host: good morning.

this is the washington journal for october 13th 20 20 two. after a long break and a postponement do to hurricane ian, the january 6 is set to hold what may be its final hearing later today. this morning, we want to ask your opinion about the january 6 hearings. have they changed your mind about what happened that day and former president trump's alleged role in it? have the hearings impacted how you you the upcoming midterm elections? we want to hear from you. republicans call us (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents your line is (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003 or on facebook add facebook.com/cspan and send us a tweet at http://twitter.com/cspanwj and

we are at instagram as well. this morning, we are into the painting that january 6 committee hearing later this afternoon. they could be the panel's final hearing before it puts out a report later this year. let's take a look at how the new york times previews that hearing that will happen at one :00 p.m. eastern. the headline says house january 6 panel plans a sweeping summation of its case against trump and i will read just a little bit of that article. the new york times writes, the house committee investigating the attack is planning on thursday to provide a sweeping summation against donald j. trump in what could be its final hearing seeking to reveal damming evidence.

armed with witness interviews and unreleased footage of the violence of january 6, they plan to argue that mr. trump's lies about widespread voter fraud inspired far right extremist and election deniers who present a continuing threat to american democracy. unlike previous earrings which focused on specific aspects of mr. trump's attempts to overturn the election, members will attempt to portray the entire arc of the plan demonstrating mr. trump's involvement in every step, even before election day. again that is the new york times preview. before we get to your calls, i want to chat with the guest. our guest is not ready yet, let's talk about a poll.

the monmouth university has a pole that came out at the end of september in that pole asked people about their view of the hearing and also about the january 6 committee's investigation overall. here are some of the findings, this is a monmouth university poll that says, one in four americans say the house investigation of the january 6 incident at the u.s. capitol has helped strengthen american democracy while slightly more, 30 four percent said it helped to weaken our democracy. another 30 5% feel the investigation has had no impact on american democracy. at the same time, 50 percent of

americans believe that our system of government is sound and marks the return of pre-2021 levels, 50 2% answer that question that democracy was sound in november 2018. i will scroll a little bit further down about the hearings themselves, the monmouth university polling found that trust in the house january 6 committee has remained stable since the public hearing started. themselves,34% has a lot of truy are conducting a fair trial. another 24% currently trust the committee's fairness a little and 39% do not trust at all.

60 seven percent of republicans have no trust in the investigation. a majority of americans, 58% say they should resume public hearings but they say it should wrap up its investigation as soon as possible and 11 percent wanted wrapped up in the next year. that is monmouth university's polling that came out at the end of september regarding faith and american systems in the impact of the january 6 committee. before we get to some of your calls, i also want to play some video earlier this month at the mccain institute in arizona. gop representative liz cheney he was the chair of the committee discussed what she sees at the most important lesson from that committee.

this is representative liz cheney. [video clip] one of the biggest lessons for me and this may seem obvious, i grew up around politics. i grew up in a family that was involved in public service. the lesson of january 6 and of what we have seen since then is one of the most important lessons undoubtedly in this nation, our institutions do not defend themselves. it takes individuals. if you look at what we have seen , there have been far too many examples of cowardice. there have been far too many examples of craven political ambition in the last year and a half but there have also been standing examples of bravery and

courage. the people of arizona are blessed to have so many of those examples here. people like rusty bowers who testified in front of our community --committee. sitting there on the dais and listening to rusty talk about his faith and talk about his duty to the constitution and his oath and what it meant to him was incredibly moving for me and my colleagues. arizona and our nation owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude. host: that was representative liz cheney of wyoming, a republican who is the vice chair of the select committee on january six. we will go to your calls now. as a reminder your line is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202)

748-8002. the question is, how have these hearings impacted your analysis, thoughts about what happened that day? former president trump's alleged role. also, how have the hearings impacted your view of the midterms. for we go, our guest is ready now. i want to bring up our guest. we have a congressional reporter at the guardian and he will help us preview that hearing that will be later. good morning hugo, how are you? guest: i'm great, how are you? host: thank you for joining us. first of all, what are your thoughts, do you think this will be the final hearing or do you

think there may be more public comment, public statements that the committee will make later this year? guest: that's a really good question. the committee itself is not sure. i think they are doing this hearing today as the final investigative hearing. we will get another hearing surrounding the report and the recommendations that the committee will make when they try and make recommendations about how they can prevent another january 6 from happening. the members and the council are treating this hearing as the final investigative one wherein they will show new things that they have uncovered, new pieces of information, new evidence that appears to connect donald trump to january 6. host: what kind of new threats or revelations are you expecting today? we have had so many questions about the documentary that

followed around roger stone, ginni thomas, the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas. what do you think could be new that we here later today? guest: the committee said they want to step back and they want to take a wider look at threats to democracy as a whole in today's hearing. they wanted chart how a lot of the ideas and strategies of overturning the election started. before election day in 2020 and progress through to january 6 and continues now past january 6. they want to use several pieces of evidence. they will rely upon six-eight minutes of documentary footage

that followed roger stone in the days leading up to election day and around january 6. they also want to bring in people like michael flynn who was involved in this contentious december meeting where they were talking about seizing voting machines and they want to focus on people like c-span --they want to chart the progress of this income to january 6 and say it was all of trump's operatives and that clear and present danger continues to this day. host: what about the secret service? there has been a subplot of these january 6 hearings of what

the secret service members who were part of the presidents detail thought, but they told him. we know that some of their phones have been seized and records. do you think some of that might be shared today? guest: that is the expectation as well. it is not clear how much the secret service text will be a major theme for today. i think there will be some relation and some new details about the communications that were being sent between the agents on january 6. as you say, this is been a major issue and difficulty for the community -- committee because when they tried to get them text messages from the agents phones they found that the data had been wiped and they were wiped pretty comprehensively. they really were wiped. but the committee did get

several communications and emails through the secret service. i think they were able to partially re-create the kinds of contacts that were happening that day. especially with respect to how the secret service was deliberately defying tribes to go to the capital because by the time of his speech, the proud boys had already broken into the capital and the secret service knew that this would be a problem for trump to try and join them. those text messages show the surprise at trump's request and how they needed to get him back to the white house. host: what happens after today's hearing? we know that at some point there should be a written report? give us what you expect from the rest of the year from this committee. guest: we have the hearing today, we will get some of the new evidence and then all of the effort will focus on producing

the final report. we will get an interim report, they will squirrel away and put a several hundred page report. it will have elements that are audiovisual. it sounds like there will be a digital report and printed what is well. that will probably come out towards the end of the year. if they find anything out before the the report, it is possible they will do a separate hearing. the expectation is they will now concentrate on the report and make recommendations in another hearing. host: my final question before we let you go, how do you expect the outcome of the midterm elections to affect this

committee? we know that if republicans take control in january, this committee likely goes away. what type of pressure will be on the committee depending on the outcome of the election? guest: this committee has always known that it is up against a deadline and that is the end of this congress. they have always know they have to get this thing wrapped up by december or even early january. that is how congress operates. investigations don't carry through congress to congress. i think the committee is very knowledgeable about it and does not expect anything to change. they will wrap up there and vacation -- investigation by the end of the year. i think it is more likely that they don't focus on january 6 because it is not as politically

interesting to them in the way that it has been for democrats. it may well be that this is the final january 6 investigation that congress ever does. host: thank you so much for breaking it down for us. hugo, i will see you this afternoon. thank you again for joining us this morning. so now, let's take some of your calls. again, we want to know your opinn about the january 6 committee hearings and whether that impacted your views of what happened that day as well as former president trump's alleged role as well as have the hearings impacted how you are approachg these midterm elections? you see on your seen, the numbers to dial. let's start with joe, he is calling us from georgia on the republican line. joe, what are your thoughts

about the january 6 committee? caller: first of all, i love c-span. i have been calling your network for 30 years. i think the january 6 hearing is a total waste of taxpayer money. down here in georgia we are working hard to elect brian kemp and herschel walker and i want to predict that herschel walker and brian kemp will have big wins in georgia and republicans will take over the house and senate and put a republican president back in the white house in 2024. i can't wait to get up every day to work for herschel walker in ryan kim. host: you are energized but what about the committee, you say you don't have much faith in, tell me why? guest: the democrats, liz cheney i consider her a democrat, they

are just anti-trump. from the time he has been elected everyone has been after him. when trump was in office, the stock market was doing great. i think this is a witchhunt by the democrats and i think it will be the biggest republican win on november 8. i will cast my vote, we start early voting and i will go there monday morning for the great herschel walker in the great brian kemp in the total publican party. host: our next collar is roi on the democrat line. what are your thoughts this morning roy? caller: i think the january 6 committee needs to wrap up. they came up with the good enough case. to get a criminal referral for president trump. what he has done to the united

states is that he ruined the whole country. he makes democrats to look like they are some radical group or something like that. we are the same democrats we have been the whole time. i am in the middle, i was republican but i switch to democrat. what is going on in the united states is a sad state of affairs. if it does not in all this fighting between each other, we will ruin our country. basically, if they win the midterms, the republicans. it is done, the united states is over. they want donald trump so bad, he could give a hoot about anybody. they are just looking for one thing and that his power. what i would like to see is donald trump get charged and convicted and never be the president again and admitted that the 2020 election was fair. if he does not do that, put them

in jail. i think the capitol police, a lot of those guys who i knew from my time being a lifeguard. it is terrible what happened that day. all these older people getting mad for nothing. the country is not coming to an end and is never been better. there will always be problems and we always work together but not anymore. it is sad to see what is happened between republicans and democrats. people fighting each other, that is not what we're supposed to be about. we are supposed to work together as a country. i don't see that happening anymore. i really don't. i may move and leave the country if it gets too much worse. host: we appreciate your comments. i will have to move onto another collar. dan is calling for mississippi

on the independent line, what are your thoughts dan? host: good morning. caller: my thoughts are he should be convicted. host: dan? we lost you for a second. caller: it is probably a waste of time. here's the point i wanted to make. the only reason that it happened is because of three states. in three different communities and all three of them were black. those are the folks that he -- votes he wanted to take away. host: i think we have lost and. we are going to move on. dan, you might have to call us back. john in maryland on the

republican line. john, how are you feeling about these committee hearings? caller: this morning, can you hear me? i think it is more akin to the same thing with the three years that rachel maddow was pounding her fist about russia. it's akin to the same thing. it is trying to divert your attention. it is a dead fish on arrival. it means nothing. you had some people who were upset about the election and they voice their opinions. you had some radical goofballs that jumped in the mix as well. you had people that were concerned that something was not done properly. it is half the country. russia, russia, russia, we have to have the mueller report. you get the mueller report and

what is it say? no collusion. and then it is off the next thing. another way to divert people's attention from the lousy job this administration has done and look at the mess this country is in. host: that was john in maryland. our next caller is helen calling on the democratic line from brooklyn, new york. what are your thoughts? caller: i think that it is not a fair process. i don't understand how nancy pelosi kicked off jim jordan and the other representative. in a court of law, it is 12 people have to hear both sides. this is a one-sided thing.

