pandemic. later, georgetown university's brian hochman shares his book, "the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states. we look forward to you joining the conversation with your calls, texts and tweets. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] ♪ host: the house and senate will hold brief sessions later this morning and president biden is scheduled to discuss access to reproductive health care and an event celebrating women's equality day. and we're with you on the next hour on the "washington journal" and on friday mornings, we'll begin by hearing from you, about your top news story of the past week. give us a call. let us know what you think was most important. phone lines split as usual by

political parties. republicans, world war i is the number -- 202-748-8000. democrats, 202-748-8003. good friday morning to you. yesterday, president biden announced and releases long anticipated and much debatedded student loan forgiveness plan.

on tuesday, it was another midterm primary day and we found out on monday that dr. anthony fauci is leaving his government post in def after 38 years as director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. those are some of the stories of the past week and we're not done with the news making yet this week. here's the story from the associated press. a judge yesterday ordering the justice department to make public a redacted version of the affidavit that it relied on when federal agents searched the state of former president trump. the deadline is noon for release of the version of that document. the public could get details about what led to the f.b.i. search of mar-a-lago, back on august 8. the story notes typically contain vital information about

an agent why they want to search a particular property. it was yesterday in maryland just outside washington, d.c. that president biden hit the campaign trail, fresh off a string of legislative victories. he was in rockville, maryland, at a gathering speech before the democratic national committee. that rally taking place late yesterday afternoon. here's what some of president biden said in that campaign pitch. president biden: folks, we're just 76 days away from the midterm election. 76 days. and to state the obvious, there's a lot at stake. so i want to be crystal clear on what's on the ballot this year. your right to choose is on the ballot this year.

[applause] the social security you paid from the time you had a job is on the ballot. to save your kids from goon violence is on the ballot. and the very survival of our planet is on the ballot. [applause] your right to vote is on the ballot. even the democracy. are you ready to fight for these things now? [cheers and applause] well then you need to do one thing. vote. vote. you got it. and 2020, you and 81 million americans voted to save our democracy. that's why donald trump is isn't just a former president, he is a defeated former president. [applause]

and it's not a hyperbole. now you need to vote to literally save democracy again. look, i believe americans are at a genuine inflection point. it occurs every six or seven generations in world history. one of the moments that changes everything. and americans are going to have to choose. you must choose. will we be a country that moves forward or backward? will we build a future or obsess over the past? will we be a nation of unity, of hope, of optimism? not a nation of anger, violence, hatred and division. trump and the extreme magga republicans have made their choice. to go backwards, full of violence, full of violence, hate and division. but we've chose an different path. forward, the future, unity, hope

and optimism. host: expect to hear more of that ahead of the midterm elections. that's some of what's happened this week but we want to know what you think the top news story of the week is. probably going to choose from. republicans, -- donald is here. caller: you can't get away from trump and the top stories of the week.

it's not like he had an idea of hi own and he was just repeating the lies. so, you know, it's like cult like, you know? host: donald, what do you think of this f.b.i. raid on mar-a-lago we're expecting to find out. perhaps more about the reasoning bin that raid today. noon is where we're expecting that redacted search warrant -- affidavit that they used for that search warrant. caller: shrine they call it a raid but it's totally legal. trump has this document for over a year and now he's been saying he's -- [indiscernible] i'm not believing that.

i hate to see trump or anybody get died but he's just -- indicted but he's just opening the door. over a year, he had plenty of time to copy them you know? or whatever, you know. because they're there. so, even if they turn them over, i know he got copies. and what is he going to do with the list of questions, right? host: this is jared in kentucky, independent. good morning. what was the top news story of the week? caller: yes, sir. i was talking about the student loan forgiveness. it's such a wonderful thing. and he's helping people that has not many chances.

that's the one thing about this democratic party. they really need people with a helping hand. it's just the optics that biden is fighting to show what he's done and what he could do for the american people. i mean, it's just the optics of trying to show that he's really a man for the people. and the democratic party, for people that needs help and wants to you know, get -- do, you know, bettering and educate themselves with, you know, get themselves an education. and what i've tried to do is trying to think, you know, that it's just the optics that is the problem.

and i'm just so happy for voting for him and i thank you for your time and you have a great day. host: that's jarrett in kentucky on the student loan debt forgiveness. this is garnett calling it another promise kept by in the president when it comes tostone forgiveness. -- student loan forgiveness. caller: i think the issue of the day this still the raid or the legal search of mar-a-lago. i identify more as conservative now because there's such hypocrisy that laid on mar-a-lago was -- the raid on mar-a-lago was legally done and there's a large outcry but if we

look at breonna taylor's situation where there's a legal warrant obtained as someone dies, where's the outcry for that? so that's my comment. host: talking about your top news story of the week. sandra, in columbus, ohio, a democrat. what do you think? caller: my first is the student loan, quickly. people said they had to pay for their loans and the people are getting a break. well, you know, sometimes they don't want government to be intervening. why don't they get together and sign a class action suit against those institutions and at least get their interest back? also on turning over the documents, he was supposed to take them. anything that you're not supposed to take its just like what they're saying to me. when they're taking up for him,

trump, it is, is that you go in the store and you steal one boot. so you should be ok because you didn't get the pair. he was supposed to turn the documents in. they talked to him. it wasn't like they just went in and raided his house. he was supposed to give the stuff back. it wasn't his. he should have gave it all back. then they could negotiate on what he's supposed to have. he's just -- that's the united states property. and i just want to say democrats with our votes, you know, our rights are going away. thank you. host: sandra in ohio you started as one of our callers talking about the student loan forgiveness plan. federal loan would be $10,000.

only applying those who make under $125,000 a year, $250,000 for married couples. it ends in 2022. that pause beginning back in march of 2020 at the beginning of the pandemic. some of the response to president biden's student loan plan on the new channel over the past 48 hours since he announced it. from fox business. the ways and means committee and the house ranking member republican kevin brady. >> i don't believe this is legal. but the president is trying to use taxpayers as a personal campaign slush fund. and it's wrong. and i don't believe he has the legal authority to do it. but i think to your bigger point, this is just so unfair. so i have a neighbor who's a detective, who's worked three jobs as long as i've known him,

including selling carpet. plus his wife worked to make sure that their daughter could go a state college, a good quality college and come out of there debt-free. so now they have to pay taxes after all that sacrifice of years, pay off the debt of someone else's student loan. and here, you've got under president biden. so under this theme, you've got a single mom who pay off the debt for a computer scientist. you got a plumber who paid off the debt of a physician's assistant. you've got goth a janitor who pay off the debt of an i.t. architect or a psychologist. you know, how is that fair in anyone's world? it just isn't. so we are going to fight this because it is illegal it is unfair and as you say, it will drive inflation and college costs higher. host: republican kevin brady on fox business from this past week, back on wednesday after the president made that announcement of his new student

loan forgiveness program. shirley back in the line for republicans in louisiana. what do you think the top news story of the week was? caller: good morning. it is the raid on mar-a-lago. the gentleman called earlier and said he should return the boxes. he has a legal right, he says. and as far as the illegal aliens, someone called in last week -- no, -- regarding the christian society. we -- [indiscernible] i'm just tired of seeing my fair dollars support these people and affecting our children in the schools that they are attending.

as far as our rights being taken away, slowly but surely, they are. and something should be done. we're hope the midterms change all of this and that the american people see where our country is heading. host: what are a couple of rights that you've seen being taken away? caller: oh, the denying the things like your phone and texting, your phone being shut off and going on with taking you off of internet, things of that nature. yes, i do. i feel the american public has to be and i'll use the word robbed with everything that this administration is doing as far

as like i said, the till legal aliens and in our town, and we're a small town. and we're right next to new orleans. we get a good spot. we get a lot of violence, car dragging. my oldest one, 53 years old, and i've been in this town for almost 60 years and i don't like tock see the change that's taking place in it. it's not our hometown anymore. host: that's shirley from monroe, louisiana. this is dave in new york, independent. good morning. what was the top news story of the week? caller: well, i think it's got to be the student loan thing because it seems that's what everybody is talking about. but i just want to respond to that little fox clip you had

that. it seems that they're very upset about paying the loans but how about the multi-trillion tax break that we're paying the taxes of the rich? you know, our tax break expired at the end of the year. theirs continues forever. so, i mean, i think the yin and a yang, it's the give and the take. i just wanted to respond to that. thank you. host: liz is next. caller: tuition. of course. he's not getting any help. we work both work. my husband and i. so we've got to pay her tuition and someone else's tuition.

how much more are they going to milk out of our poor middle class taxpayers? we have to pay for freebies? now the kids are getting lunch during the summer breaks. they're getting breakfast. the whole family's getting food. while we're out there paying $10 a pack for hamburger meat. biden is buying votes. if people can't see this, get out of the box. he's a liar. he's doing everything he can to destroy this country for all people, not just white. at least trump had us on the right track. he would not back down to the chinese or any of these tyrants in other countries. and china's getting ready to own us. if that's what you want, try to tear down one of their statues

and see what happens. thank you. host: that's liz in anderson, south carolina. here's president biden from wednesday, part of his announcement of his student loan forgiveness plan. president biden: we wound down papelbon relief programs like the ones unemployment insurance and small businesses. it's time we do the same thing for student loans. student loan payment pause is going to end december 30. i'm extending it to december 31, 2022. and it's going to end at that time. it's time for the payments to resume. second, my campaign for president. i made a commitment that would provide student debt relief and i'm honoring that commitment today. we will forgive $10,000 in outstanding federal student

loans. in addition, students who come from blow income families which allow them to qualify to receive a pell gran will have their debt reduced $20,000. both of these targets are for families that need it the most. working and middle class people, making under $125,000 a year. they make more than that, they don't qualify. no high income individual or high income household on top of the 5% and the top 5% of incomes, by the way, will benefit from this action, period.

host: here are some comments from mitch mcconnell and rich scott -- -- rick scott -- some of the debate and how it maid pd out on twitter. and we're asking you this morning what you think the top news story of the week was. and phone lines split as usual by political party to do that. winifred in new york, democrat. what do you think? caller: hi. i think that when i heard that speaker on fox news, it just made me want to call in because i'm 74 and i struggled. i went to college. i struggled raising my son by

myself. i did have to pay my own student loans. now, i do go to church. and i have learned that this life, we have to help each other. it's not this life isn't about -- it's all mine and nobody else's. this life isn't about ours, not being able to help. this life, we all suffer in this life. one way or the other. whether it be health or poverty or whatever that we as human beings have to reach out and help other people. otherwise, what is life all about? what is life all about? if we are not going to -- and i think we should thank god that we have the ability to take care of our own and to help someone else. if you see somebody struggling and they're hungry or whatever the case they be.

they may be -- our nature is to help the. it's not to just turn away and say well, to hell with them and it's all for me. host: do you think it should have been more help for those with student debt? we're talking $10,000 for those with pell grants. would you like to see more help? caller: do you remember when obama was the president and he bailed out wall street? he bailed out the automobile industry? do you remember that? everybody gets a handout. how did so many people acquired so much luxury and so many people have nothing? i live in new york city. all of the vacant lots are being built and they're not being built for low income or middle income. they're being built for luxury apartments for the high end.

