady was on before. there is so much misinformation that comes out sometimes. first of all, i want proof that any republican is trying to get rid of social security. there is no such proof. secondly, i had sent a text in early. jason riley in the wall street journal this morning wrote an article about democrats trying to undo the best part of trump's legacy. and people just don't understand

that in his article he talks about the poverty rate among black people. fell below 20% for the first time since post-world war ii records. he also reported that the unemployment rate among black people was under 6% for the first time since 1972. minorities weren't the only beneficiaries. in 2017 to 2019, wages of the bottom percentage of earners group more than any time obama was president. this stuff needs to be out there. we have a democratic party right now that is trying to drive this country into a recession or a depression. and we need it stopped. host: evelyn in chicago, illinois. democrat line. caller: hi. i listen to a lot of people talk about the democrats in their republicans and economics. i'm pretty sure most of them have never had economics. they haven't had civics classes

because they don't teach it. it's important for people to read the constitution and understand what it's really about. it's not about freedom and equality. it's about prosperity. and who is going to be prosperous. who will have wealth and who will have an income. two different things. it's important that people understand when you take away the rights of one person, you are going down a slippery slope. your rights will be taken away from you sooner or later. people have to fight for the right to be free and to have a voice in this country. and to keep the whole country free. not part of it. all of it. host: ok. that's evelyn in chicago. there is analysis of the inflation control act coming from the joint committee on

taxation. it's highlighted in the new york times. balancing climate and tax bills described as saying -- congressional nonpartisan scorekeeper for tax legislation suggests the bill would raise $70 billion over 10 years. the increase would be frontloaded. by 2027 the bill would amount to a tax cut each year as new credits and other incentives for low emission energy sources outweigh a new minimum tax on some large corporations. an analysis along with a broader estimate of the bill's provisions from the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget suggests the legislation would only moderately add to federal spending over the next 10 years. it would reduce federal spending compared to what is scheduled to happen if it does not become law. also when it comes to issues regarding january 6, the washington post reporting that pentagon data wiped from phones for certain people of that day,

saying court records published on the website of american oversight indicate the pentagon wiped the phones of senior officials who were in charge of mobilizing the national guard to respond to the capital attack. that including the acting defense secretary christopher miller and ryan mccarthy. the erasing was apparently done in keeping with defense department and army policies. the text messages were not preserved. the admission is a blow to american oversight efforts to unearth communications regarding the attack but also the january 6 special committee which asked to preserve and shared those documents. john on the independent line in virginia. caller: good morning. i think people should just stop and think about the news they are hearing instead of just accepting it. for example, on global warming.

we have heard for years. i remember when al gore said there was global warming and the polar bears are going to be extinct by the year 2000. because the polarized caps were going to melt. well of course 2000 came and went. then they decided to change it to climate change. and it's so important to cut out carbon emissions. but think about it for a minute. if we all turned amish tomorrow, the whole country. everybody stop driving cars. the factories closed down and we went back to farming. it is still not going to change the climate. because russia, india and the rest of the world is doing what they want. you've just got to think about it. all climate change is is a hoax and attempt to get power. i suggest some people who like to read read 1984. because apparently that guy was a prophet and it's all coming true right now. thank you. host: john in new york.

republican line. hello. caller: hello. i was wondering john -- to bring back like you say. [inaudible] -- black lives matter. -- the black people, send them back to africa and $200 apiece. they declined. they wanted to stay here. -- [inaudible] host: you are breaking up so i will stop you there. we'll go to georgia, independent line.

caller: hello. i want to thank you, you are getting better about not having the entire audience wait while somebody mutes their television. i'm in a great big hurry. i'm kind of nervous, too. i wanted to spell out to the listeners and the colors especially that i sure would rather hear what -- had for dinner last night and i want to hear color after color say good morning back to the c-span host and then ask five or six or 10 times how the host is doing today. i want to hear important talk. i'm a veteran. i'm horrified about this history and the way the people -- to go through what we went through and then to come home -- and how in the world is somebody supposed to go anywhere in the world and tell anybody how to do anything when you've got all that footage of all those homeless people in california? what the heck -- what about hearing something that's important instead of a bunch of people saying good morning to

each other for three hours on c-span. thank you very much. host: the new york times reporting the administration has appointed a specific person to deal with the issue of monkeypox, saying the president picked robert fenton, a regional administration -- administrator for the federal emergency management -- and dr. dimitri to scalia's, the director of hiv prevention -- his appointment is notable because the vast majority of monkeypox cases are among men who have sex with men, the same population at risk for hiv infection. this is open forum. if you want to participate, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8002 independents.

you can text us a (202) 748-8003 . donald on the independent line. caller: you answered part of my question about the text messages. i would also like to know who leapt the documents from the supreme court? nobody ever says anything about that. host: grant is calling from lincoln, nebraska. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to talk about nuclear energy. this is a form of energy that we don't really hear any side of the political spectrum talk about seriously in congress. that should be a sign for everybody that it is something it would actually help people because they don't want to focus on it. in terms of carbon emissions, it blows most other forms of energy

out of the water. in terms of energy efficiency and output, it has not been surpassed by anything else that we have and that should be our focus for energy domestically. thank you. host: if you are asked about the inflation control act. there's a story in the hill saying that senator kyrsten sinema has democrats and republicans on the edge of their seats with the clock ticking down to the august recess. chuck schumer desperately wants to pass a bill that would tackle climate change and make significant changes to the tax code, but he doesn't have the votes at least not yet. he says he's working on senator sinema in hopes that she will be a yes on the motion to proceed. she has not said whether she backs it. he says i'm very hopeful that we are going to stay united and pass this bill. he said that yesterday afternoon.

from bill in texas. republican line. good morning. caller: morning. host: you are on. caller: -- new york times -- republicans win all elections. [inaudible] host: ok. caller: with what's posted in the new york times and cnn going to do this weekend -- reporting the winter. -- winner. host: jerry in new jersey. caller: i'm calling about the republicans with the abortion. it's amazing, they want to force these women to have babies. if they are born, what are republicans want to do. they want to get rid of food stamps. they want to get rid of the free

lunches and breakfast for these kids in school. it's ridiculous. the caller about social security, two weeks ago scott from florida signed some kind of paper that he wanted to get rid of social security. so i don't know what that other call was talking about but these republicans better smarten up. thank you. host: that's jerry in new jersey. the wall street journal picks up on yesterday's efforts and announcement by the president about the death of ayman al-zawahiri. the story says the leaders of al qaeda and the taliban have lived in symbiosis for decades ever since osama bin laden found refuge under the taliban government in the 90's. that alliance has survived toppling of the taliban regime. as the refuge chosen by al-zawahiri shows, it remains strong despite pledges made by

taliban leaders seeking international assistance. that's in the wall street journal. lelah is next in texas. republican line. caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: i was just going to say regarding pelosi's trip to taiwan. i think she's getting ready to be president. after the midterm elections or the november elections -- anyway, when president biden that gets the article 25 and proven to be senile, then kamala will come in and we don't know what pelosi has planned for her, but she's getting ready to show how strong she is so she can step up and be president for the rest of the -- of bidens term.

host: what leads you to that conclusion? caller: well, because she is such a -- well, i won't say the word. like how she acted when trump was being inaugurated and she was tearing up the -- she wants to be the first woman president and she has no qualms about how she gets there. host: our independent line is next. this is from bill in new jersey. hello. caller: hello. talking about abortions. the way they word things, they make it sound like it's acceptable and it's a woman's health issue. a pregnancy is not an illness or a sickness. pregnancy is a human condition of reproduction. in iraq, the isis people are so brutal and barbaric, they burn people alive, cut their heads off. however, they had a woman that they didn't want to execute

because she had violated muslim laws. but the isis people said she's pregnant, so we want executor until after the babies born. so as barbaric as they were, in some ways they had more respect for unborn human life than the people do in this country. another topic which would be raising the taxes on the rich. democrats keep talking about that but it always winds up getting to the lower class and middle-class people to pay the bill. if they really want to raise taxes on the rich, they should make everybody pay social security on all their money. host: that's bill in new jersey. the new york times takes a look at job opening numbers that have been posted. employers posted 10 point 7 million vacant positions. the labor department said tuesday that's high by historical standards but a sharp drop from the openings in may and the record 11.9 million in march.

it was the largest one-month decline in two decades that the government has been keeping track of the data other than the two months at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. it was concentrated in retail. and the job market remained strong by most measures. there were nearly twice as many job openings as unemployed workers and employers are offering pay to attract staff. remember a recent decision by the federal reserve to hike interest rates. " the chicago fed president charles -- it quotes the chicago fed president charles evans. -- after increasing rates the last two years that he held out the possibility of another supersized increase at the fed's next meeting of september 20 and

21st. he says the kinds of things that would make the larger rate increases more important would be if you really thought things weren't improving. there's enough time to play out that 50 basis points as a reasonable assessment. 75 could also be ok. that's in the wall street journal. from missouri. troy. this is read. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i have been watching cnn and everybody else. the democrats and republicans are squabbling up there in washington, d.c.. and i heard this morning that the threat of democracy is on russia and china. you guys -- united states is the one that's going to destroy democracy. i mean, why can't we just get

together. republicans and democrats squabble. people out here in the united states, let's ask people out here. kansas took it on their self about this abortion. leave it to the people of the united states not to use republicans and democrats fighting amongst themselves and washington, d.c. host: in ohio, independent line. caller: i wanted to talk real quick about the misconception of paranoia for americans to the government. everyone is like, the government is coming out to get a. when we talk about federal agencies like the dea, atf, these politicians have turned it into a political machine. every four years, every eight

years it changes. there is no straight policy. that is why it's always going to fail. and that's a problem. the dea, atf and many other federal agencies have been turned into political machines and that's why they always fail. we need a straight policy on drug enforcement, on illegal firearms and border security. there is no straight policy. that's the problem. host: ok. that's rc in ohio. there is an effort to pass on the senate side something called the electoral account at which would change the way votes are counted after presidential elections in congress. senators joe manchin and susan collins will testify about the need to reform the 1887 act. you can see that live hearing at 10:30 on c-span.

also at 2:30 this afternoon, the challenges in u.s. organ donation and the transplant network. the senate finance committee will take up a hearing on that topic. 2:30 again on the main channel c-span, the abend website. -- app and website. mark on the republican line. caller: i just want to say that dr. birx who was working with dr. fauci just recently said he knew it wasn't a vaccine from the beginning -- thought that might be noteworthy. host: found she did a program called afterwards on this network. -- found she -- dr. fauci did a program called afterwards on this network. you are the last call.

caller: i would like to tell the viewers about what voter suppression kind of is. the id -- when people get their id and stuff. remember when we could go right around the corner to the dmv and stuff? once they pass the id thing, they closed those areas that made it accessible and moved it to so far, the people who didn't drive, couldn't afford a car. that's voter suppression. the other part of voter suppression is the places where we went and voted, with the id, places -- people got used to going there. they closed those places where you had ease of access to vote in your libraries right around the corner and stuff. they closed that and moved it somewhere else. that's voter suppression. you should have somebody come on and do that kind of conversation instead of lollygagging around a whole bunch of things.

host: we have done plenty of segments taking a look at voter issues including ids. i will point you to the website if you want to check out the archive of those programs. that's it for the program today. another one comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪ ♪ >> here is what is coming up live today on c-span. at 10:30, senators joe manchin and susan collins are expected to testify for the need to reform the electoral count act before the senate rules and administration committee. at 2:30 eastern,oo