the two republicans are trump haters. i happen to be a democrat and never voted republican but i voted for donald trump in 2016 and 2020. the democratic party i used to know is very far to the left. i don't like far to the right and i don't like far to the left. i just want to add one other thing. c-span is supposed to be an even keel. i saw you on cnn and msnbc last week talking about the state of affairs. i don't think you should be answering the phones. you are not fair and balanced. i saw you talking about donald trump of the republicans. you should not be sitting in that chair. that is wrong. people are not stupid. that is wild left the democrats, goodbye. host: thank you for your

comments helen. mark is our next caller from florida on the republican line. what are your thoughts? caller: i will be quick if i can hear. this whole january 6 committee has been a disgrace. there is so much to say but let me remind people of one thing here. the january 6 committee put on the stand kathleen hutchinson, they put her on there to smear and trash donald trump. for the whole country to watch. she said a number of things, it was all trashing trout. one of the things she said, she said that donald trump was fighting with the secret service agents are trying to grab the steering wheel. the next day, the secret service actually released a statement completely debunking cassidy

hutchinson's comments and stated the security agents were willing to testify to refute her comments about how trump's behavior was on that day. and yet, the january 6 committee did not allow the secret servant agents on the stand. they allow trump to be trash but they did not allow the secret service to refute her comments about him. it is a classic example of how one-sided and despicable this entire thing has been. that is my comment, thank you very much. host: our next caller is jim from new jersey on the democratic line. caller: good morning to you and thank you for taking my call.

as smart as the members of the opposite side is concerned. they are purely trumplicans. as far as the january 6 committee is concerned, they did the right thing. they tried to get to the facts and they did. all right? it is not a waste of time. he is a criminal. and that is all there is to it. host: let's hear now from ron. he is in beeville, texas. caller: good morning.

host: good morning ron, go ahead. caller: i called on the independent line but i am more of just a conscientious observer now. i am looking for a party to vote for. donald trump --took a russian wife which is acceptable. then he tried to abolish the united nations and was pretty friendly with vladimir putin at some point. wanted to point out that he wanted to be friends with him. and then, when he did not continue his presidey, he took a run wh misinformed people against the capital and now, the

missing documents from his mar-a-lago estate down there. it all seems to point in one direction. i just feel that way. and that is it. host: that was ron and beeville, texas. i want to bring up this article in the hill, or previous caller mentioned cassidy hutchinson's testimony, a former white house aide whose testimony in one of the early hearings did face a lot of backlash because she described some conversation she heard second and third hand about whether the secret service restrained president trump from going to the capital that day. again, this is the hill. the headline says, the secret service denial of the story fuels attacks from both sides. i will scroll down and read a

little bit from this article. it says, the narrative has sparked a quick denial from the agents involved. prompting trompe loyalist --through back channels, the secret service has confirmed trump's eagerness to join protesters at the capitol, a number of whom stormed the building and effort to block congress from certifying president biden's victory. a lot of what ms. hutchison said that is true, certainly trump wanted to go to the capital. publicly, he reiterated that inside the car, a source ose to the secret service told the hill. justanted to again, that is

the hi article about cassidy hutchinson's testimony in the attacks from both sides i came up as a result. this is benny from stockton, california on the democrats line. what you think benny? caller: i want to address the lady that indicated that you should not be in that chair. you deserve to be in that chair. you have an opinion and because you do not think the ways she think she wants a ban issue. i disagree, you definitely deserve to be in that chair. as far as the january 6, i appreciate the committee because it brought out things that we did not know. although we saw it take place on live television. i thank god for the committee. and one more thing, because of trump, hispanics coming from

latin america, the councilperson nla. we definitely need to band together, thank you. host: that was benny in stockton, california. i don't want to make this about me, i am a reporter, it is not my job to share my opinion. i do not share my opinion and what i write or when i do an analysis on tv programs. i do provide political analysis and i try to be fair and balanced and accurate when i do so as when i host washington journal. with that, let's go to another caller. this is arnett from lesson grove, alabama on the independent line. what do you think this morning? caller: i have to say, i think

it is a great day in america that we have the ability to continue to press for justice as far as whoever is involved. there is always going to be detractors on both sides of an issue. as long as we apply justice to the case, and let the facts fall where they fall. any man who has done anything in america has his day in court. unfortunately in america, there are those who don't get the opportunity that has been afforded to this american citizen. he is been given a lot. there are those who have suffered. fbi raids with boots on their next. there are those who have been coddled, just like the former president. just let the cards where they

may. let's stop attacking those who reported, let's stop attacking those who are against it. let's stop attacking those who want to see it even be worse. let's let the justice system do what i do. i am a veteran, as a veteran i was apolitical because i don't want to choose my commander-in-chief because something bad happened to me. my mother and the rest of american people do that. i am still apolitical. it affords me the opportunity to watch anyone i want and make my own mind up on what my decisions will be. as far as when it comes to breaking the law, which i was sworn to uphold by the

constitution, i love it. good, bad, indifferent, it gives me a better life than i have seen in other countries in this world, and i have visited 20 one of them. thank god for that. host: that was arnett and alabama. our next call is david in virginia, you are calling on the republican line. what are your thoughts about the january 6 select committee? caller: i think it is about time they wrap that up. there is both sides to it. you can see, they were enticed by the federal government or someone. we have to march on down there and take care of it. i would like to piggyback off the cnn angle with u.s. a hose. it is the first time that i have never seen a host that is on other liberal network.

i was curious about that. because you are always claiming how unbiased you are. i was just wondering about that. but somebody beat me to the punch on that, have a good day. host: our next caller is verging from louisiana on the democrat line. caller: i am just thinking about how racially divided our country is now. people can't see how donald trump has fueled that. it is a sad day for america. since donald trump, we have went backwards instead of forwards. he is a racist, pompous man. he thrives on division and

january 6 is just a typical example of how backward and divided our country is. people in washington, they don't care about the right thing. all they think about is democrats or republicans and it is a sad day that our country has been so divided with this antichrist president that has been in office. it is really sad that people can't see how trump the antichrist. we need to really stand up and really believe in right. it is not republicans, democrats it is about doing the right thing for the people. nobody thinks about the people, all we think about is whether it is republican or democrat and it

is not about what they were put in office to do. host: next up is brad, he is calling on the independent line from north beach, maryland. what you think brad? caller: good morning ma'am. as far as the committee goes, i think it is a sham. i think most people see that depending on their political party. there are democrats, they think it is wonderful, republicans to pay any attention to it. i think it is a sham. they went in with their presupposed conclusion. they did not go into fact-finding, they had their conclusion already in mind and did their investigation to mold to their conclusion. it does not change my opinion whatsoever. i don't think there will be a red wave in november. i think joe biden will be a lame

duck president. the division in this country right now that this hearing is starting to pinpoint. you can hear that in the calls. the opinions of this are so diverse and so far on both ends. you can't blame the division solely on one person. i find it offensive that you allowed someone to refer as a sitting president as an antichrist and didn't moderate that. again, what i am hearing about your bias it doesn't surprise me. host: we have some tax that have come in, in bakersfield, california, an independent voter. the impact of the january 6 committee has been profound. it has an expert fashion

separated those who value democracy in those who do not. another text from bob and hermann towne, minnesota says. the new republican party using political violence and calling it normal political discourse. no matter how much evidence, the hard right will never accept the truth. this is a tweet from whitaker 187, the committee has a chance to be effective and get the truth about the election, instead they stacked the deck with partisan and limited the scope to that which would be advantageous to them. this is from mark and buffalo city, they have had zero impact on me. it democrats wanted this to actually matter they should have allowed mccarthy's republicans to serve on the committee. they were afraid of hearing and a poising --an opposing voice.

again republicans call us at (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002 and with that we are going back to the phone line. bobby in spartanburg, south carolina. you are calling on the republican line, why do you think? caller: i have not been watching the committee hearing but i am more interested in hearing all the debates during the election season. more interested in watching south carolina governor's debate. in the michigan's governor debate. i used to live in michigan but now i am here in south carolina. i care about my former state, i

am a michigander at heart. i am hoping tutor dixon will win and i love watching c-span two. the house becomes a kindergarten. thank you for taking my call and thank you. host: let's hear now from david, he is calling from dallas, texas. he is on the democratic line. go ahead david. caller: good morning america. the more i listen the more i tried not to call because my blood pressure is up this morning. all these republican collars talking about you being biased and all that nonsense. people walk around blind without a cane. regardless of what the media says, the media did not make donald trump called georgia and

say i need all these extra votes. to this day, he has still not renounce the people who invaded the capital. the proud boys, i am ashamed of them. i am a vet. how did they get donald trump's phone number that day? the media did not make donald trump said in a meeting with vladimir putin and leave the security outside. for all of these people criticizing you about being on cnn or wherever you were. i don't know and i don't care. i can read. i can listen. i watch what i want on tv. what you do has nothing to do with me. these people are insane. jesus, what will it take for this man. you have herschel walker and camp following donald trump like oliver twist.

may i please have some more. anybody talking about donald trump its attack like you are right now. i'm a veteran of the united states army, retired. and so help me god, i have never seen a more ignorant group of people in my life. as far as january 6, assuming this guy he was talking about that woman's testimony is right. the fact is, why would trump even talk about going over there to see those people and sit looking at it on tv for six hours and not make a phone call. what is wrong with these people? that is all i got. good luck america. host: that was david in dallas. our next collar is on the republican line. let's hear now from marshall in vallejo, california. caller: i have been watching you

on this program and as a republican, i do enjoy your reporting. i think it is very fair. you can continue doing that. there has been a lot of disparaging comments made by previous collars. i want you to keep sticking to it because you have done a great job. as far as the january 6 committee, i think c-span should be focusing. host: watching language. caller: the black lives matter's riots happened and no one batted then i. billions of dollars in damages were caused in cities and nobody did anything there. i understand january 6 was the incident but it should be reported on what happened during

the black lives matters rides. host: let's hear from stacy in illinois. you are on the independent line. caller: good morning ma'am, thank you for having me. first and foremost, this is the united states of america. this racist, authoritarian -- those who have eyes, cannot see. they have let themselves be controlled. i want to stay, january 6 has been raped. our capital was raped. nancy pelosi was speaker of the

house, disrespectful. there is no way that i could say this was ok. our democracy is being raped before our eyes. before your our eyes. people are saying it's about trump. walk on the same dirt. it is not about white, black. who are they to judge? when you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears and think with your own brain. a mind is a terrible thing to waste and i will not waste my mind. i think trump should be charged. he should be charged.

those insurrectionists, they should be charged just as well as they should be. this is a country of law & order. they have been slow about it. it seems to me they know what to do and they are scared of his supporters. i am not scared of their supporters. i am standing up for my country. i believe in my america. my liberty and tears are falling out of my eyes today. the politics -- host: you have major point, i appreciate it. let's go to bea colling from north carolina on the democratic line. caller: thank you for what you

do. i would just like to say, i am a nurse. i just left my shift. for those who feel like the people who paid for student loans. i paid 80 thousand dollars. i am in nurse. i went into management. i would just like to say to people. if you go into the emergency room, go to your doctor, go into any place, do you want them to have a certificate that says they got something or do you want somebody that really is a person that went through the scrupulous thing so we have to do in order to be that person to be able to help you. i am sorry, i worked the night

shift. if you go into the hospital, you want somebody that is going to be able to take care of you. and so that is one of the things that i hope people will think about. i have a house, my house, i have a two point eight interest rate. my student loan is five .8%. why is it that someone who will take care of others has to pay more in education. host: we are talking about the january 6 committee, do you have any thoughts about that hearing later today? caller: yeah, i do think you for asking. i grew up in washington dc. i used to walk past the white house.