how did they get so much? how come -- i could go to school and not make the same amount as somebody else. i mean, there's people talk about fairness. your life -- the whole world here isn't fair. how come one part the world is starving and we throw food in the garbage? you know, so if you look around this entire planet, it's not fair. we can ride buses and go where we want and some people have to walk. i mean, i think it's inconsiderate and ungrateful for people to complain about somebody getting all your taxes. you're going to be taxed anyway. so where it's going, it's going to help somebody, i think people should be helpful and thank god that they have the physical ability to walk. host: that's winifred in new york city. this is chris in new york as well, forth jefferson station. line for democrats. good morning.

caller: i have a couple of comments the lady that just came on, perfect, man. she hit the nail in the head with everything. you don't do anything about it when social security fraud you know how many people paid maybe $5,000 to social security but they collected for 40, 50 years. my friends were one of them. we all had people that -- good for them. they got it. why not? it's there. and then you're talking about like the tax money where it's going? i'm glad the kids should get a break. it makes the country strong getting a free education. if you get like third world country with people that know nothing. whatever the politician says, that's true. if these guys can't think for themselves, what are -- oh,

yeah, this is what it's going to be. look about abortion. host: free education to what point, chris? to four years of undergraduate? to additional graduate degrees? at what point do you think is enough free education? caller: as much as there could be. because we don't have to bring anybody from other countries to go work on nasa, go work in banking, go work in so many different technologies. teach our own kids how to do it. we don't need nobody. they're going to pay us back 100,000 times over because we don't have to call anybody from any other country to do this for us and there's a big -- where they can take that technology and take it back to their country. and china is good for that. we all know that already. they come here. they're doing and then they are

under pressure to to what they are. if not, their family will suffer. hey, thanks for listening, buddy. host: chris you mentioned nasa. this story from "u.s.a. today." after 50 years, the u.s. is taking its first step back to the moon with the new launch. it will send an unscrewed orion capsule for landing humans on the moon by 2025. the first launch window opening at 8:33 a.m. eastern time on monday at kennedy space center in florida. two opportunities for launch. today, you can hear a lot more about that mission. nasa holding its prelaunch meeting. bill nelson, live coverage, 2:30

p.m. eastern today on c-span, the free video app and c-span.org. other programming at 10:00 a.m. eastern and this is where we're going to go after our program ends on "washington journal" today. federal reserve chair jerome powell will speak at the symposium this morning. our live coverage from wyoming right after this program ends, 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org and the free c-span now video app. we're asking you your top news story of the week. want to know what you focus on over the past few days here. it's been a fairly news week for late august. and let us know what you think was the most important news item. republicans, 202-748-8000. democrats, two-a-days. and republicans, 202-748-# 8001.

joe is next. caller: for me, for sure, it's that tucker carlson has broken through mainstream media that covered that the vaccine is actually killing people instead of saving people that it's neither safe or effective. that is a mind-blowing reality that we need to deal with and i hope good senator like ron johnson and others are going to deal with this farce. this has been known on the internet for years with people like pier corey, and others that the cdc system has documented this for years but it's never broken through the mainstream as far as i know. host: i think you're not vaccinated? caller: correct. i would never take a vaccine

when -- and legislation that we don't have to tell you what's in it and it harms you. host: what did you think with the news on monday of dr. fauci stepping down in december after 38 years at the nih, the infectious disease center? caller: yeah, i think he's one of many cockroaches that the light has been turned on for kitchen and they're scrambling for cover now. him and other people need to go to jail. and moderna has -- on the -- patented the virus years before they release this thing. host: all right. that's joe in laguna woods. some of the comments from members of congress on -- anthony fauci announcing that he is stepping down. dick derbin saying dr. fauci devoted his career and his life of improving public health. he's saved countless lives and

an example of american excellence and a brilliant scientific mind, thanking dr. fauci i have aing he will be missed. a different sentiment from rand paul. -- he will be asked to testify under oath regarding any discussion that he participated in concerning the leak. we will be talking about the covid-19 after the reviews that have come out over the past 10 days or so. we're going to be joined by dr. richard besser, the former acting director of the cdc back in 2009. his thought on the reorganization plan on the cdc taking a hard look at itself in

the wake of the covid-19 pandemic. a pandemic that continues today. ron in denver, colorado, democrat. good morning. caller: hi. as far as the student loans go, they should forgive them all. we've destroyed their planet, probably their future. there's not going to be any water. they won't be able to go outside without a mask in 40 years. who knows? but that's what's not fair. and these greedy old boomers, i'm a boomer too, and i'm so ashamed of these greedy pro-life christian -- thank you. host: the commentary on president biden's student loan forgiveness plan continuing on the papers here's one of them on in the "washington times." "the reversed robinhood."

robbing the poor to give to the rich. that is president biden's entire policy in a nutshell. the latest scam to defraud innocent taxpayers is his $300 billion vote buying program to force americans to pay for rich students to teach students that there are more than two genders from the species. richard, in tennessee, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well, sir. caller: i'm calling because we're talking about the covid-19, we're talking about the money that was sent to ukraine. i mean, i don't mind helping other countries. but i feel that we've been put under the bus. they've sent trillions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. if you're going to help everybody, give some of this to

us. i'm sick of it. because, you know, i'm a native american-indian. well, half native-american and javier man jew. it's a little weird. -- half german jew. it's a little weird. slavery was there back then all over the planet and guess what. when the ships came here to the americas, they killed the indians. they tried to extinguish the indians. as far as the covid-19, i never got a shot because i got covid-19 over a year ago. for only two days, i couldn't smell or taste and i got past that. and you know what? i believe it's dr. fauci is full of crap because he was just doing it to make money for the

cdc to make money, these labs in china. we were paying for that so they could study, you know, covid-19. host: richard, on sending money overseas, i wonder what your thoughts on. it's a year anniversary from that pullout from afghanistan. the last plane leaving on august 31 of last year. at this time last year, we were watching the scenes at the airport, the effort to get people out, to get american allies out. what do you think in terms of spending money over assess -- overseas, the legacy of that war in afghanistan will be? caller: my dad fought in vietnam and world war ii. they've got other family members and he -- before the civil war, ok? and the afghans -- afghanistan,

it's like uh-uh. no. we spent over 20 years invested in all these things they should have stayed there because they were established the taliban was, you know, hiding in the cavs is while we were trying to get this country to have democracy. i'm sure the culture is different but they want to do it along our lines and such. it was a tragedy. all these military guys that got murdered because they were left behind. and others are still left behind. mobile professor 150,000 i think when i looked up on the internet. i don't know if that's accurate. host: haven't heard that number, richard, but it was a year ago that some 6,000 u.s. service members batched to afghanistan

as kabul fell and it was exactly a year ago today when that explosion happened at one of the gates of the airport. it killed 170 afghan civilians and injured 45 u.s. troops and it killed 13 u.s. soldiers. it was david espinoza, nicole gee, darren taylor hoover, ryan nah, hunter lopez, -- it was 13

service members who died a year ago today amid the pullout from afghanistan. this is stanley in florida, independent. good morning. caller: yeah. i don't think they had much choice but to get out of afghanistan. don't forget. donald trump wanted them out in march. and by that time, they just threw the weapons down. but that's not why i called. but i called -- i've been watching that january 6 hearings that you still on air every night and i've been watching them since day one. and i don't see how he could ever run for president again. 144 police officers were hurt. and fox news is being sued too, by the voting company for almost $200 million. and news max should be taken off

the air. when they're selling -- and everybody they have on there hates biden and they just keep going on and on and steve bannon and the other guy there. there's guys that don't want to text. remember what happened on january 6? do you remember? host: i remember family, yes. caller: do you remember when they're standing out there when all four of them out there, donald trump jr. he said we're coming for you. mel brooks said kick ass and take names. giuliani said trial by combat. and trump said we got to take our country back or we won't have a country and we got to get in there and fight. and he did. they did fight and he hit them with flags. they hit them with spears, sprayed them. did everything they could and he wants to rerun for president?

give me a break. host: stanley in florida. back to laguna woods, california. mike, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling to channel the famous humorous will rogers with respect to the president's forgiveness of a loan, $20,000. the president is being generous with other people's money. and unfortunately, this is a very -- demagoguery that politicians play. and there's a day of reckoning that's coming and unfortunately, we'll be -- the national media will be surprised. but there's really no reason to be surprised. our federal government is fiscally irresponsible and, again, the day of reckoning is

coming. host: when you talk about the day of reckoning, are you talking about the midterm election? caller: well, not necessarily. i think to make it a much more broad warning here that a major depression, the great depression that occurred as a result of similar kind of fiscal irresponsibility, a person of much larger scale. what you'll find is the news media and representatives will slap themselves on the forehead in surprise. they won't slap themselves hard enough in my point of view but it's coming. the fiscal day of reckoning will be here. there is no end amount of the federal money can dispense, of course. the misventures in afghan are more irresponsible misspent of

fiscal responsibility. but this is one. and it's out there in the open. it is very disappointing. host: here's a website that we often show on this program. real time of the u.s. national debt. it's the usdebtclock.org. that comes out to about $92,000 per u.s. citizen or if you prefer it by taxpayer in this country, $244,000 per u.s. taxpayer. to greg in richmond, virginia, republican. good morning. caller: president biden, he's been in office now for two years

and he was vice president for eight. so like for the past 10 out of 14 years, he's been running the country. now, this student debt issue is not brand-new. it's been around for a while. and the democrats had been in bed with academia in the unions for oh, going back to the 1960's. it's all been democrat when it comes to donations, political donations, the democrats get all their money from academia and from the unions, the teachers union. now all this time he's been in control and now, the best thing he can come up with or an answer to this student debt is to take my money and give it to other people? that's the best he can come up with? that's just so typical of the democrats. he throws some money at people right before an election to make him think he's doing something. he hasn't done a thing.

he hasn't solve a problem. he just is throwing money to buy votes and hasn't done a thing. he's been in charge for 10 of the past 14 years. hasn't done a thing. and now he's just going to throw some money and -- oh, what a wonderful president he is. host: so paul -- greg, i apologize. paul in today's "new york times" poses a question. he obviously is somebody who is with in favor of this loan repayment effort. he said to republicans whining that this plan does nothing for blue collar americans who didn't go to college here's a question. what are you proposing to do for such people other than tax cuts on the rich and a claim that those benefits will trickle down? what do you think about that column, the question he poses in the "new york times"? caller: well, you're breaking up a little bit. if you are referring to the tax

