>> why shouldn't americans be upset about documents found in a garage? >> that's for the american people to decide. host: this is the "washington

journal" for january 18. white house press secretary responding to reporters' questions about the classified documents found at president biden's private residence. the think tank associated with him. several questions from reporters about the white house's forth rightness in this matter. in our program today, tell us what you think about how the white house has been handling and responding to the classified documents case. here's how you can let us know. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us your thoughts, it's 202-748-8003. post on facebook and on twitter. you can also follow the show on instagram. abc picking up the story from the white house about the documents from a story that you can find on their website, citing president joe biden tuesday today to avoid answering questions from reporters about

the ongoing classified document drama as the white house faces questions about transparency about what it told the american public. white house difficulty dealing with the perception problem continued as the press secretary again struggled with questions in the briefing since news broke that biden aides found five more classified documents, which was not mentioned friday at the briefing. you can see the whole briefing friday. you can also go to our app at c-span now. when it comes to the documents and questions about it, here's more from the white house press conference briefing yesterday. >> the white house says republicans are faking outrage on this issue. why shouldn't americans be outraged about classified documents being found in a garage? >> look, i think i've been very clear about this. we have answered questions on this at this podium. you've heard, twice from the president, talk about this. he said that he didn't know.

he said that he was surprised. he said that he takes classified information and documents very, very seriously. we heard directly from the president on this issue. anything else, anything beyond that, we're just not going to talk about. there's an investigation going on. there's a legal process here, as we've been very, very clear about. i will let the white house counsel talk about specific details about that, but we're going to be prudent here and make sure that we are not interfering in this process. >> i guess that's why i'm asking, because you said you don't want to interfere and be prudent about the process, but the white house did post a statement saying that republicans are faking outrage. to that point, why shouldn't americans be upset about documents found in a garage? >> that's for the american people to decide, right? i'm sure you'll talk to many folks out there and have this conversation. but what we do know, what we do know from polling we have seen over and over again, from your coverage, from what we hear,

when the president goes out and talks to the american people, they also care about the economy. they also care about what the president does to lower costs, which is why he wanted to make sure gas prices went down at the gas pump, and we saw that happen by more than $1.70. that's the work the president is going to focus on. you think about the inflation reduction act. that's going to lower prescription drug costs, lower medical costs, when you think about that, lower energy costs. so that's going to be our focus here. we know that's what the american people truly care about as well, and it is very important for them. >> here's a report yesterday that the white house tuesday defending sitting on information about obama administration classified documents found at the president's first private and think tank t. quotes ian

sames, the spokesman for oversight and investigation the, "we understand that there's a tension between the need to be cooperative with an ongoing information and rightful demands for additional information, so we're trying to spike that balance and being clear ads we can." also sames being quoted in several tweets sent out by reporters with a press briefing via telephone in which he also responds to house republicans and how they're reacting. the tweet in "usa today" includes the statement saying house republicans have no credibility. their demands should be met with skepticism and should face questions about why they're politicizing this issue and admitting they do not care about the underlying classified material. as president biden has said, he takes classified information seriously, which is why he immediately directed his team to ensure documents were sent back to the government. president biden is doing the right thing and is cooperating fully with a thorough review, but house republicans are playing politics in an attempt to attack president biden. that's a statement released

yesterday. your thoughts on the white house's handling of this document, this document ace case, and in new york, mark starts us off on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think president biden is nothing but a crook. i think he smuggled those top-secret documents out. he kept them in his house. he gave them to hunter. hunter sold the secrets, and then hunter laundered the money through joe biden by paying his dad rent. this is the hype of hypocrisy. joe biden attacks trump for having classified documents, talking about how reckless it is. yet joe biden himself has classified documents. joe biden was vice president when he had the classified. he was unable to declassify them. what's he doing with them and how did he get them? what were they being used for?

thank you. host: ruth is next on our line for democrats in capitol heights, maryland. caller: yes, sir, it is so much about what president biden is doing, and it is such a shame. president biden is a very smart man. and if he had documents, after what mr. trump did, he wouldn't have kept them in his home. i believe someone has set him up and stuck those documents there instead of the republicans in congress doing their business they should let it be investigated. i know for a fact, only one president has had a president out of a barn country sit in the white house with an interpreter, why don't they talk about that. putin was in the office, nobodynd what they talked about. it's just a shame. they're not for the american people. why don't they be for the business of americans, period?

so i hope they soon get this straight, because biden has not done anything, and they keep asking him. host: do you think the administration should be more forth right about these documents? caller: why should they be forth right when they were stuck in his home in his garage? why would he have them in his home and the garage, where they know they -- that trump refused for a year to turn them over? host: as a matter of fact, they were found in his -- they were -- caller: i can tell when i listen to these conversations, i can tell the ones that's republican. but you know what? republicans got children and family too. what goes down when god bring it all down, nobody going to have to ask question, and it's not going to be a republican or democrat. host: ok, let's go to kevin in cleveland, ohio, also on the line for democrats. go ahead, you're next. caller: good morning. i think that they're doing a good job as far as i can tell. he's admitted he had them. he is the right thing, turned them over to the authorities.

you mean, it's a complete difference from how trump handled his thing. he kept them. host: should more be coming directly from the white house via the spokesperson versus the justice department? caller: i beg your pardon? host: should more information be coming from the white house versus the justice department? caller: not really, when there's an investigation, a criminal investigation, something involving law enforcements, they don't typically go out and put everything out there. i think that we should just let the process play out. but so far, it seems like he's doing the right thing. i mean, he's not trying to hide, he's not trying to keep them. the people keep saying, well, they raided trump's house. but he kept the documents. that's what they do. if the police are looking for you and you got something that they want, they coming in and taking it. i don't see why people don't understand that. that is the law. host: ok, that's kevin there in ohio, one of the other people

talking about the documents case was the house speaker, kevin cart cart, with reporters at the capitol yesterday. here's part of that exchange from yesterday. reporter: the white house has calling outside republicans with the reaction about classified documents to trump. what's your reaction to that statement? do you see a difference in the two investigations? >> look, i see, from an aspect of how it's treat. the one thing you always want is fair justice in america. so let's just put it on its premise that the past president, president trump, had documents that his lawyers were talking with. the archives knew they were there. they actually asked to put another lock on. any time they could have walked in and grabbed them. no come and raid mar-a-lago. it was all public when it was taking place. now we have a current sitting president that had gone on "60

minutes" criticizing president trump. we had all the democrats attacking. they even put a special counsel, a prosecutor to go after president trump by this. before the election, they found out president biden had these documents, not under lock, a simple push of a button that could open a garage door that every american has and knows what happens how people get robbed mainly by going through a garage door makes it quite easy. prior to an election, they kept it secret. at no time did he get raided by the f.b.i. ad no time did they come forward and say who was there could actually see these documents that are sitting in the garage behind a corvette. said this is all we had, but we found time and time again. they put a special prosecutor only after people raised the issue. but the same amount of agents investigating this that are investigating trump? is the same push behind it? it just does not seem fair.

this is why the american people get so upset and distrust their government when they see that the law is not applied equally. why is somebody doing this? are they going after somebody because they politically disagree with them, they feel they're a political opponent? that's what's wrong in this system. and this is why there's such hypocrisy behind the bidens once again something big that comes forward prior to an election where they try to keep it quiet, where the american public could actually have a say in it. host: house speaker kevin mccarthy from yesterday. you can see that at the website and the app. again, if you want to comment on the white house's handling of the documents case by president biden and the white house, you can do so, democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. text us at 202-748-8003. this is mike in orlando, saying

anybody who's broken the law with the comparison to former president trump taking 600-plus documents or biden's 20 documents needs to be investigated. it's called accountability. unfortunately our country has lost its way with accountability when former president trump became president, or mr. trump became president. sounds like a biden impeachment is needed. the documents were just laying in a garage, horrible double standard and how they treated trump. this is from longview washington, a viewer david saying that president biden's people have done a lot better than former trump did concerning classified documents. and then from our facebook page saying since it was president biden's staff that found the documents and notified the national archives, they're handling it very well. unlike former president trump, mr. biden hasn't fought to keep the documents or has president biden tried to hide the documents. better question is to whom did president trump sell top-secret

documents. again, that's some of the reaction from facebook and texting. you can go that route, too, if you want to make your thoughts known on this. let's hear from matt in damascus, maryland, independent line. caller: hey, this is kind of great, because it shows how safe everything is going that's going on, these investigations, they're fake. like into trump or into whoever, it's just conservative you're getting lambasted, is that a term? it shows how fake everything is that's going on. i worked for the feds twice two different times, and they don't care about any of these rules. they have them, but they're more or less for people that work like under them f. you're up at the top, you're using any email you want, you're using any kind of -- you get to take anything home you want, and it's ok. it's how it works. they're not going hamper their work by saying you can't walk around with classified documents that you're currently working on. it's a big joke.

right now, there's an arm of the government -- a small faction of the house or whatever it is being led against conservatives. law enforcement, it normally isn't enforced. they don't normally enforce these rules, especially against someone like the president, let alone like, i don't know, my manager at the e.p.a. they don't enforce rules. it's stupid. host: kathleen is next in chicago. democrats line. caller: good morning. how you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: you know, it's just amazing. i'm listening to kevin mccarthy, how dare he even show his face, who sold his soul to get that seat. but they just now start investigating joe biden. they been investigating trump for over two years, and each time it gets worse and worse and worse. give it time. if biden did something wrong, he

supposed to get justice done towards him. but how in the world these same republicans, when all this stuff was come out on trump, oh, they kept quiet, he didn't do nothing. it didn't matter to them. host: could the white house be doing a better job in talking about this issue? should they be doing more in talking about this issue? caller: you know what? i'm listening to people saying when you part of an investigation, they telling them, you already can say so much -- and you ought to know that yourself. if you an investigation, your lawyers will tell you, let us handle this. if biden can come out and say more, i believe he would. but you can't put the cart in front of the horse. trump has still yet come out and said nothing. and they been investigating him two years by the fact, when they found all them documents, they belong to me. and how dare these republicans come out, they so concerned, let

me finish. host: no, no, we're going to move on to katherine. this is katherine in new hampshire, independent line. caller: hi, and good morning. i'm concerned. the world needs to figure out how to live in peace. and i'm concerned that due to investigating biden's top classified documents that biden and the democrats using propaganda will drum up support for ukraine by sending u.s. troops to fight in ukraine. and that's thinking we would be so involved and more in ukraine that the biden classified papers would be forgotten due to our income ukraine. host: the focus for today is how the white house is handling this issue. what do you think about that? caller: well, i think i'm just a

little concerned that it's an issue for them. i think to get away from that issue, they'll do something like have troops in ukraine. we'll just be fighting another war. host: ok, that's katherine there in new hampshire. "the washington post," their lead editorial taking a look at the larger aspects of this issue. there's too much material marked for classification. they make the case that overclassification is counterproductive, making it harder for agencies to funds, draining budget and eroding public confidence. going on to say, a good start would be simply, simplify the classification process into two tiers. secret and top secret. eliminating the lower confidential level, while protecting those secrets that need special handling. at the same time the federal

board outlined a vision that modernized the system that would utilize the tools of big data, artificial intelligence and cloud storage and retrieval. the idea of automation gives some people pause, but increasingly it seems to make good sense, the mountain of data is already unmanageable. more there at that editorial from "the washington post" this morning if you want to read about it. if you want to comment on the white house's handling of the documents case, you can do so on the phone lines, social media, text us. john in ohio, republican line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. something in addition to what kevin mccarthy said just a few minutes ago, trump was still president when he took those files to mar-a-lago, number one. also, president biden has the authority to declassify anything

that he wants. and the difference between that and what biden did, biden, those files were at his home, in the garage, and wherever else they happen to found these things for the last six years. anybody could have seen those things. and i have a feeling that president biden has kind of sold out america between china. who knows. host: do you think there's vast differences, the response as far as how biden reacted once the documents were found versus how trump reacted and resisting called for turning over the documents. caller: well, i mean, listen, the f.b.i. or whoever was there to begin with, they took the files that they thought they needed and then they came back again and said you should put a lock on the door, and he put a