if anybody from d.c. knows, you can take the 30 bus and go up there and just be in all of our government. the january 6 commission, i think they should do it. we have a right as americans to be able to have safety. to be able to be the people we want to be. that hurt me so much. i can tell you how much that hurt me. i think that if there were other people that did it other than white men, imagine what would've happened. i think you for what you do. host: that was bea in north carolina. let's hear from roy on the republican line from woodstock, georgia. what are your thoughts? caller: i'd like to make the comment, it's not black, white

is the media. if you look at the media you can divide americans and to two countries. those who listen to cnn and those who listen to more conservative television. msnbc and cnn, they have lied to these people for so many years. they have promoted racism for years and black people listen to those stations and they hear it. they don't hear the truth. at least when you listen to more conservative television, fox news, one american news, newsmax, you can see the things that happen. how people infiltrated that january 6 group of people had instigated that riot. you had absent their -- epson

and sullivan, people agitating that crowd. you never heard of any kind of insurrection. it was when they had the legal right to challenge the election. we had a congressmen and senators saying that they challenge the election of five states. the democrats knew that. they did not want that to continue so they created this whole insurrection thing to stop the challenge to the election. host: that caller mentioned several statements about the january 6 riot that have been fact-check. here's what i want to bring out. this is on fact-check.org. january 6 conspiracy theories centers on baseless claims about ray epps. he was at the riot

but there is no evidence that he was an fbi plan assigned to instigate the riot as a conspiracy theory embraced by two members of congress claim. there is evidence that epps held a leadership role in the oath keepers who have been charged in the attack. there have been a lot of fact-checks about some of the claims made about the january 6 riot. we want to take some more of your calls. let's talk to jim in illinois, and independent. caller: this may be a strange observation, it seems like when the january 6 committee filed then, they filed and together. they were all together, united.

outside of the january 6 committee, it seems like they come in one at a time and they are talking and they start the meeting. it seems like they are predisposed to what they're going to do already. i could be totally wrong and i need your viewers to help me out with that. host: let's talk now to patricia in st. petersburg florida. patricia is on the democratic line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i've been thinking about this and people at the capitol and they hurt people who were hired to protect american historical buildings. for trump and all those people

who helped write a people -- rile people and cost the americans money to fix the damage and heal the people who are hired to take care of our national treasure. they should be investigated and prosecuted. we are americans before any political affiliation. for me, it has been an international embarrassment to have our top politicians consult with instigators, murderers. the usa is land of freedom. i hope that with this january 6 investigation, and it is not a trial. it is an investigation. hopefully, it will be to many trials for people who would

desecrate american treasures. under a trump flag, it is not right that they should cost every body, and lies in the embarrassment of the american people. host: let's hear now from dave. he is calling on the republican line from rochester, new york. what are your thoughts dave? caller: it is curious to me no one seems to care about writing around. i am a republican but i feel like i don't want to be a republican after seeing everyone dedicate themselves to one person. it's like everyone is worshiping trump like he is god. the only person who is god is god. trump doesn't care about anyone but himself. host: ok, that was dave in

rochester, new york. let's hear now from emmanuel in washington dc on the independent line. you are on emmanuel. caller: good morning and thank you for letting me express my views. the january 6 committee, americans do not know trump's issue. he messed america up. look at him? he has led america into darkness and some people are not thinking .

everything is lies, he said it to distort. and some people are here still watching him. it is a shame. i continue to pray that reasonable people will prevail. host: that will be our last want to remind you again, the january 6 committee is you can watchvege at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. can also watch online c-span.org oroufree video app, c-span now. we are going to take a quick break. up next, we will turn our attention to president biden's promise with a manufacturing boom, due to a shift in the science act. that will be a conversation with

scott paul, president of the alliance for american manufacturing. later, kelly dittmar from the center of american women in politics at records university. wheat will be right back. -- we will be right back. ♪ >> the january 6 committee returns today for its ninth hearing, ahead of the release of their written report, expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearings live at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two.

exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 12:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, revealing the life of first lady martha washington, from her surviving personal letters. and catherine garrett, research editors at the papers of the george washington project at the university of virginia. and a p.m. eastern, on lectures on history, richard gamble talks about religion during world war i. he shares how ministers, pastors, and rabbis spoke about the great war before and after the u.s. entered the conflict. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. find a school -- find a full schedule on c-span.org/history. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. trust through our products,

apparel, books, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shove any at c-spanshop.org. ♪ >> this election day, november 8, the control of power in congress is at stake. will republicans retake the house? can democrats retain control of the senate? from now until the election, follow our coverage of debates, rallies, and candidate events. events as they happen on tv and the c-span now app, on demand at our website, and our election page. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by scott

paul. he is the president of the alliance for american manufacturing. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: it is a pleasure to be with you and your c-span audience. host: thank you. we are going to be talking today about the state of manufacturing in the united states and the biden administration's manufacturing agenda. let's start by talking a little bit about your organization. can you tell us more about the alliance for american manufacturing, your membership, and who funds your work? guest: thank you so much. we are kind of a unicorn in washington. we are a labor-management partnership. we have labor unions and businesses working together. we are nonpartisan. we have been around for 15 years. we were formed by the stakeholders for the purpose of raising up the issues that are important to american manufacturing, things like good jobs for the middle class, sustainability, and something

that has really come into focus over the last couple of years is, are we prepared for emergencies or unexpected events and do we have the manufacturing capacity to fulfill that? we pursue a public policy agenda. we have advocates around the country. we perform our own and also commission high-quality academic research, and we have done public opinion research on voter attitudes toward manufacturing. i feel like we have had a very good relationship with the last couple of administrations, the obama administration, the last administration, and the biden administration. we have been able to do our work, regardless of party is in power. host: speaking of the party in power, right now we have president biden, who has been talking a lot about manufacturing jobs, particularly as we were going through the pandemic and some of the supply chain issues that created. last month, he tweeted, "right

now, i have the strongest record of growing manufacturing jobs in modern history." this week, we have this tweet on our screen he tweeted that his policies have added "the most manufacturing jobs to the u.s. economy in 40 years." do you agree or disagree with that statement? guest: that passes the pinocchio test for me. you look at the labor student -- the bureau of labor statistics data, it is statistically true. the thing that makes this main factoring job growth pretty remarkable are a couple of factors. one is that economists are constantly telling us that because of automation or robotics or low-cost options overseas, the decline of manufacturing employment is sibley inevitable good -- is simply inevitable. i think since the last recession, the great recession, it debunks that. we certainly see that debunked

over the last few months as well. the second thing, and i think this is also important, is that this is the first time we have seen in a modern recession, a global economy manufacturing not only recover all of the jobs lost during that recession, during the pandemic, but also gain new jobs and we are headed upward. that, i think, is an accomplishment that this administration can be proud of. i think a lot of this has to do with the economic growth we have seen, the recovery from the pandemic, and i think i heard you refer to the chips act. i will respond to that. but i don't know that we have even seen the manufacturing job impact from those yet. i think that that is going to start to scale up over the next couple of years. i am excited about the possibilities of things to come. i see headwinds as well, but i am excited about possibilities. host: we are going to get to

some of your calls shortly. we want to know what questions you have first got paul, or your thoughts or comments about the state of manufacturing in the united states. republicans, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8001. democrats, call us at (202) 748-8000. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. and if you are in manufacturing, if you have direct ties to the manufacturing sector, we want you to call us specifically at (202) 748-8003. you can start calling now and we will get to those calls in just a moment. scott, back to you. we talked about that legislation. there is the chips act, the inflation reduction act, which is that climate change, health care cost legislation. there is also the bipartisan

infrastructure bill. can you talk about how you think these different pieces of legislation will impact the manufacturing industry? guest: absolutely. i think that combined, the power of the investment and policy of these three pieces of legislation can be very, very powerful for manufacturing innovation and job growth in this country. i actually think it is remarkable, because we live in such partisan and divisive times that i think we have heard that expressed -- i was listening earlier this morning. the fact that two of the major accomplishments of this congress focus round manufacturing speaks, i think, to the bipartisan understanding that it is important. let's talk just for a second about what specifically these we do. the infrastructure bill, 1.2 trillion dollar investments in roads, bridges, broadband, waterworks, and these materials will be sourced from american factories.

that is going to have an exponential impact on our competitiveness and our jobs. the chips act will help to fund standing up semiconductor facilities in the united states. we have shrunk our semiconductor capacity very, very low in the united states. we used to make one out of almost every three, but now it is barely one out of 10. we are going to get that back up, so we will not face shortages in the future. these are well-paying jobs, i would add. then also, the clean energy manufacturing. i think this is very important, because we have seen what the dependence on oil from the middle east has cost us geopolitically. it causes all sorts of crises that we don't need to see. we should definitely have homegrown energy. the question is, are we simply going to trade oil for chinese made solar panels or what we make it here?

the clean energy legislation allows us to make the solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles. we have seen investment all over the country now that will have jobs for the future, well-paying jobs that you don't need a college degree for, but our family supporting and allow people to climb up the ladder of success in the united states. host: why do you think you mentioned that these jobs are coming in the future for a lot of legislation that takes time? as you talk to members about what is coming, what do you think is that timetable for things like the bipartisan infrastructure law and the chips act? guest: that's a great question. we are seeing orders already for materials to go into bridge building. that is starting and will be sustained for five or six years. that market is not a large part of this industry, but it is significant. it will help to add growth. for the chips act, clearly, you

are seeing all of these ribbon cuttings around the country of new semiconductor factories. it takes a little bit of time for those to be built up. obviously, there are jobs added during that process. but the permanent jobs for the semiconductor factories will come online in two or three years. with respect to clean energy, you are seeing that -- already, and fact, i saw that in the state of georgia, hyundai announced that they are building an ev plant near savannah. those jobs will be available. i'm not going to pretend like this is going to be easy because at the same time those jobs are being added, we are going to see jobs decline where they were making combustion engines, for instance. having that transition for workers from that one skill to a new skill is going to be very important as we move along here. host: this is a headline from the " atlanta

journal-constitution" earlier this week. hyundai sets a date to break ground on a $5.5 billion electric vehicle factory in georgia. you just mention that. before we go to some calls, i do want to bring up, president biden was at an ibm plant in poughkeepsie, new york last week and he spoke on the impact of the chips and science act legislation on job creation. i want to hear from president biden and then get you to react a little bit's comments. [video clip] pres. biden: and as we saw during the pandemic, when factories that make these ships shut down around the world, the global economy literally comes to a screeching halt. more americans learn the phrase "supply chain" and what it means. well, guess what? the supply chain is going to start here and end here in the united states. [applause]

for example, here in the united states, one third of core inflation last year was due to higher places -- higher prices of automobiles. why? because of the shortage of semiconductors that make these vehicles move. folks, we need to make these chips here in america, to bring down everyday cost and create good paying american jobs. don't take my word for it. listen to the leaders of ibm across the country. they are making decisions right now about where we are going to produce and invest in these chips. they are choosing america because they see we are coming back, leading the way. since i came to office, our economy has made 10 million jobs. proof that "made in america" is no longer a slogan, it is a reality.