-- the tax breaks to the rich over the past few years, i mean, nobody gets a job from a poor person. you have to incentivize rich people to do well because when they do well, there's more job, there's more money and more good solid improvements to our economy. not this just print money and giving it out. that's not the american way. host: that was greg in richmond, virginia. this is fred, in houston, texas, line for democrats about 15 minutes left in this segment of the "washington journal." fred, what do you think was the top news story in the past week? caller: yes. the -- about the student loans. i just don't understand why republicans can complain about it. i never heard them complain about when farmers was getting

free money. you remember when the farmers was having a rough time and we gave them money? the p.p.e., they have republicans that got this money that don't have to pay it back. it just seems like any time when the middle class or the poor, let me just narrow it down to when black and brown people get a tax break, get a break, everybody want to complain but you didn't complain when the white farmers was getting this money. we was bailing our farmers left and right. and doing the covid most of the small business money takes don't even have to pay this money back. but now since these students getting this money, everybody complain. and one more thing i wanted to say. when you read them soldiers that

lost their lives in afghanistan, i don't remember the 15, 20, i just think that's wrong. because if you're going to -- and i'm sorry that they lost their life. why did you read off them particular names when all the lives that were lost in afghanistan that the republicans pushed these wars for years? i just don't think you just read off the ones that lost their life when we was leaving when all -- you had so many names and people that lost their lives behind republicans that want to fight wars. and that's all i have to say. host: fred in houston, texas. fred, you bring up members of congress receiving paycheck protection programs, loans for their businesses during the pandemic. the white house, the official white house account getting a lot of attention for a tweet yesterday evening pointing out

one such member of congress. republican of georgia, marchry taylor green from the official white house account pointing out that she had $183,504 in p.p.e. loans that were forgiven in response to a tweet in which she was criticizing the white house's plans for student loan forgiveness. russell in south carolina. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that about the student loan debt. you have not shown one clip of the republican that said it. biden didn't have the authority and read a statement from the republicans. why don't you be more fair and show the clip that nancy pelosi saying that he does not have authority to do that and read a couple of clips from democrats. make it fair. host: so i showed biden announcing the program. showed the tweets about it

yesterday on this program. we showed the clip exactly that you're talking about. so just trying to give you all the reaction to that announcement yesterday. judy in seattle, washington, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. and as opposed to the independent general, i'm a constitutionalist and that is nothing that biden has done that is constitutional. definitely, he has assisted hunger in his larceny and participated. the student loan forgiveness as to a -- adds a debt that raises inflation and the people who will be hurt the worst by deshaun that are the people who

can least afford it, the gentleman who preceded me was talking about white people don't complain about black people and brown people, that when they don't get any handouts. but when they do. well, i'm sorry, but who do you think is going to suffer the most? it's people of color or it's people who are unemployed, underemployed and there's plenty of people of all colors. not just black and brown who are suffering terribly because of inflation. and the more spending there is the more inflation will go up. and he has no constitutional authority for anything he's done. the raid on mar-a-lago was definitely unconstitutional in every respect. the raid on james o'keefe was

unconstitutional. it's just been nothing he has done has been constitutional. host: when you say constitutionalist in congress -- caller: what? host: who in congress would you describe as a constitutionalist? caller: well, i'm not sure right now because i'm just -- i've recently moved and have to get to know my congress people from my area now. host: i'm talking about any member of congress. who do you think is somebody who's a constitutionalist in congress? caller: well, let's go to the senate specifically, ted cruz, definitely. mike lee, definitely. mitch mcconnell, absolutely not.

host: why mitch mcconnell not a constitutionalist? caller: because he supports so many programs that are just not authorized by the constitution. the founders established a very small federal government the 10th amendment says that if it's not -- excuse me, i've got allergies. anyway, the 10th amendment says that anything not assigned to the federal government belongs under the purview of the state. host: do you have a favorite amendment? caller: a favorite amendment? well, the first 10, definitely. and 11, you know. i don't have a favorite amendment. but the first, the second, the

fourth, the 10th. those probably are my top ones. host: judy in washington. a couple of minutes left here in this first segment of the "washington journal." this is richard from savannah, georgia. good morning. you're next. caller: good morning. i've been around for many, many decades and i would love to see the fairness doctrine brought back into effect. i think the media has really destroyed this country. i want to thank john malone who bought cnn. he's trying to clean up a little bit. i think it was important to fire brian and chris cuomo. i would love to see the media in our country get the fairness doctrine act again. yesterday, joe roganen with that

interview with mark zuckerberg. mark zuckerberg admitted a couple of weeks before the election in 2020, the f.b.i. more or less forced him and twitter and etc. to squash the hunter biden laptop which would have absolutely swayed the election. so i think it's important for everybody to be fair. i'm afraid we're turning into a banana republic when one party goes into another man's house, that might be his competition. everything that goes under the banana republic in this -- and that really worries me. i'm a old guy. i've had a couple of strokes. i can see our country going down with this administration. and i would love to see fairness immediately. because i think that is a major, major situation. if you look at the media that's made people multi-millionaires where they just lie about people. this is sad.

host: richard in georgia one headline from that interview that you talk about, mark zuckerberg told joe rogan of russian propaganda before the hunter biden laptop story. he denies the story and limiting reach of that story. that's the fox news write-up on that interview. this is james, from newark, new jersey, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, c-span. now, i don't understand. [indiscernible] this whole thing about helping black people and brown people. you know how much corporate welfare is connected in the 70's. this was a bunch.

host: james, bring me to this week because we're talking about the top news story of this week. caller: top news story of this week. there's so many people in this country that don't want and hope biden gets banished. i got to -- what happens that i'm getting help from biden. but i'm black. the others are indians but that's besides the point. now, some racist people will empower for the guns, and the han grenades. host: this is mary in maryland. good morning.

you're next. top news story of the week. caller: i'd like to talk about trump and these classified documents. anybody else who would have taken classified documents out of the white house would have been arrested on the spot. i mean how they let this man have these documents for almost two years is beyond me. they could have been sold. they could have been given to foreign powers like russia. and put all of our soldiers and our military programs in risk. i can't believe this man is even allowed to not be arrested. somebody should do something. host: calvin, last call in this first segment of "washington journal" from new york city, independent. good morning. top news story of the week. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: doing well. caller: i'm feeding off the last lady's call. because they keep talking about hunter biden but they're not talking about trump's son. he -- son-in-law. one of the foreign countries and

got billions of dollars and they don't know what they're giving it to him for. now, all of a sudden, the raid happens in mar-a-lago. maybe he was selling these goods to the saudis. to the saudis for money. and maybe that's why trump wanted to hold on to them. because they were selling them. his son-in-law got a whole lot of money for not knowing exactly what they're getting this money for. host: we may find more out about the raid today. the unsealed redacted affidavit that was used for that search warrant for that to the f.b.i. entering the former president trump's property there at mar-a-lago is going to be unsealed and we'll see it around noon today. that's when we're expecting it. so, check back in and we'll also likely talk about it tomorrow on this program as well. that's going to do it for this

first hour of the "washington journal." but stick around. plenty more to talk about today, including up next, we'll be joined by former acting cdc director dr. richard besser to talk about the cdc's plan to reorganize after a view of the handling on the covid-19 pandemic. and later, georgetown university's brian hochman will join us to discuss his book, "the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states." stick around. we'll be right back. ♪♪ >> federal reserve chair jerome powell speaks at the jackson hole economic symposium this morning, watch live on c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events

that tell the american story. at 1:10 p.m. eastern on the 150th anniversary of yellowstone park, bob richards talked about the history of the park and tour -- where he led tors for nearly 40 years. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, white out -- dwight eisenhower's grandson, david talks about ike's leadership in the military and as president and the forces who shaped us. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program clot -- guide or watch any time at c-span.org/history. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. herbert hoover details the life

and legacy of the former president, his journey through politics and leadership during the great depression. 9:00 p.m. eastern, tim miller the author of "why we did it" talks about his time in the republican party and shows why many choose to support president trump. join us on saturday, september 3 for the national book festival where for the past 21 years book tv provided live in-depth on coverage fixture he nonfiction offers an -- authors and guests. watch book tv every sunday on c-span -- on c-span two or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues,

c-span is america's network, unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here, here, here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by dr. richard besser, a former acting director of the center of disease control and prevention. joining us to join -- to talk about the future of the cdc in the wake of scathing reviews leading to some major changes at the cdc. first on those internal and external reviews, what did they find, where did the cdc dropped the ball during the pandemic? guest: yes. as you are saying last week the cdc came out with changes that they want to make to make the agency stronger to address

concerns during the pandemic. to answer your specific question as in what is in the reports, i cannot be suspect -- i cannot be specific because the cdc has not released those reports and it will be important in terms of regaining trust in the nation for everyone to be able to look at the finding this and determine for themselves whether or not the changes that the cdc is making will address the problems. in terms of the things that the cdc is going to change, which i expect it is addressing what is in the report, one has to do with communication. the cdc as the nation's public health agency did not do a good job over the course of the pandemic and direct communication to the public. the cdc is a science-based public health agency and puts out reports based on data and evidence. again, in doing so it has tended to be a little slow it has tried

to get all the information correct and a lot of communication that comes out is appropriate for someone who is a professional and public health or medical professional. but if you are a citizen, you need direct information that is clear, that tells you what you can do to help protect your health and during the pandemic for a variety of reasons, the cdc has not been as fast as it should be in that regard. i led the emergency response for the cdc for four years when i was there. i worked at the cdc for 13 years. one of the things that everyone in the leadership went through was crisis communication training. in that training you learned that the mantra for crisis communication is be first, right, and credible. during this pandemic the cdc had challenges in each of those regards. they are looking to improve communication, reduce the amount of review that is required to

try and change the culture so that the agency is not waiting for every last study to be done before making recommendations and bringing those forward to the public. being less jargony in the communication that comes forward, that will be a major improvement. there is a number of other areas. the director, dr. walensky, is talking about reorganizing some of the reporting structures so more of the science reports directly to the director. she is asking congress for new authorities. one thing that many people do not know is that the cdc does not have the authority to require states to report critical information during a crisis. it is done voluntarily. we saw the challenges of that during the pandemic where the cdc was not getting timely information on the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

without that information it is challenging to know what is going on across the country. so, during the crisis, during a new outbreak of an infectious disease, early on what you do not know far outstrips what you do, and as you are learning you need to change and adjust the strategy you are using. if you are not in direct communication every time you make one of those changes it looks like a flip-flop. one of the challenges during this pandemic was how politicized it was from the beginning. where the cdc did not have direct access to the public, was not speaking to the public and where elected officials were actually demonizing public health, looking at public health as a barrier to keeping the country safe in the economy going rather than the way forward.

there is a lot that we can dive in, so i'm going to stop there. there is a lot that the cdc needs to do and there is a lot that the cdc wants to do and there are things it can do without congressional support but there are a number of things that require congressional action. if we stood -- if we truly want to see this as the health agency we need and want. host: we should let them know that you were interviewed as part of that big external review and internal review as well. i imagine since communication was up first thing you brought up in this conversation this morning that was a concern that you mentioned in those reviews. what is a concrete example from the covid-19 pandemic where the cdc was not first right or credible that you would .2? host: in terms of credibility during a public health crisis, you need very frequent and regular communication directly

to the public. in the first six months of this pandemic, the cdc was not given that access. the communication was coming from a task force at the white house. we were not hearing from dr. redfield and the scientists at the cdc in terms of what they were seeing her learning. and so when the cdc, for instance change the recommendation to recommend that people wear masks, that information seemed like it came out of left field rather than coming out of an analysis of what was being learned around the globe and what was being seen in countries that had mask requirements and masking in place and why the cdc was recommending that people wear a mask. when you see something like that coming out of left field, you are less likely to follow it and trust other things that come out of the agency. in a perfect world you would have liked to see dr. redfield or one of the other leaders

every day listing -- lifting up and saying here's where we are today, here is what we know, here is what we do not know and here's what we are doing to get answers. and every time you get new information being transparent and sharing that with the public and letting them know what it will do in terms of the approach that you take. that was a real challenge. another real challenge early on in the pandemic, the cdc dropped the ball in terms of testing. they released it to state labs, to a network of laboratories a testing kit that was not effective. and with that, the cdc lost a lot of credibility. there is a better test being used globally and the cdc test was not a good one. however, i have never been involved in a response to a public health emergency where there were things that you tried that did not work or mistakes made. but when you are in direct communication to explain those

things you do not lose credibility to the extent that the cdc did. if the cdc is enabled to be in conversation with the public around testing challenges early on it would have been a bump in the road rather than a major challenge in terms of agency credibility. host: in the wake of these two big reports dr. -- director rochelle walensky went directly to the public to camino kate how the cdc is changing -- directly to the public to communicate how the cdc is changing. here is part of her appearance from "the today show." [video clip] >> i was reading your response and you said "we are responsible for some pretty dramatic public mistakes from testing to data to communication" and you made that apology. my question is this. i think now the bigger issue is trust, when people see the cdc, how do they again start believing what the cdc is saying?