lock on the door. i mean, mar-a-lago is more secure than president biden's garage. i mean, they have special service people there. what do you call them? host: secret service. let's hear from isaac in bowie, maryland, democrats line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i approve of the white house handling this situation because everything is relative. we have to compare how biden, president biden, reacted to the issue of having this classified document, and how ex-president trump reacted. president biden immediately had this issue reported to the department of justice and also the archives, and everything has

been handled by them. and because it's an ongoing investigation for the white house to let the department of justice do their job. host: you're talking about responses. what about the fact the president had the documents in the first place. isn't that a concern? caller: no, because he said he didn't know about it. and nobody challenged trump when he lied openly and everybody sees that he's lying. i believe president biden, that he did not know about it. and when he found out about it, he didn't contest it like trump. the exchange went between him, he refused to handle the documents, and his lawyers with the letter they had, handed over all the documents, when they knew that he had extra documents. the republicans are the problem that we have in america, because they are hypocritical. they did not say anything when all this was going on with

trump, who clearly violated every rule. host: that's isaac there in maryland. you can continue calling on "the washington post," also looking at questions surrounding the discovery of the documents. one of the sections from that, from a story that was published yesterday, what crimes could even be at play, going on to say there's no clear evidence that president biden committed a crime, nor potential criminal charges the justice department cited for its search of mar-a-lago clear to apply here. they generally dealt with mr. trump's refusal to return the documents and potential obstruction of justice. this is you now an investigation, so it's worth looking at what crimes could be at play. chief among them, the espionage act, which was a focal point in hillary clinton's private email investigation. sensitive documents to be removed from their proper place of custody or delivered to anybody's violation of trust or to be lost, stolen, distracted or destroyed through gross negligence. gross negligence is a high bar,

which f.b.i. director james comey said that hillary clinton hadn't cleared. it essentially requires mr. biden's conduct to walk up to the line of intentionally retaining the documents. the other part of that provision that could hypothetically be in play prohibits knowing such documents have been improperly removed and failing "to make a prompt report of such steps or destruction to his superior officer." it goes on from there, but if you want to read more about the rules, the federal code when it comes to how papers are stored, particularly classified documents, find it on the "washington post." independent line, ruth in indiana. caller: hello. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm just getting sick of the coverage. i think there's a total difference between the way biden has handled it and the way trump handled it. there are thousands of documents out there. i'm so glad we finally have an adult in the white house. i'd be very prized if he tried

to hide things or this is something going on. i think that the archives should better handle all the documents that are being released to people. as i say, i'd be very surprised if biden is hiding these things purposely. i think he didn't know about it. i think the man has worked for years to try to help this country, and we need to get on to more important things. thank you so much. host: republican line in california. caller: hi, yeah, to me, this whole thing is just a mess. the democrats weaponized the archives department just to attack trump because they knew, as everybody in washington, d.c. knew, everyone from the president to the vice president to his offices on down, if you raided all of their houses, you would find documents. so that's why they went after trump, because they knew he had

documents. so they ginned up all this stuff about documents and tried to put in criminal prosecutions. well, surprise, surprise. joe biden is getting hit with the same crap stick that the democrats manufactured, and oh, my, why are we doing this to joe biden? hey, the documents been sitting there in the front seat of his corvette for six years, and we're supposed to pretend that joe biden didn't know anything about it? he knew about it. he just didn't care. if you went to obama's place of residence you would find some documents. if you went to bush's residence, you would find some documents. we're very sloppy in the way that we handle documents. host: is that the core problem at the bottom of the, how we handle classified documents? caller: that's why the democrats weaponized the archives in the first place, because they knew

that trump would have documents they could point at. host: you talked about the possibility of all presidents doing so. is the classification the real problem? caller: i think that the real problem is that we are sloppy. if we're going to be very, handle these documents in a special manner, we should handle them in a special manner. but we are sloppy. from the archives department on up, we are sloppy in how we are handling these documents, and what we should have is some kind of an olly olly oxen free, and everybody who has documents please turn them in to the archives department. if we really cared. but actually, we don't care about these documents. we just care who's holding them so that we can prosecute them. host: let's hear from rockville, maryland, democrats line. caller: hi, good morning. thanks for taking my call.

i was calling, just the opposite of the gentleman from ohio i believe had said. i think the difference is that president biden is still in office. back when he was senator or now as president or whoever, he is entitled to view these documents, and if he has some of them at his home, he took some work home with him. so whether he was aware or not, doesn't matter. he's entitled to see them. president trump is no longer in office. he left office, and he's supposed to leave everything behind. so he should not have taken documents with him. host: but the documents go back to when president biden was vice president biden at the time. how would it be relevant to the current day of president biden's job? caller: well, even back then he

had clearance, so he was entitled to see those documents. that's lying taking them home to work on them or read them or whatever. so his clearance was valid way back when as well. so president trump is no longer in office. so he should not have clearance and he should not take the documents with him. he could have had them with him when he was still president, but once he was not president he had to give them back. host: rockville, maryland. this is a viewer in virginia, the white house handling of the latest controversy is on par with the many walkbacks they had to wish through in the last two years having this much practice should be true experts. carol in panama city saying the hypocrisy from the republicans knows no bounds. president trump stole the documents, refused to give them

back, said they belonged to him. mr. biden did the opposite, he notified the national archives immediately. an investigation will sort all this out and we'll know what the results are. our facebook page, the white house has botched this, we should have been told of the found docs in early november before the election. and brent crawford saying president biden seems to be fully cooperative with whatever investigation is taking place. should have an appropriate consequence if he played a role in the documents being where they were. based on everything we know currently, former president trump's actions are still far more troubling. let's hear from richard. richard on this documents case in the white house handling of it. he's in wilmington, delaware, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i keep wondering about this, the president declassifying documents. i think that only came about when george bush told the world how we were tracking osama bin

laden. so they just made that up. as far as anything being weaponized, you can thank the patriot act. you have a good day, pedro. host: next in florida, republican line. you're next, good morning. caller: yes, i don't know how they can keep saying that biden and the white house cooperated immediately. if they found these documents in november, conveniently right before the midterms and they did not make it public until now. how can you say they cooperated immediately? and this is just like the hunter biden computer. they knew about that. in the 2020 election, but they didn't let it come out that it was really true until after the election. that's really all i have to say is there's such a double standard it's unbelievable. host: that's florida. we've got about a half-hour of

your calls, taking a look at the handling of the classified documents case by the white house. we'll continue on until 8:00. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. text us at 202-748-8003. other news taking place to share with you as we continue on calls about the documents case. george santos in the news. he sit on the white house in the house, science, space and technology committee, according so sources familiar with the assignments. his assignments to the panel comes after multiple members of his own party have called on him to resign over admitted fabbri indications about his work history and education, questions about his campaign finances, misleading claims of jewish heritage, and reported charges in brazil reported to checkbook fraud, which santos has denied among other issues. also when it comes to committee

assignments, ax i don't say picking up the story, saying that members of the right-wing house freedom talk russ seeing the first dividends from the deal they struck with house speaker mccarthy, his prime committee assignments. a key concession that mr. mccarthy made. they also include that representative donalds, gosar, perry, and luna, who initially opposed for striking a deal, and boebert sit on the house oversight committee. marjorie taylor greene, they also said that the freedom caucus can have the new committee gavel, along of jim jordan's chairmanship, with representative greene. that's some of the assignments stemming from the house elections that you saw on

c-span. follow up the story on axios. democrats line, ricardo, hello. caller: yes, what i'm thinking is trump had all them files, and i got a feeling that the fascist movement is going on, and i think they planted those things on biden so that they can get way on the fascist movement. thank you. host: who planted them exactly? caller: who? trump was going through all them documents, and he was trying to find dirt, and he had somebody plant those things over there on biden's properties. that's what i think. all it is, i can tell by the election of mccarthy that there was a fascist movement going on.

people don't come, we're going to end up in fascism. host: bill in delaware, independent line. you're nicks. caller: thanks for taking my call. joe biden is nothing but a impulsive liar. been a liar all his life. he lied about a paper going to school. that's why he didn't make it the first time he ran for election. host: how that relates to the current handling of the documents case? caller: because he says he know nothing about it. that's crap. he knew they were there. better yet, why don't they go to the university of delaware. there's stuff locked up that people don't know about. he lied about when his wife got killed in a carment, blamed it on the truck driver. she pulled through the stop sign and killed her. host: ok, let's hear from ava in mississippi, republican line.

caller: thanks. i want to start off by saying i do not consider myself a legal authority like some of them seem to do, but remember when trump home was raid and had somebody asked about obama's papers and they were obama's, not biden's, we were told they were the national archives. ok, they were not there. did they give them to biden or did biden steal them? then the last six or seven years, we don't know where all those papers have been. maybe they were planted in that bag. we don't know where they been or who done it. let's investigate him the same as we do trump, because democrats don't want him investigated. what happened to equal justice under the law? this is still america. everybody should get the same treatment. thank you. host: from kyle in maryland on our democrats line, hello.

caller: good morning. what a night and day difference. it was interesting hearing the hypocrisy of kevin mccarthy yesterday speaking about how -- the lawyers signed off on trump, saying all documents were released, and that was not the case. that's exactly where they had to continue on with the f.b.i. raid to get the remaining documents. to me it falls in the same vein ads what happened with the roe vs. wade decision that was released by samuel alito, a conservative. that just has fallen underneath the radar. no one has gone back and requested on that that was released by conservatives. host: let's talk about the specific white house handling of the matter. how would you rate it? caller: i think thee done an excellent job being very forthcoming. i agree, i do think there should be an investigation, but keep it fair, the same exact vein of how they're approaching trump. obviously significantly different volume of documents,

but keep it fair. have the same kind of investigation. i just hope when jim jordan is doing his investigation, he keeps in mind the same reporting that trump had where he can just declassify items by just thinking about them. i hope he remembers that. host: that's kyle there in maryland. punch bowl news reporting the house oversight chair jim comer is seeking a wide range of information about those who had access to the think tank's d.c. office. the effort is the latest development of how classified documents and the possession of them ended up in an unsecured closet, and a letter to the university of, it is imperative to understand whether any biden family members or associates gained access to the classified documents while stored at the penn biden center. mr. comer is requesting a list of all employees, the names of everyone with key card access to the center, a visitor log of

anyone who met with president biden, and all documents and communications related to security at the penn biden center. it was while he was overseas secretary of state antony blinken previously served as the managing director of the penn biden center, asked about those documents at a press availability with the british foreign secretary. here's part of secretary of state's response. >> while you were at the state department, not at the white house, the vice president's office, you were for two years the managing director of the penn biden center. just ask if you were aware of any reason why classified documents would have been packed and brought there while you were there. and whether you would be available for an interview if the special counsel requests. >> the short answer is no. just as you heard from president biden about a week ago, i was surprised to learn that there were any government records taken to the penn biden center. i had no knowledge of it at the time. the white house, of course, has

indicated that the administration is cooperating fully with the review that the justice department has undertaken, and i, of course, would cooperate full well that review myself. host: next in tennessee, watertown, tennessee, independent line. caller: yeah, i'm going touch on something real quick. there's a difference between a president and a vice president and their ability to declassify. a district judge amy berman jackson ruled with the bill clinton deal, a subtle law that the president can segregate personal materials. but that's not why i'm calling. when the d.o.j. and f.b.i. started an investigation, the investigation itself is the coverup. let me say that again. the investigation itself is the coverup. look what comey did with the hillary emails. he gave immunity to people for no reason. he let witnesses in on depositions. the hunter laptop, they been looking at that for years,

nothing's happened. john durham took three or four years, nothing happened on that. and now we have a special counsel looking at the biden deal. the special counsel, the deep state operative, so nothing is going happen on that. any time the d.o.j. and f.b.i. start an investigation, that is itself the coverup. you're never going to find out what happened. three or four years from now it's going to get drug out. if you ask a question about it, they're going say we can't talk about it, because it's under investigation. so there you go. host: texas, republican line. caller: yeah, thanks, c-span. i'm just curious why we have to believe that biden's attorneys found this on the fourth of november and turned it in. they might have it for months before or after trump got raided. i'm sure they went and looked for it and found it and said what do we do with it. well, let's wait till the fourth