host: so, that was president biden talking about the impact of some of that recent legislation on jobs. he spoke about one million jobs. do you think that is a reasonable estimate? i want to ask you if the workforce is ready to meet these new manufacturing demands. guest: both are great questions. can we achieve one million jobs? absolutely, we can. we saw one million jobs added in manufacturing from about 2010 to about 2018 without a policy like this. we just had sustained economic growth to support that. absolutely. now that we have policy support, and in fact i would call an industrial policy, i think that we can surge that grows exponentially. i think that is important. the second, do we have a pipeline for these workers? i think that is a good question.

for so many years, we have seen factories go overseas from all parts of the country. we lost jobs in high-tech manufacturing, basic manufacturing, all across the board. getting a focus back on career and technical education, i think is going to be vital. in any given month, we can see 5000 300,000 open manufacturing positions. there is a brisk pace of hiring as well. i think it is important for our policymakers at the federal and state level to focus on these careers of the future, because they're going to be here. they are well-paying jobs. those jobs in those sectors may pay six figures for workers. it is essential that we build those pipelines all over the country, and the employers put some skin in the game, too, as we are trying to build up this workforce. host: and again, we want to hear

from you, either your questions for scott paul from the alliance for american manufacturing, or your thoughts about the state of the manufacturing sector in the united states. republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. and if you work in the manufacturing sector, we want you to call us at (202) 748-8003 . our first caller is one of those manufacturing sector workers. it is john in illinois. also, you are calling as a democrat, john. go ahead with your thoughts or questions. caller: good morning. i grew up in big still and i have been a maintenance electrician for more than 40 years. i learned the racket in big

steel at the south end of lake michigan. i worked for 20 years in big paper. i ended my career with big oil. i am a factory guy from way back. i brag about my career. i had a great career. i tell young men and women to think about going into factories, because in factories, you have great opportunity to move around. i started in big steel as a janitor. i became an electronics repair man, that was my job title. i did maintenance electrician's -- electrician work for more than 40 years. can you address the competition and labor costs across the globe that american manufacturing always has to fight with? and you mention cooperation from corporations. could you expand a little more

on that? and hey, keep rallying for manufacturing, man, because it is the backbone of this country, i have learned through my 72 years. thank you for taking my call, man, and stick up for manufacturing. guest: all right, john, thank you so much. i know you are in the shadows of a massive ford factory there that has seen its workforce expand, but also has seen employment decline in the steel sector. a couple of things i think you raise up a really important for policymakers to understand. the ruling class, republicans and democrats in washington, virtually everybody has at least a bachelors degree, if not more. most of america does not. the armed education funding is overwhelmingly tilted toward

higher education institutions that provide four-your college degrees. i will say that is important, but as a result and that, we have under invested in community colleges and technical education , where most americans need or can find their training. lifting that up as we are investing in an american manufacturing is going to be important. i think it is important for a couple of reasons. there are a lot of communities, both in urban american communities with jobs for newly arriving americans that can be filled in manufacturing, and providing those letters to success. i think that is important. we have seen that over the last century or more in the united states, how manufacturing has been a ladder up for lots of newly arrived americans. but we have to build that ladder better as we move ahead. it has really, really eroded

over the last couple of decades. host: let's go now to andre. he is in maryland, calling as a democrat. what are your thoughts or questions? caller: yes, i would yes, i wouo know, do we have a manufacturing industry that is growing in the space industry, such as spaceships? and exploration, like planetary space stations? host: go ahead, scott. guest: andre, that is a great question. aerospace has generally always been a comparative advantage for the united states, whether it is space-related or commercially. we have seen a massive expansion of private sector growth in spacecraft manufacturing.

you think of spacex or jeff bezos's company, blue origin, i think it is called. and you think of others. you have also seen some boosted nasa funding. that has helped spur a lot of growth. and i think this is the really cool thing. i have been to some small machining and cnc shops around the country, like in the suburbs or down in texas, or out in sacramento california -- sacramento, california that make parts that go into the stuff. it is not a big assembly facility, but there are parts for manufacturers all over the country they go into building this stuff that is going to have massive public utility as we move ahead. i am excited about the possibilities. that is an industry, in part because of public investment.

host: let's talk now to david in cincinnati, ohio on the republican line. go ahead, david. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: hello, good morning, yeah. anyway, i have a concern that we have a high inflation rate and because we have a high inflation rate, because of the labor shortage, we have a high inflation rate. we have a labor shortage in this country. and what is going to be done about the labor shortage in this country and the high inflation rate? host: let's let scott respond that. guest: that's a great question. if there was an easy solution, it would have been done by now. but it is very complicated. with respect to labor force participation and with respect to inflation, one of the goals that this administration has -- and i will say that i think the

last administration had it as well, so i think this is becoming less partisan. if we have more capability to manufacture in the united states and more competition, that will help serve as a hedge against the price spikes we see either because of shipping or because of shortages, because we are dependent on just a couple of countries for things like, for example, semiconductors that we talked about. also things like pharmaceutical ingredients or other things in the microelectronic supply chain. having policies that are going to stand up more of that production in the united states or a new kind of supply-side economics that hedge against inflation. another aspect of this is labor force participation.

one of the challenges that some manufacturers have had our building up that workforce. but i think part of the reason for that is that, unfortunately, small andone midsized manufactus -- you need to be there. and thank god for the production workers that went back to work and supplied america with toilet paper and food, and everything else that we were in short supply of at the beginning of the pandemic. but it is an ongoing conversation, i think, between businesses and the workforce about how to meet workers where they are now.

more of that does need to occur. host: let's go now to craig in torrance, california. craig is calling as a republican, but also does have ties to the manufacturing sector. what are your thoughts this morning, craig? caller: good morning, folks. i just want to bring up a few things. -- just get in there with all of these fabs being built. it is a niche job. i work for the engineers that do the designs. i do the chip layouts. tsmc fabs them. ultimately, they are going to invest in our company and put up some fabs. it is really important. i looked it up. i have a friend who is traveling, building a fab in arizona. there are going to be a lot more

fabs going up in arizona. a fab takes 10 million gallons of water a day to run. where is arizona going to get the water? that is my big question. and they're going to build more fabs. but i think it is a great thing. i think it is a great job opportunity. my company is all happy about it. i think it will be really good for america. host: before you answer, scott, explained to us what a fab is. guest: in layman's terms, it is a semiconductor fabrication facility. it is where a lot of the stuff comes together that goes into a semiconductor chip. it is not just a piece, there is a lot of stuff that goes into it that comes from a supply chain. but i think craig was absolutely right. these can be very resource-intensive, these facilities.

part, i know, of the sourcing decisions, resources like water certainly factor into that. all of these manufacturers are developing much more sustainable models of production, both from carbonate output and the resources they are bringing in. i know certainly the case of arizona and some of these other facilities around the country, that has certainly been factored into the sourcing decisions. the other part of this is where we get the stuff for the semiconductors from. they will be put together in this fab. they are, we are still struggling. there are these things called rare earth minerals that go into semiconductors or other parts that we don't have much of a capacity for in the united states. so, i know the biden administration is looking at ways to raise that up. i want to say, this is not a partisan issue. we have had a couple of republican callers talk about this as well. the chips act is one of the few

bipartisan things this congress got done, because i think that there is an awareness because of national security, economic security, that we have fallen behind and we need to catch up in a hurry. host: let's hear now from sam in hutchins, colorado on the independent line. you are on, sam. caller: yeah, how are you doing this morning? host: good. guest: good morning. caller: i think the idea that if you are going to bring back all that chip manufacturing may take 10 years, not one year, it will be long after biden is gone. the unemployment rate is at 3% now. i don't know where you're going to find workers. 20-year-olds to 30-year-olds are lazy. you can get them to get a job, then the first time they get a paycheck, they are gone. prices go up when you make stuff here, not down. in other countries, they don't pay people a big pension and get

a 401(k) and vacation time off, and all of that. when was the last time you had a manufacturing job? that's what i would like to know. thank you. host: scott, can you address, is it hard to attract younger workers to the manufacturing sector? what are some of the strategies organization has shared with businesses about attracting a younger workforce? guest: it's a good question. one of the challenges, and a lot of younger listeners will remember this, but i think some folks will, is that for decades, all we saw were factories closing. it was kind of foolish for young people to pursue a career in many factoring, particularly if they sell their parents get laid off or other factors around the community. why should i do this? at the time, it was demanding more, too. you use your brains, but you use

to use your brawn as well. it was not a job for everybody. all that has changed. getting that word out, i think, is very important. where do kids find an employment opportunity? if they hear from counselors, parents, and peers. as these facilities are scaling up, it is going be a lot easier to attract talent to them. knowing that they're going to be jobs there in the future, that they are well-paying. i think the difference is, and this is the challenge that we face, that we do have this kind of bimodal mode of employment in the united states, where you are getting a bachelors degree or the on that to pursue a career or you are in a lower-wage occupation, like the service sector, that has virtually no training involved with it. manufacturing is kind of the missing middle here. getting that back.

i see innovative programs all over the country that are doing a really good job at this in every part of the country. but just getting that to scale is really going to matter. we will be competitive. we may have higher labor rates here, that is true, and higher pension cost, that is true. but we have productivity, relatively lower energy cost compared to the rest of the world, and most importantly, we have the biggest consumer market in the world by a lot. we consume 20% or 25% of the worlds goods. that is 5% of the population. manufacturers can sell their stuff right here, and that saves a lot of money, too. we will have some advantages moving ahead. if we are able to invest a little more in that career technical education aspect of things right now. host: up next is philip on the democratic line, from minden, michigan. caller: hi, i would like to ask

you, obama placed how many billion to get us in operation? china is eating our lunch. we need to start making things here, absolutely, but we are going to need some fuel to do it. canada is ready to give us more of their oil, heaven forbid, and we need to get things going by turning the gas back on. you are separating the lower class from everybody. thank you, c-span, god bless you. host: what are your thoughts? guest: an portant can conant -- component in manufacturing, there is no doubt about that. i do think a lot of these challenges, if you look, we do have oil and gas production in the united states and in north it has been scaled up and it continues to grow, based on

market circumstances. but i also agree that the sooner we can wean ourselves off of foreign oil, the better we are. i do think that involves a diversity of sources. having those renewable sources, and i'm going to throw nuclear into the mix there, because i think it is very important, is going to be essential for our energy security. i do want to address a solyndra issue. there was an attempt to scale up manufacturing in the united states. there were a lot of successes, including tesla, which has been a major driver in its global automotive production and it has lifted it up. if you go back and look at that program and the value it has

added to the economy, yes, there was one well-publicized failure, but there have been a lot of successes there. i think that we can learn from that. just like in the private sector, for every is this that is successful, there are a bunch that don't make it. making some bets on that is going to be important to drive innovation, to drive jobs for the united states. host: our next caller is bill in jacksonville, florida on the independent line. bill also has ties to the manufacturing sector. caller: thank you. i enjoy your program. my question may not be in your bailiwick. but japan is showing marked decline in population i'm wondering if we are learning anything about their ability to attract manufacturing workers, as it may come to pass here. caller: that is a great question.