>> good morning, good to be with you. for 75 years, the cdc and all of the public health have been preparing for something like the seismic scope of covid-19. we need to recognize within our big moment are performance did not meet the expectations of this country which is why i called for the reset and review. we had extraordinary people at the cdc who are often up all night to protect america's health and my goal is as we hit this reset to have a new public health action oriented culture that really emphasizes as you said accountability, collaboration with our public health partners, communication with the american public and timeliness with our information. [end video clip] host: rochelle walensky on the today show. do you think it will solve the problem? guest: we will have to see.

one thing that i would like to point out is that during that 75 year period, the cdc has been preparing for pandemics. we would be practicing for pandemics, largely around influenza. the cdc has been responding to public health crises every year over the course of the past 50 years, if you think about what the cdc has focused on, it has wiped out smallpox off the face of the earth. the cdc has responded to sars, a respiratory infection that caused all kinds of panic. ebola, legionnaires' disease. these are some of the crises that have occurred that the cdc has responded to. in addition, people think about the cdc and terms of infectious diseases. cdc is that nation's public health agency and has been

working entirely to reduce smoking and to address environmental challenges and injury control, environmental health and worker safety. these are all areas they are working on. that does not give the cdc a pass in terms of what is going on in terms of covid. it is important to recognize that this is an agency that needs to do many things at the same time, and cannot just be an agency responding to covid and the pandemic. in terms of what needs to occur, some of the external factor -- factors that dr. listed are essential. the cdc has a very little discretion on how it spends its budget. when there is a new crisis the cdc director has almost no resources to direct towards addressing the crisis until congress acts. that is different from other agencies. the nih has billions of dollars at its discretion that it can put towards a new challenge.

that needs to change so the cdc can be the rapid response agency that the director is lifting up. in addition, the cdc needs authorities that will require states to report to the agency. during covid there has been great data coming out of the group at hopkins, terrific data. but our nation's public health agency needs to have data coming directly to it and much better data than we have been seeing during this pandemic. as you know the pandemic has hit every part of our nation, but not every part equally. black and latino americans, native americans, americans who are lower income, they have all been hit much harder. people with disabilities have been hit so much harder, but our data systems do not collect the kind of data you need to pinpoint what neighborhoods are being hit the hardest and what resources are needed.

those things need to change if we want to see the cdc responding quickly and effectively, addressing challenges where they are. some of those are within the cdc's control in terms of internal functioning and accountability and some require congressional action. host: the cdc is an independent agency with 11,000 employees and a $12 billion budget a year and we are talking with the former acting director of the cdc from back in 2009. dr. richard besser joining us. taking your phone calls on regional lines. 202-748-8000 if you are in eastern or central time zones. 202-748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones. linda is up first out of southgate michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i feel a little bit saddened to hear the doctor apologize and apologize when he cannot be partisan. however we all know that the

reason that the cdc was kneecap and was not allowed to communicate directly with the public is that during all of obama's time with ebola and sars and everything and it was because of donald trump. he did not allow them to. he wanted all of the communication to come through him, which totally sidelined everything. as far as the masks, the day that dr. redfield announced that we were to wear masks, immediately afterwards donald trump got on the podium and said well, it is voluntary, you can wear one if you want to do not have to, but i am not going to. so most of the information through the whole pandemic was the economy was more important, you know this disease but i have this totally under control, we are testing more the entire country and he would give us a laundry list of how many tests were done, how much ppe was set

out when in all reality donald trump spent -- sent 17 tons of ppe to china which was one reason that we did not have it. host: let me take your point and let the doctor jump in. guest: thank you for your comments, linda. when i ran emergency responses at the cdc, one of the things that we worked on really hard was to try and keep politics out of the response activity. we wanted to ensure that regardless of what political party someone belongs to, they were supportive of the public health response. and we saw any kind of partisanship around response as a kind of failure. i have never seen a public health respond -- response that was politicized to the extent that this was. what you really want to see during a responses public health

leaders speaking at the podium, letting people know what was going on and letting people know what they can do to protect their health and seeing political leaders standing next to them nodding along and then coming forward afterwords and supporting what was just said so that they are modeling through their own behavior and encouraging people to follow public health. that broke down very quickly during this pandemic. once you have a politicized response, it is very hard to get back. we saw during this pandemic that political affiliation became a pretty good predictor of whether somebody would get vaccinated or follow public health recommendations. and due to that you have seen very different rates of hospitalization and death by politics. and that should never be. everyone in our nation deserves to be safe and secure and we need to do everything we can to ensure that we are responding

based on the best available public health information and as that changes, we are changing our guidance because of that. one of the big challenges, and i let the cdc in the beginning of the h1n1 pandemic, the swine flu virus in 2009. one of the big differences now is social media and the power of social media to spread information that is just wrong. sometimes it is done accidentally. but unfortunately, sometimes, it is done intentionally to sew distrust trust in leaders and science. because of that it has led many people to question what i think is one of the most miraculous things in this pandemic, and that is that we have so many safe and highly effective vaccines, and we did so within a year.

that was something, when you look at the politicized asian, that started during -- the politicalization, that was started during the trump administration and put money into vaccines so guaranteed that the manufacturers would have contracts. and i never thought that within a year of a new, highly contagious, deadly infectious disease spreading around the globe, that within a year we would have safe and effective vaccines. what worries me now is that there are so many people across our country who have not been vaccinated, who have not been fully boosted, who are accepting that each day in our country more than 400 people have -- are still dying from covid but accepting that that has to be. that -- it does not have to be. we can take more measures if people get fully vaccinated and take steps to protect themselves and those around them. we can save lives, we can save a

lot of lives. host: new york city. tyrone. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. the previous caller said something i was going to say about the elephant in the room. my question is with joe biden going to the office that will recognize pandemics emerging in different countries, the joe biden institute that was shut down by donald trump. what that had helped had we known right off the bat that -- i mean they found out in november, but known right off the back how to attack this virus. how devastating that was, shutting down that office? guest: you know, i do not think that anything would have stopped covid from spreading around the globe. but what you can delay the spread of an infectious disease

and delay the entry, it gives you time to set up systems, testing systems, systems to get supplies where they might be needed, to let people know what is happening in measures early on that people can take to protect their help. one of the things that is clear is a threat to health eddie where is a threat to people -- anywhere is a threat to people everywhere. as a nation we need to make a much better commitment to global health, to identifying and helping to control threats anywhere around the globe they could be arising. there are many reasons for that, our own national security, but that is one of the world's wealthiest nations we have a moral obligation to help protect lives everywhere. each life on our planet has equal value, yet we do not act if that is the case. within our own nation we do not active that is the case when you

look at the resources provided. we are the only wealthy nation but does not ensure that every single person has access to high-quality affordable health care. we are the only nation that does not give sick or family medical leave. during that pandemic you -- it cost lives. you saw people who were unable to get early treatment or care for covid, or for other medical conditions because during a pandemic all of the other health problems people have do not stop but the availability of care for those definitely is more challenging and is affected by whether someone has health insurance. to get back to your question, in terms of global health there is a lot more that we need to do. we need to sell -- see that helping people everywhere is our responsibility in terms of self-interest as well as justice. host: the first covid shots given in this country in about

mid-to-late december of 2020 were about 20 months later and according to the cdc data, the percentage of americans who are fully vaccinated, 67.4% of the vaccination. did you think it would be that number 20 months in, or did you think it would be higher or lower? guest: to be frank in the beginning i thought it would be lower because i never expected that we would have vaccines this quickly that where they safe and effective. and so, i thought it would be much lower. however once it was clear that the vaccines were here and coming, i thought the uptake should have been much higher. i did not think it would be given how politicized things had gotten. i wish it were much higher. i am a general pediatrician, and i would love to see the rate of vaccination among children be

much higher. thankfully this infectious disease, covid, is less severe in children. that does not mean it cannot be severe. we have lost hundreds of children from covid, young children. and now that there is a vaccine, now that the vaccine is available to all children down to six months, i would love to see more parents get their questions answered, talk to their doctors, and think about getting their kids fully vaccinated. it is a good thing to do. while the vaccines have become less effective at preventing mild infection. they remain very effective at preventing hospitalization and staff. that is -- and death. that is what they are designed to do and that is what they remain effective. host: from connecticut. this is michelle, good morning. caller: good morning to you both. host: you are on with dr.

besser. caller: i have a couple of questions. how come nobody talks about natural immunity? the reason i am asking is that back in 2021 i got covid after we were forced to stay at a hotel, that is where i got it. every seat -- every three months i get checked for my immunity and it shows that i have high protection, and i have health problems, i do not have a spleen. and there are a couple other things, but how come nobody ever talks about it. and how come the mayor of d.c. is shutting down people who have not been vaccinated to getting education, even if they are online, she will not allow it? host: dr. besser. guest: thank you. i think part of this is getting back to one of the challenges that we listed earlier around communication because there has

been a lot out around natural immunity, or immunity half -- after having had covid. early on, about a year in there were studies showing that people who had covid infection and then were vaccinated had the highest levels of protection. higher than people who were just vaccinated and higher than people who had just had covid. that kind of data tends to be lagging behind the change in variants. we have been seeing changes in the virus over time, and with that we have to continue to redo these studies and see did someone who had covid during the first four months of the pandemic, what kind of protection do they have now against the ba.4 and ba.5 variants still circulating and what about the ba six. that has to be looked at, so

people who get information to make informed decisions say i have had covid, does it still make sense for me to get vaccinated. the data still says yes it does. adding the vaccine on top of a previous infection gives you additional protection and is a good thing to do. right now the cdc estimates that it is over 95% of people who have either been vaccinated or have had covid, that does not mean that the threat is gone because as the virus changes and finds ways around our immune system, so it is a race between science and the virus to ensure that we remain safe and protected. it is looking like there might be new boosters this fall that address the changes in the virus that hopefully the boosters will continue to ensure that vaccines help protect against hospitalization and death. host: bayville, new york. you are next.