and that's why we can claim it interfered with an election. if it were rudy giuliani who found trump's papers and held on to them, i'm sure people would be curious as to why it was waited so long to hold onto it. that question haven't been asked yet, not to mention the presidents are allowed to take home boxes of information because most of them have libraries, clinton library, every one of them got huge libraries now. and trump was in consultation with the national archives and with the f.b.i. they had been out to his house. they told him to put a padlock on the door. who was out to joe biden's house and told him to put a padlock on the garage, put a padlock on the closet door in some biden center. it's been there for seven years. god only knows who's been in there. and hunter biden has got all his fingers in china, in you're

drawn, if if these papers are related to china and ukraine and he's been using them to gone access to those different entities to that the biden family can enrich themselves, then we've got a whole different ball of wax than with trump. trump is just debating whether or not they belong to him or not, because he said he declassified them. he's in dispute, and that has to go to the supreme court. with joe biden, he was a vice president. host: host: another texan in fort worth, james, democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the difference between the two is trump hid. i was a military navy cryptographer, responsible for classified information between the conflict and the pentagon. i can spend my life in leavenworth for revealing anything above confidential,

including confidential. what we found out, no matter how sensitive it was, once it reached the congress, it was walking around in people's pockets, and next thing we knew stuff that would put me in prison showed up in the newspapers. that's the truth of what happened. as far as what's going on now, i'm hearing a lot of consequences and speculations with people who don't know the first thing about who knew what,&when. what we do know, trump kept the documents and lied. biden wasn't aware they were there and released them as soon as he found out, and that's just the gist of it. host: you being a security professional, the idea that the president didn't know and were sitting in his garage, do you think that holds water? host: no, i don't think it makes any difference. of course it depends on the level of classification and the documents contained therein. we did see stuff that was --

like i said, i was handling stuff that was officers eyes only, top secret, that was in the newspapers three or four days after it hit the pentagon and after it hit the congress. the release and the handling by an elected official in washington, d.c. has never been secure. host: ok, james in fort worth, texas there. let's hear from republican mike johnson with the judiciary committee on fox news yesterday talking about the president's documents issue and some of his comments there. >> there are a lot of unanswered questions. we're seeing the biden department of justice applying justice based on politics. there's no other way to say it. there are a lot of questions that i believe are select committee and certainly on my house judiciary committee are going to go after. the logsing and who visited that house are critically important. if they didn't write it down anywhere, we're going to have to seek those answers some other way. we may have to subpoena members

of the biden family and others who may have worked at the residence to find out who was there. why? because we had critical, very highly sensitive classified information there. and among the people who listed that as a residence, by the way, is hunting biden himself in recent years. we have a lot to seek answers to. and if the d.o.j. did not supply it, we'll have to get it another way. host: that from fox news yesterday. from p.j. in mississippi on our independent line on the white house's handling of this documents case, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm talk a different twist on your discussion. this is a mishandling of sensitive information, and if we look at the historical point, we now have a sitting president whose personnel has mangled classified documents with unclassified. not only that, we have a sitting

congressional committee, the january 6 committee, who released personally identifiable information. the investigation should be why elected officials so cavalier at mishandling suspects active information. host: steve is next in michigan, republican line. good morning. caller: you need to remind the callers of the question. trump has nothing to do with biden, what he did. you need to remind that. earlier a caller, kevin, a democrat from ohio, admitted, he said that biden admitted he took the documents. jonathan turley, a democratic constitutional lawyer, did admit on tv that biden admitted and his lawyers admitted that biden took the documents. so case is basically closed,

except for you got to see how much damage exactly was done. he admitted. trump has never been admitted that he did anything wrong. that's the big difference. host: andre is from colonial beach, virginia, democrats line. you're next, good morning. caller: hello, yes, talk about the american people need this, the american people need that. the american people know that mccarty is a big liar. they know trump lying, but they still stick with this guy. when mr. biden found out he had the documents, he turned them over. but mr. trump, i'm going to say mister because i'm a nice guy, mr. trump decided to hold on to them, he did you not want anything to investigate, he did you not want to give up the documents. mccarthy must not be out in the street listening to what's going on, because i'm in the street every day, and people don't like

what mr. trump did. the folks that came up in the last election showed it. host: let's stick to the documents case. what about the president having these documents in the first place? caller: i think mr. biden, i don't think he did anything wrong intentionally, but at least he turned them over. he didn't resist saying, well, you can't come in my house, search my house and everything. when he found out he had them, he turned them over. but mr. trump, he didn't want to give the documents up, and he kept -- he had lawyers fighting and everything. what's he have to hide? something going on there in the republican party, and the americans know it. tell mr. mccarthy americans know what's going on. host: ok, that's andre there in maryland. if you go to the congressional research service, they public already a document last year on declassifying of intelligence and public interest and some of the process says that are involved in it. you can find it online at

congress.gov. it talks about the classification by the president and some of the steps that are involved. one includes the public interest declassification board saying that the request for declassification made to the board that was established to provide advice to the president or other senior national security officials on the systematic, thorough, and coordinated and comprehensive identification collection and review for declassification and released to congress, interested agencies and the public of declassified records and materials that are archival value, including records of materials of extraordinary public interest, the board meets once a month to make recommendations on declassification of records to the president, who makes the final decision. it also talks about the declassification by executive order, saying the president has the authority to declassify documents in the public interest that originated in any department or agency of the executive branch. recent example of executive order 14040, the review of certain documents concerning the terrorist attacks of september

11, 2001, which was signed by president biden on september 3, 2021. executive order directed government departments and agencies that originated records pertaining to september 11 to conduct declassification reviews to disclose as much material in the public interest. there's more there, other related infmaon at the congressional research service. if you want to learn about what documents they hold when it comes to learning more about that process, let's hear from chase, germantown, maryland. caller: good morning, everyone. i'm a former army officer, liberal at heart, but man, i find it extraordinary and hard to listen to, people on every side of the aisle trying to protect and provide cover to those who share similar political views with them. the fact of the matter is, i think the gentleman from california was right on point. there's a level of standards

that are applied to lower level people that aren't applied to people who are higher level elected officials. that is an issue with the system overall, i think, from the archives onwards. we should all be outraged by trump's handling of declassified documents, by biden's handling of classified documents. if you think about it, the emails on her ex-husband wiener's computer contained classified information. the reality is people, lower level people are going to jail for snapping a picture in a submarine, but how can we place trust and accountability in our most, our highest elected officials, when they themselves aren't being held accountable.

host: let's hear from joe in virginia, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. good discussion this morning. i was in the united states marine as a young man, i guarded american embassies around the world. we were in charge of handling classified information. we were in charge of searching the embassies at night looking for classified information that was left out. we were in charge of burning classified information that needed to be burned. we had strict chain of custody procedures so none of these things happened. after the marine corps, i was tasked by the government to escort classified information and cargo out to u.s. embassies. we had a strict chain of custody so nothing got misplaced or mishandled. i'm not making excuses for trump or biden, but i believe that if he went to every single former president or vice president's house, archives, anywhere else, you're probably going to find

classified material because the government is inept and irresponsible in the way they handle classified material. it's probably set up like that way on purpose so that you have plausible deniability when situations like this occur. so for me, i think they need to set up a better system of handling classified information. but i think the bigger issue is a double standard on how trump has been treated and how democrats have been treated. i mean, let's face it, hillary clinton had an unsecure server in her bathroom in her private residence and state secrets were disclosed. that was hacked. that's a fact. the f.b.i. as admitted that. host: got the point there, joe there in virginia. did want to show you more from the interview with kevin mccarthy, a reporter exchange on a different topic, only because it has to be considered in a

short manner the topic of the debt ceiling and what speaker mccarthy is thinking about how republicans are going to approach that. reporter: the debt ceiling off the table? >> i don't see why you would continue the past behavior. i would think for one standpoint, it's a clean debt ceiling. would that moon we we wouldn't even do a budget? yeah, that's totaling off the table. i mean, well, i don't know if you have any children, but if you had a child and gave them a credit card, and they kept raising it, they hit the limit. so you just raise it had again clean increase, and again, and again. would you just keep doing that or would you change the behavior? we're six months away, why wouldn't we sit down now and change this behavior? that we would put ourselves on a more fiscally strong position. it would make the future generation, make our nation

stronger, make the economics stronger for this country. i think that's why. we should sit down, and i would welcome it to the first conversation i had with the president of winning speaker, things i wanted to sit down and talk with him about. who wants to put the nation in some type of threat at the last minute? nobody wants to do that. that's why we're asking, let's change our behavior now. let's sit down. he's the president. we're the majority in the house. the democrats are the majority in the senate. let's exactly the way the founders designed congress to work, find the compromise and find the common sense economy comprise that puts us back on to a balanced budget that i believe every household, every state does, every city, every county. why would the democrats sit back and say just raise it with no discussion? nobody else can do that i don't think so the american people want that. host: that full exchange with reporters available at the website on our c-span now app. "the wall street journal" reporting this morning that when

it comes to the president's documents, the justice department considered having f.b.i. agents monitor a search by president biden's lawyers for those documents, but decided against it, both to avoid complicating later stages of the investigation and because mr. biden's attorneys quickly turned over the first batch and were cooperating, according to people familiar with the matter. in maryland, democrats line. caller: yeah, a whole lot of hypocrisy going on here as far as reaction of republicans right now to what was discovered as far as biden having some documents. and yet there's a major difference between what trump did and what we're discovering biden may have done. trump took documents in the hundreds. he was contacted as to making sure he returned them. and rather than returning those documents, he decided to spend about a year trying to negotiate that.

eventually he returned some, and then they had to reach out, and he claimed that he had. he had to come take the documents. and when they came, they still found more than 300. and yes, with biden, we found them 10, 12, which, by the way, is equally wrong. but yes, he was the one that turned these documents in. and i listen to republicans all outraged about, oh, he turned the few that he had in. you are supporting a guy that had hundreds, and even up till now is still demanding that they have no right to take them. how can you have this much outrage for biden when right now you're so busy trump has done nothing? this is crazy. it's unimaginable that we've gotten this far with this stuff going on in the country. host: let's hear from kim in

nashville, tennessee, independent line. caller: good morning. i agree with chase in maryland. we need to stop fighting over which republicans or democrats are wrong and investigate more how washington is doing and investigating all of them. they all seem to be making personal advantages. i think trump made a statement about he had dirt on everybody. the clinton foundation, where money was being sub veteran, the money that went towards the wall, that mexico was supposed to pay for, as we all recall, the money that's been donated. host: let's stick to the story at hand, the white house's handling, how does that relate to how president biden is handling the situation?

caller: i think that the biden family, family members are being paid to sit on boards and the kushners that were doing negotiations in israel is all wrong. host: ok, let's go to beatrice in west virginia, republican line, last call. beatrice in west virginia? caller: hello, good morning. host: hi, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that biden is so pitiful, and he's sabotaging america. he's so pitiful, it's hard to see him walk and talk. host: that's not the issue at hand. the issue at hand is the documents matter. caller: not at all well. it is a double standard as usual. his lawyers finding, they work for him.

they're going to hide what is detrimental to him. what they can find because they are the dashes lawyers and they have to defend him. host: ok. thank you for all of you who participated. for the remainder of the program will look at elements of white house republicans unveiled last year the commitment to america that would lead to legislative efforts on a lot of different fronts. joining us next the talk about how those principles might look like with border security stef kight of axios. later on, we speak with defense one executive editor kevin baron about how the commitment to america and if it is policy and national security might work his way in legislation. the sensations coming up on the washington journal. ♪