i think it touches on some of the issues that i'm familiar with. japan has been a manufacturing powerhouse for a long time. its friends are popular in the united states, things like honda or toyota. but you are right, japanese population growth is not great and it is hard to keep that. one of the things that has happened that we have seen over the last couple of decades is a lot of foreign investment in the united states. we certainly see our manufacturing going abroad. there is no question about that and we have seen millions of jobs lost to countries like china, for walmart, amazon, other retailers prefer to source from because they can make bigger margins. holy people to see more companies from japan, like toyota, honda, invest in the united states and many venture mobiles for the u.s. market. there are a couple of reasons why they do that. first, they can generally do it

at a lower or comparable cost, particularly with trucks because of trade policies and tariffs. second, there are these incentives that have been built into the clean energy legislation for manufacturing electric vehicles in the united states. just within the last week, we saw upon the nlg, which is a korean company, and honda is of course a japanese company, make a major announcement about a battery facility in ohio. again, that as a result of that. we are seeing japan deal with some strategies like that. but at the same time, it is something the united states understands. our population growth is not high, so we do have to figure out how we can successfully scale up and factoring, given some of the labor force for the patient issues. i also know that fellow factors are pretty agile and figuring this stuff out over time and we will get there. host: let's go now to paul in

new york. paul, let me know if i pronounced that correctly. this is the republican line. caller: thank you. anyway, i would like to ask the guest about trade policy. for many years, both republicans and democrats thought we should have lower tariffs and we should allow the rest of the world to essentially have the u.n. or international trade agreements control over our policies. i would like to know what you feel is the role of that in encouraging manufacturing. also, keeping in mind that china and japan and many other countries, they have very high tariffs to keep out american manufacturing goods. thank you. host: your thoughts, scott?

guest: that is a great question. i cut my teeth on trade issues. i think it is something that both parties have begun to understand was a failed experiment. it is certainly imperfect. that goes back to the north american free trade agreement. i remember touring, and i bring this up because i know that you write for the atlanta paper, with john lewis and some other mentors of congress different communities in georgia in the mid-1990's where manufacturing went overseas. they made phones for at&t, there was a ford production plant at one time atlanta, and we solid that disappear. trade policy played some role in that. but it was not until, and i will get the last administration credit for this, that trump

raised up some of these issues and a lot of more progressive congressional democrats, like john lewis and bernie sanders have been talking about for a long time, and we have seen some change in that. we saw a new free-trade model come out, or a new trade model, i should say, come out with north america much more to the advantage of north american production. we also sell tariffs on chinese products and on steel coming from other parts of the world as well. we have seen some results from that. we have seen massive expansion of american steel over the last four or five years. it has been pretty phenomenal. he has seen businesses drive some sourcing decisions based on the tariffs you are seeing in china. and you have seen this administration take a dramatically different approach to trade policy than any other democratic administration in the

past. this administration is not negotiating new free-trade agreements. they are evaluating the impacts. they have not lifted, by and large, any of the tariffs that the last administration put into place. i think they have a much deeper understanding that we need far more balance in our trade policy and we had underpass republican and democratic administrations. i don't think that is going to change, by the way. i think there are key leaders in both parties that understand we went too far and we have to find a way now to recalibrate. host: let's hear now from jerry in wallace, texas on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: yeah, scott, the electric cars that we are using right now, what i have found just by experimenting and playing around here is that if you take an alternator and put in a vehicle that is not run by

a pulley, if you change the head of the alternator so it can accept air, if you take a blower motor in the front of the vehicle and channel that air to a changed head on the alternator, it will spin the alternator. we don't need charging stations. that would help them. and it would help america. enke. -- thank you. guest: i will say i am blown away by your knowledge of this. i don't profess to have the engineering or technical knowledge to say what the best future for electric vehicle manufacturing is in the united states. but i do know this, that in part thanks to this public policy, we are going to see a lot of innovation in this industry, both in terms of battery capacity and how the vehicles

are energized, and in charging efforts around the country as well and how that works. that is all scaling up, in part because of public policy. we were way behind in the united states of the rest of the world. but we are going to get to a point where we have a significant global footprint in electric vehicle manufacturing and consumer take up by 2030, making up for lost time here. host: our next caller is early in kissimmee, florida on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: good morning. my comment is that looking at this from a holistic point of view, i think the problem is to educate the american public of their system. i hear people call in and complain about the economy, that

they are complaining about how inflation and labor. collect me if i'm wrong, but for capitalism to work successfully, it has to maintain an unemployment rate of 3%. it goes any lower than that, labor becomes too expensive to hire someone. they have tried to maintain 3% unemployment. inflation right now is caused because too much money is following too few goods. for example, right now, america has spent 70% of the gross national product, which is $23 trillion. people are naturally trying to buy more, which caused a chain of supply to actually backlog. now, you have inflation. the fed is now trying to control it, to control american spending by raising the cost of products. now, you have a problem because they are talking about a recession. you need to educate the american public that the part they are

playing in this so-called theory of what we call capitalism. host: your final thoughts, scott? guest: this is an important issue and i mentioned to you before headwinds. one of those is the federal reserve continuing to hike interest rates. i think that could be problematic. i am not as concerned about wage growth in the united states, because i think the wages of average workers in the united states have not kept pace with productivity or the ceo pay, or with profit-taking and returns to shareholders over the last couple of decades. wage growth is not my concern. but if we hike up inflation and interest rates too high in a bid to stem inflation, it is going to have an impact on our economy. in economies around the world that we sell goods to. so, i am very, very concerned

about the future steps on this. i hope they do keep the employment balanced. it is more an art than a science. i will say that i think the inflation-fighting efforts need to come to a quick and, otherwise we risk doing some real damage that will take us a long time to recover from. with respect to productive parts of our economy. host: we have been talking this morning with scott paul. he is the president of the alliance for american manufacturing. thank you so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you. pleasure to be with you and your listeners. host: after a quick break, we are going to be back with kelly dittmar. she will join us to discuss the number of women candidates running across all levels of offices this november. we will see you in just a moment. ♪

>> book tv,ry sunday on c-span2, discusses books. two others take a critical look at the disparity of economics in the united states. afterwards, mark bge of bloomberg news shares his book, which looks at the creation and growth of youtube and how it has changed our society. he is interviewed by politico technologies reported. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. ♪

>> middle and high school students participated in c-span's student documentary competition. we ask the question, "how does the federal government impact your life?" all month we are featuring the winning entries. in light of the upcoming midterm elections, feature yourself as a newly elected member of congress. we ask this year's competitors what is your top priority and , why? make a five minute to six minute video that shows the importance of your issue, from opposing and supporting perspectives. don't be afraid to take risks with your documentary. be bold. among $100,000 in cash prizes is a $5,000 grand prize. videos must be submitted by january 20, 2023. visit our website at studentcam.org foromtition rules, tips, resources, and a step-by-step guide. ♪ "washington journal" continues. host: a record number of women have been nominated and given a tory races this election cycle.

this morning, we are going to talk to kelly dittmar, the director of research at the center for american women and politics at rutgers university. we're going to talk about the number of women running for office this november. good morning, kelly. guest: good morning. host: thank you so much for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we are seeing a record number of women running for governor. why has this office then an office that women perhaps in the past have been more reluctant or less successful at running for? guest: this is an office that has been part of that glass ceiling. we have not seen more than nine women serve as governor at the same time. we first set that record in 2004. that is significantly less than a presentation in the population, nine of 50. we certainly want to move closer

to some sort of parity at that level. this year, which is a gubernatorial election year, so the best comparable year would be, for example, 2018. we have certainly seen a jump in the number of women who ran in the primaries. now, we have a record number of women nominees, 25 across the country. there are also included five women versus women competitions. there will be a woman holding those seats in general. the reasons why we haven't had those women in offices. part of that is biases against women being in offices. that plays out at the presidential level, and i think they relate as well to challenges in people's perceptions of who is that executive leader, what are the traits we value, or the expertise we expect in that office, and how well does that align with our still persistent

stereotypes. i think the number of women running here and those will hopefully be successful will hopefully chip away at those biases. it is a really expensive race. there are lots of people lined up for these positions. women aren't always considered and supported to be in that line, to be supported and have the resources they need to run successfully at the statewide level. those are just two reasons why i think we have seen a lag. i think this year proves that women over the last two elections, and demonstrate their ability to win at the different levels. they have one in key contests. hopefully, that means that party leaders in the women's them -- and the women themselves see themselves as the best candidates to be successful at this level and important for them to be there, be engaged in

some of the most important policy debates that are going on right now at the state level. host: so, you mentioned that there are five women-on-women contest. we think that at the end, those five states will be represented by women. but can you tell me, what other states are there perhaps a woman nominee against a male nominee that you think the woman might prevail, and also overall, how many female governors do you think we will have after the election? guest: the latter question is the million-dollar question. i will tell you this, the two women who are the most likely and most favored to win the races against male candidates and good male incumbents, which would be switching from a man to a woman in that office, would be in massachusetts, with a democrat who is very likely to win. by the way, she is running on an all-woman ticket.

it will be the first time in u.s. history we would have a woman governor and lieutenant governor simultaneously. in arkansas, we have a woman who came from the trump administration running as a republican, a very strongly favored in that contest as well. she is very likely to be another pickup or women in this cycle. host: we have some charts. we have mentioned it is a record year for the gubernatorial race, but not a record here when it comes to female candidates for the u.s. house and u.s. senate. can you tell us, why are we not seeing a continuation of those trends in 2018 and 2020, which saw more women nominated by the major parties for those federal offices? guest: we did have, in general, slightly lower numbers this year. i want to be careful because, of

course, we had one fewer woman running for the house this year than 2020, for example. it is not that we are seeing any significant decline, but we are seeing women increase their nominations at the same pace we saw in record-breaking years, in 2018 and 2020. in 2018, democratic them in basically doubled their candidacy. it's not surprising we would see that continue year by year. but some factors that might be going into that are that this year was not expected to be great for democrats. remember, women democrats make up the majority of women running and winning nominations still, even though we have seen some closing of that party gap. it may be that some women and men on the democratic side decided to bow out and might run more in 2024. that could be a possibility. there were also persistent barriers that did not go away just because we had record-breaking years for women. things like being recruited,

supported, getting initial support you need to be successful, seeing it as worthwhile when you look at politics and you don't see things getting done. women in particular are motivated to do something and they may not see politics today as the place that they can get things done. we continually have to make a different case for women to run. i think that is still part of the challenge as we look at the numbers this year and as we think about future elections, to try to encourage, recruit, and truly support women so that women from all backgrounds, class, race, age can run for and win, especially at these highest levels of congress and statewide offices. host: and as we show those charts, this chart on the screen now is the number of women nominees for u.s. senate. as you note, it is down one from 21 to 20 overall. just a decrease of one. for the u.s. house, we are down a little bit more. it went from 298 women total in