caller: good morning. i would like to mention to you that i agree with mostly everything you said about the public health response to covid. there is an overarching concern that is not addressed, it will not really solve the problem. and that is there is not enough fighting and enough -- and what i mean by that is recently we cannot afford the next populist movement to unravel public health or we cannot wait for the next period of austerity. even during liberal democratic governance over a decade we had not funded public health to the same extent that some of our peer nations like south korea

had and prepared to do so and prepared the best in the world to covid. in order to address these things i believe what we need to do is treat this is -- as if we treated monetary policy in 1913. we need to completely depolitici ze it by having the federal reserve system fund a parallel organization that would make agreements with local jurisdictions -- jurisdictions, health jurisdictions to be funded on the return to seating some of their authority. we have the overarching type of improvements and we are just waiting for the next period of populist movement where it might be two years away or whenever it is in the future. guest: thank you, your points

are really important. this cdc is only part of our nation's public health system. we have talented public health professionals at the state, local, territorial, and tribal levels. over the course of time the investments in the public health system has gone down. if we do not have robust public health teams and apartments, and laboratories, epidemiologists, communicators and at every level, we are vulnerable. so much for the -- of the funding for the nation's public health system comes from the federal government. what we have seen over time is that when there is a public health crisis there is a lot of money thrown at the public health system. but it is one time funding. and that kind of one time funding is not an effective way to build systems that will be there when you need them. the time to invest in your

public health systems is not at the start of a crisis. it is every day, so that public health is there to do the daily functions that are needed as well as being ready to respond when there is truly a crisis. and how you sell that, whether it is coming up with a way to see federal public health as independent of the political system, that is challenging and hard to do, but you would like to see a way where it is not subject to the whims of congress on such a regular basis. some would be to again, change the way the cdc is funded so there is more discretionary funds, but we need a way for the public health system as a whole to have stable and steady funding. we have seen hundreds and hundreds of talented public health officials and leaders across the nation leave their jobs during this pandemic for many reasons, some due to

retirement, but many due to the fact that public health was vilified in so many places. public health leaders were threatened who felt that their lives and their families lives were in danger because of the work that they were doing to keep people safe and protect their nation. that should never be. we need a public health system that we all get behind and we have the full support of our nation. host: you talked about congress, congress just passing a big funding bill, the inflation reduction act. you wrote a column for "the hill" newspaper about what could have been in the act that included a lot of different pieces that included tax policy and climate change measures. what would you have liked to seen -- to have seen? guest: i do not want to underplay the value of the bill. in terms of climate and promoting clean energy.

in terms of providing support to people who get their health care through the health care marketplaces and the affordable care act that this will help people afford their health care. in terms of help -- health and human services and medicare being able to negotiate for cheaper drug prices and for people in medicare, that is huge. there were a lot of things that were initially in the bill that would've done so much to improve the daily lot -- the daily lives of people and ensure that the next time there is a major public health crisis that we are ready. one of those things is expanding medicaid and providing resources so that every state in our country could provide affordable health care to its people. there are 12 states that could not -- that did not extend -- did not extend medicaid. it did not include guaranteed

family medical leave. there were people who had to decide between going to work and putting food on the table and paying rent or staying home to protect themselves and their families. we are the only wealthy nation that we did not ensure that. we had the expanded test child tax credit which gave money to families based on the number of children that they had. that bill that was part of the pandemic response early on, we saw the payments reducing child poverty by 30%. if it reached all the people that it was intended it would been a greater reduction but congress failed to extent -- to expand that. another thing was ensuring that domestic workers were paid a fair wage, these are the people who provide care for our loved ones, this was going to ensure, a bill of what -- a bill of rights to ensure that individuals providing those

important services were paid enough money to take care of their families and they could lead a different -- decent light -- life. universal school lunches. during the pandemic government eased the rules so that every child in america was given a free school lunch. we saw 10 million children getting free school lunches who would not done that before. no longer did a child have to prove that their family was low income. no longer did parents have to go through the administrative hurdles to make that happen. that reduced the number of children in our nation who went to bed each night hungry. and that was something that fell out of the bill. there are a lot of things that the bill accomplished, but there is so much more that needs to be done to ensure that everyone in the nation should have the opportunity to achieve the american dream and lead their healthiest life. and that was not kept in the

bill so there is a lot more work to be done. host: it might be a good time to remind folks where the johnson foundation is. guest: is the largest philanthropy in our nation's focused on improving health in our country. we do that in many ways, recognizing that yes, everyone needs access to high-quality, affordable, comprehensive health care including reproductive health but health is about more than that, it takes place in the communities where we work, where we live and where we gather to worship. we need to look at all of those areas to ensure that all of the people in our nation have the opportunity for the healthiest life and that is the work that we do. host: rwjf.iorg --.org if you want to check them out. we have pennsylvania next.

thank you for waiting. caller: i have a question but first i want to make a comment. i do not believe that these cases where people coming down with -- severely ill from this, i believe those cases are all exaggerated. let me ask you this. there was a an eight-month exercise in 2019 called the crimson contagion. it was led by the cdc. this exercise lasted eight long months. and yet the same year that the virus came out, all these agencies seem so clueless. the cdc led this exercise and

involve 87 hospitals and 12 states, the pentagon, the department of health and human services, the defense department and everything -- and everybody seemed so clueless when the virus it and i do not understand. can you explain the crimson contagion experiment? guest: i think it is really important that you got the information you needed to make your decision about vaccination. but i do not want to let it stand in terms of safety and effectiveness in terms of the vaccines. when i look at the impact of this virus in our nation and losing one million of our citizens from this disease globally, there are more than 10 million children who have been orphaned by covid. there are thousands and thousands of people in our country experiencing something called long covid which

continues to affect their lives in very negative ways. i am very respectful of does not -- of the virus and what it can do and i want to make sure that everyone that i care for, family, friends, and community have what they need to protect themselves, and the number one thing i recommend is that people be fully vaccinated and when there is boosters available to protect against the new strains that they look at the information and make sure that they are comfortable that the studies were done well and they get vaccinated. in terms of the exercise you are talking about, i do not know the details so i cannot comment on it. but what i can say that during my time at the cdc there were exercises across government. some were full-scale and some were agency. with each of the exercises there were things that we learn.

one of the challenges i have seen in that many exercises you identify gaps but you are unable to fill them either because you do not make changes or the request to congress for the changes in the authorities that you need are not allowed. exercising is critical, but one of the things that is clear is that new viruses and infectious diseases do not follow the playbook and you have to be ready to respond and have systems that are agile and hopefully the changes that dr. walensky has laid out will allow the cdc to do that but it is important to recognize that the cdc is only part of the solution. host: back towards the beginning the pandemic, npr took a look at that crimson contagion exercise that the viewer brought up, international -- interviewing the national security correspondent and he said "an effort to do a tabletop

simulation of what would happen if there was an extreme, severe flu pandemic that swept through the united states. he said early -- one of the early charts of the draft report showed that the pandemic would be the most severe in the u.s. since the spanish flu of 1918 and it was based on questions of how to prepared hospitals would be, how prepared different cities would be, and it pointed out all kinds of difficulties which we have seen in the recent weeks back in the first couple weeks of the pandemic." this story from npr if you want to read it. npr.org on march 20 of 2020. time for one more call. bernie in the keystone state. good morning. caller: i have a comment and one question to the doctor. the comment is that the doctor is pushing an authority top-down driven bureaucracy that will override our representation in government.

he is using fear tactics and all sorts of cases and emergencies and disasters that are occurring which diseases that the doctor and i'm going to ask the doctor how do you distinguish if it is covid omicron, monkeypox which disappeared and then you have be to, b5 and they are talking about b6. how do you prove these make-believe modeling and then you scare the hell out of everyone like painting them that there is a bogeyman that is going to attack them and not giving any credit about the human beings's god-given immune system. host: got your point. guest: thank you. i think what you left out for me

is a good example of the challenge that we face in our country. there is so much vincent -- misinformation and it is very important that there are trusted sources for information so that people can make decisions about their health and their families and their communities. i encourage people to talk to their own doctors. what i tried to do here today is to present evidence and science that i have learned over the course of my career, but there is so much misinformation that is out there. as i talked to people who have lost friends and family during covid, as i talk to people experiencing long covid symptoms. this is not a myth, this is not a fantasy. this is people's lives and it is so important that we recognize that there are things that people can do to protect their health.

monkeypox is a threaten our nation right now, it is something that public health is taking seriously and has to take seriously. i encourage people to learn and get information. the cdc website has good information on that. polio is another virus that we are starting to see in our nation again, one that is readily prevented by vaccination. it is so important that we keep the politics out of this and that you listen to your public health leaders at the community level and listen to your own medical provider and you do not get caught up in the noise that is out there that could endanger so many lies. host: dr. richard besser, the former acting director of the center for diseases control. and now a director at the rwjf. thank you so much. guest: my pleasure. host: coming up in 15 minutes we

will be joined by georgetown university ryan hochman to discuss his book “the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states." but first time for our open forum, letting you lead the discussion. for republicans, democrats and image -- and independents, those numbers are on the screen. start coming in with public policy, state issue or anything you want to talk about and we will get your calls right after the break. ♪ >> are u.s. intelligence agencies prepared for espionage threats from china, russia, iran, and north korea? we will look back into our archives sunday on q&a with the hoover institution fellow amy and author of "spies, lies, and

algorithms." >> we are in a place like 9/11 where the intelligence community needs to go through a reimagining to deal with the threats driven by new technology. i think about these threats driven by technologies in terms of five wars that they create for the intelligence community. more threats that can work across vast distances in cyberspace. more speed, they are moving at faster paces than before. more data that intelligence analysts have to confront, they are drowning in data. more customers that do not have security clearances meaning intelligence, people like moulder -- like voters who need to understand election interference and more competitors and that is the most challenging one and that is u.s. intelligence agencies do not dominate the collection and analysis like they did in the cold war. >> amy with her book "lies and

algorithms.' you can listen toq&a on our new app c-span now. >> karen smith's media career went from the stanford connecticut advocate to the new york times and then to the cds news and finished at the pbs newshour in 2005. in his short memoir of his working life entitled four boys and five presidents, he writes " there is a great deal of handwringing about the news business. young people do not read, do not know anything beyond what they see on their screens and do not see the value of independent knowledge as long as they have google and can look it up. the sky we are told is falling. >> terrence smith on booknotice