>> pre-order your copy of the congressional directory of 118th congress. it is your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member. important information for congressional committee, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. scan the code at the right to pre-order your copy today. it is $29.95 plus shipping and handling. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations at c-spanshop.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span 2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on ledges in history look at laws

and policy regarding abortion with professor starting in the 19th century she examines changes in medical practice and public opinion through court cases in newspapers covers. she describes abortion restrictions, cost and health risk in different time period substate. i 9:30 p.m. eastern on the presidency, historian general ford during the 1970's. exploring the american story saturdays on c-span 2 and find a full sede on your program guide or watch online anytime at cspan.org/history. >> fridays 8 p.m. eastern c-span brings you afterwards from book tv. a program where nonfiction authors are interviewed by

journalists, legislators, and others on their latest books. this week washington post columnist auth of the aftermath examines how baby boomers have impacted the u.s. economy and political system and its effects on future generations. watch “after words” every friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: to continue our look at house republicans commitment to america and how it will play out with legislative efforts and border security and immigration, joining us for that discussion stef kight of axios. thank you for joining us. when it comes as a border security and immigration matters, what would you say is the republic's philosophy? guest: the republicans are focused on the current policies at the border. they want to make it more

difficult for people to come across. there was a cut back on parole -- they want to cut back on parole. the focus is on trying to lower those numbers and crackdown on people who are to the -- cross the border illegally. host: some of the specifics will be funding the border enforcement strategy, talking outhat catch and pl, it will require proof of legal status and eliminate welfare incentives. how would republicans describe that? guest: the talk about the use of parole. officially people have to go through the process in order to come into the country legally, they have to apply for asylum. at times our system is overrun and we have seen that over the past three years. there have been large numbers of

people comes across the border, apply for asylum, border officials will release people under parole and are given court dates and go through the legal process. republicans have said this has been overly used. that administration has been using this process and releasing too many people and there needs to be a different option when resources are overwhelmed. there should be a different option such as returning people to mexico, forcing people to wait on the other side of the break or by the cases go through. there are big issues with releasing people before they have been granted legal visa or means of staying in the country. host: would you say house republicans are united with the alternate ideas to change the system? guest: i would say by a large most republicans are in favor of focusing on the enforcement side of immigration and internal

policies, moving in a different direction then democrats. they're not interested as much as providing legal pathways to migrants who are already here. in the broad scope of things, republicans tend to be in agreement, but it is when you get down to the details for the line start to break out and people have different meanings on the best approaches. host: you talked about the moderates. guest: the moderates may not be as eager to allow so much leeway to limit people from accessing asylum. that is one thing immigration advocates are concerned about. we will make it difficult for people to pursue asylum, i rightly believe people should have in this difficult situation. others may want to see some pathways for dreamers, dr. is

still popular but that is not something that we are hearing house republicans talk about. host: the small majority they have that to be careful of how they approach to satisfy the moderates? guest: exactly. looking at the speaker election. all of it takes is a handful of republicans who are not on board and suddenly nothing can get done. host: our guest this with us till 8:45 a.m. if you want to ask her questions about the border issues and house republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. if you live in a border state, 202-748-8003. also that same number to text us, 202-748-8003. mark green is the chair of the homeland security committee. what does that mean? guest: he has been very critical

of the biden administration. he has been critical and he has made it clear that he intends to use his position on the committee to investigate how the administration has handled the situation at the border. he has made it clear who is at fault, it is one of three committees. they plan to investigate the border issues, immigration, the policies the by the administration has taken. this is something he cares a lot about. i climb in the hall the other day and he was telling reporters there is going to be in the process of investigation and to he sees clear buckets he thinks that are worth investigating. host: why the main concerns -- what are the main concerns? guest: republicans say he has not done we need to be done to

keep the southern border safe and secure. they take issue with some of the policies he has issued. there are personal concerns the department of homeland security has not been forthcoming. they asked for information and i'm sure that will be a running theme once we start seeing the committee form and have the hearings going forward. i'm expecting them get into parole as we talked about. and also rolling back some of the trump administration policies. we have heard over and over from republicans they think the trump era policies should have remained in place, such as remain in mexico. they'll be a focus. host: when it comes to a legislative vehicle, how long until we see something come out of the committees? guest: we can see it come soon. there movement on policies as soon as the spring we will see

that they exceed out. right now they are figure out who will be on the committee and organize. it is a process that has to be gone through before they can hold hearings. we will start seeing movement in the next couple of weeks as they start to plan to hearings and investigations. host: stef kight from axios joining us for this conversation. let's hear from karen in new york, republican line. caller: hi. i am glad that people are waking up explain the coffee and seeing what is going on at the border. the border is not close. it is open. you have thousands coming today. the border patrol people can only handle so much. i feel bad for their families and people who live in texas. we are 50 states and everyone

has to get on board truck with each other, -- work with each other. we are all one. the -- probably the same. enough people coming in, it is a disgrace. there is no where put these people. our taxes keep going up every day. people are suffering. i do not understand it. you cannot afford an electrical card. you cannot find a place to charge it. host: we will stick to the border issues. guest: the caller mentioned republicans and democrats need to look -- get together and most people agree with that. we have not seen any real changes to immigration laws in a long time. it is one of the reasons why there has been large numbers at the border for we do not have the resources to allow people to come in an orderly way. both sides of the i would say

congress need to take a look at the immigration laws and do something more permanent and not leave everything to the executive branch to change policy. even that uncertainty is another reason why experts say we continue to see such large numbers of people. host: the caller mentioned border patrol is overwhelmed. we saw president biden make a trip to el paso to talk about it. what is border patrol saying? guest: we have heard from border patrol who are frustrated with the by the administration and have been for the past four years. there has been a lot going on. especially depending on which sector they are working in. we see the flow of the migrant shift and when they are overrun, they are overrun. they have to work overtime may be spend more time in processing. there is a sense of frustration.

policies go beyond border patrol logistics. there's a bigger policy issue that needs to be fixed. host: from keat in las vegas, democrats line. caller: i would like to make the comment the additional traffic that is showing up at our border, a lot of it has to do with republicans getting on tv and in the news saying the border is open. they should really do something about that. there are people in the other countries using it as a promotional tool to get people to sign up to be traffic to the border. i do not believe the border is open as you can walk across it. we do not say that enough. guest: you raise a good point about messaging and it is something we hear a lot.

the by the on messaging tactics. the aspen money to put let's just -- spent money to put messages out the saying do not traveled to u.s. mexico and cross illegally. messaging does play a role. whether republican go on tv help encourage people to come across the border to leave their home country, it is unclear. i do think it is important to remember when people are living in poverty or in danger come if they decide they need to flee their country, they are going to flee their country. there are few messaging tactics that will prevent them for doing that. host: what do i print just tell us about the idea of the border being open? guest: there's a lot of focus on is the border open or close. it is both. it depends on where you're coming from and how you're coming in your nationality, you may see a different situation.

there are a lot of people coming across. we have seen two back to back record members -- years. people telling they can come now. or that they need to come now in their fleeing situations and that side of the story is to remind people. there are also continuing to use john barrow policies -- trump era policies to turn back people who come across and do not have legal means of staying. it is not is that the biden administration is doing nothing. that criticize from the left to continue to use the policy and expand the use of the policy that allows them to quickly expel my respect to mexico were not from mexico. host: thank you for bringing up title 42. what is the expectation of the supreme court looks at it? guest: at this point, there may

be a surge around that time. that is always expectation. any change in policy double come quickly will result in a search there but it would attend on how the biden administration plans for that potential and. there's a talk about policy that allows them to get back to mexico. they have claimed they will continue to ramp up title eight which is the normal means of arresting and deporting people, not title 42. depending on whether they continue these policies, other ways to send people back that may eliminate the number of people coming. host: stef kight from axios joining us for this conversation. kimberly in arizona on the republican line. caller: people actually can sit there and save the border is not open.

it is open. it is intentional. biden would have kept things in place, i would've been fine with him. mayorkas has lied to congress. the border is open. i have friends that are border and they are overwhelmed. people are in danger because of this. we welcome migrants. legally. it is not america's problem to take care of every other country. this is frustrating. enough already. i do not understand how people can sit there and say it is close. mayorkas is somewhat of a traitor. they're not taking care of their own people. it is really upsetting. guest: one way to think about this is looking at the policy and the logistics of the border.

if you look at the policy, there are policies in place that prevent people from entering the u.s.-mexico border and it is not just come in, there is no process. we also have a legal process for claiming asylum, regardless of how you cross the border. you can illegally cross the border and have access to our silent system. it is a part of our border policy. logistically, border has been overwhelmed. there are times in situations that do have the appearance of an open border. where resources have been strained and we have to turn towards less than ideal strategies for handling that. to the college point, there is frustration along the border, especially when resources are

overrun and we have to turn to these secondary last resort policies. at the same time, we have to look at the policy overall and say we are not allowing just any was a cub -- anyone to come and the reason we see such high numbers of crossing, each one is someone who has encountered someone who is a border official. it is how we count them. people are being called. they are being registered and placed in the system. host: once someone applies to asylum and should they get it, what happens to them, but how much support do they get the federal government, as far as to live? guest: there is little support beyond they are allowed to legally work in the u.s. when they go to the system. they're able to find jobs. it falls all ngo's to provide that initial support for people.

you see how closely the ngo's work with the federal government to help migrants in the first steps. people who are arriving at the border have family members who are in the u.s. and they plan to join them. it can be any stay across the country where they are planning to go and work and sometimes the money back to their families who remain in their home country. when the cups of the federal government support for asylum-seekers, there is very little help provided. host: michael in albuquerque, democrat line. caller: good morning. i called last year about this issue. i wondered why signal concentration with mexico is so. i understand president biden

went out to mexico and met with the mexican president but it is important the united states not allow this to happen. thank you. guest: dennis been a large focus of that administration. the policy i mentioned a little bit ago that allows the u.s. to expel venezuelans, cubans, and haitians fully depend on mexico's cooperation. we cannot just and people back to mexico without the mexican government agreed to do so. there are certainly people who think mexico should be doing more to enforce its own border, but there is cooperation between u.s. and mexico and the u.s. has been working with other countries in the hemisphere tried to get them to help us out and enforce their own borders. panama is another example. u.s. works with to stop the flow of migrants crossing dangerous gaps through panama.

this is an important part of the debate and diplomacy is a huge part of this. host: helping those areas where you see people flee for political reasons, and for financially, improving the infrastructure so they do not leave in the first place? guest: the root cause is something that administration is focused on and they are focus on efforts of central american nations which for a long time have been the top countries were people coming from as they had to the u.s. that is not the only tactic they have taken. they work with some government in the western hemisphere to support them in their own policing and enforcement priorities. guatemala, for example, and provide them resources to track human smugglers and there are a lot of different ways u.s. work with other governments.

host: jim in new york on the republican line. caller: hi. i can be on this program and do a documentary of how bad it is over here. i want to say something about president eisenhower. he did something about this. he was for america. we cannot get that kind of leadership anymore in this country. he force them out of here. look it up on your computer and show the people this. wikipedia operation went back. he got them out of here. where i live the only roles there are are no rules. i go to the town hall, this is a border child. you would not live here and neither which are guest. they are paying taxes on single-family housing.

the supervisor of the town -- host: what is the question for our guest? caller: has she heard about operation went back -- wet back? guest: i can't say i know the details about those policies. a part of this is logistical issues. it is not feasible for the u.s. to deport anyone who was here undocumented and often times people are going through a legal process and it takes time. we do deport people who are here unauthorized. we do take people back to mexico or their home country using title 42. it is not as if u.s. has zero enforcement mechanisms. the reality is if you come in the u.s. the chance of being deported are low at this moment

because of the length of time it takes but there are mechanisms, especially for people who commit any type of crime. host: we saw last week the introduction of border safety and security act that will allow homeland security secretary to turn away certain migrants. what does that mean, operational control? guest: it is vague intentionally. allowing the secretary to decide if resources are overrun, if there is a need to float the number of people across the border, the idea is he can decide, no you cannot come across the border let's you have a legal visa, which are blocked access to asylum. that's what most people are claim it they cost -- cross the border. it is similar to what we are doing with title 42 and how we view it. title 42 is linked to public health concerns and in the

control of the cdc. this law would instead allow secretary of dhs to decide to shut the border and not let people in and not let people seek asylum if he felt it was necessary. host: from mark in missouri. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question, it is something i have heard and maybe you can clear this up. i have heard that there are dozens of terrorist that have been called trying to come in to our country thought the illegal aliens and i also heard, i want to know if that is true, and also there are hundreds of thousands got a waste of a claim in our country and they are here

legally. of those got always -- aways, i'm wondering how many of them are terrorists? i am waiting to see if that administration policies arc putting americans at risk. isn't it the american -- government job to keep americans safe? are there terrorists being caught at the border? guest: there are people who come across the u.s. mexico border who are flagged for being suspected or known terrorists. that is a scary term and it is hard to know what that means. they can be suspected terrorist, but there is national security risk at the u.s.-mexico border. most situations a suspected terrorist or known terrorists do not actually happen. it is usually at air border -- airports where the people are

flagged. i never want to belittle the fact that there is a national security concern and it is something that the administration is focused on and trying to prevent. those numbers we get in those numbers are public. i do not know the current status but you can find those publicly and see how many people have come across the border who have been flagged as on these lists. two they got always, -- got w 202-748-80 -- there are got a ways and we do not know how many have been applied. host: from taxes on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to hear some comment on the fact that historically, taxes and other states have enjoyed relationship

mexico commerce, taurus, travel. that is the way it has been for many years. what are the awes they are getting to be legislation to pass data -- daca and give people a true path and another thing, if we think now we are having problems filling jobs, which i hear every single day, then just close the border down and see what kind of problems we will have been filling jobs. i see it every day in my town and i know the contribution that our mexican friends have. a part of the problem is they hate of calling people got always and wet backs.

we need to realize live in a world that is not our isolated bubble. what are the odds we can come back to, humanity in our legislation? guest: she raises good points about the ways that migrants help our economy, especially local economies. if you visit some of the communities along the border, it is very normal to go back and forth from mexico to the u.s.. it is common to have immigrants in your communities, kitchens, jobs helping serve on the border patrol. there are many pluses in our economy and our economy needs to be growing. especially as we see right race the client and demographic shift in the country -- birth rates the client and demographic shifts in our country. when it comes to whether we will see agreement to provide

pathways to citizenship or daca recipients, it is hard to see how it what happened with republicans in control of the house and the bogus on the determined and enforcement policies not talking about daca. it is hard to see economies -- compromise for me. it seems like it will take more time to get to a place or we can pass something on immigration. host: we sell efforts on the senate side, what was the end result? guest: it was not enough to get republicans they needed to agree to. republicans did not feel like it was a real effort and there was something they could sign off on. it fell apart at the last minute. we will continue to see bipartisan efforts in senate and house. we hear rumblings of people trying to work across the aisle to come up with an immigration

solution but because it has become a hot political topic, there are people on the far side of both parties are going to be unlikely to sign off on any compromise. host: pat felling signing articles of impeachment against mayorkas, mark green talked about that recently. i will play you what he had to say. [video clip] >> we are sending letters over to the apartment -- department and subpoena emails. we'll have mayorkas come in and look at the loss of that not been enforced. we will inform the american people about the dollars that have been wasted with ngo contracts. a lot of things very digging into. if it looks like he needs to be impeached. go were handed off to the judiciary committee. host: jim jordan ahead of the

dimmitt -- judiciary committee. guest: i think people are hesitant to commit to it happening but i sure we will see investigations both broadly into immigration and border policy, but also into mayorkas and it is something republicans have been talking about for months now and setting up this potential for impeachment. eva speaker kevin mccarthy -- even speaker kevin mccarthy mentioned mayorkas should resign if he does not, he will consider pursuing impeachment inquiry. we are kind of starting to see people who they mayorkas decides size to be impeached saying he has not done his job in supposed to at the border. there are moderates who feel like the actual standard that needs to be met for impeachment is not going to be met. there may be critical of how he has handled the policies but the

matters are saying this is not worthy of impeachment. host: our conversations with stef kight of axios. let's hear from tony in ohio. caller: good morning. i question here, i am tony, and your stef kight? with all these calls coming in, most of them have been anti-illegal immigration. you are speaking of the policies that would cover this policy or a policy that people are more familiar with and then there is an underlying policy that permits these things. is the congress, and i'm hearing a lot of media focus, it seems so nonchalant.

as if the public opinion does not mean anything. you mentioned about people having minimal support for coming here. if you see -- a lot of people from all over send their money back home. how is that helping our economy? i know i am asking a lot of questions but i've been listening to the show as it goes on and the comments from you and the commentator and none of the questions point to the public's opinion. if you -- i do not look on twitter but i hear about twitter and facebook sites for it in people come over and they bring their own form of racism from whatever of the world they come from. comments like, i get treated better in your country than you do. host: ok.

public perception or public opinion? guest: public opinion does matter. if you look at some of the polling that has been done on the american public on how they view immigration, you will see a much more nuanced perspective on immigration demo we often hear from politicians. people do want to see a pathway to citizenship for dreamers. it is popular with the american public. even among republicans, but republican voters say there should be a pathway to citizenship for people who have been brought here as children. there is concern about illegal immigration, wanting to enforce our immigration laws and ensure people, on the legal pathway but i do think it is important to take interest in the polling. host: for those that live in border states, this is where andy is on the republican line. caller: hello.

i have a couple of comments in the question. personally living in a border state i was disappointed with our senator for a long time. mark kelly and told him he should be more outspoken about the border. i believe it is criminal with this administration is doing at the border. they are ok with it a song as it is not in their backyard. martha vineyard a perfect example. there's going to be a lot of collateral damage because of these policies. if you think -- mayorkas says -- ask the men and women of the border and they will tell you it was under control under the last administration but it is a dumb supplier today -- dumpster fire today.

was so quick to use race as the reason they were doing and now my question, do you know with the doj assessment on additional crimes that were importing in this country? i'm not saying every person coming here is going to commit crime but anyone think that 5 million people that have been in the country the last two years, none of them are going to commit crime? guest: i do not know that the justice department has dug into this issue but there has been several reports done of the crime among immigrant communities and undocumented communities and there's never been anything to indicate that and document immigrant are more likely to commit any crime. if they do commit crime, they are likely to be deported.

i know my colleague who covers racial justice did an interesting study and were about this a few years ago, if you look at border communities with high number of immigrants, crime rates are lower than other comparable cities throughout the u.s. there is no data to indicate that immigration communities is increasing crime rates. host: to the extent, we hear people call in to connect immigration problem to the fentanyl problem, but as a direct tie -- what is the direct tie to the issue we are having? guest: it is true fentanyl is coming across u.s. mexico border. it is a concern. it is important to separate the smugglers who are bringing humans across the border who are guide people to the u.s., it is

illegal business but it is separate from the illegal drug smuggling that happens. it is not immigrants themselves who are bringing illicit drugs across the border. it is important to separate those. it is important for the u.s. to make sure they are doing what they can to keep the dangerous substances of the u.s. and it is a focus of administration to work on ways to improve technology. many of these drugs come across legal ports of entry rather than being smuggled illegally. it is impossible to check every single cargo that comes through. it is one way and focusing on the technology that enables border control during illicit substances across the border. host: earl in illinois. caller: good morning. to piggyback on what the young

lady just said, fentanyl is brought in the united states by professional drug smugglers, not by people trying to escape. the other thing, correct me if i'm wrong, i'm under the impression there has been immigration legislation in front of congress for a dozen years. i believe kennedy, mccain, some sort of legislation there. we have solutions for the border but congress will not act on them because it is easier to complain about the problem then it to address the problem. if they were to take away this is a problem, they would have one less thing to complain about.

could you correct me if i'm wrong? guest: i do not think you are completely off-base to say it is easier to complain about issues then it is to address it. but there are real differences in how the parties think we should address this problem. could there be solutions? could there be ways we could laws to make this work a little bit better? absolutely. i do not think we have seen enough real efforts of compromise between republicans and democrats to look at the things they want to see at the border and try to find a way to have -- the by the administration has been trying to allowing legal pathways but if there is a way for congress both agree to republicans demands to invest in enforcement mechanisms at the border, but also look at democratic

proposals that will allow legal means for people to come to the u.s. rather than coming across illegally. there could be something there, but those discussions tend to fall apart. host: sidney from florida. caller: one of the things i have realized, there are actually some things that have been sped up. every time i hear recorded even negatively it is always a point of saying, they captured these mini strokes -- many drugs, capture these many people on the watchlist. and they are capturing these people as well as trying to process people. in the thing that does not happen is to be able to put more processes and more people to do

things along the border but it comes back to being able to invest in that but you have a political situation where it is to the benefit of republicans to complain so they can set up a situation that will make this present political situation for the democrats -- democratic president to make him look as bad as possible so when it comes a time for some type of vote, they can throw all of this up in the air like they did for the midterms and then say this is a democratic thing. we live in an america situation with an american president who is trying to do stuff in conjunction with all of the offices that are in place. guest: the colors talking about the politics on the issue. we have decided the fact that even under the trump

administration, there was a record year of border crossings in 2019. this is not an issue that just comes up during democratic administrations and and is an important thing to remember. domestic policies matter. how the u.s. wants to handle asylum, immigration, border policies matter. it is a broader trend we are seeing. you have to look at the other countries people are fleeing from. look at the issues there and recognize the shift in that's kind of people coming to the border, nationalities arriving signify it is not just about domestic policy. it is a response to issues going on throughout the western hemisphere. yes, we need immigration policies that the u.s. stands by. but the issue is much broader than that. host: to live beers what to watch out for rope -- tell our viewers what to watch out for as house republicans treat immigration?

guest: i will be paying attention to what they investigate when it comes to the border issues. it is easy for them to use this time -- time to talk about border numbers and brightly -- brightly attack mayorkas but i am curious to see if we get interesting details of how policies work and whether there is anything that can move forward or any efforts to work with democrats to get to an agreement. host: you can find the work of stef kight on axios.com. we thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: we continue looking at the commitment to america and how it will influence legislation. next up the defense policy, joining us for that discussion kevin baron. later on in the program still looking at policy matters, rafeal mangual.

those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> over four days c-span cameras had unprecedented access to the floor of the u.s. house as kevin mccarthy came this -- became the speaker of the house. it was history in the making. like we have always have for the past 43 years, complete uninterrupted, unbiased coverage of congress. here is what people are saying. c-span is america's hottest tv drama in 2023. they house because drama has one winner, c-span. c-span has become must watch tv. though you may never know what happens within the walls of congress, you can be sure, c-span will be there.

thanks to the support of these cable and satellite companies. c-span europe interview of government. -- c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> book tv teachers leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. following the fall of the soviet union, she is the author of muppets in moscow. later, washington post, and this author of the aftermath examine how baby boomers have impacted the u.s. economy and political system and its effect on future generations. blacksburg tv every sunday on c-span two find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online a booktv.org.

>> listening to programs on c-span for c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to “washington journal” daily at 7:00 a.m. eastern., important congressional hearings, and other public affairs events throughout the day. weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. eastern catch “washington today” for a fast paced report on the top stories of the day. listen to c-span anytime. tell your smart speaker, “play c-span radio.” c-span powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: we have been looking at elements of the commitment to america to introduce last year and how it might play out in policy matters not that they have control of the house. joining us is kevin baron with defense one. good morning. when it comes to the commitment

of america, house republicans laid out for broad principles with matters to defense. support our troops, and thus in an effective military to establish and to exercise peace and strength with allies. these are broad. what is a reflect about republican thinking with defense matters? guest: these are pretty broad. they are so broad anybody would agree with them but what is behind that, a couple of things. one, pure politics and a document, a vision that is designed to play democrats on their heels. look strong and do. second, something new in the world of national security policy and what most of us are much worse that -- most

interested in. the select committee on china you mentioned. there painting it as security and national security committee for already there's a bottle of what to make this committee and whether it should be a committee and a wish to beat china with the head as much as possible or is it a real part a grab for going to attack biden and use the committee to claim everything biden does is weak on china or is it going to be something more serious. they're going to be members in the committee wants to keep it from going down the partisan side rails and make it about competition for the future and what that means. some people are calling it a new cold war. no, it is not. it is an issue a lot of us have been tracking, especially this battle of what to think about china.

is it a politic battle and that is what you get in the house. host: mike gallagher going to chair the subcommittee. what is a suggested by the committee's approach? guest: gallagher is an interesting guy. a lot of us have met him and spoken with him. he's a new work, rising republican and i have been here long enough to see a lot of new politicians on the defense national security beat coming go. they come up as serious contenders and serious minded leaders and potentially defense secretary and they very quickly they go down the rabbit hole politics that sticks themselves out of the game. the national security world takes us a bit more seriously and tries to be more bipartisan. that is what am watching for. he is a serious minded guy.

he speaks the issues, he knows them well. he is leaning out. if you can keep this committee serious about things like technology, global competition, american businesses can or cannot or should or should not deal with china, this could be one of the most important committees for the next 10 years or beyond. if he cannot and far right drinkers that use this beating drum biden, vent that is what it's going to be treated as. it would not be treated as serious. host: you talk about matters of financing discussing about the debt ceiling. physically caused by house

republicans for changes in spending because of that area will ultimately could that did? guest: not much. there was a worry that negotiations from kevin mccarthy to be speaker and we hurt defense building was being put on this table and since that, with heart republican leaders say, do not worry. that is not going to happen. the last thing that will move off the floor is a bill cutting defense building. the debt ceiling is a question of we think of defense and national security, the pentagon and the number of ships it has a number of trips it has solved with the center of gravity like it was during the big more years of iraq afghanistan. we are in an era where united states security is measured by many other things including economic security. it is why the ships act is one

of the more important elements this year just as much army ukraine would be. host: kevin baron is our guest with defense one and he's going to answer your questions about house republicans and how they were posed defense policy matters. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can use 202-748-8003 to text us. tell people about defense one. guest: defense one is a national security new site. we are sister brand of government executive formally a part of the atlantic media family. we cover the pentagon. the cover lopes around the world. cutting edge signs and technology. and we hose up as if addict --

we host op ed sections. we have an award-winning podcast. and we host a lot of events talking about these live in virtually. our reporters are around the world. you will catch them on stage as some of the largest conferences covering the biggest defense industry expos. we try to cover the gambit from radio to geopolitics. host: one of the people to watch when it comes the policy in the house is representative mike rogers. what is that pretend as far as policy matters? guest: mike rogers, the issues i was talking about with gallagher but the more. he is known as partisan.

i do not expect a return to the glory days of bipartisanship. they're going to press hard in the administration and a lot harder than the democrats and maybe berkeley so hope administration -- maybe berkeley so hope administration on the buyer. one of the first think commerce is going to do -- thing the congress is going to do is look at the national security strategy. they have a committee that response and the criticism the demonstration put it out late even with the ukraine war. two years we finally get enough strategy. the criticism is from the republicans, you will hear that administration going to find and equip what they say they want to do? they want u.s. to be a leader

and be a check on china, to be a provider of security to europe and there is an argument the military needs to grow in size and have a lot more in different equipment. if you are aircraft carriers -- if you are aircraft carriers and more technology like artificial intelligence. secure that can withstand an attack. some predict on day two with any war on china, it is that cyber war, the future war they'll be the next one to be balance. host: mike in michigan. caller: i would like to know the national security of the southern border, why they do not

call it the national guard? they have the right to clout the national guard for rice and things like that and we are being invaded from the southern border. why is national guard not called out? guest: good question. you kinda answered it yourself. if we are being invaded uec -- you would see more troops to the border. when the national guard is because of the southern border, the u.s. military cannot perform military functions on domestic territory. that is law. the guard is brought in as the back of the house role. the enablers. the gear in the rear. they will help fill the jobs that are empty when law enforcement are set forward.

that is one way. you have seen that in previous administrations with a will set up shelters, it will perform protection security for other types. they can do drone control, things like that. but you are right, it is up to the governors to make those requests if they want them. that is the short answer. host: jeff on our republican line in california. you are on, go ahead. caller: i was wondering, mr. baron, if he has any questions that idea. it seems as though the president is compromised by the chinese, wouldn't he allow the open borders to be open in case you wanted us to be invaded? everything mr. biden does, it seems as though it is what it

compromised president would do. every single thing. bring our country to a bankruptcy estate, allow crime to run rampant, allow people to come here and cause border states and of every other state to bring -- to be put in a burden, where they have become almost bankrupt by themselves. host: thank you. guest: the answer to your question, no, i do not have those kinds of massive conspiracy is to think the president of the united states is not just week on china but it's colluding with china to weaken united states security. no. i discount that completely. it negates what the admin attrition done against china. the campaign with donald trump about the politics of china, if

you remember during that campaign the republicans rolled out a hashtag, called #beijingbiden. china is a serious issue, not for the next election or what we see in cable news or political papers, it is a serious issue for the next 100 years. they are playing the real long game. as they always do. they wanted to increase their military capabilities which were long overdue and they want to do it for their own security and to the american military come up we said that is normal. that is what you would expect from any country. they said they wanted to be the regional dominant, not just economically in the hegemon but militarily. then xi jinping's rise, -- they want to become the hegemon of the world. that is where the united states

becomes more alarmed. that is why the administration has put china first and foremost in their strategy and their spending plans. if you look at a lot of the speeches, look at what the military and civilian points of the administration and uniformed leaders say their speeches. they will say over and over, they don't think we are in a new cold war, they don't think china is equal or near peer when you look at the military. but we see this as a strategic competition and they want to be doing everything possible to prevent a conflict are happening. that is where the military and security apparatus are focus. host: with house republicans in control, what is the general consensus when it comes to future ukraine funding? guest: the general consensus is that it is going to continue robustly. there are headlines, they have

been saying in the last couple weeks and months that there are a lot of headlines given to the far right voices like lauren boebert and marjorie taylor greene, tucker carlsen, the number one show on television in america, new show, who have been questioning ukraine funding, calling for less of it, challenging it. as soon as that happens and we go to people even like kevin mccarthy, anyone in the republican middle, anyone who is a leader in those committees will say the opposite. it will say we understand with the war is about. the united states will continue to fund ukraine and build european assets that are being given to ukraine and they will make sure that russia is held in check and pushed back as much as possible. this commitment to america that he mentions, if you pull up the documents and read it, near the end of it you see a couple of winks and nods to the far right,

including way which that puts -- accuses biden of putting america last. and that is the opposite of america first, which was donald trump's modern-day isolationism. there is debate to be had about that. but how many republicans think that biden is putting america at, versus the budget and the spending bills that come out that will continue to robustly fund ukraine, maybe with more attention in the hearings or the debate, but that is what is going to happen and on the other site of congress, which mcconnell has made it clear that is what he wants to happen. host: let's hear from hank, he is in georgia, democrat line. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] i just want to know why is it

that when you come from a humanitarian angle, dealing with defense and the border, it is always a problem. but when we come trying to criminalize everybody, there is no problem. when we put people in cages there is no problem. but when we try to humanize the situation, there is always a problem, a backlash. i'm not understanding that. i am a u.s. that, i -- vet, i thought for the country. i did not fight to be on the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to humanitarian rights. so why is it when we talk about human enhancement of living that we always run into this barrier?

host: thanks. guest: it is a great question and a good point when it comes to border politics. i'm a guest on your show right now, i may pentagon reporter, though defense and leader, but most of the questions are not about foreign policy or defense but the border. it is a divisive issue and politicians know it and their surrogates know it. they will hammer that home until the day they die. you can't attack joe biden if there are pictures of americans doing humanitarian things, giving out humanitarian aid, helping people fleeing for their lives come into this country. you can attack them if you claim the biden administration is doing nothing. and you show horrible situations

that are not being attended to. there is truth in both of those. there is a lot of reporting on the border, reporters down there do a great job showing desperate families freezing in the cold come across into the river, we have seen all of what it takes for humans to make their way to the united states and get across that border and how the government treats them and how we americans treat them. the fact remains it is easy politics to go after migrants, immigrants as criminals. it is a lot easier than humanitarian aid. the same thing is true with foreign policy to get back to my world. it is true in afghanistan and in ukraine. tucker carlsen and right-wing extremists can hammer home all they want about the politics or the policies, the ukraine war, whether the united states can afford it and whether they want.

you won't hear them talk much about the human reality or saving lives, protecting democracy. it is much easier -- it is just politics. host: when it comes to future funding of the military, what is the expectation when it comes to the number of planes will fund, number of ships and the hardware we depend on? guest: good question. there is not a huge change going on with planes. there needs to be. let's talk about that. everyone may note the 35. it was supposed to be the plane to replace all planes. the navy won't need its own planes, the army only their own, everyone can have this on. -- one. it took too long to come online and become operational. the world has changed multiple times and it turns out as individual service branches need the planes they have.

they need a suite of tools in their tool box. what that has left services with his aged planes, beyond their life and service expectations to fight wars envisioned decades ago. there is a battle over what kinds of fighters you need and what you don't. there is only so much money. one example is the f-22. the most advanced fighter ever created. there were supposed to be a lot more than there are today. i don't have the numbers off the top of my head. but during the iraq and afghanistan wars, the former secretary bob gates was one of the leaders who said the united states does not need advance air to air dogfighting jets like you would see in top gun against a mythical energy like china -- enemy or china or russia. what they needed with the

limited dollars was productive vehicles for ground troops in iraq and afghanistan. those trade-offs are what we are expecting. there have always been a long debate in military circles about how many ships the navy needs. the number of ships becomes another political wedge with which to bash politicians on the head if it is not good enough. we are seeing it again. it is in that commitment to america document that you stated in the beginning, the use of a 300 ship navy -- navy is what they said we needed. the number always changes. the reality is some naval experts think that if the united states really wanted to provide the security it claims it wants to, it really wants to deter a war against china and when if one happens or multiple wars at once, the united states will need maybe 900 ships. if there is a ship at sea, there's another one being retrofitted under maintenance

and another ready to go. it would be a vastly larger navy. the united states is not have the ship building capacity or enough trained shipbuilders to produce the kind of navy. you will not hear them, especially in house republicans and the committees, the china committee, you will hear calls to rapidly expand the united states military. there's is a work force do it in the united states -- and the united states for a lot of reasons is not have the workforce for that kind of rapid expansion. there choosing to compete in other ways, like the chip act. how do you provide security in the modern age? and that same document i should say, the number of ships that china has. when people count ships yearly, they don't talk about what kind of ships they are or how good they are. they used to be a republican talking point on the obama initiation that said that united

states had fewer ships at any time since world war ii. the counter to that was they would not last very long today. so the capabilities really matter. host: you brought up the expansion access -- aspect. if you are said before we grow the military, should be complete an audit of the pentagon? guest: famously, the pentagon has never passed an audit. one is underway and some of the preliminary results are that they failed the audit. realistically, no. it depends on the united states, our congress will not sit and wait for an audit to put more money, that's how the world works. they say the enemy gets a boat and no other countries are sitting around waiting for an audit either. but it is kind of a unicorn in

defense reporting circles, there's a story about the audit, they did not make it? it continues. people are working on it, and maybe one day they will get there. host: in florida, the republican line. go ahead. caller: mr. barron, you are talking a lot about different issues regarding defense. and you are kind of pooh-poohing the border scenario. i would like to point out certain that numerous known terrorists have been caught trying to get into the border. that seems to me that is a defense issue for this country. the laws of the united states are being ignored by the current administration and i think it is just a matter of time before we

have another terrorist attack because obviously some terrorists would have gotten through. when that happens, persons like yourself and the democratic party will blame republicans and donald trump. i would like your thoughts on that. guest: sure. in no way do i mean to pooh-pooh border security. i will call out blatant political bs about border security. which is where we are. the fact that you mentioned terrorists that have passed through the border, i don't have the numbers in front of me, i will be happy to look at them afterward, but that is a common talking point again by the far right and thrown not just on democrats but on any administration, that they are armed to the teeth, will the wall, get the immigrants out.

it is based on xenophobia, not reality, racism, not on threat assessments that have informed policy to keep the united states from major terrorist attacks frankly since 9/11. and there is good reason for that. through multiple in ministrations, democrats and republicans. if a terrorist attack is on the united states soil and was carried out by a terrorist on the southern border, whoever is the administration, i will be happy to call them out. i will do my job again he other defense reporter will. the fact is, there is a long discussion to be had about the terrorist threats and what has kept the united states is. attacking terrorists where they live and train, not waiting. that was the policy a lot of democrats criticized in the old

george w. bush administration for bringing forth, and the excuse for the iraq war and afghanistan wars. but it is one a lot of military experts think did not work. you can see however much about the wars, how much money was spent and how many lives were lost. any of the security in the last 20 years, but has not been a 9/11 attack since then. border security, not to pooh-pooh your point or the issue of border security, another issue of wyatt been commenting on it is that in journalism circles, one of the faults in washington is that we have press corps. i'm from the pentagon, i come there first. there's a state department, white house press corps. there is not much of a dhs press corps. there is no dhs press room.

they are not in charge of border security. it is a law enforcement issue that overlaps with national security and foreign security. you get a weird mix of reporting on border security. most of it done frankly by political reporters because it is politicians who are bringing it up and making it a leading issue in their platforms, who are having a lot of hearings about it. but the pentagon reporters are covering what the pedagogue does. the u.s. military, they can't do military functions on u.s. soil. so it is rare the pentagon reporters will cover this issue. they will cover when the national guard is called up. that is part of the reason i been saying why -- saying what i have said. and frankly, what i try to do all the time is make sure we are not just talking about security issues in a vacuum away from american politics as if politics

don't matter or are not serious. and we don't let american politics be discussed when it comes to national security issues without calling out the rhetoric of partisans that are purely for power grabs, that is egotistical, dangerous for security when the security experts say, and the battle. that's why said there is a battle or what to think about china. there is a battle for what to think about the border, and the size of the navy. the politicians are fighting about it every die -- every day on the air. it affects who americans vote for, which affects policies, budgets and american security. political battles over things like porter security and how much the fear of border security is real and how much is not real leads to exactly what we are talking about now. host: let's hear from mark in ohio, and across line for kevin baron of defense one. caller: mr. barron, i'm always

thinking about military and defense of the border on one thing. i was thinking they should set up sanctuary military bases and everybody coming across the border has got to spend four years in the military. start with two years of education and two years of training and fighting or whatever. i think that would deter border influx. thank you. host: you have talked a lot about the border already, i want to ask about another thing you brought up in your previous statement, afghanistan or the possibility of revisiting afghanistan by house republicans. as the potential of that? guest: it is high. i will also address the colors question -- caller question. the military does not want

draftees. they want a volunteer force, it makes for a better force, or motivated, better trained troops. so the military would not want forced, conscripted, anyone serving in the military much less brand-new immigrants who have probably just gone through the worst ordeal of their lives running for freedom. i don't think that would happen but in interesting idea. on afghanistan, house republicans, long before they were elected to take power in november, they promised they are going to bring the afghanistan issue backup in full force. and again, use it to hammer biden. this is an issue where a lot of middle-of-the-road national security leaders and experts and waters will welcome. they will welcome real hearings that really nitpick through all of the decisions of the ministration. because they do have it.

they are furious at how the world -- war ended, how president biden made it happen and did so quickly. obviously so unprepared for the response on the ground. the one kind of pushback that you will see and i think the republicans will give is that the afghanistan evacuation debacle is not just biden's alone. a lot of it is trump's fault, trump and mike pompeo, former secretary of state for negotiating with the taliban without the afghan government into this position where it led to this. biden came to office and there was already a made deadline that the previous of ministration had agreed to, saying all those troops would be out of afghanistan.

it was there. biden used that deadline. you could argue artificially, forced the withdrawal. but he did what he promised. he was elected promising to get out of afghanistan. there are a lot of defense reporters who have spent a lot of their lives covering this war , that have a lot of connections to afghan families on the ground, translators, special operators of all types. you still see it to this day, reporters that have gone beyond reporting to help get those families out. there are a lot of personal feelings involved. these hearings they are going to have, they will be welcomed by some circles, they're probably going to get partisan like they always do and it will be interesting to see how the history is written. i wrote an article several years ago saying how the history of afghanistan is still undecided. and it depends on your

experience with this war, whether you think the war was worth it or one of the worst foreign policy decisions ever. whether every lie that was lost, all of the money that was spent, all of the attention given to it was worth it or not. a lot of it depends on your experience of this war, and so many americans have been touched by it. it will lead to very poignant moments to come. host: this is mark from fort lauderdale, florida, democrat line. caller: good morning, thank you. this is not what i called about but you can't help but listen while you are waiting to get on the line, but all of these guys calling up and saying the terrorists are coming into the southern border, the terrorists are coming to the southern border and the guest just now said he could probably prove that that that is not happening. since there's not much else to do while you are waiting on the line beside people listen to these calls, i chose to do a

little googling. it is a hard subject to google. you get a lot of dense things, governments. but i want to run across one from an organization, not known as liberal democrats. and a headline from march of 21, terrorists are not crossing the mexican border. so the next call you get from someone screaming the terrorists are crossing the southern border. anyway, what i really called about my hopefully will bear with me another couple of minutes, i am not a russian export -- expert but it is at important junctures of my life, i was hanging around with russians or the soviet union. i was part of the refuse meant movement which might well have been the first crack in the soviet union.

about 2000, y2k. i shared office space with a bunch of russians that were selling off bits and pieces of the soviet union that their bosses were driving out of people. some of your bosses probably turned into these friends of putin. anyway i'm in touch with one of those guys still. only one. we have seen during the ukraine now that the russians are incompetent and there equip it is terrible. my friend posits that is because the oligarchs are stealing the military's money. and that, and he still has connections in russia mind you, it is the fear of the nuclear arsenal. mace connections, he says he is pretty sure that most of the russian nuclear arsenal is in disrepair, fallen apart, and

would work just as the militaries they military is working in ukraine right now. something to think about. host: we will leave it there. i know he put a lot out there but particularly when it comes to relations with russia or how we approach the former soviet union, what can we expect? you can parlay any of the viewer comments into that as well. guest: i'm not sure what the question was going to be there, but if it is about russia's capabilities, yes, by now it is clear and well known that russia's military capabilities were vastly overrated. and for lots of reasons, not just the equipment they have, but more importantly the people that are using them. the russian troops. so right now we are seeing some tragic news this week out of ukraine because russia is launching missiles into civilian

targets, hitting apartment buildings, killing children. it is yet another example you will hear the pentagon say of russia resorting to extreme tactics because they are losing on the battlefield. we have a lot of commentary and one made the point that there are two wars going on in ukraine right now. what is the ground war, the trench warfare, field to field of ukrainians pushing russia back, keeping them over the river and keeping them in the used, hunkering down unless they can really push forward in the world is waiting to see what happens next. do ukrainians take the rest of that territory before somebody breaks or putin breaks and it ends the war and tries to negotiate something? the other war happening is hardly a war, it is an airbrush from russia. and i have so very long time, if

russia really wanted to just completely overwhelming pain and take ukraine, they probably could. they could have done it with far more troops on the ground, far more air attacks and lots of other military and security weapons that did not happen. and they did not happen because he did not think they had to. putin thought with a little pressure russia could walk into kyiv. the original -- the initial troops brought with them great uniforms thinking they would parade down the street. we are far past that. where we are now is trying to defend ukrainian territory with more and more missile batteries, things like they advanced battery the united states has. that is one part of the equation. the other part is russia's politics and what to make of it.

that is difficult to crack, where i don't see any american expert that has a good expert to--good answer to how this war ends. good answer to how do you stop putin, even if somebody dropped a bomb on the kremlin and killed putin, who would take over? what russia drop all of its arms and turned its attention back toward europe and rejoin -- or join the eu and fulfill this grand post-cold war vision of a united and free, complete europe with russia in it? we are so far from that. it will be a long way to go, unfortunately, on the ground in ukraine and russia, the pentagon are calling it the acute threat met the acute concern but not the number one concern. there one concern is china. the acute one is the one on the forefront for now. host: our guest website is defenseone.com.

kevin baron is the executive editor of defense one. talking about hauser publicans as they look at defense issues, mr. barron, thanks for your time. we will continue on, taking a look at what to expect when it comes to policy and procedure, matters of crime and related topics, rough ailment well from the men -- rafael med well -- manuel joining us and we will hear from him. ♪ >> c-span now is the free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington. keep up with the biggest events with live streams and hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics. you can also state current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio, plus a variety of

podcasts. c-span is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our newsletter using the qr code on the screen to receive a schedule of programs, discussions, and more. book tv every 7 -- sunday, or on book tv.org. television for serious readers. ♪ >> be up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv is podcast about books. with current nonfiction book releases, plus bestseller lists as well as industry news and industry interviews. find it on our mobile app or

wherever you get your podcasts. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington journal continues. host: continuing a look at the elements of commitment to america unveiled by house republicans last year and how it will relate to policy, rough ailment while -- rafael mangual is joining us to talk about what republicans might think when it comes to crime and related matters. good morning.

guest: good morning. host: can you talk about that manhattan institute and what it does when it comes to crime related matters? guest: sure, it is a not-for-profit think tank. they have a bunch of smart people who sit around all day and think come out right and research about important topics related to public policy. my position specifically relates to crime, policing and public safety. i'm a senior fellow of manhattan institute were have been for the last eight years and i also have researched for the public safety initiative that aims to tackle important questions leading to our national book safety debate. things like the role of policing, the role of traditional law enforcement institutions, analyzing crime trends and coming up with the best answers with respect for what to do about those problems which of course have gotten worse in recent years. host: we have seen when it comes

to of the commitment of america unveiled by house republicans, it tksbout crime there are points that aid. one woulde support 200,000 mo pice officerso recruiting and retention bonuses. it would crackdown on prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime and criminalize all forms of illicit fentanyl. as far as tentpole ideas, what do you think about that approach? guest: i do think starting with the recognition of the police recruitment and retention crisis and staffing crisis generally is a good thing. there's a big push to defund police in this country and to scale back the role of policing. one of the most consistent and robust findings in the literature is that more policing means less crime, and a time in which we are coming off 2020, the single largest one year increase in the homicide rate in

the country followed by another in 2021, so lots of other crime categories go up in 2022 in lots of cities, it is important for us to get that right. and that means hiring more police officers. given that since at least 2018 police departments across the country have been reporting difficulties with recruitment and retention. the last data i saw out of police executive research shows 94% of the budget and positions in the united states for law enforcement officers are curtly filled. it is one of the lowest points we have been, canada is currently filling 99% of budgeted positions. the research is critical. if you have police on the street you will reduce crime through a couple of methods, people will not make crimes right in front of police officers if they see them there because they don't want to be caught. but the other mechanism is incapacitation. which means every time police officers make an arrest and take

some of the office rate, there are crimes being invaded by virtue of those people being absent. that is important because it ties into one of the other priorities the gop has identified, which is trying to do something about the trend of nonenforcement we have seen pop up in a lot of offices, with criminal justice policy, course there's a limit to what the federal government has dries diction over, but they recognize that whatever the impact of policing is going to be it is going to be more muted than it otherwise would be if the rest of the criminal justice system fails to operate as a backstop. those are the overarching things i took away. it is encouraging to see them highlighted. host: our guest with us until 10:00, and if you have questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 four

republicans, independence at (202) 748-8002, text us at (202) 748-8003. are we providing a backstop to what is being offered to officers? guest: that is a good start. it came with the 1994 crime bill which had other controversial elements, one thing he did was added about 70,000 police officers through the street through funding and that allow the department to hire new officers but also allowed the permits to take officers out of clerical positions and put them to a higher use by putting them in crime-fighting positions. that is something that would be an enormous help especially if the funds are prioritized for the departments dealing with the biggest crime problems and the biggest recruitment and retention problems. take the nypd, that department now has 4000 officers just last year alone. a lot of those work backfilled

with new hires. but one thing people need to grasp onto it with respect to that trend is even if you were to fill 100% of their positions that become vacant as a result of retirements or resignations, are filling those positions with officers who have less experience. and given the tenor of our police reform debate in this country, if you're someone who is worried about the quality of policing, worried about bad outcomes when it comes to police misconduct, one thing to mitigate the problem is to increase the collective experience of the police force. what we are going to see is that collective experience increase or more mistakes in the field and ultimately more problems. host: when it comes to cracking down on prosecutors and district attorneys, at least from a body of congress, how could that be done? guest: congress needs to be careful not to get out of the routine.