2020 to 259 in 2022. we are going to get to some of your calls shortly. we want to know what questions or comments you have, where it comes to women running for office this november. your comments or questions for kelly dittmar. you can call us. for republicans, your line is (202) 748-8001. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can go ahead and start calling in now. kelly, i want to talk to you. with a record amount of women, particularly in some of these divinatory races, how are you seeing women lean into their experiences as women while campaigning, and d.c. much of a difference between republicans and democrats and how they approach that?

guest: we have seen some real evolution, i would say, and how women navigate gender on the campaign trail, especially, again, in recent elections. in 2018, we had this record year for women, particularly democratic women, running for office. he saw increased diversity among those women, and diversity of all types. race, ethnicity, age, class-based differences, and also professional backgrounds that were different, women coming into these campaigns. when they did so, they were also more likely to use their gender and their gender-based experiences and perspectives, most importantly, as an electoral asset, something they brought to the table, among the credentials they brought. instead of thinking about it as a hurdle they had to overcome. unfortunately, for a lot of history, that has been the case. strategists say don't talk that much about having kids, don't

talk that much about eating a woman, because it might set you apart and raise doubts about your capacity to be successful or do this job. when, in fact, after 2016, and in a lot of conversations we have been having about equity and inclusion, there is now this perception among candidates that they could talk about these identities as bringing perspective that is necessary for policymaking. so, we see women doing that more often in all sorts of ways, sometimes talking about being mothers, being mothers specifically of young children. i remember cori bush's ad, talking about being the mother of a black sun and what that meant, and the talks she had to have with her son and why it matters in policy making around gun reform and crime. you see evidence like that across the board that continued in 2020 and 2022. for partisan differences, we see republican women and democratic women leaning in in this way.

remember, they are also coming from different perspectives that shape their ideology. you see variance in how those identities are used. for example, i remember in 2018, we had a woman in texas running and saying, "i am a tough texas woman. one day, i am wearing heels, the next day i am shooting my hunts -- my guns." there is a bit more pressure on the republican side that you are both meeting the masculine credentials that are expected, especially in today's republican party, but also aligning with some of those stereotypically feminine ideals. host: and as we talk about how women are using their perspectives as female candidates, let's look now at this campaign ad from republican christine drazen, one of three women running for governor in oregon. she highlighted her role as a mother and a campaign promise to

give parents more control in schools. let's watch that at. [video clip] >> our schools need to get back to the basics and get politics out of the classroom, so our kids can learn how to think, not what to think. i am christine drazen, and i am running for governor. but more importantly, i am a mom. my parents bill of rights will give parents more say and more school choice. keep schools open and restore graduation requirements, so a diploma means something again. >> paid for by friends of christine drazen. host: let's watch one more add before i have you respond. this is katie darling, a democratic candidate in louisiana. the democratic candidate in louisiana running for congress against steve scalise. she is considered a longshot candidate but she had a viral campaign showing her giving birth and positioning motherhood

at the forefront of her campaign while also criticizing the state strict abortion law. >> i am katie darling and i live on a farm in st. tammany parish. our family compost collects rainwater and grows our own food. my husband and daughter help take care of the chickens. and there someone else will be joining us in helping to pitch in with farm life very soon. but these days i worry about storms that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. about our kids underperforming public schools comment about louisiana's new abortion band, one of the strictest and most severe in the country. we should be putting pregnant women at ease, not putting their lives at risk. i have not spent my career in washington. i have worked my way up from bartender to ceo. now i help diverse is organize their complicated health records because nurses are not just

heroes, they are saints. i am katie darling and i am running for congress because i want that better path for you, for her, and for him. host: those were two very different campaign ads but both of them invoked motherhood as how to explain their political thinking. can you talk about how women are navigating controversial issues and appealing to voters, critically by invoking motherhood? guest: those are two great examples. we see that most often on three issues, abortion, education, and parental rights in education. related to that, especially in the primary there were also

questions around transgender rights in schools and sports where women were invoking motherhood as a protection mechanism for girls on the more conservative side of thing. here you see motherhood being used as a road to authenticity. as a mother i can speak directly to this experience. as a mother i am particularly motivated. you can trust i will fight hard for these policies because i come to that motivated by protecting my kids or fighting for my kids, making the world better for my kids. i think there is a type of empathy that happens. we are appealing to the electorate, a lot of mothers. women outnumber and outvote men, and are the most reliable voters, mothers among them. candidates are using that connection. on abortion, you see the katie darling at, in one way what it

does is pushes back against some of the narrative about pro-choice people or pro-choice positions, as if it is only women who do not want children who would have to make the hard choice to have an abortion. in reality there are a lot of women who desperately want to have children who might be in a situation in which for the health of themselves or the fetus have to make them hard decision. you see her leveraging that in the at. as a pregnant person i clearly want to be a mother, i want to be sure people have the right to be mothers. i also recognize the reality that women also need the right to their own bodies. there is a way that women are especially authentic and trusted messengers on an issue that directly affects them. host: we are talking to kelly diller, center of research for

the women in politics at rutgers university. republicans, your number is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents, call us at (202) 748-8002. we are going to the phone lines now. first caller is gwen from birmingham, alabama. what is your question or comment? caller: good morning. my comment is, what i'm concerned about is my democracy. i am a black woman and democracy mean so much to me as a black person because i know what my ancestors had to go through in america to have the rights to vote, for us to have the rights for so many things. black people have withstood so much in this country. host: did we lose you?

i think we lost you. give us a call back. dee is in florida on the republican line. what is your question. caller: women in politics, i've been around for many years, i have children and grandchildren. ever since women got into politics this country has been run on emotions. we have a constitution. we get these women in office and we have these three women in the supreme court, they run in their emotion, how they feel as a woman instead of going by the constitution. we are inbred with this. we run on emotion. however we feel per on a particular day that is what will happen to the world. this women getting into politics has totally ruined our country. totally ruined our country.

like the abortion thing. they are talking about abortion. that has no business on who will be president but women are up in arms because they cannot have an abortion. that depends on which state they live in. fight their governor. does nothing to do with running this country. ok? i am going to fight for my children because they're too many women in office running this country into the ground because i am feeling good today today i will be good for the people. host: can you give me an example of what woman has been a governor or any leadership position that you believe has acted off of the motion and made wrong decisions? caller: they all do. right here in florida. in the supreme court. the supreme court. listen when they're having their little meetings when sonya sotomayor gets on television.

we are talking about women's bodies and women's rights. ok so you have a body, you have rights whether you want an abortion or not. it has nothing to do with running this country. ok? we have women all of this country including our politicians who are running on emotions. host: point taken. let's let kelly respond to that comment. caller: i would make the clear point that women do not run this country. women are underrepresented on every level. the folks are leading the majority of states, the majority of state legislatures, the presidency, the supreme court, those are all majority men and in most cases majority white men. if the concern is this country is being led by emotion we should look to those are actually making the decisions most often. remember that women are not in majority of those positions.

i would add is really easy-to-follow into gender stereotypes and paint all women with the same brush. to say all women are acting only on emotion is very consistent with the tropes and biases that have kept women out of political power. it has been used as an excuse not to put women in positions of power that they "cannot handle it." these arguments have been made since the fight against giving women the right to vote, that because they cannot handle the power of being in politics, where we see men act on emotion a lot of the time. donald trump is a great example of somebody, when he was upset or mad or felt like he was being attacked, he would act out immediately, and often in ways that were dangerous to our democracy. if we are going to point to emotion guiding behavior, we should look across the board at men and women and not assume this is a gendered characteristic.

i would add there is also a piece of this and which may be they should consider that emotion can be a valuable thing in our leaders. do we want our leaders to not have any emotion, to not have compassion or empathy that might inform their policymaking? i would push back. we are going to disagree on the importance of having women and increased representation of those in office, but there are a lot of reasons to suggest that is too broad of a stroke the collar was painting on all women in office or on the role of emotion in policymaking. host: let's talk to catherine in cedar, minnesota, on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: i appreciated the last caller's comments. whether we are men or women, we are all represented and have a right to be represented by

people who are of our gender, by people who are not of our gender. we want people to represent us and represent us well. it has been heartbreaking, some of the people who have been bad representatives. a lot of those people arguably have vindman. it -- have been men. it is time for us to see women are capable of being strong leaders. we see a lot of the ones mentioned by the past caller even, sonya sotomayor and others are paving ways. whether you agree with their decisions are not. we will not agree with everything that happens in politics. i guess i'm very appreciative of what the last caller had to say and agree that as women, the caller that really bashed women was just being honest from an age where they did not invite

women to politics. at a point maybe she was not invited enough to recognize that as being invited now is a positive and there are emotional men. across the aisle there are mistakes people will make on both sides. i would argue being emotional is not a bad state as long as those emotions flow positively and do things to help people. i guess i appreciated the past caller reminding that. it is not about us being women, but it is about us being women. it is about us finally having a voice. that is where this abortion debate is getting complicated because a lot of us are very pro-life but pro-life does not mean that we want someone to die and their child to die and nobody to live because they have a health abnormality that they

have to attend to. i think people are getting very shortsighted about the abortion debate, and it is frightening. i would like to see a support -- laws that support women doing the best they can for their families. host: all right, catherine. what are your thoughts, kelly? caller: i appreciate the caller catherine's points -- guest: i appreciate the caller catherine's points. when we talk about women's representation too often people feel what we are talking about is go to the ballot box and pick any women and she will represent you best. what we often argue is we just want the playing field to be level enough so that women can run and win in equal numbers if they are selected by voters who get to decide who they want in office. when we think about

representation it is easy to say i do not vote on gender, gender does not matter, i am gender-neutral. we know gender shapes how people navigate policymaking. it shapes how we come to a conversation. our lived experiences and perspectives are shaped by gender. if you could look at every statistic around economic security, educational access, violence, all of these things, you could say there are no gender differences. women experience life in the same way as men, then maybe you can make this case there should be that neutrality in who is elected and who serves. we know that is not true. we note women live different lives and have different experience. some of that is based on them being the bearer of children. there are other things. it is based on societal norms and biases that exist.

that is why it matters to have their voices at the table and that is why it matters to have a range of diverse voices among women. women are far from monolithic and we need to make sure women can come to be -- can come to these political spaces and be represented from a host of intersectional spaces so we make the best policy decisions and do not leave out entirely parts of our population and perspectives from that population and making policy that will not only affect women, it will affect the broader population. we know every study the more inclusive a decision-making table, the better the outcomes for the broadest amount of people, that is true in politics as well and that is true for gender in the gender diversity of those at the table. host: on the line now is margie in newark, delaware, on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i do not understand where anybody in this country gets as

far as politics. let's take the hypocrisy of the republicans. therefore abortion, they are going along with the evangelicals, but nobody, not on any channel, and i watch them all to see what is going on in politics, has ever said one word -- women to -- about men getting vasectomies. they talk about women getting abortions. what about men? they are preventing life and they are talking about women? buck up and open your eyes. this is america. let's talk about the men getting vasectomies. that is preventing birth. thank you so much. host: your thoughts. guest: give credit to our legislatures.