-- booknotes+ available on the c-span app or wherever you get your content. >> "washington journal" continues. host: time for open forum, any public policy issue or political issue you want to talk about. republicans can call in at 202-748-8001. democrats at 202-748-8000. independents at 202-748-8002. we just want to run through some of your calls so go ahead and dial in like linda did out of the tar heel state. independent. good morning. caller: hello, it is interesting why they did that before the midterms. why didn't they just wait? did they really think everybody

would be thrilled. they already had everyone who is going to vote for them. that is all. i just think it is curious. host: some news on that front, the associated press story on three more republican led states will ban almost all abortions as another state -- slate of laws severely limiting the procedure takes effect following the decision to overturn roe v. wade. today 13 states have passed trigger laws designed to outlaw most abortions if the high court throughout the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. the majority began enforcing soon after june 24 when the decision came down. idaho, tennessee and texas had to wait 30 days beyond when the justices formally entered the judgment which happened several weeks ago after the ruling was announced. the deadline expired on thursday." the story noting the changes in idaho, texas, and tennessee will not be too dramatic. all of these states had

antiabortion laws in place that largely blocked patients from accessing the system -- accessing the procedure. majority of clinics have stopped offering the service or move to other states where abortion remains legal. this is peter from springfield, massachusetts. independent. good morning. caller: i wanted to address statements made by i believe it was a 74-year-old woman who called on the democratic line from new york on your first segment earlier. she was trying to equate the forgiveness of the student loans to our duty as individuals to be charitable to our neighbors and help our neighbors. first of all, i do not there is any -- think there was any place in the bible that said the government should be the conduit for our charitable duties. it should not be a conduit and when christ said when matthew was -- when christ refuted math through -- math through -- matthew he did not say put that

money towards a poor and he said get away from the government. the reason for not using the government for our charitable duties is made most evident by this particular act of forgiveness on loans. we are talking about using a category of people who have nothing to do with the individual's ability to repay. if -- they are saying if you make less than 125,000 you are getting it. it does not matter if you are having a hard time paying it or not. you can be a young lawyer or doctor in the early stages and they are saying here is $10,000, go join a country club so you can turn up some business for your practice if you want to. there is a logical and common sense way to approach that and that is the fact that student loans have for years and still

are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. if you want to help people who are truly having a hard time paying student loans, get rid of that preclusion, allow it to be dischargeable in bankruptcy that way you have somebody in actual dire straits and have the burden of proving that they are in dire straits before they get the benefit of the forgiveness to. -- forgiveness. but to suggest that we will just throw the money out, that is one of the best reasons not to allow the government to be the conduit for charitable giving spirit host: would you feel different about it if the limit was $60,000 or $70,000? caller: no. i am retired and i am recently retired from a job and that is probably what my income is, about 70,000. i would not look for forgiveness of debt because of that. you do not do it just based upon an income, you do it on true proven hardship and you put the

burden of proof on the person who seeks the forgiveness to show that they are actually having a difficult time doing it. you just do not do blanket throwing out of money. host: from massachusetts this is matt -- this is matt from north carolina. wilmington. caller: i just wanted to say there is a lot of stuff in the news, i am happy that they are helping other people with student debt loans -- forgiveness. i think it is a good thing because those people will spend that money in the economy and keep it going which is 70% of how the u.s. does its work or works. but i want to make one final comment. two things. number one, i do not think anybody understands what a trillion dollars is and he says it is 1000 billions. as long as rich people make the tax laws the laws will never

have a narrow tax system. $30 trillion in debt makes me sad that the united states goes down in flames because we do not pay our bills. thank you. host: howard in new london, ohio. republican. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. good morning. this is open forum. i am here. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: hello? host: tell you what, we will work on that. bonnie in kentucky. democrat. good morning. caller: i would like to go back to your roe v. wade, my sister and i copied it down and we have the whole opinion of it and all the judges made a lot of decisions and there is a lot of stuff that people have been telling others because of all of the contacts that it was past and legalized abortion.

it gives a woman a right to choose to have an abortion. if you believe it is murder, that is ok, read your passage in the bible. in the bible the lord says are we going to make an allowance to put people in jail for all of those too because abortion is wrong, but they are discussing it like it should not have. a right to choose is what roe v. wade is. and i believe we have a right to choose because it takes down right now when they have done away with it the five of the constitutional rights that have been taken away. i challenge you to read it. if you wanted i will send you a copy. it is 50 pages long that we went to the library and copied it down and people should understand when they turned it back whether they believe in abortion or not, it took five of our amendments down in our constitution. it took our freedom of speech.

she had to testify against herself which is against our laws, so people should give roe v. wade a revisit and people should come on and discuss it. i will give you anybody who wants it and i will pay for it and for you to copy the whole thing. because it upsets me that we are losing our democracy over falstaff. host: back to north carolina, greensboro, jim. republican. good morning. caller: hello, how are you doing. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment briefly on the student loan forgiveness. that is a hot button with me. i paid mine back, and you know, it just sends the wrong message. however i do not believe it is going to actually come to fruition. here is -- even though i doubt if the biden intended it, i

think the way it is probably going to go down is it will be struck down by the courts. and just for the simple unfairness of it. unfortunately, that will not happen until after the election. and then biden will be able to throw his hands up and say i did everything i had to do. you see what i am saying? it is a good angle. i hate it, but that is his angle. there is some simple math. i had to get on my computer calculator because there were not enough numbers to multiply on my regular calculator. but my understanding is that there is a potential of 43 million people that could apply for that. and the minimum is 10 grand. that is not the 300 billion. if you multiply that out, that comes to 430 billion.

let us do another scenario. let's do another scenario. let's say half of the people i don't know that number, it could be 10% or 90% got pell grant so i just used 50% as an example. when you do that, you've got $215 billion getting $10,000 -- $250 billion would be at -- host: i got your math. i have seen estimates ranging from $200 billion to 400 some billion dollars for those who have gone to the numbers. this is joe in bowling green, ohio. caller: yes, on the student loans, it is not that other people are paying these loans back, it is just the government is going to take less profit.

most of the time people i've already paid back all of the principal, they pay back tons of money in interest. it is not that anyone is paying their loans, they have been paying on the use for 20 to 30 years. the government decided we will stop turning them into wage slaves for the government and we will just take less profit off of them. that is all this is. host: les con the segment, arlington, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a, to alert people if you haven't noticed in the news paper but the editorial two to three days back , the editorial headlines says polio is back. you must pay attention to it. polio is back and is in the wastewater and a weakened virus can still be transmitted to people. children are not showing

symptoms if they get polio. it should be paid attention to and they need to get the vaccinations before they are two. i don't know how to make people more alert of what polio can do, it'll paralyze you. host: a doctor from the johnson center, the former cdc director talking about that earlier this morning as well. appreciate the call. at last call in this open forum. about an hour left this morning and in that time, we will be joined by georgetown university brian hochman to discuss his recent book, the listeners, a history of wiretapping in the united states. stick around for that discussion. we will be back. ♪ >> jerome powell speaks at the

jackson hole symposium this money. watch live attack i game easter on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video out, or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> middle and high school students, it is your time to shine. you're invited to participate in studentcam documentary competition. in the upcoming midterm election, picture yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we asked this year's competitors, what are your top priorities and why? make a five to six minute video that shows the importance of your perspective. don't be afraid to take risks. be bold. amongst the 100,000 dollars in cash prizes is a $5,000 grant prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2020 three. visit our website at studentcam.org for competition rules. kids, resources, and the step by step guide.

>> live, september fourth on in-depth, uc berkeley governmental studies scholar stephen haworth is our guest talking about ronald reagan political career and the conservative movement. he is author of the several -- of several books including the age of the reagan series, greatness and patriotism is not enough. about the scholars who changed the course of conservative politics in america. join in the conversation with your phones, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. in-depth with steven hayward, live september 4 at noon eastern on book tv, on c-span two. >> the nixon tapes, they are

part private conversations, part deliberations and 100% unfiltered. >> let me say the main thing is it will pass and my heart goes out to those people who with the best of intentions are overzealous. if i would've spent less time as president i would've kicked their butts out. >> find it wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest c-span products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit organization.

shop now or anytime at c-span.org. host: now, the conversation of his recent book, -- this is a history going back probably a lot further than most people would think. you begin the book with the story of d.c. williams. who is he? >> so williams was a stockbroker in california who concocted a somewhat elaborate scheme to listen to corporate communications and make insider trades essentially based on the intelligence he gathered. he turns out to be the first american ever jailed for tapping a wire and this was the year 1864. he was imprisoned or convicted under a statute written in the state of california, which means

that the practice of wiretapping and laws against it, prohibitions against accommodate back all the way to the age of the telegraph, of the civil war. when i discovered this story eight years ago, i was stunned. i did not know wiretapping went back that far. the book i have written traces that history back to the age of the telegraph up until our own digital age today. americans tend to use the term wiretapping promiscuously, we use it for all electronic surveillance from the amazon alexa passively listening to your ambient noise, and being conversations in your home, to the n.s.a.'s data valence schemes.

since 9/11. this is not exactly an issue with the practice of wiretapping which strictly speaking refers to the interception of messages, conversations carried by wire live from a sender to a receiver. it is a practice that dates back to the 19th century. when wiretap is like williams would literally tap into the telegraph network and overhear morse code as it clicked away. that is how telephone typing worked starting in the late 19th century early 20th-century and really until the 1980's is what we are talking about. host: technologically, so we stay on the same page, the difference between wiretapping, bugging, and eavesdropping. guest: these are confusing

distinctions. they are confusing for a variety of reasons. the law was confused on these distinctions for 100 years which is interesting. wiretapping is listening to a phone exchange. bugging is the practice of hidden microphones to listen in on private conversations. this also dates back to the 19th century. and this really picks up after world war ii. host: what about youths dropping? guest: historical records are hazy on this but it refers to the practice of literally listening under the eaves of

someone else's home where the raindrops from the roof to the ground. prohibitions against eavesdropping date back to the 15th century, 16th-century in the united kingdom but it is not until of course the 19th century in the united states when it comes under the guise of american law. host: a history of wiretapping in the united states, that is our conversation in the final hour of the "washington journal." brian hochman is our guest, the author of the book the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states." i came out earlier this spring. here to take your phone call, the phone lines we had last segment regionally is if you are the eastern or central time zones, @cspanwj -- (202) 748-8000. if you are mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001 is the number to join the conversation. we take those until 10:00 a.m.

eastern. page five of your book, you write that wiretapping was once a dirty business as the supreme court justice family characterized it -- famously characterized it years ago. now it is a tactic indispensable of the direction -- detection of crime and essential to the protection of national security. how did we get from there to here? how do you answer that question? guest: it takes a whole book to explain it. this is the central story the book tells, how it is wiretapping goes from a tactic associated with criminals, conmen, dirty, unethical characters to unacceptable, legally acceptable if it not controversial tactic used in the protection of crime -- protection of national security and detection of crime. the transition from dirty business to acceptable investigative tactics is the rise of punitive law and order

politics in the 1960's. which essentially normalized the practice of wiretapping in america. it took about 100 years for the government to establish its wiretap authority and it is only in the wake of the civil rights uprising of 1966-1967 that the government is able to find -- to finally get in on the act legally speaking, though they have been doing it for much longer. that i think tells us a number of important things about the history of surveillance in this country. it is not necessarily a kind of knee-jerk response as we might think to anti-communists, cold war anti-communism, or today antiterrorism priorities. instead a gradual accommodation to much more subtle and problematic set of law enforcement imperatives.

i believe -- imperatives that i believe are critical to the rise of our society. host: going back to dirty business. we talked about d.c. williams, the first person convicted of wiretapping. but wiretapping is a tactic used in the civil war for military purposes, something federal troops and confederate troops both participated in. why was it considered a dirty business in the beginning? guest: wiretapping begins in the military. the civil war was the first conflict in world history in which the use of electronic communications proves instrumental on the battlefield and both sides, the union and confederacy, developed wiretapping techniques to listen in on the enemys' -- enemy's conversations so to speak. the tactic of wiretapping

receives national news conference throughout the conflict and indeed to both in the united states and across the atlantic as i discovered. quickly after the war, it falls into disrepute. as a result of characters like d.c. williams. the government and law enforcement had little interest or need to tap telegram lines in the 19th century simply because most telegraph companies kept copies of every message on file for six months or up to a year that were accessible to subpoena. it is a lot easier to file through a telegraph company's filing cabinet then it is to sit on the line and listen to morse code. that meanings of wiretapping grows up in the 19th century as the nations depended on electronic munication's grows, at the hands of criminals and conmen. there is a real powerful

association in this period and until the 1920's and 1930's between wiretapping and the criminal element. this is why setting aside long-standing concerns about privacy rights, this is why law enforcement has such trouble establishing its wiretap authority in the early decades of the 20th century. host: what happened in the 1920's and 1930's, we are talking gangsta era, eliot ness? guest: prohibition era, wiretapping, this is where the rubber meets the road. in history, it is when law enforcement in earnest gets in on the act. the date we can point to as a landmark of the history is 1928 when the supreme court hands down a landmark decision and fourth amendment jurisprudence notice -- known as homestead versus the united states according to the fourth and for the amendments making a constitutional.