there's a limit to the jurisdiction of the federal government. there's a limit as to what it can do to address local prosecutors. one of the things that i suspect we will see come out of this line of proposals our efforts to increase transparency. we have seen a massive boom in the expansion of the progressive movement in this country. 10 people -- 10 years ago, people never would've heard that term and now 40 and 50 million americans are living interest actions with progressive prosecutors. basically, a local prosecutor, an elected official who is chosen to use his office to pursue reform primarily through policies of nonprosecution, nonenforcement, de-course efforts for example in los angeles, they have prohibited prosecutors from pursuing certain sentencing and asking

for cases. the gop wants to help the american public better understand these issues and when they can -- one way they can do that is to use the power of the purse to induce local prosecutors offices to be more transparent with data so we can assess what the impact of these policies is on crime. there's been some research looking at progressive prosecutors and showing relatively muted affects, but it is looking mostly at relatively low level reforms, things that are aimed at mostly diverting first-time offenders for example. it does not tell us what the impact is with a 30% increase of the diversion rate for people who have firearms and what that means or crime. one thing the gop should do is induce offices to more systematically report various measures so the data can be

analyzed by policy professionals and we can get a clear answer as to whether or not these policies are misguided as i suspect most the gop believes they are. host: our first call from arkansas, democrat line, you are on with rafael mangual of the manhattan institute, also an author of a piece about who policing gets wrong and who it hurts. caller: [indiscernible] the more weapons in the street, the more crime we are going to have. i was born in the 40's. i could remember when you can leave your house and your back door open and nobody would come in your house and try to take nothing away from you. since 1940, we have come to the point where we want to live and think we can solve problems with lows we had in the 17 and six and hundreds. but that is the problem we've

got. host: the topic of weapons. c-span.org -- like -- guest: this is a common point. one thing that is important to remember is we have an important history when it comes to crime-fighting this country. and one that is a history. between 1990 and the united states, the united states saw a nasa decline in homicides and we saw gun rights expanded, the number of guns in circulation increased expert initially. what that tells us is that whatever the effects these weapons may be having on crime, ever opportunities for serious crime they may be created, we do know that we can still solve the crime problem without necessarily decreasing the weapons in private circulation. and we know that because we have done it before. host: mike in virginia,

independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling in reference to -- in the 60's and 70's, i grew up with a lot of families of kids whose parents were in various forms of law enforcement. they tended to do their job as well as they could come about from a monetary standpoint, they did break the law. and the reason they did do that, from overhearing conversations, was that they were on the front lines in the needed to be compensated for retirement from the way the job that they did. my question is, they would keep these funds until retirement and use it then. and if anyone has ever investigated this after law enforcement people had retired and the monetary that -- that they received during their lifetime equates with the lifestyle they are living at the time. thank you. guest: yeah.

i think what we are hearing is a point about corruption and that is a legitimate worry. i don't know how widespread that experience was among police officers in the 1970's and 80's, the one thing i know that the institution of law enforcement benefited from was the professionalization of that institution. it went from being a blue-collar city job to a profession that people from different parts the country would travel to the cities they wanted to work in because it would be law enforcement. when it becomes that kind of highly coveted, well-respected, noble profession, we have seen a decline in things like corruption because we see an increase in the quality of the typical police recruit. that is one of the things i think makes this gop effort so important at this time. it is recognizing that there is a need to recruit and retain high-quality, psychologically stable, highly intelligent,

highly motivated individuals to do a job that many of them don't want to do anymore. it is incumbent upon us to sort of dig deep and take a look at why so many more people don't want to do this job. why so many people are leaving the job, particularly in american cities where the crime problems are biggest. this is the real upside here to this effort, it will help close the gap that could lead to even deeper problems down the road if what we see is the decline in the quality of the median officer. host: one of the elements was to oppose efforts to defund the police, we heardt as a slogan le of years back. how does that play out specifically when it comes to police departments and funding question mark -- fundin? -- funding? guest: there were a lot of efforts, and they did not play out the way the d hoped. but take los angeles, apartments

where significant funding efforts on the way into law. not all of the proposals came into fruition but what you saw was delaying and hiring, cancellation of academy classes which had a prolonged impact. even if you had an impact the following year, there is going to be a gap. in addition to the impact of what these puzzles did and the bottom line of the department, it also had an impact on the morale of the profession and on the fence that officers had. whether or not they had the public support they need to go out and be proactive and do the things we know will reduce crime in the long run. host: mickey in missouri, independent line. caller: good morning, i am an independent but i leave in

common sense gun laws. i have guns in my home but i think that common sense laws make sense for everybody. you talk about the police and law enforcement not prosecuting people. one of the concerns i have is the illinois -- one of the towns across the river from st. louis, as you know probably, illinois just passed a new gun law. one thing i came across on facebook was a post from a sheriff in monroe county who wrote on the post that myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the state cannot nor will we be arresting or helping law-abiding individuals who will be arrested solely for noncompliance with this act. it concerns me that we have law enforcement agents saying out loud on facebook that they are not going to follow the law.

their reasoning is that it is unconstitutional. but it has not been litigated, it is a law, it has not been deemed unconstitutional at this point. what is your thinking on these kinds of announcements, public announcements of them saying they are not planning on following the law when we do have laws? host: ok. that is nikki in saint louis. guest: i don't find those announcements helpful, i prefer they be litigated in the courts especially if you think the laws are unconstitutional. that said, the officers take in 02 protect the constitution. -- and 02 protect the constitution. -- an oath to protect the constitution. the critics of that move say where is the outcry about progressive prosecutors who are choosing explicitly not to enforce not just new laws that they see as unconstitutional, but laws that are perfectly

constitutional that they just don't like because of the impact that they have? it becomes really muddy when you talk about the waters of the public debate when you have this kind of critique at a time when prosecutors across the country are choosing to differ even serious -- defer even serious felons. people who are arrested for aggravated assault, who weapons violation history and are not being held pretrial, who are being sentenced to probation, having their sentences diverted or they are not serving very much time, being released on parole sometimes in less than a year. that i think is the crux of the problem and we have to prioritize the issues that we want to tackle. the thing that looms larger in terms of the impact of everyday crime, you mentioned illinois, the biggest city, chicago, if

you look at the data, you will find that the typical person charged with a shooting or homicide has 12 prior arrests. one and five are going to have more than 20. that tells you that law enforcement is doing a pretty good job of identifying serious gun offenders and arresting them. but it will also tell you the criminal justice system more broadly is not playing its role in a backstop to those efforts and that is where're tensions need to be focused. host: ryan in north dakota, democrat line. caller: good morning, i have been listening to the conversation. my concerns would be the over policing of black neighborhoods. there is a serious problem with that. if they are hiring 200 more officers, it seems like more black people getting arrested. my second problem would be it takes six months to become an officer, where it takes a four-year degree to become a coke.

-- cook. how is it that only takes six months to carry a gun and putting wives in people's hands? -- putting lives in people's hands? the older the police officer is, they are set in a bunch of ways that were quite racist from the beginning. and they pass that down. so we need new officers but we also need more training. more training on how to defuse the situation other than pulling their got out right away, especially when it comes to a person of color because we always seem to be more dangerous or threatening versus counterparts. so more training to get officers off the streets that are trying to police or protector whatever they're trying to do, it ends up being black people being shot. host: ok. guest: there is a lot to unpack

and that question. the first thing i would say is it seems to imply that the deadly use to -- deadly use of force are common outcomes in police interactions. the data shows they are not. an analysis based on 2018 data in the book, it mentioned police shootings that year and i estimate somewhere between 3000 and 3100 police shootings, about 1000 people were killed. we made 10,000 arrests, almost 70,000 working at that time. all of these context, you are still talking about zero point 03% of arrests using the use of deadly force. smaller percentage of those obviously involving unjustifiable uses of deadly force, there -- with the disparity, i would point your listeners to the systematic

analyses to whether or not there are racial disparities with respect to police shootings and finds that an incredibly large inset that there is not evidence of that. he does find racial disparities with respect to lower levels of force, use of handcuffs, going hands-on, something we should be concerned about. but it is important to correct the narrative. where it gets things wrong. i guess my basic response would be probably should not take four years to be a chef and i also think six-month is probably low and a lot of departments are somewhere around the nine month range. but a lot of americans would support efforts to increase -- increase and improve training, but that is counter to the narrative of defunding the police and the point about disparate policing, it is important to understand where crime happens. it is hyper concentrated both geographically and demographically.

back to chicago as he said come out the 10 most dangerous neighborhoods in the city of chicago, they are about 95% black and latino. they had a collective homicide rate -- to pick out the most dangerous neighborhood in the city, the homicide rate in 2019 was 131 per 100,000, which makes it more dangerous than most battlefields in iraq and afghanistan at the height of the war. it is important to recognize that that geographic disparity is hyper pronounced. you look at the 10 safest neighborhoods, homicide rate of around two per 100,000 for 2019. on the demographic point, black men in this country are victimized via homicide at a rate that is 10 times that for white males. that kind of racial disparity is going to inform the diploma of police resources in my home city of new york for example. last year, some 96% of shooting

victims black or hispanic, almost all of them male. i can tell you black and latino males do not constitute anywhere near 100% of the population. you have to understand there's another side to the ledger and more importantly, you have to understand that while these minority communities will bear the brunt of the cost associated with enforcement, they will also enjoy the brunt of the benefit associated with enforcement. i'm thinking of a recent paper done by people from the university of pennsylvania, morgan williams at columbia, that look at the impact of policing on crime. for everyone officer hired, you will invade 0.1 homicides a year. one homicide a year for every 10 officers hired and the effects are twice as large in the black community as in the white community when they are talking about the benefit of crime reduction.

we have a massive reduction of homicide in this country and police say incarceration -- policing and incarceration had in massive impact. this only added less to the average life expectancy of white mid-america. this is a balance and complex conversation, you can't just look at one side of the ledger. if you have a morbid balance viewed, this kind of effort is justified. host: in michigan, the republican line. caller: yeah, i grew up in detroit. my best friends were police. a lot of times, people told me you are not going to stop the criminals from getting guns. and i believe also if anybody

ever did any data on white or black through the united states, how many were killed by police, because you've got to remember this place, some of them were in iraq, afghanistan and they were at war. and you cannot take that away from them when they have seen their buddies get killed and they had to kill to stay alive. host: we will limit there. thanks. guest: i'm not sure i understand what the question in there was or what the caller is getting at, but the police shooting data is relatively sparse but it has been getting better over the last few years and i think it will continue to get better and that will help us understand that phenomenon more clearly and help us understand something like post-traumatic stress disorder and what role he might

be playing with officers. these are complex issues that we don't necessarily have clear answers for what that means we should be sober and circumspect about how we go about reforming the criminal justice system. if we look at efforts to reform the police, reform the criminal justice system that have become popular and have been enacted over the last several years, i don't it reflects the sober and circumspect approach the issues call for. one thing that informed the gop's approach to the issue is a sincere concern about the possibility that the reforms have gone too far and too fast. they are seeking to roll things back, things backhost: our guesf research for policing a public safety, senior fellow at the manhattan institute. manhattaninstitute.org. he's author of the book

"criminal injustice." thank you for spending time with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for today. another addition comes away at 10:00 tomorrow morning. see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] here is a look at some of our live programming today on c-span. at 11:00 a.m. eastern, from the world economic forum, ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy gives an update on the war nearly a year after russia's invasion. an hour later, we will take you to annapolis for the swearing in of maryland governor-elect wes moore and lieutenant

governor-elect linda miller. coming up at 3:45, the mayors of buffalo, st. louis and san jose talk about new funding for u.s. department of justice to support local efforts to reduce gun violence. that is from the annual gathering of u.s. conference of mayors. tch these programs on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> over four days c-span skimmer had access to the floor of the u.s. house as california public and representative kevin mccarthy became the 55th speaker of the house. it was history in the making with unscripted political moments from the house floor. like we always have for the past 43 years, with complete uninterrupted, unbiased coverage of congress. here is what people are saying about c-span. the hollywood reporter wrote, "c-span is america's hottest tv drama in 2023."

the wall street journal says, "the house speaker drummer has one winner, c-span." from the washington post, "c-span has become most-watched beat." you may never know it might happen in the walls of congress. on one thing you can be sure, c-span will be there thanks to the support of these cable and satellite companies. c-span. your unfiltered view of government powered by people. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people an events that tell the american story. 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at laws and policies regarding abortion with university professor alisa gutierrez remind. she explains medical practice and public opinion through court cases and newspaper coverage. she describes abortion restrictions, access to illegal abortions, costs, health