women across the country in state legislatures have raised this point and some have proposed legislation as message-based legislation to say if we will regulate women's bodies, how would you like it if we regulate men's bodies and it goes to the same fact we were just talking about that representation matters. to have women in these policymaking spaces saying hold on, what you are doing, especially as men pushing for restrictions on women's bodies, here is what the equivalent would look like if we did the same for you and how does that feel when we talk about bodily autonomy and freedom. i think the caller has a good point and it is a point that has been made but it is true it has much national attention. part of the reason that point has been made is because women were in the room. host: let's hear from wanda in california on the republican line. caller: hello. i have a question that the

democrats do not seem to know the answer to and the supreme court does not know the answer to. that question is what is a woman? host: kelly, did you want to respond? guest: i will tell you for the purposes of our research we include in our data, we measure the experiences of women based on women who self identify in that way. that can mean a lot of things. some folks may include folks who were only born biologically female. that is not how we view it. we guide our work by those who identify and live their lives as self identified women. host: let's hear from emma in washington, d.c. on the independent line. caller: i am a pro-life woman

and i believe abortion is the taking of a life. when people talk about how the female perspective is important in advocating for abortion they are ignoring the millions of pro-life women in this country like myself. i see that feminists love to celebrate liberal women who win, but when a conservative woman wins suddenly the girl power narrative disappears. host: what are your thoughts? guest: i think that is a fair point. i am coming from the perspective of a nonpartisan center where we know to get to gender parity in politics it cannot only happen on one side of the aisle. there continues to be a partisan gap in that the majority of women in office at most levels are democratic women. we need to see, if we want to get to that parity number, we need to see more republican women come and we need to recognize that having more women in office does not mean x policy

gets past or x goes forward. one of the values of having more women in office on abortion is that they can have a debate, women can debate on what policies they see is most important, where they might stand on the issue, and how you move forward. they will, that from their own direct lived experiences. those may be very different. another example beyond abortion is it is hard for us to think about abortion in ways that are without these party biases. to give you another example of an issue would be violence against women specifically, or sexual violence and harassment in the military. this is an issue that was not brought up in a significant way in the congress until he finally had a significant number of women on the armed services committee who came to this who

had already cared about this issue in general terms. they saw as an issue to address and the armed services. not only for women in the armed services but for men who had been subject to sexual assault or harassment. it took a lot of the women, democrats and republicans coming together, to say we need to address this issue. they continue to have different perspectives on how to do that but they brought that issue to the table. i would say to the caller we need to be attentive to the diversity of viewpoints among women, not only on abortion, that is a process host of issues and having more women at the table should lead to more representative outcomes of the broader population. host: here are some charts about that party divide among women

nominees. this chart is showing -- when you go to the senate, it is a little bit more of a balance. 65% are democrats, 35% are republicans. in nominees for governor, it is a little over one third, 36% are republicans, 64% of those nominees, of those female nominees are democrats. most women who are nominated for u.s. senate and u.s. governor are democrats. about one third tend to be republicans. let's go, we will take a few more calls. our next caller is darrell calling from frederick, maryland, on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: good morning, kelly. i wanted to say there is a fear in the united states of women in power.

i am a registered democrat but i do look at fox news and things like that because i like to know both sides. there is a fear in the u.s., i think within the next eight years there will be a woman president. if i had to pick two republican women off the top of my head, nikki haley would be one, condoleezza rice, i would like to see her run. if i had to pick two african-american women, i would pick the lady who is running against marco rubio in florida -- host: val demings. caller: and the lady in north carolina running for senate. beasley. it is just a matter of time before the ceiling is cracked. i think that when the lady talked about emotions -- god

created man and woman. donald trump acts on impulse, emotion. when you put it in perspective, you knocked it out of the park. he acts on emotion. he does it every day. i do know that it is just a matter of time before there is going to be a woman president and i think it is going to happen within the next eight years. i am hoping that a woman gets in power. that is the statement i wanted to make. thank you. host: kelly, do you think that is a timeframe? what is your research tell you about that? caller: i think it is hard to put a timeframe on it -- guest: i think it is hard to put a timeframe on it. i am happy to align with that thought. i am hoping we will see the graph ceiling shatter. we have encumbered president who

looks like he is going to run -- we have been incumbent president who looks like he is going to run and a former incumbent president who also looks like he is going to run and would make it hard for anyone to compete against them. i think that changes the timeline. to the larger point about are we getting closer to a point where a woman will be taken seriously and supported enough to be president, i think we are getting closer, but i want to touch on what the caller said at the start, that there is this fear of women in power and that what we are seeing, particularly in more conservative spaces, he mentioned fox news and elsewhere, we are seeing a doubling down on masculinity as a credential for office. see the stories of tucker carlsen saying they will take away your manhood, they will make you too feminine. this is something donald trump campaigned on, it was a strategy.

he tried to emasculate his opponents, as if being feminine meant you did not have the credentials to do the job, and being masculine made you sick enough to do the job -- made you fit enough to do the job. we have seen men and women play into that emphasis on masculinity as a credential. i worry the more we do that the more we regress to a politics where masculine traits, expertise, are valued over a more general and inclusive approach that would value both things that are stereotypically masculine, stereotypically feminine in ways that would open the door to more women being both respected, recruited, and valued in their leadership ability. i think we are seeing pushback and we are seeing that in the gender debate in policymaking for those to cling onto the idea that there are men and their women and men and masculinity

are strong and good leaders and women are emotional and therefore not good leaders. you heard that from the caller earlier. host: caller is daniel on the republican line from rutgers, new jersey. what is your question or comment. caller: as a physician, i have to say, when i came to this country i heard this whole debate in the 1960's in the 1970's. now it is coming back with each generation it gets more absurd. there are differences between the genders. you do not need abortion to prevent getting pregnant. you can do birth control methods. none of this is discussed. continuously distorts the issues in such a way. this young lady is a professional screamer just like

a lot of people on the left are professional screamers. solve the problem, come up with a solution. you do not need an abortion not to get pregnant and to have sex. what have you ever discuss those things? you just want to be howling these things. there was a time we were talking about race neutral. now we are talking we cannot talk race neutral, we have to talk black this and black that. now we cannot talk about gender-neutral. we have to talk about gender this and gender that. this fragmentation of society costs, and the price, all of us will pay, so that this young lady can have a platform from which to stand. it is regrettable that america repeats the 60's again now in the year 2000. host: any thoughts? guest: i do not think i was howling or screaming and i do not think i was here today to talk about abortion.

our work on women in politics does not equate abortion and i wonder and worry that when we say gender and we talk about women there is an equation to advocating for abortion or against abortion. we are talking about the importance of representation and the diversity of women's viewpoints on those issues and i hope that many women have platforms with different positions to talk about that issue. host: let's hear from trish on the independent line from belmont, new hampshire. you are on. caller: kelly, keep doing what you are doing. i dial this number because i heard the 1950's housewife talking about emotions, and then i hear the physician. that is scary. we are in the year 2022. what scares me is i am

independent. donald trump -- i want to say, i voted for him twice and i would never vote for him again. i cannot believe -- i finally realized that turnoff newsmax, turnoff fox, turn on c-span. that is real news. what scares me -- between the physician at the 1950's housewife, i just hope her husband was not sitting there telling her what to say or rooting her on. make america great again? it never was great? what is wrong with the 1960's? what is wrong with the era of the protests, of women's rights. i am a christian. men and women are one.

there is no gender. there should be no difference there. i hope to see a woman president. my dad was a reporter and he told me something that i will never forget. he said read everything, watch everything, but do not believe everything you read and watch. get to know the editorials, get to know the real news, and then you can make an informed decision yourself to educate yourself. a lot of people do not even know how the government is run. they do not know what a legislature does. the lady scared me. host: we got your point. kelly, any final thoughts as we wrap up? guest: thank you to trish. one thing i tell my students is part of what we are trying to do when we talk about gender in politics is say let's take the time to look at the scenario,

look at elections, look at news coverage, look at the debates we are having and think about them through a lens of gender. how might it be to have more women's voices at the table, to have a greater diversity of women's voices? it is not about only vote for women, only support this issue, only support women in elections, but how can we make for a space that is more democratic and more deliberative by having more voices and those include women's voices and women's experiences. i appreciate the forum to talk about that. thank you. host: thank you so much, kelly. that is kelly dittmar, director of research at the center for research in politics at rutgers university. we appreciate you joing us this morning. up next it is open forum, your chance to call in with any public policy issues on your mind. start calling in now. the phone line and information on how to tweet and text us are on your screen.

♪ >> if you're enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive the schedule of upcoming programs, author discussions, book festivals, and more. book tv sunday on c-span2 or online at book tv.org. television for serious readers. >> beto-de on the latest in publishing with book db podcast about books, with current nonfiction book releases and bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find about books on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcast.

>> there are a lot of places to get political information. only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you're from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view on what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest debates with live streams of four proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling

information for c-span tv network and c-span radio app, plus a variety of compelling podcast. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is time for open forum. the numbers to call our (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. before we get to those calls we want to talk about the news for the day. the committee investigating the january 6 capital right will have what could be its final public hearing this afternoon. you can watch it live on c-span. that hearing is eto give the overall view, not only of

riot, but project lead focusing on former president donald and what he may or may not have known a possibility for violence and hell efforts by trump and his alli overturn the 2020 general election may have contributed to the violence that day. we also want to mention that new consumer inflation data was just released this morning. you are looking at the wall street journal report. the headline says "inflation sits at 8.2% as core prices hit four decade high." the article reads u.s. consumer inflation excluding energy and food accelerated to a new four decade high in september as prices continued to surge, assign persistent cost increases are becoming entrenched in the economy. there are other headlines on the wall street journal showing the stock market has already taken a

hit this morning after that inflation data came out. there is another article i want to bring up. this is in the washington post about social security benefits. they are going to rise 8.7% in 2023. the sub headline says rising inflation means seniors will see the biggest increase in monthly checks in four decades. that is a cost-of-living increase for social security. the number shows that the change will affect about 70.3 million social security beneficiaries, including roughly 8 million supplemental security income recipients. the adjustment will increase monthly social security checks by about $145 per month on average according to the aarp, which represents seniors.

one more headline i want to mention to you all. this is from today's new york times. on the front page of the new york times it talks about the jury trial that created damages to alex jones for his spread of lies and conspiracy theories regarding the sandy hook school shooting. this new york times headline says "sandy hook lies will cost jones about $1 billion." the decision strikes a blow to culture of conspiracy theories in the united states. the article reads "the families of eight sandy hook shooting victims on wednesday one nearly $1 billion in damages from the info wars fabulist alex jones, a blow against his empire and a message from the jury that his lies and those of his followers have crippling consequences.

mr. jones, who for years said the 2012 sandy hook shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators in newtown connecticut was a government hoax, now faces financial ruin. it is unclear how much money the families will ultimately corrupt -- will ultimately collect." those are some of the headlines. now we want to go to your calls to hear what you would like to talk about. our first caller is erin in upper marlboro, maryland -- is aaron in upper marlboro, maryland. was on your mind. caller: i would like to respond to the 1950's florida woman. i would like to send her her first pair of shoes, a diaphragm , ensure she has plenty of cooking utensils. host: i think we are going to move on.

let's not attack our collars. we want to welcome everyone's opinion on "washington journal." let's talk to another caller in idaho on the democratic line. what are your thoughts? caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to respond to the doctor from the last segment saying abortion is not a way to respond to using birth control. i was using birth control and i was one of those persons where it failed and semi-only choice was to get an abortion. thank, c-span. host: our next collar is cindy on the republican line in california. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i had two thoughts after listening to your recent speaker

. president trump, even though he had many faults, i still feel he had many good policies. regarding women, he had plenty of women in his administration. there is an article from forbes about three or four years old now, hundreds of women have roles in the trump administration. he surrounded himself. he likes the opinions of having women in his administration from what i could see. number two, one of my biggest concerns about the up-and-coming or the future of america is i feel we do need to have a secure border and that is my number one issue with regards to voting. i feel that an adequate wall

that includes drones and includes all of the technology and a good road for all of our border agents to be able to get back and forth is not full proof, but i do feel that sends a message and it helps for our congress to move forward and come up with good immigration laws such as -- president trump had the four pillars approach that will not get past unless partially knocked down by the supreme court over the dock at issue. president trump has more people coming back into the daca program then had previously been done. that is all i had to say. i hope you have a good weekend.

host: let's hear from andrew in staten island, new york on the independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: i was very interested in the thoughts especially about the difference between a man and woman in their thought process where emotions are concerned. as human beings we all have emotions, and as far as our thought process, it depends on the reason and the rationale of the individual regardless of that individual is a male or female. when it comes to the female and the ability to vote, i believe women did not have the right to vote until 1920. that is when they were given the right to vote. as far as being given the right to vote and going out and protesting to get the right to vote, they would not even have that if it was not for the

daughters of the republic whose philosophy was a lost cause. therefore, when you have individuals like marjorie taylor greene, the question is are they following this doctrine of lost cause or not? i believe they are. thank you very much. host: let's hear from emerson calling on the democratic line from lancaster, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. so glad to have gotten on the line. i want to first say i hope everyone is doing well. i am in lancaster and represent a nonprofit startup called hubbub and a few things on my mind today. social justice work, access to resources. i was listening to dr. jamila lai scott and i shared with this

the workgroup. one story she shared, her father was teaching her how to ride a bicycle in the question he asked her was do you have balance? i will quickly, if i may, i wanted to share something. we are seldom in the presence of others, deferring to ourselves the better portion of judgment, pressing our balance into a spectrum of inadequacy while with eyes wide shut. another thought, afro futurism seen through the lens of africa descendants. science, technology, engineering, and math through the lens of african descendants. with that, i would get off the line. host: let's hear from bob. bob is our next caller from raleigh, north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning, c-span.

i found it very interesting that elsie gabbard -- that tulsi gab bard has resigned from the democratic party and cited as a excessive greed and warmongering that i was wondering how your guest felt about that. thank you very much. host: let's hear from marie. marie is our next caller from mississippi on the democratic line. you are on. caller: good morning. my thing is concerning the january 6 special coming back up-to-date. i often wondered, amy kramer, i think she is the founder of the women for america rally and she was going to be called in to be interviewed. i am thinking that was supposed to be the riot for the women. as i was watching it prepared to get started i started noticing all of these men, look like biker people come in different

people showing up and i thought this is strange for a women's rally that all these different manner showing up. later he did see why they were there. i want to say the gentleman who was a police officer that was almost tased to death, he didn't interview on msnbc the other night and he actually answered a question i had been wondering about. if they had ran, i would've loved to have known those who are arrested during the riots, had they actually voted for the election. as he said a lot of them had criminal records, drug records, which probably would have made them ineligible to vote. i would love to know if they were actually voted since they were supposed to be so patriotic and going to overturn the election. the last thing i want to say, i'm not trying to be mean or ugly, but this is just something that is always been on my mind. the officers that committed suicide, they said they felt

like they were upset they were not able to help their fellow officers. i do not mean any disrespect but i often wonder if they were involved and did that because of guilt knowing that some of their fellow officers were killed. not that they wanted that to happen but they committed suicide because of guilt. thank you. host: our next collar is lawrence in lehigh acres, florida. lawrence is calling on the independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i think we are just getting in groups. with the natives of this land felt when the europeans came over here and started to spread out. those people coming from south america, central america. they have been here forever.

they used to go up and down that corridor before the panama canal was made. i do not think that is going to stop. walls or anything else. it is a natural thing. we need to work with other people. we have made so much trade with china? everything comes with china. anytime you pick up something, made in china. those that have done it made all of this trade and did not look after your own people and your country if you are from this country. they wont let the people born and raised here, and i'm not going to go into race because we've been living here together for over 400 years and we will claim we are so separate, we are

so different? come on. when will we start putting this stuff in people's minds? when will we teach the truth in school? when are you going to stop? host: let's go on the republican line. elise is calling from inverness, florida. go ahead. caller: i had watched president trump tell the people to go in peace, unlike the liberals in the black lives matter. some of our democratic leaders urging violence and how come no one mentions the bombs that were planted where the protesters would be walking. it showed on tv the bombs being removed before or during the march. where the votes altered?

some. mine was not only altered, but i did not vote. it never showed up. my registration changed from republican to democrat and my husband had been changed to democrat. someone had voted for both him and i. my husband had been dead for 25 years. i did not know both of us had been pre-registered as a democrat until we both received a letter from nancy pelosi welcoming us to the democratic party. why have the people who have been arrested for the generate six protests not received a trial and are being held in prison under deplorable conditions? sleeping on the floor, no mattress, just the bare floor and treated as the worst traders

when it is joe biden and nancy pelosi -- host: i think we lost you. let's go to curtis. curtis is calling from jacksonville, florida, on the democratic line. caller: this show, everything was just great. i enjoyed it. i love opposing and opposite opinions. i love what other people are thinking because i do not think we have to all think alike. i am so sorry for the lady that called in that was so negative about women in leadership positions. apparently she has never been allowed to be a leader or to have a say. she represents a lot of women, a lot of people of that same mindset. i have no problem with a woman in leadership as long as -- a man, woman, and lgbtq person is

qualified. it makes no difference, they can be hispanic, they can be muslim, they can be american. if our laws allow them to be in that position and they are qualified i have no problem with them. miss kelly, she was beautiful, her responses to everything was just perfect. i am sorry to hear that doctor called in and said he does not know that all forms of birth control does not work for everyone and he is a doctor? unreal. here is my last comment. i said this and i believe this and until i see it i will go down with it. until women and all organizations start including the men of these pregnant women who seek abortion are held accountable and are called out and are penalized just like the woman, you are not going to ever get a change.

the minute they bring those men in the forefront and include the men, i guarantee you the men in power it will say let the women do whatever they want to do. thank you so much. host: let's go to larry calling from southport, north carolina. you are on the independent line. caller: i am calling, forget about the democrats or the republicans. the independents are running the country. these are people. the doj calls white nationalists the forefront of domestic terrorist. domestic terrorists to me is

black lives matter and antifa and anyone else involved where buildings were damaged. people's livelihood, dreams destroyed overnight. they were never called out. and then maxine waters called for confrontation. schumer on national tv called out kavanaugh. do not know when we are coming or what is going to his the but they were never censored -- what is going to hit you but they were never censored. the kkk was started right after the war by democrats. these are individuals.

what they did in those riots was totally wrong. the democratic party or the individuals running the country never attempted to control them. the governors of these states. host: let's go to david calling from wisconsin on the republican line. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: i heard one of the callers cannot understand why t ulsi gabbard decided to go to the republican party. she finally woke up and learned what the republicans will do when they get control of the senate and the house will make things so much better for people. thank you. host: next caller is earl on the

democratic line from nashville, georgia. what are your thoughts today? are you with us? caller: can you hear me? good morning, how are you doing. such a great job you are doing on c-span. i have two or three comments i would like to make. first of all, anyone behind donald trump after all of the lies he has told and all the stuff he is taken from the white house, i do not understand. another thing i would like to say is i am a democrat and i would love to see these people run for vice president and president. adam kinzinger and liz cheney.

those two people speak the truth. there speaking truth to power no matter if you are a democrat or a republican. they are speaking the truth about what really took place. i would love to see her run. when you see someone, tell the truth, no matter if you're republican or democrat, people hate you. i would love to see that lady run. if she runs i will vote for her. people need to understand what is really taking place in this country. this country is in a mess. host: let's go to sancopa from marietta georgia on the independent line.

you are on. caller: as an african-american, the descendant of the enslaved to or not immigrants but captives. not being a sycophant of either political party, i see the collapse of the u.s. empire because of the fight for power by both republicans and the democratic parties. the politicians are greedy, money hungry, power thirsty, and quick to sell at this country when the money is right. they use propaganda and deception to full the gullible people in both political parties to get votes and to stay in power no matter the cost to the stability of the country. the hubris that this country is exceptional and unique, unlike any other in history is not true. this country is just like any other empires before it and only

differs in its time as an empire, which will be much shortly -- which will be much shorter. when a country has a god complex like ours that knows what is best for people all over the world and can dictate its values onto the others by bullying, coercion, intimidation, and blackmail and the might makes right philosophy does not bode well in the long run. thank you. host: from the republican line. caller: the real threat to our democracy is in a group of buffoons and those that did betting on the capital nor all the people derided in the summer. those are outliers and they are bad examples.

what is it -- a threat to us is when we have a team of people that come up with -- one million of our tax dollars to pick a side of a political party to win, that is a threat to our society. when cia agents to save the document on hunter biden, that is -- when you have cia and irs and fbi working against the american people, going to courts and using the documents for fraudulent regions, that is a problem -- reasons, that is a problem foof u host: that will do it for today.

y hearing has their hearing today. yocan watch online at c-spanhor free to be -- all are on our free video app and ron hnn and his democratic challenger participates on -- a debate in pewaukee, wisconsin and watch live coverage at 7 p.m. eastern on-span, c-span now and online at c-span.org. washington journal will be back tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. eastern. have a good day. ♪

>> the january 6 committee returns today for its ninth hearing ahead of the release of the written or expected by the end of the year. you can watch the hearinglive at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> the night, republican senator ron johnson and his democratic challenger partipate in a debate hosted by wdm say -- watch live coverage at 7 p.m. eaern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> congress returns for legislative work after the midterm elections on monday november 14th and lawmakers will continue their talks to fund the

government tough next year. current funding is set to expire on december 16 and the senate will continue debate on 2020 the defense programs and legislation and vote on president biden's traditional nominatis. watch live coverage -- and watch on our frevideo app c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government and we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard but squatting in diner for internet is harder so that is why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework and just be homework. -- can just be hework. >>cox