january 6 committee held a series of hearings revealing the findings from its investigation. watch c-span as we look back at the eight hearings, featuring never before seen evidence, depositions and witness testimony into the attack on the u.s. capitol. on monday at eight :00 p.m. eastern, a u.s. capitol police officer caroline edwards, who was knocked unconscious during the first breach of capitol grounds, shares her story alongside a filmmaker, who is filming the proud boys in the rally. watch on c-span, c-span now, or anytime on demand at c-span.org. ♪ >> tonight on cumin day -- q and a, we take a critical look at the legal system and offer suggestions on how to improve it. her latest book addresses

judicial independence, mandatory minimum sentencing, racial bias and jury selections and police reform. >> urban settings -- police officers, they are not interested in the fact you did not have your traffic signal on. they are not interested in that. what they want is a reason to stop you to then engage you in conversation and search your car. the u.s. supreme court has said to police officers, that is fine. you can make these kinds of stops. it does not matter that that is not really what they are interested in. i think what has to change is, the very nature of policing has to change. we need to take that rollout of policing. -- role out of policing. traffic stops are a major problem, because they disproportionately focus on people of color. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on

q&a. you can listen to our podcasts on the new c-span now at. -- cap -- app. >> washington journal continues. host: robert daly has served as director of the kissinger institute on china and the united states at the woodrow wilson center since august 2013. he has also had a lot of academic and foreign service experience on u.s.-china relations entering just this morning. good morning. guest: good to be with you. host: you have been critical of speaker nancy pelosi's recent visit to taiwan. why is that, and has anything happened since she got back that has changed your thoughts about it? guest: there seems to be no reason before speaker pelosi went to taiwan to think her visit was either going to make

the people of taiwan safer or stabilize u.s.-china relations, or in any new way advance american interests. her visit really did not do any of those things. i think it is important for america to support taiwan and signal that support taiwan in various ways, but almost with an eye toward making the people of taiwan safer. if beijing becomes convinced taiwan is drifting away from it such that it will never voluntarily become part of mainland china, beijing is willing to use military means, a blockade or invasion to force taiwan to join. our challenge is to support taiwan, help it defend itself. not to be so provocative that the people of taiwan and up being invaded and swallowed up by china. one part of maintaining that very difficult balance for the past 50 years has been not only

deterring china by helping taiwan be militarily strong, but also reassuring china ventolin get it we would look at taiwan within what we call a one china framework. that means broadly that we accept that if all of the people in the region wanted to reunite and become one china, we would be open to that. the united states has not been reassuring china we are going to use the one china policy, but we have been deliberately provoking china. i think that speaker pelosi's visit falls into that provocative, not constructive category. host: let us take a second, watch a little bit of a speaker pelosi earlier this week talking about her visit, defending her decision to go to taiwan. [video clip] >> our purpose in going to taiwan was to say that we had a strong relationship built on

status quo, which we support, which is really important. because they are saying the taiwan relations act of 1979, at the same time as our change of recognition establish the terms of our relationship, the three u.s.-china joint communicates and six assurances. there is no departure for that. in keeping with that, we will not allow china to isolate taiwan. we have kept taiwan from participating in the world health organization, other things where taiwan can make a very valued contribution. it's to keep them from going there, but they are not keeping us from going to taiwan. so we think their reaction, that was our purpose. to salute the striving democracy. do not take it from me. one of the freest democracies in the world. show our respect for them, for

the success of their economy, for the enthusiasm of their young people to embrace democracy. at others, as well. but the young knowing nothing else except a free taiwan. the pretext was our visit for them to do within normally do, intensify. he did not do it when the senate went under chairman menendez of the foreign relations committee. they just decided to do it this time. host: robert, i wanted to ask for a little bit of reaction. you laid out your concerns about the visit. but speaker pelosi says they do not want it to be construed that china is keeping u.s. diplomats or officials from going to taiwan. she mentioned senators have gone recently, as well. that didn't seem to be as much of an issue.

is there any validity in the points she raised in her remarks? guest: there is quite a bit of validity. everything she said is true and reasonable and so far as it goes. but her trip did not advance any of those interests. as she said, we have senators and congressmen who go to china all of the time. we make this point constantly. china is in no doubt how we feel about supporting taiwan. this morning, a new delegation led by senator ed markey of massachusetts landed in taiwan. they will meet tomorrow the president of taiwan. but nobody in that delegation is second in line after the vice president to the presidency. speaker pelosi is not just any member of congress. that does constitute an escalation when she goes. while what she says was true and i think reasonable, it ignores

the specific context. yes, china used her visit as a pretext. the pretext to do what? to cross the median line between taiwan and the chinese mainland. there are about 100 miles of between taiwan and the mainland. additionally, china ships and planes have been hesitant to cross that line. they now do that. they send missiles over the island of taiwan for the first time, they sent missiles and conducted exercises at six different points around taiwan, demonstrating they can blockade taiwan. all of that happened. they used her visit as a pretext. but we did provide the pretext, so now china has a new posture. a new position in the western pacific. it is going to maintain, which is closer to taiwan, more threatening to the people of taiwan. the next time china chooses to

escalate, that is on them, not us, they will escalate based on the new, more forward posture, which will bring them even closer to conflict with taiwan. what we have to be careful of is, we say we are supporting taiwan. we get on a plane, we go there, we feel good. then we leave, and they are in more danger. is that a good thing to do? we have to be a little careful with the historical record. you heard speaker pelosi talk about taiwan's democracy a lot. taiwan has developed a very vibrant democracy we should support. but in the washington post op-ed she published the day she arrived in taiwan, she said the taiwan relations act of 1979 had committed the united states to supporting taiwan's vibrant democracy. this is misleading at best. in 1979, taiwan was not a democracy. it was a one-party dictatorship and the taiwan's relations act says nothing about democracy.

it makes it clear the rationale for the relations act is a peaceful, prosperous east asia is in america's interest, which remains true. it is one thing to be clear we need to support taiwan's democracy. but if you are going to have a workable foreign policy, if your diplomacy is going to proceed on a rational basis, you have to think not only about your reasons for going to taiwan, you have to think about what china is likely to do in response and ask yourself before the fact whether that is an outcome that you want or not. we appear not to have done that work. we appear only to athletic about with this trip what we were going to tell ourselves we were signaling and whether we felt good about that, not about whether it would bring taiwan that much closer to a conflict or war in which america could be involved. host: we want to get to some of your calls. you can start dialing in with your questions about u.s.-china

relations or comments. publican style (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents dial s at (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003 or on twitter at http://twitter.com/cspanwj, instagram we are at c-spanwj. before we get to those calls, wanted to ask you. a lot of republicans encourage pelosi's visit, said it was appropriate. they also pushed for language in the america competes act, saying china was the biggest threat to u.s. and u.s. industries. we know that that bill got changed drastically before it was passed in congress.

did you agree with that? we did you make of the fact that there are conservatives who really feel like it is appropriate to take the more forceful approach toward china? guest: sure. china is our greatest long-term strategic challenge. we have to handle it very carefully. democrats and republicans agree about the scope of the challenge from china. this is not a reason simply to insult and provoke china at every opportunity. it is a reason to think carefully about a long-term strategy. i was listening to the previous section of this program, where people are calling in. they have very strong opinions. america is very divided. most of us do not go up in the street to strangers or even neighbors at every possible opportunity and tell them about what we think of them, or where we disagree with their views.

we do that to be rude and because they might punches in the nose, or doing so might make it that much more likely they will punches the next time. think about reactions. if there is a serious issue, you do long-term planning to think about where you want to get in u.s.-china relations. it is not simply you want to remind them every opportunity of the areas in which we think they are a bad actor. this is been the problem. republicans and democrats alike in the united states have justified concerns about china. we have been expressing them regularly in ways that are worrisome to china and that china reacts to. we are not thinking about the action reaction cycle and where we want to get. that has been what is missing, a strategic framework for what is an extremely concerning long-term relationship. especially concerning because china is a nuclear armed country, it is building nuclear forces. the likelihood of coming into

conflict with china, especially in the taiwan straight, is going up. this needs to be taken with greater seriousness then we have taken it with. host: let us go to the phone lines. todd on the republican line from california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment, i was just wondering. in china, did the political party that is in charge to china , did they send the police over to their political rivals and jail their political rivals in china? guest: the chinese communist party does not really have any political rivals. it is a one-party dictatorship. china is an authoritarian nation , moving in a quite determined

way toward totalitarianism. we have one-party with a monopoly of political power, it is headed by a leader who does not brook any rivals. there is no analogy between american politics and what you have in china, which is a one-party dictatorship. host: next is alex from california on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a comment. whether the united states goes to war over taiwan is entirely dependent on the american public. in practical terms, beijing can big hewitt american strategic ambiguity just conducting a poll of the american public and asked them if they are willing to submit to military draft on behalf of taiwan. i think that should clear up very easily nobody wants to go into that kind of fight, i certainly do not. host: your thoughts?

guest: this caller makes an absently vital point. patient does not have to -- absolutely vital point. it makes it very clear washington generally, whether it is congress or the military, policymakers, for the most part think the united states should defend taiwan. but the american people emphatically do not. they do not see a vital national interest such that they should send granddaughters, grandsons to go fight and die to keep taiwan independent as it currently is. most americans do not know the difference between taiwan and thailand and can't find either one on a map. i think that is likely, as the caller suggests, to be determinative.

despite that, we can stumble into war that the american people do not want. it has happened numerous times. if for example china were to say , think an american -- sink and american aircraft carrier, 5000 american lives. the war becomes not about taiwan, but the 5000 american lives. the caller is correct. whether we go to war or not is not always determined by with the american people want. it is determined step-by-step, that we sometimes stumble into violence. that is a concern. host: the next caller is ed in west palm beach, florida on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my question relates to your point that china used nancy pelosi's visit as a pretext for

advancing or changing their posture. is there a similar parallel that happened during newt gingrich's visit when he was speaker of the house to taiwan? and what has changed politically to actually make things different? i would look with interest to your response, i will take your response off-line. guest: when newt gingrich went to china when he was speaker of the house in 1997, his party was not in the white house. china saw a separation between a republican act. gingrich's house -- they were very much in opposition to clinton. they wouldn't have been expected to keep gingrich from going to taiwan, where is pelosi's of the same party as president biden. that is one factor, but it is secondary. the real thing that has changed

since 1997 is the power dynamics. china is far more powerful than it was then, especially in its region. it has a larger navy then the united states and it is concentrated in the western pacific. our navy is more powerful, but it is dispersed throughout the world. china has a large coast guard force on the western pacific and has a largely militarized fishing fleet that it can also use. it has missiles based on the chinese mainland that can sink american aircraft carriers. it did not have that before. china is not in any mood to have its eye blackened or lose faith before its own people by having american speakers of the house visit. the main answer to the question is, the power dynamics have shifted. host: we are taking your calls and questions for robert daly of the kissinger institute on u.s.-china relations as well as speaker nancy pelosi's recent trip to taiwan.

the number to call for republicans is (202) 748-8001. democrats dial (202) 748-8000. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. please include your name and where you live. you can find us on twitter @cspanwj, on facebook and on instagram @cspanwj. let us take another call. on the line is laura on the independent line in texas. caller: i think probably pelosi's reasons were totally personal, like most of the things she does. even in politics or personal. i think first, she probably had two reasons. one thing i think she is looking at when the republicans come in

in november, they are going to do an article 25. when they do that article 25 on biden, she is going to be second in line for president. if she can do something, she could even be president. i do not think she has cared about anybody but herself. if not vice president, she could be president. after all of the scandals she has had with her husband, her son -- anyway, all of the scandals she has had, she is trying to divert that and because something else. i think it had nothing to do with what was good for the united states. she was thinking how she could get above some of her own problem. host: robert, your thoughts?

guest: if the republicans get control of the house and the election, she will no longer be speaker of the house. she will be the minority leader. as the minority leader, she will no longer be in the line of succession to the presidency. there is a structural flaw in your argument. if republicans come in, she is no longer in the succession, she is the minority leader. host: let us take a call from connie on the republican line in maryland. caller: hi there. first of all, i would like to say i do not even feel that pelosi should be in the position she is in. she does not deserve to be speaker of the house. number one reason is how she disrespected the president, ripping up his speech for the world to see. how disrespectful. i do not trust her judgment on a lot of things.

something else is very disturbing to me -- and she does not held accountable for that. accountability in this country, there is not accountability anymore like there should be for all walks of life. there is no one that should be above the law. it is just very, very disturbing to the american people to see this happening. we have to have consequences, regardless of who you are. we teach that to our children. there has got to be consequences to things. these people are acting like big babies. they need to do what is for the good of the country. i do not like china is buying up our farmland and is close to our basis. what is that about? we need to wake up as americans. the number one thing the government is supposed to do is protect our borders, number one. they are not even doing that. they are in all of our other

business, which they shouldn't be. they need to take care of our country first. with her disrespecting her president, she should not have that position. host: robert, can you respond? we have read a lot of colors bring up the fact china is buying up u.s. land and trying to have a presence in america. can you talk more about that? guest: china is not buying up american farmland. it is importing a large amount of american farm goods. it is a major market for american soybeans, corn, wheat. this has helped with the economy of the american department. there importing commodities the american midwestern states depend on exporting. so it is not correct to say they are buying up land. it is true china needs to import

a lot of food, energy, raw materials. the united states wants to export those things to china, which is good for american companies and good for american communities. there is a broad question of whether we want to have -- to continue to have an economic relationship with china, which is one of our largest trading partners. it is the world's biggest middle-class consumer market. it is a market that an awful lot of american companies depend on, or at least are heavily involved with. the question is, do we want to explore ways to continue to have an economic relationship with china on what we see as fair and transparent terms, or do we want to decouple with china and cut ourselves off from 1/5 of humanity and one of the world's largest and most dynamic markets? but selling to china does not mean selling out to china.

selling them american soybeans does not mean they are buying up american farmland. host: now we have pat on the democratic line from new york. caller: good morning. i have two questions. are there any treaties or laws that say we should defend taiwan? number two, was there anything about the semiconductor industry that was involved with nancy pelosi's visit? because of that new law were we are going to start to build semiconductors and taiwan is such a big exporter of semiconductors. guest: the united states does not have a legal or treaty obligation to defend taiwan. president biden has said several times over the past year we made

a promise to do that. we did not. the taiwan relations act of 1979 says any attempt by mainland china to take taiwan by force would be a matter of grave concern, that is the language. a matter of grave concern to the united states. that is not a treaty obligation. taiwan is not a formal ally of the united states. so no, there is no treaty that binds us to defend taiwan. you are correct that the world's number one manufacturer of advanced semiconductor there's is a company located in taiwan. it is extremely important to us for a number of reasons. speaker pelosi, when she was there, met with the leadership of the company. that is not a primary driver, however, of our taiwan policy. china would love to have the technical expertise the company has now, we would like to keep

that expertise, those chips, that manufacturing capacity out of china's hands. china is not going to invade taiwan because of its semiconductor manufacturing capacity. more would that be the primary reason we defended it, if we defended it. taiwanese manufacturers, south korean manufacturers are concerned about the chips act, which just passed, which will provide 52 billion to build more manufacturing plants for semiconductors in the united states. but the market is large, they have a lead. they are keeping an eye on it. this is not going to change their plans dramatically and it may actually have benefits for them. they are extremely complex, they take a long time to come online. in south korea and taiwan, they are producing the chips now. keep and i on it, it is not a

trade war kind of threat to these manufacturers. host: next, we have mike from indiana on the independent line. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to ask him one question. when russia moved their troops in, if we'd have stopped buying and selling everything to russia , not even an eraser -- host: we are going to take another call. seymour in new york, republican. you can go ahead. seymour, are you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead.

caller: hello? i just wanted to say we have a tremendous over dependency on china. many of our goods, which is very dangerous in the event there should be an invasion of taiwan or some other method of controlling taiwan. it could send us into a depression. the world depends on the semiconductors from taiwan. to my understanding, any attack, they would disable the semiconductor plants and not allow china to take them over. also, i was wondering how he felt about allowing taiwan to manufacture their own nukes to protect themselves the way north korea does. it seems to me -- in case they

are attacked. thank you. host: go ahead. guest: if taiwan were known to be developing a nuclear weapon, that would probably be a cause for war. china would move on taiwan before they were able to do that. some countries, notably israel, have developed nuclear weapons in secret. as the caller suggests, that one might see itself as having motives for that as beijing becomes more belligerent and threatening. that is not something the united states would support. we would see that is very destabilizing and very dangerous if taiwan were to develop nuclear weapons. the caller talked about american dependence on chinese manufacturers. this is true, especially in

areas like rare earth's. the mineral resources that are involved in the most advanced technologies. most of our medicines and medical precursors or ibuprofen come from china, we have a big vulnerability in the medical area. things like solar panels, poly silicon. it is not only that we depend on chinese manufacturers, but china has locked up a lot of overseas sources of supplies. especially in the congo, where china controls most of the cobalt and graphite manufacturing. all of which are essential for most advanced technologies. one of the good things the trump administration did was looked at domestic defense supply chain resiliency. kind of a mouthful. but they did the studies on precisely what seymour is talking about. the areas in which we are dependent on foreign and primarily chinese manufacturers for a lot of vital goods.

we are trying to address that now. it is very difficult. mining rare earths, which are not rare, they are quite common. we have enormous potential supplies, as does canada. but mining and refining the products is highly polluting and takes decades to get this capacity online. one of the things that happens is, whenever we try to restart our own rare earth industry, china has a monopoly on supply lowers the price internationally of rare earth and potential investors and american mines in refineries get scared off. it is very difficult. we are making efforts now to revitalize our own rare earth industry, it is not something you can do in five or six years. it involves a long-term commitment. host: we have another caller on the independent line in denver. go ahead. caller: hi.

yes ma'am. i do not know if you are aware of this, there is a disabled homeless woman living on army pods for over a year in homeless shelters. i find it very disturbing we put all this money into all these politicians. how could you leave people -- a homeless, disabled woman on an army cot? i cannot fathom it. host: robert, but i would like you to address is on international relations, there has been a push" as to how much the u.s. extends itself to foreign countries. china or allies like taiwan and things like that. can you address that? guest: the issue is not for the united states is spending a huge amount on foreign aid to other

countries when it could be taking care of the home was here. our foreign aid budget is actually extremely small. the looming issue, which i think the caller's question addresses is how much should we be spending in a new cold war with china on an arms race when we have these problems at home? this is the classic kind of guns and butter decision, which always faces us. during the first cold war, president eisenhower warned about this. he said the bombs and ships we build, each one in a very real way constitutes a threat against americans who do not have the kinds of resources they need here. the department of defense says china is what they call their pacing challenge, meaning our spending, military, development will be driven by what china does. china has the capacity to spend a great deal, they are doing it.

they are rapidly building up nuclear capability with hypersonic reentry vehicles and missile silos in the west of china. this can become the motivation for the american, what eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, to spend, spend, spend on new weapons systems in the name of national security. national security is very important, but people in homeless shelters, the issue the caller was talking about, are also a component of national security. as we face a new arms race, something like a new form of mutual assured destruction, we should have a serious debate about guns and butter, about our priorities for security as a form of social security, domestic security. economic justice the caller is talking about, as opposed to the kind of security we imagine is provided by ever more expensive

weapons systems. host: the next caller is elaine in chicago on the democratic line. caller: hi, good morning. my question is, isn't taiwan eligible to join nato? would they be interested in joining nato if they were eligible? guest: taiwan is not eligible. nato is the nato. after world war ii -- north atlantic treaty organization. after world war ii, it was a european organization primarily aimed at the former soviet union. it still has that character. vital treaty allies like south korea, japan, australia are not members of nato. but they do have alliances with the united states, through which we give them other kinds of protection and they fall under our nuclear umbrella. there is no organization like

nato, a mutual defense organization, in asia. again, if taiwan were to attempt to get that kind of security, this is something else that could cross the beijing redline and cause beijing to either blockade or invade taiwan. taiwan is interested in joining more international organizations , for example the world health organization. beijing generally blocks this at the u.n. and other international form. the u.s. is trying to find more international space for taiwan. this remains a struggle and it is a constant irritant to beijing. we should never -- it is not we should never irritate beijing, we irritate beijing all the time. to come back to the earlier conversation, if we are going to irritate beijing, we have to think about what they will do next. we need a sustainable, long-term

strategy. host: this year from brady in north carolina -- let us hear from brady in north carolina on the republican line. caller: this guy made a mistake you can google. china owns 200,000 acres of american land. thank you. host: final thoughts? guest: they can lease it, and some cases they can buy. the 200,000 acres is really nothing. it is sort of a drop in the bucket. it is not a major national security threat. it would have to be measured against which other countries on land -- own land. it is a bit of a false issue. obviously all american farmland is in the middle of america. if there is need, you can simply reclaim it. host: we have been chatting with robert daly from the wilson

center's institute on china and the united states. it is the kissinger institute at the wilson center. thank you so much for joining us, robert. guest: thank you. host: that will be all for us today. we welcome you to join us tomorrow morning on washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. have a great rest of your sunday. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text in between. -- texts and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for impairment. that's where charter invested billions, building infrastructure, putting technology, empowering opportunity in communities begins -- big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications a

support c-span as a public service along with other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> taking a look at the afternoon, next house speaker nancy pelosi briefs reporters after returning from her recent trip to taiwan. then, a hearing looking at the challenges of small business owners are having with out-of-state online sales tax collections. later, officials from arizona and vermont participate in a discussion on election misinformation. ♪ >> tonight on q&a, retired california superior court judge takes a critical look at our legal system and offers suggestions on how to improve it. her latest book addresses judicial independence, mandatory minimum sentencing, racial bias of jury selections and police reform. >> particularly in urban

settings, but not exclusively, police officers are not interested in the fact you did not have your traffic signal on. they are not interested in that at all. what they want is a reason to stop you to then engage you in conversation and then search her car. the u.s. supreme court has said that is fine. you can make these kinds of stops and it does not matter that is not what you are really interested in. what has to change is the very nature of policing has to change. we need to take that role out of policing. certainly help prevent crime. but i think traffic stops are a major problem, because they disproportionately focus on people of color. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on the new c-span now at.