this gives the prohibition vero and law enforcement generally to give the green light to wiretap in the open. though they have been performing wiretaps and conducting electronic surveillance operations for decades under the radar. as a result of the gray areas in the law. it is really the prohibition experiment that brings wiretapping into the mainstream domain of law enforcement. even then, it takes another four decades from 1928 in 1968 for the government -- to 1960 if the government to establish its wiretap authority and establish the wiretap oversight that is still very much in place today. host: a history of wiretapping in the united states, the subtitle of the book the listeners, brian hochman is the author. let me pause and bring in colors

on the topic. anthony miller, new york, good morning. you are on with the professor. caller: thank you for joining us and thank you to the moderator as well, perhaps both of you can answer my question if not today on some future segments c-span might air. it has troubled me greatly ever since barack obama came to office. he was able to wipe clean a lawsuit that had been pending i believe it was heptig versus at&t in the usa. the thought police have been a well oiled machine in this governmental apparatus since the beginning of time and have only perfected it. when you consider the fact that the whistleblower who came forward and exposed what the nsa had been doing by illegally wiretapping, they set up a big brother machine is what they refer to it as whereby they were allowed to go through everybody's -- everything you do, every keystroke, every phone

conversation. it is hard for us as regular people to know exactly how sophisticated the technologies have evolved. barack obama's first signing statement as president was to dismantle the lawsuit. this was a standing lawsuit against a criminal act against the constitution yet it was wiped clean by a single stroke of a presidential pen. i wonder, was that legal? i do not believe it was. when you weigh that into the cambridge analytica scandal, what is going on with spying on our own presidents, you had general milley calling a chinese general telling him don't worry, you mailed this virus but you -- whatever. it seems to me is this not tierney? host: let me pause there and get the professor to chat about that. i don't know if you know about that case but the nsa in general. guest: i'm not familiar with the

specific case the caller refers to about this charge the caller is making of wiretapping and electronic surveillance as a form of ty rennie -- tyranny, this was monts -- was once mainstreamed. this is a position against electronic surveillance conducted by a private citizen or the government that animated both the right and left for about a century. we live in different political age and those systems have been pushed to the margins. the caller is also referring to i believe at&t's listening room, room 606 or 612 in the fulton

street at&t switching station in san francisco. this was discovered in i believe 2006-2007 as a result of a whistleblower that exposed at&t's practice of enabling the government, the nsa, and other agencies, to listen to private conversations through backdoor channels in the internet and telecommunications infrastructures. this too has a long history as well, as early as 1895. the new york telephone company is leasing lines to the new york police department, the nypd. so the relationship between telecommunications, companies, tele-communications industry more generally, and law enforcement imperative, this is long in the making. i do not think we can see the

last 10 to 15 years of history accurately unless we see the 100 years-120 years that preceded it. host: a quote from your book that jumped out, "the american ideal of electronic privacy has never existed in practice." guest: so this is a provocation. i mean two things when i say privacy has never existed in practice when we think about communications privacy. the first is that wiretapping and electronic surveillance, historically speaking, technologically speaking, have been historically coextensive with the rise of electronic communications. there is no such thing as electronic comedic case and without electronic eavesdropping . so what it is we mean when we talk about electronic privacy is somewhat fraught i would say as a result.

but that is a somewhat grim story and the other side of the same coin and the second thing i refer to when i say the privacy you never existed in practice is that privacy has animated political constituencies to work successfully against the intrusions of government and technology for about 150 years. and when i say the privacy has never existed in practice, i'm also trying to capture something of this lost sense political commitment that animated so much of american political culture until the 1960's. and it dissipates after the triumph of the law & order coalition in the late 1960's. host: head up to michigan, this is alan waiting, good morning. caller: good morning. as far as this patriot act, if

you go back in time now, cole got blown up and they spent a lot of time there. we had our pants down. we do not -- did not do anything about it. two years later, you get the patriot act. that is a heck of a name. i held a top secret compartmentalized work with admirals, navy. so the world or talking about, though i was 4-0, perfect for us, i don't have respect for it in the civilian world. i have zero respect. let's go to the warrants. wasn't papadopoulos and carter spying on? they were spied on. trump -- about ruining trump in every way they can, hasn't he been the most scrutinized, spied

on men in the history of maine? host: a couple questions there. guest: i think that that history has yet to be written. i think we will know more as time unfolds. there is a lot in that comment. i think one response to offer that might -- my immediate response is to suggest the story of wiretapping in america is not simply a story about government spooks spying on politicians, private citizens. it is a more prosaic story, more mundane story. one of the things i was shocked to discover in researching this book was just how prolific

wiretapping was in the private sector up until the 1960's-19 70's in the united states. far more lines were tapped in jurisdictions like new york in the 1950's to litigate civil disputes and divorce cases than there were two spy on communist subversives or even bring down the mafia and the like. there is a tangled history behind that reality, behind the numbers, but i think it suggests the story of wiretapping goes in directions i think popular understanding and popular memory today might not necessarily expect, might not necessarily be familiar with, and part of the work of my book is uncover that story, which i believe is a truer story in the sense of

historical record and in the sense of how earlier generations of american understood the problem and litigated against it. host: what put you on the path of writing the book? guest: i came to the project very much by accident. i stumbled upon the story of d.c. williams, buried in the columns of a 19th-century newspaper and was shocked to discover wiretapping went back so far. i'm a historian of technology, a cultural historian of the united states, and i should have known better. i wanted to understand one, the reality of the history, how far it goes back, and life it is that as an educated american, i would think of wiretapping and electronic surveillance more generally as more modern, more contemporary phenomenon.

without doing much digging, i discovered it was not a subject that had received much historical treatment. there is a lot of work that has been done in legal scholarship surrounding the history of the fourth amendment, surrounding fourth amendment law, electronic surveillance law, wiretap law, but outside of the domain of law , in the domain of policy and culture and technology, that story has not been told. i had to be the one to tell it. host: sticking to the domain of culture, how is wiretapping and bugging and eavesdropping portrayed in media specifically cinema in the decades? guest: this was a very important story for me to follow. contrary to our understanding of electronic surveillance, particularly government

surveillance, with the capitol building, contrary to the image of wiretapping as the province merely of a shadowy surveillance state that goes on behind closed doors in the realm of shadowy government secrets, wiretapping has been a perennial point of cultural fascination dating back to the 19th century. one of the cultural documents i was thrilled to uncover as i was working through the sources was a kind of state of halt novels, tremendously popular thrillers produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries cold wire thrillers. these were detective novels that followed the exploits of wire tappers, telegraph tappers, on

both sides of the law. almost always in the genre of the wire thriller, wiretapping was depicted as a dirty, disreputable even dishonorable activity and i 12 -- i wanted to recover some of the by recovering sources. fast forward a century to hbo's celebrated series the wire where wiretapping is mostly depicted as the good way to wage the war on drugs, not always effective but certainly better than knocking heads on street corners . i find those two historical touchstones illuminating. wiretapping at the turn of the 20th century as dirty, dishonorable, disreputable, and wiretapping at the 21st as something that good police do.

how it is that transition takes place is much of the story the book tells. host: a scene from the wire tappers, an illustration from the 1906 with the quote quiet, motionless waiting over the sounder, the protagonist listening to a telegraph tap, that is the picture from the novel. we are talking with guest: who wrote "the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states ." it is just after 9:30 on the east coast. at 10 a cocky and eastern, we will end this program. the house is expected to have a brief pro forma session this morning so that is where we may be going if they are in at that time. go ahead and keep calling in on lines split regionally, (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central time zone, (202) 748-8001 if you are in the mountain or pacific time zone. this is shown in the mountain time zone, colorado.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for the gentleman. i guess he did not answer from the last person. when obama and others spy on a presidential campaign and then biden can write a presidential house, now we have another coming out to say the fbi is involved in telling him bury the biden story. isn't this corruption? all these departments in the building behind you need to be shut down. this is absolute corruption. host: that is shown in colorado. the intersection of presidents and wiretapping in history there. guest: i unfortunately cannot speak to these questions with any kind of authority. my book is the history. it stops generally speaking in 2001 and of course it came out before these recent revelations. what i can say and what we know

for now is that wiretapping, one conducted by the federal government or by municipal or state law enforcement, is conducted under a rigorous set of judicial safeguards. so i think we will find out more about how that kind of current controversy came to be. but generally speaking, when wires are tapped, they are done above board and the system the federal government put in place in 1968 with the passage of the omnibus streets act, title iii of that law is the federal wiretap app. -- cap act. 1973, the foreign surveillance intelligence act, these are

pre-much followed to the letter of the law. for better or for worse. host: how would that history be different if it was looking at other countries around the world? guest: that is a really great question. i invite other scholars and historians -- there is only so many wiretaps one can follow. the american story looks different from obviously the story of wiretapping and electronic surveillance in totalitarian governments, you know, countries like russia in the age of the soviet union, east germany in the age of the soviet union, or even latin america under military dictatorships. those are very different stories from the american story. also, more democratic nations

who have similar communications infrastructures and similar legal regimes, the united kingdom or canada, their story looks different from ours for a of reasons. the first reason why the american story looks different is because it happened here first. the techniques of technical surveillance that would become wiretapping and bugging were pioneered in the united states context. secondly, there is a far more robust i think tradition of civil liberties and civil rights activism in the united states that has shaped the history that i've traced, and it is one reason why it took so long to pass a federal wiretap law in the united states in 1968.

it took one century, whereas in canada, it took a couple years and in the united kingdom it took less. it is because most americans did not like wiretapping. they believed it was a dirty business. and that political consensus won the day for the better part of the century. it is one reason why our story is different from the story of other nations because ordinary americans pushed back. host: south carolina, this is audrey, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a question if i may please. host: go ahead. caller: did we have wiretapping during the civil rights era, and how did that come about and what did you learn from it? thank you. i will listen for my answer. guest: thanks for the question. this is an important story the book follows.

the caller is referring to the fbi's surveillance activities in the 1950's and 1960's, in particular harassing and surveilling civil rights leaders. martin luther king most especially but also elijah mohammed, malcolm x, sophie carmichael, and others. this is an important story the book follows but also i want to follow another story that is happening alongside it, which is how the triumph of a law and order style of politics -- which is essentially a racialized politics -- wins out in the 1960's as a result of civil rights revolution. essentially it empowers law enforcement to wiretap a far

less visible sector of the american public. that is communities of color, on the front lines of what would be known as the war on drugs. while the book traces that history of save mart luther king and it also traces the history of the martin luther king recordings, which have remained under seal since the 1970's, it also traces how wiretapping becomes normalized in the workings of american law enforcement in the war on drugs. upwards of 80% to 90% of wires that are tapped in this country in any given year are done for that specific purpose, to wage the war on drugs. communities of color are at the frontlines of their conflict. host: why are there martin luther king taps under seal?

