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 >> 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. pport our troops, an thus in an effecve military to esblish 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. 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 talks about crime there are points tha one would be to support 200,000 more police officers to bonuses.ng and retention 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 heard it as a slogan a couple of years b how does that play out specificallyit comes to police depts 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." >> cgress returns this week for legislative work. the senate is back tomorrow -- senate members are holding a

hearing for -- the -- nebrka republican senator pete rickets expected to be sworn in, replacing senator ben sasse who regned to becomeheresident of the university of florida. the housesack on tuesday. members will vote on legislation later in the week wearing the pridt from releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve for non-emergency purposes without a plan to increase federal drilling on fedel blic land. watch live coverage of the house and see the senate on cpa two. you can watch in our free video app, c-span now or live at c-span.org. >> over four days, c-span's cameras had unprecedented access to the floor of the u.s. house as california republican representative kevin mccarthy became speaker of house.

it was history in the making with unscripted moments from the house floor. like we always have with uninterrupted, unbiased coverage of congress. here's what people are saying about c-span. c-span is the hottest tv drama in 2020 three. the wall street journal says the house drama has one winner -- c-span. from the washington post -- c-span has become must watch tv. though you never know what 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-an, your unfiltered view >> the state of the union is strong because you, the american people are strong. >> president biden delivers his annual state of the union address outlining priorities to congress on tuesday, his first state of the union speech since

republicans won control of the house. watch live state of the union coverage on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span's.org. >> c-span is a your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? no, it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with community centers to create wi-fi enabled list so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready foanything. >> along with thesother television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ ♪