guest: this is a crazy story. the story of martin luther king being bugged by f.b.i. is well-known to end it was in fact well known during his own life and was a part of the public record shortly following his death. he recordings themselves were put under seal as a result of the church committee investigation of the federal intelligence community in the 1970's. and have remained under seal ever since. politicians on the right have attempted to unseal those recordings over time, mostly in efforts to tarnish his legacy, tarnishes name, most famously in the run-up to congress's passage

of martin luther king as a holiday. a senator from north carolina tried to unseal those documents. he was rebuffed. generations of politicians and historians have tried to get at their contents through creative means. they will be unsealed in 2027 and we will have to see what happens then. host: heading to dearborn, michigan, good morning, you are next. jeff, are you with us, sir? caller: what a stingray listening device is and what dirt boxing is. host: we can take those up. a stingray listening device. guest: i don't know what a dirt box is. a stingray is essentially a fake cell phone tower.

it is also known as an imfia catcher and this was a device developed on the private market in the 1980's and 1990's and has become a favored tool of law enforcement in the 21st century. the use of the stingray has grown up in the gray areas of the law for quite some time. it is unclear whether it is legal to use a stingray are not. it can be used in certain jurisdictions, it cannot in others propped up in recent years and ice investigations in detroit, drug investigations in baltimore, even in the monitoring of black lives matter

protests and activism in chicago , this is an important story i did not quite have room to fit into the book but it tracks along with the history of wiretapping. the wiretap grows up in american law enforcement in the same kinds of legal gray areas, questions like is it legal for law enforcement to wiretap if it is not necessarily permissible to use the fruits of that wiretap in a court of law? is it legal to tap a telephone in a state for the feds so to speak to tap a telephone in the state where wiretapping is prohibited. these are all kind of tangled eagle questions, questions of jurisdiction, questions of legal theory that get worked out over the course of a long century, until the 1960's. the use of the stingray, like

the use of facial recognition technologies by law enforcement today, operates on similar kinds of legal gray areas and we will see how those questions get resolved as time unfolds. host: on a more recent tangled legal question, what was operation root canal? guest: operation root canal was an effort by the fbi in the 1990's to essentially build a backdoor into the nation's evolving communications infrastructure. starting in the 1980's, with the breakup of the bell system and the technological revolution of communications that ensued with mobile phones, pagers, tax machines, and especially the revolution in fiber arctic communications -- fiber-optic communications and digital networks, this caused tremendous

problems for law enforcement. it meant they could not necessarily wiretap lines in the way they had. in order to get around this problem, they sought political relief. in 1990, the fbi goes to congress to begin to essentially force a communications industry to build surveillance capacities into their new networks. host: a backdoor. guest: essentially. the communications industry pushes back notably in the name of privacy but also in the name of off it and ultimately this leads to the passage of a landmark law often forgotten to this day in 1994 known as the comedic h and's assistance for law enforcement act. this is a law that

requires surveillance companies -- comedic ancient companies to build surveillance into their networks. the internet was not covered under this but telephone communications and other forms of data exchanges were. this was the first time the government essentially goes on record requiring innovation to be surveillance-ready. this is the result of this backdoor campaign on the part of the fbi that had called -- it's called operation root canal quite amusingly in my opinion. host: new jersey, this is cheri next. caller: good morning. since trump is not in office anymore and it is common knowledge the f guy tapped the white house, i was wondering, how many other presidents as the fbi tap in the white house while

they were president? is there other presidents the fbi has spied on besides trump or his trunk the only one they have tap? what other presidents have -- host: that is your question, from sherry. guest: the white house itself is not wiretapped as far as we know and we should note that any wires that were tapped in the trump administration was done under both fisa and title iii oversights. other presidents, most famously richard nixon, recorded their own conversations, so did lyndon johnson. nixon himself is well-known for weaponizing the use of the fbi and use of its surveillance capacities. so there is a great deal of precedent here as well.

i'm not sure if that exactly answers the question, but, starting with johnson's president -- johnson, presidents often recorded their conversations by telephone and nixon himself, as the caller probably knows, recorded his own exchanges in the oval office for a variety of reasons. we are not necessarily any unprecedented territory -- an unprecedented territory. host: you called the book a personal wiretap when somebody could record themselves and you talk about nixon in the white house. what about google home and alexa's that people have in their own homes and the questions that raised about wiretapping? guest: as i mentioned, the google home, the amazon alexa, these are not technically wiretaps. but they are listening devices and it is well-known that they listen to ambient noise, ambien

conversations passively, even when you're not addressing them. this is an emerging area of research. one of the things i find so fascinating about the widespread use of alexa and alexa lite technologies is how normal they are and how many americans, by far the majority, resigned themselves to the implication their conversations may be monitored in one form or another and it may be in their interests as consumers to have their data monitored. you will get better advertisements, better deals, and also it is this sort of gateway problem that we all have to accommodate ourselves to when we turn on our phones or go on the internet. we know our location will be tracked, we know that our conversations may be monitored.

americans as late as the 1960's would have been horrified at our resignation, and one of the things i want to uncover in the book is just how it is that resignation comes about, just how it is how our sense of wiretapping and eavesdropping is normal is the way the internet works, just the way our communication environment works. that is one of the stories the book tells. but yes, i think this is an emerging area of research and amazon alexa that you have in your home, it is listening. host: we have about 10 minutes left with brian hochman. you can keep calling in but in your book, you mentioned every american generation has a

wiretapping scandal. what are some of the most interesting to you that we have not gotten to yet? guest: every generation seems to uncover wiretapping with fresh outrage about a decade or so -- there is a kind of cycle of resignation and outrage. the earliest national scandal pertaining to wiretapping in the united states happened in new york city in 1916. this was a very interesting and complicated affair that involved multiple entities. at the root of it was a slightly corrupt mayor's office that had coerced the new york police department or forced the police department to spy on catholic

priests suspected of charity fraud. along the way, the nypd was working at the same time with a private investigator named william burns, who was, in those days, the most private investigator in the united -- the most famous private investigator in the united states. this was a national scandal. it hit the headlines of every major newspaper across the united states in 1916-1917. what it was john mitchell's office was doing, these priests who had their telephone conversations tap and this private detective who was at the center of it in questionable ways. what is interesting about the scandal is all of the major players involved escaped unscathed and burns was at the center of the controversy nature

became the first head of the bureau of investigation, the entity that would become the fbi. so wiretapping works in interesting ways. -- ways i found. these generational scandals were somewhat surprising. to me to uncover. there also is of interesting stories for me to follow that i detail in the book and that would be ripe for further research as well. host: the book again, "the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states ." from harvard university press, brian hochman, a professor at georgetown, taking your phone calls about the history. this is randy in kentucky, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. in the future they say they will be able to read your thoughts in the future. will you be responsible criminally for your thoughts you might have that are negative?

also, what makes it a crime to have thoughts or to talk to somebody about committing a crime. i know you say it is conspiracy, but that person has paid taxes for that wire, transmission, or whatever, the internet. we pay taxes for that all of the time. how come i do not get to share in that the way i get to equally or others and we continue to say everyone is a conspirator and we put them in prison for that without even committing a crime. host: professor? guest: so the story of the government or shadowy corporate entities or even a private citizens having the ability to wiretapped the brain the caller says, this is a very old story. in the 1960's, mainstream politicians were warning of the thought police, big brother, and

the government's capacity to listen in using all manner of dystopian innovations such as to bug among others. the future is hard to say, hard to divine p i do not ever think it would go that far. but i think there are some very interesting technologies that are in place today that we should think about as part of our future and part of the future of privacy in technology in america. the most important device i have been thinking about, practice i have been thinking about, technology i have been thinking about, one that resembles i think history of wiretapping to a great degree, is the use of facial recognition technology, particularly by law enforcement. this is a practice that has grown up in the gray areas of the law. it is also a practice that has

great technological fallibility as investigative journalists and activists have uncovered. it is hard to say where the debate surrounding facial recognition -- debates around facial recognition are going to go. i think if history is any pretext, we will be having these debates for a long time to come, which is why i think it is important to know where we came from. host: ohio, this is ed, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is, you said wiretapping had such a hard time getting a hold in the united states opposed to other countries because the american citizens were so much against it . do you believe that is possibly still the case that the majority of america would not be wiretapped or it is against our civil rights to listen to our private conversations in that the federal government don't care and they do it they want to

do in the name of get the drug dealers because, if you make anything so terrible it is -- it does not matter what we do to go after them, then it is ok to do it because they are so terrible. that is all i got, thanks. host: this is a great question -- guest: this is a great question. i think all americans would be horrified if their line was tapped on a way or another. interestingly, all of the current social science research suggests that digital resignation, surveillance resignation has really eroded our sense of privacy and the vast majority of americans have accommodated themselves of

monitoring of their data, their communications, in one form or another. what i think that means is fighting back against the incursion of technology today is something of an up a battle, more of an uphill battle than it was even as late as 1966-1967. far more americans in those days , numerically speaking, had a mainstream, earnest commitment to privacy and congress in washington in the name of civil liberties and the name of civil rights also made good on those popular beliefs and the mainstream sense of privacy essential to american political life.

again, today, that is not so much the case and not only have we resigned ourselves to our data be monitored by corporate firms, by social media companies , and the like, but also i think we regard wiretapping, law enforcement surveillance that goes on in the name of enforcement priorities like the war on drugs as essentially good police work. there really has been an erosion over time, and while i think it is true -- and all of the callers would probably agree that -- if we had our own telephone tap, we would probably be horrified. at the same time, our research suggests we have resigned ourselves to this reality. that, i think, makes the future pretty cloudy for the ordinary american citizen. host: as we wait for the house to come in, a brief pro forma

session this morning and we will take you for gavel-to-gavel coverage when they do. any interesting question on twitter but you could also take it historically as well, asking does the government just assume all unencrypted traffic is public information and therefore fair game for the surveillance system? 20 specifically to internet traffic, but this is a question that could be asked time and again throughout american history. guest: it does and it does not. it depends on what kind of traffic, what platform you are using, the legal kind of protocols here and regulations are byzantine and numerous. generally speaking, the government has one rule we can say that holds throughout the history of wiretapping and electronic surveillance in america. from the 19th century to the

present, the government is much more interested in data and communications that are at rest as opposed to those in motion, live. it is easier to get a hold of stored communications then it is to sit on a wire or tap a telephone in the 1940's-19 50's. historic communications are much different and legally speaking it is easier for law enforcement to acquire those stored communications than to actually sit on your telephone line. those relationships are changing slightly as a result of landmark supreme court cases in mid 2010, but that rule still holds. host: for a lot more on the history of wiretapping in the united states, the book is "the listeners: a history of wiretapping in the united states ." the author, brian hochman, a

professor at georgetown university on twitter, @brian) >> we take you to the house floor for a live gavel-to-gavel coverage of what is expected to be a brief pro forma session. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. august 26, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable jamie raskin to actor as speaker pro tempore on this day -- to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker o