♪ host: washington journal march second, attorney general merrick garland undergoing heart questioning during a senate

hearing on justice department oversight. on wednesday, he defended how supreme court justices were cap saved -- kept safe after the abortion decision. we will show you portions of the hearing in this first hour and ask about your view of the justice department, its leadership and practices. here is how to let us know what you think. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to send us your thoughts via text, you can do so at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook and on twitter, you can follow the show on instagram. here are some of the headlines from the senate hearing yesterday.

the justice department still available on the website at c-span.org, cbs's attorney general merrick garland testifies before senate judiciary committee amidst special counsel probe. documents were found only in president biden's residence but also former president trump. merrickarland says those attacking pro-life centers are too clever for the fbi, they work at night. that is the headline they used from the hearing yesterday. nbc with the headline garland faces growing decision to charge abortion protesters. he fielded questions about fentanyl prosecution. the testimony grew heated when republicans grilled him about protesters on both sides of the abortion front. the department of justice had

not charged a single protester. an antiabortion demonstrator had been charged under federal law. you can see the whole exchange on our website. here is part of the exchange yesterday with ted cruz and merrick garland. [video clip] >> your failure to act to protect the safety of the justices and their families was an obvious product of political bias. you agree with roe v. wade, you disagree with the dobbs decision. the department of justice under this president was perfectly happy to refuse to enforce the law and allow threats of violence. those threats finally materialized with a 26-year-old man from california who traveled across the country and was arrested outside the home of justice kavanaugh armed with a

handgun, knife and burglary tools. he said he came there to kill him because he was enraged by the opinion. of course you are prosecuting the individual for attempted murder, but did you bring a single case to enforce the law or did the department of justice decide the law does not apply if it is harassing justices for an opinion we do not like? >> when the dobbs draft was leaked, i did something no attorney general and the history of the department had ever done before. for the first time in history, i ordered u.s. marshals 24/7 to defend every residence of every justice -- >> as a judge you are familiar with -- has the department of justice enforced the statute, have you bryce single case against any of these protesters threatening the justices?

even one? >> you asked me whether i set on my hands, quite the offices -- opposite. >> let me try again. has the department of justice brought a single case under the statute? it is a yes or no question. >> the job of the u.s. marshals to defend -- to defend the lives of justices, that is the number one priority. >> why are you unwilling to say no? everyone in the hearing room knows it is no. have you brought a case under the statute, yes or no? >> what we have done is defend lives of justices -- host: that is just some of the topics that were undertaken at the senate hearing yesterday, will show you more during the course of the hour when it comes to review of the justice department. you can look at the department as a who or merrick garland specifically. call on the lines, (202)

748-8000 free democrats, (202) 748-8001 for democrats and (202) 748-8002 for independents. text at (202) 748-8003, some of you posting on social media. from facebook, the word politicized and partisan. another saying my view is they do important work and if people want to know what they do, they should look at the cases they bring. instead, we have screaming about radiding former president trump som. it appears the doj's reluctant to pursue the law when it comes to president trump and republican members of congress who supported january 6 attempt to overthrow the government, it is over two years. i would not hesitate. another from facebook, they do a good job.

they focus on the wrong things. another adding the attorney general must have better things to do than political grandstanding. that is how you can reach us on social media sites or call us on the lines. the whole hearing is available on our website and app. doug in florida, democrats line. thanks for calling. caller: i want to wish everyone a good morning. i think the justice department is doing the best job they can. it is like this. republicans do not want nobody on their party charged with anything, trump could be stealing documents every damn day and they would be ok with it. democrats do anything, throw them in prison. host: would you say they are doing a good job, how do you define that? what is the standard? caller: they go by the law.

they cannot charge everybody with everything, it is that simple. there are too many crimes in this country for the justice department to cover everything. the fat thing, that's been going on for years -- the fentanyl thing, that's been going on for years. how could that be joe biden so -- biden's fault? host: democrats line, go ahead. caller: we want to know, are you people going to charge donald trump? host: why do you think that is important? caller: he tried to overturn the election that was fair, he ruined the country, tried to ruin the country. he needs to be charged and brought to justice. host: by that standard -- is that the only standard you look

at when you view the justice department as far as what they are doing, good, bad or indifferent? or are there other things? caller: the justice department is doing the best they can, they are doing a wonderful job. host: boston, independent line. caller: good morning. i want to remind everyone this is not a justice department, it is a legal department. it is a legal system until the system is fixed and there is accountability, right down to the filthy cops on the road who have no integrity or standards. they investigate themselves, give themselves paid vacations. it is a joke. host: on the federal level, what do you mean between justice and legal? caller: it is not a consistent application of justice across the board. it depends on how wealthy you are and if you are a politician or not.

there's a different legal system applied to the wealthy versus everyone else, we can see it right down to the cops on the street. host: when talking about the justice department itself, what example would you use? caller: trump not being prosecuted for the multiple crimes he committed. we see the hearings, they do not amount to anything. we know that nothing will come of this and i hope something comes of it. but based on the evidence, prior evidence, it is obvious. trump will not be charged for what he has done. we've seen the evidence, he can sneak out because he is wealthy. host: three views of the justice department, you can add years to the mix. (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republican and independents (202) 748-8002.

they brought up police practices, that was one of the topics merrick garland was asked questions about, the justice department looking at certain practices from local police departments. the questions from senator booker of new jersey, here are some of that exchange from yesterday. [video clip] >> limitations on vocals and guidance for no-knock warrants, which is dangerous for officers themselves, and a cleaner standard for the use of deadly force. they included the need for us to have a database, and accountability database, a repository for officer misconduct records within the next eight months. that's this past january. the protective order ordered the attorney general to create a database to collect this information. what is the status? >> there is a working group by

the deputy attorney general to stand about. there are difficulties with respect to getting reporting and difficulties with respect to defining when a determination has been made. we are seized with this and working full speed ahead to get it done. >> i hope we can continue to communicate on that. encourage state and local agencies to contribute, how is that going? >> we've made outreach to all the major law-enforcement enforcement organizations who support the proposition, we are making outreach to state and local law enforcement. i cannot say more than that at this point because i do not know. >> the biden administration with congress has put significant amounts of money into the cops grant program. i think under the last congress

was one of the highest amounts of money given to programs that help local police departments. really proud that the president did that. what processes are in place to ensure the funds are being used for the intended purposes? does the department audit those grants? >> whenever a government agency gives out grants, there is always a risk. we have very tight auditing and review processes for these grants. host: it was earlier the justice department from the washington post about these efforts when it comes to police reform, merrick garland expecting to unveil what was known as the collaborative reform initiative in a speech that took place earlier. they say the strategy is from previous attempts at collaborations as well as discussions with interest groups represent the new model of how the department is seeking to work to implement new policies in better training.

the department is budgeted $5 million for that initiative. it could be matters of police or the other topics brought up before the attorney general yesterday at the hearing. you can call in on the lines if you wish, pick the line that best represents you. if you called in the last 30 days, if you would hold off from doing so today we would appreciate it. (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans and (202) 748-8002 independents. republican line from california. caller: hello. i believe the democrats are more now not just corrupt, but they are sounding like communists or nazis from way back in the 40's and they are acting that way, too. you cannot disagree or anything else. the time will, we insist republicans -- we will disagree. we do not want energy that is

clean, we want energy period. host: how do these things relate to the justice department and its practices? caller: lousy. stop being a democrat nazi and start being somebody that is neutral. if they have to prosecute somebody that would destroy the democratic party, good. it needs to be destroyed. host: darlene in san diego, democrats line. you are next. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with who called earlier. if the justice department wants to see the effect in our neighborhoods and states, they would take responsibility for the crime we are facing every day with donald trump not being indicted. this is a problem. if you will not take that crime

seriously, why would you take the other ones? host: why does one relate to the other, what is being looked at by trump and on a local level? caller: it is about accountability. accountability from those out in our neighborhoods committing crimes, we can make a difference. if we can get donald trump to not be above the law, we can get someone understanding accountability. host: a similar sentiment, this is from joe in kentucky saying i am upset with the attorney general, this relates to former president trump, saying he should be in jail. all the people that tried to overthrow the government should be in court, it is only a circus. this is another viewer saying they should have arrested the former president the minute biden was sworn in. but they allowed him to continue to crime away.

nothing is being done by the justice department. some of you commenting on former president trump and other issues when it comes to justice department practices. this is james, republican line. caller: good morning. our justice department i do not think it is democrat or republican, i think they have their own mindset on what they do. a few years ago, senator schumer made a comment in new york that when trump was speaking about the fbi he recommended not doing that because they have ways to get you. i found that odd. he did not say if they broke the law, simply of the government wanted you. here he sits on judicial's -- these people are there to represent us. the justice department does not do that.

our justice department, the way i see it, is a runaway train. host: you brought up the thing from the past, how would you give an illustration of the current day? caller: listen to the callers, they keep saying president trump breaking the law, he should be in jail and so forth. what law did he break? he did no more than maxine warner did, no more than many other congressmen and senators say and do as far as rallying and protesting. they are not in jail. this is a free country. you have the freedom to say what you want. but do what you want, but say what you want. that is all he did. the people that broke into the capital, they should be treated as criminals. but to say something, that is not a crime in this country. host: april in california,

democrats line. the justice department, its leadership and practices. your view? caller: that is me, i am thinking merrick garland is trying so hard to be impartial, trying so hard to be fair, but trying to also walk on water. when trump had barr, he completely tried to weaponize the doj. that was obvious. everyone knew and talks about it. merrick garland is trying to walk a fine line. being impartial, i have no ideology and i do not care. but he is being way too soft. he should have been charged long ago. when we heard the phone call about find the 11,000 votes, that was pushing the line. we saw he was trying to overturn

the election illegally. inciting the riot, we did not know what we know now. we did not know that not only did he tell them to fight like hell, he had dereliction of duty. he did not go on and say as president to stand down. as soon as he had the video, they went ahead and left. people are saying he had committed so many crimes, there is so much evidence. merrick garland is trying to be so soft and easy, he is scared. he does not want to convict them because he is scared. not because there is no evidence or he is not guilty, but he is scared. host: one of the other aspects to merrick garland is the appointing of special counsel, and only to investigate the former president but current president joe biden when it comes to documents bei held in their respective homes.

the former assistant attorney general who worked in e george w. bush administration talked about that, ecifically what farricgarland because of that decision saying a special counsel's formal independent -- the hilynusual situation of to special counsel's igating a president and former president superficially similar matters raises a novel challenge. had to persuade the country attacks fairly and consistency -- consistently on the cases. how and why classified documents are transmitted to really should not be and with what intent. more from that piece, you can find on the new york times website. it was written in january. you can talk about that aspect when special counsel's come up

to the justice department and its practices in leadership. this is from richard in florida, publican line. hello. caller: hello. i'm calling because i believe ump should be in jail. at the samti with the justice department, i do feel like the left is way too soft on cre. look at the riots in 2020 in portland oregon and washington, they are too soft on crime. they get away with burning down a city my sister lives in and it does not get any news coverage. at the same time, the insurrection was terrible. trump should be in jail and all those people that is the riots in oregon. host: why is that a justice

department issue versus city and state locality issue? caller: i would put them altogether. that is a good one, i do not know. i really think he needs to be held accountable, everything in general with the justice department. merrick garland, when it comes to him i feel like he is trying to play it safe so he is not showing bias. i believe he is not favoring either side. he has a tough job. host: richard in florida with his assessment when it comes to practices of the justice department. you are seeing the attorney general before the hearing. you can go to our app if you want to see it. you can make comments on the justice department, practices and leadership. this is from ohio, independent line.

caller: hello. i think the justice department is doing a great job and i really want to thank senator mcconnell for blocking merrick garland to the supreme court, he is going to do a way better job as attorney general. he is doing a fine thing, justices are supposed to be blind. republicans do not feel that way. i think he is doing a fine job. host: how do you define that? what standard do you look to to make that assessment? caller: i look for the law to be applied fairly to everybody, i think that is exactly what he does and that is exactly what it is supposed to be. i do not care if it upsets anybody, the law is the law. it is not supposed to be i cannot do this because he's got this or is going to do this.

the law is the law, simple as that. host: this is a text from minnesota, i used to believe in our justice system and the people who ran it, i also used to believe the fbi was the honest and finest system. no longer, they have become politicized and partisan. we have two tiers of justice, it is a shame. the law is the law it should be applied equally no matter your name or the job you held. this is from a viewer in virginia, the department of justice and the former continues to prolong justice. the current groups equal applications of the law highly suspect. texting is is an avenue if you want to text us, that is (202) 748-8003. democrats line, hello.

caller: hello. i think the justice department is ok, it is the leader. merrick garland needs to go. he has not charged the treasonous donald trump the dump with any crime. he's committed so many of them. even one here in georgia. he is scary, i understand he is scared. but you need to step down if you are that scared. put somebody in charge that is not scared to go after trump or anybody else. biden needs to fire him if he is not going to step down. once he is gone, the three people i think you consider not scared to go after anybody is from new york, the lady from down here in georgia or maxine

waters. they are not scared to go after anybody. merrick garland needs to go. in q. -- thank you. host: new jersey, republican line. caller: biden should go to jail, he is killing everyone in our country. host: when it comes to the justice department, what do you -- the caller hung up. independent line, go ahead. caller: i honestly do not think merrick garland is doing a good job. the top job is to protect the country and apply the laws, enforce the laws. just look. crime is rampant throughout the country, with the exceptions of

a few cities like wilmington, delaware. the hearing yesterday, they said crime went down. that is the exception to the rule. look at chicago, philadelphia, all the major cities. crime is rampant. illegal border crossings, you have so much going on. i think too much time is been devoted to january 6 protests -- i am not saying all those people are innocent. but the riots that have several years ago, there is no prosecution for a lot of those people. i am just saying, all in all, i do not think he is doing a very good job. not sure if he is being partial

or it is just coming across that way. you are never ever going to be totally equal when it comes to politics. there's always going to be one side or the other feeling -- host: do you think the justice department has political influence? caller: i do. i think politics has come into play in all facets of society and culture at this point. it is hard as humans to be totally impartial, that is just not human. you know what i am saying? it comes down to the willingness to try, to do the best effort to be impartial. i just think -- a lot has to do with they do not have enough

resources, he may be trying to do his job. but without proper resources personnel, things like that, you are not able to do everything. i really think he needs to focus on the border and inner cities. that is where i think most of the problems are stemming from. host: he brought up toward the end the topic of the border, that came up during the hearing as well. questioning from south carolina republican lindsey graham, asking the attorney general about issues when it comes to fentanyl and how it comes into the country. here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> fentanyl loses the schedule one status by the end of the year, you disagree with that? >> it should be permanent.

we have mandatory minimums -- >> do you think they should be increased? >> we have more than enough ability now to attack this problem. >> would you agree that what we are doing is not working? >> i agree because of the number of deaths he pointed out. >> what we have on the books is not working. if somebody gave a pill to another person with arsenic, they'd be charged for murder because that would kill you. >> absolutely. >> if someone gave a candy shaped pill full of fentanyl, would they be charged for murder? >> they could be charged with drug trafficking leading to death, i do not think the statute says murder. having discussed this --

>> senator cotton has a proposal to dramatically increase the penalties associated with fentanyl. i'd like to work with you in the chairman, if we could, to find a bipartisan solution to this problem. mexican drug cartels, should they be designated foreign terrorist organizations under u.s. law? >> it is the same answer i gave before, they are designated in number of ways and sanction. >> would you oppose us trying to make them foreign terrorist organizations? >> i would not oppose, but i need to point out diplomatic concerns. we need the systems of mexico in this. >> is mexico helping us with the fentanyl problem? >> they are, but they could do more. there is no question about that. host: in the attorney general

referred to efforts by the federal drug enforcement more than 379 million essentially deadly doses of fentanyl, enough to kill every american. your view of the justice department, some of you looking at the leader merrickarland and some looking at the department as a whole. 02) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8002 independents. we will take your calls on this for the next half hours so. we can get your input from various social media sites and texting service. from twitter, of you were saying republicans are trying to identify themselves -- the gop trying to make something out of nothing. randy in michigan saying i understand the doj being cautious, i believe they were wrong and waiting for so long to raid mar-a-lago.

they did not wait that long when it came to president biden or vice president pence, why? let us hear from derek in maryland, democrats line. you are next up. caller: good morning. it done founds me every time when i think about the fact that trump is still out on the streets. he incited a ride and tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. when his family tried to ask him to stop, he watched it for about two hours. then had the nerve to say that the mall go back and say we love you. this guy needs to be in jail right now. he's the same guy who tried to tamper with the election down in georgia. host: how does that relate to the justice department? caller: they need to clamp down on him. they only have one big problem, it is him.

host: you judge the effectiveness of the justice department by any action it would take against former president trump, is that the standard? caller: partly. if not most. he is the instigator. he's a habitual liar. he should shut up and go somewhere, die away somewhere. host: south dakota, republican line. hello. caller: hello. i'd like to state a simple thing is justice for all. i do not see where we are having that. i understand january 6, people are getting sentenced to prison time. i watched the north west burn down, nothing happened. nobody went to jail, as far as i know. can do so the other day

democrats are going we are going to do this, what are you going to do about it? we need to step up, get with their representatives and let us start doing something about it. host: how does that relate to the justice department? caller: they are in control of what happens with our cities -- the government as part of the justice. they need to go after everybody. host: do you think any action needs to be taken by the justice department to former president trump? caller: very much so, everybody. host: including former president trump? caller: i do not think we ever had a president that did not do something wrong. let us go after all of them. i serve our country, leave it at that. host: democrats line, hello. caller: good morning.

it truly seems to me the republican party is showing mistrust in american institutions. the cia, fbi and other organizations america has come up with during its existence to deal with problems of a massive population. that is where it seems to be coming from. the doj suffers the brunt of that. when we hear republicans talking about it, that is where we are at today. if we cannot trust her institutions, it makes the system weaker and republicans can swoop in with ideology of only we have the solutions, you need to elect us, we can fix things and all this other hype that does not amount to anything when they managed to get in office.

their record on policy is short, the record on rhetoric and hate speech american institutions as long. it appears to me it is coming from the republican party. i do not hear that type of rhetoric from the democrats. they criticize everything, everything gets its turn. host: do you think merrick garland himself instills trust when it comes to his leadership of the justice department? caller: yes. the man makes a lot of sense to me and he has a steady way about him that inspires trust. of course, it is going to have some political taint to it. it cannot be avoided. but i trust the man. what bothers me about merrick garland's when he did not make

it to the supreme court after president obama nominated him and that whole fiasco, perhaps president biden took advantage of that by making him the head of the doj and maybe there is political influence there, which adds to the appearance of the doj perhaps being more of a political animal than a true system of justice. i do not think it can be totally avoided. host: let us hear from john in new jersey, republican line. caller: i want to say that my opinion, as far as the justice department, the opinion of the average american of the justice department has deteriorated. greatly. i think it's because the average american thinks the department has become politicized. it started with the hillary

clinton and email server. when everybody impartially looked at it, she did a lot of wrong. she endangered the country's security and virtually nothing was done. it was all swept under the rug. now, you have the situation with merrick garland. let's take a look at the email, trumped -- not trump, -- host: hunter biden? caller: i'm sorry, hunter biden's laptop. it's possible that thing was concealed from the american public during the election period. how is it the fbi, the most sophisticated new organization in the world -- legal organization in the world, connected to the bottom and let people know it was true?

he was a man with his father who was influence peddling. when the post and fox, when they started to bring it out, most of the major media did not cover it. but the justice department knew the american people were being deceived. whoever you want me to vote for, you should have gotten the facts. i think the justice department is getting smeared and tarnished , but they have caused it themselves. they have to be impartial. host: john in new jersey on the republican line, the topic of hunter biden's laptop was a topic of discussion at yesterday's hearing. chuck grassley asking the attorney general about the look into the contents of the laptop.

here's a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> recent lawfully protected whistleblower indicate the justice department and fbi had, at one time, over a dozen sources that provide a potentially criminal information relating to hunter biden. the alleged volume and similarity of information would demand the justice department investigate the truth and accuracy of the information. accordingly, what steps has the justice department taken to determine truth and accuracy of information provided? congress and the american people have a right to know. >> as the committee well knows for my confirmation hearing, i promised to leave the matter of hunter biden in the hands of the u.s. attorney for the district of delaware, who was appointed in the previous administration. any information like that should

or should have gone to that u.s. attorney's office and the fbi squad working with him. i have pledged not to interfere with that investigation and i have carried through on my pledge. >> in april 2022, you testified that hunter biden investigation was insulated from political interference because it was assigned, as you just told me, to the delaware attorney's office. however, that could be misleading. without special counsel authority, he could need permission of another u.s. attorney in certain circumstances to bring charges outside the district of delaware. i would like clarification from you with respect to these concerns. >> the attorney in delaware has been advised he has full authority to make this kinds of referrals you are talking about, bring cases in other

jurisdictions if he feels it is necessary. if he does, he will be able to do that. host: you can see that on our website or perhaps he went to download the app, c-span now. events are archived there and you can watch them. if you were saying the attorney general held the crowd during the onslaught of those going after him with issues they dug up from right wing tabloids that have been discredited. another viewer saying why isn't the justice department going after all of the campaign violations by members of congress? another saying the justice department moves slowly, they always have, allowing summit to escape for a loophole. i understand the process, the infighting over how to handle mar-a-lago is deeply disturbing. those are some of the responses,

you can make your point known and follow the show on instagram. alabama, democrats line. asking about your view of the justice department, go ahead. caller: good morning. in the words of president kennedy, both parties -- very different ways. that's been going on for more years than anybody can count. host: what does that mean for the justice department? caller: not everybody is going to agree with them. not everybody is going to agree with the justice department. let them do their work the best they can. host: wanda in california, republican line. caller: ok.

did you know we've got people sitting in jail in d.c. for two years, solitary, who have not been tried for january 6? that is not the way the constitution says you are supposed to treat prisoners. they're supposed to get a fast trial, not two years, not three years later. as far as joe biden, he is a criminal. he's been complicit with china since he was a senator. he's been getting millions of dollars in payoffs. host: let us go to the topic at hand. what do you think about the look into january 6? caller: i just said, they are not doing it the way they are supposed to do. they are supposed to have a fast trial, not wait to read three years sitting in solitary in a

jail in the basement with mildew and all of that around them. host: who told you they are experiencing that? caller: marjorie taylor greene went down there and looked and that is what she saw. host: let us go to william in ohio, democrats line. caller: yes. the justice department is like anything else. it is controlled by crooks, politicians and the government. it is going to be the same. host: what do you mean by that when it comes to this justice department? caller: you do not stand a chance. you have all the hearings you want to have, whether it's idiots like jim jordan from ohio , the man from south carolina. they think they are the arresting officer, the judge, jury and executioner.

host: as far as the justice department itself, what do you think of its management and merrick garland? caller: merrick garland don't stand a chance, as far as i'm concerned he should be a supreme court justice now. no, look at ted cruz. that is his desire. host: if viewer from twitter saying today's justice department is a politicized weapon used by the white house against its enemies, and i have zero trust in the fbi and doj. this is from bell in illinois, witnesses who are treated this respectively -- treated with disrespect should get up and walk out. they are trying to make something out of nothing. they are excellent at distorting issues. there were several hours of the hearing yesterday, we are only

showing you portions. you can see it all on our website from start to finish. we are talking about the department of justice, you can comment on the department itself, its leader or other issues relating to it. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 independents (202) 748-8002. independent line. caller: good morning. the republican party has turned to mistrust. you can see the type of america they want. you go to hungary, they bragged about not having democracy.

when they went to orlando, so many of them went to the white nationalist conference. host: let us stick to the. where do you stand? caller: i think merrick garland is being as unbiased as he can. they made black extremism the number one threaten america and none of those republicans had problems with that, they think black people are all the problems with america and immigrants are all the problems with america. host: how did former attorney general's do that specifically? caller: that is what he wrote down. they had the whole conference, it was on c-span. the whole committee with pushback saying, how can you say black people are the most extreme problem, terror and

america? -- in america? there was pushback by democratic leaders, they had a whole conference. but that is the way they think. they blame every immigrant. as far as the fbi is concerned, the fbi is the only organization that has had nothing but a white male conservative as its head since the last one was appointed by trump. host: nelson in san diego, he brought up the conservative political action conference, which meets regularly. they started the hosof activities yesterday and it continues on today you're are interested in viewing what goes on, you will see appearances by congressman jim jordan, senator cz and rick scott. you can start viewing those events that tentae: 15 this

morning oc-span, c-span now and c-span.org if you're interested. next in california, republican line. caller: good morning. i think the first top levels of the justice department, including all the other bureaucracies, the first five levels should be terminated in one swath, at one time, right away. that leaves us open to some sort of crazy attacks or something. it is the only way to get the corruption out. those at the top, if they did not know, they sure should have known. it is a mindset that goes back at least to watergate, we are still fighting the crazy mental

battle politically. with the justice department and the way it is run. walk into merrick garland's office with a cardboard box, take your loose change, go ahead and leave the ids and everything. leave your cell phone on the desk, you will be contacted. then we have to have a plan to go in and get the departments back up and running. the way it is being run right now is not working. host: the republican line. the previous calr brought up the report, go back to november of 2017, this story appeared on pbs. the fbi report on the rise of black extremist during fears of a return to practice the views of the civil rights movement

when the bureau spied on activist groups without evidence. the report is one of many intelligence analysts produce to make law enforcement aware of what they see as emerging trends. similar bulletin on white supremacist came out about the same time. the 12 page report says quote black identity extremists are quickly targeting law enforcement after police killings especially since the suiting -- shooting of michael brown. extremists acted in retaliation for perceived past police brutality incidents and warned of such violence was likely to continue. there is more going back to 2017 if you're interested, especially in light of what the caller a couple of calls back said. democrats line, hi. caller: the department of justice was created after slavery was supposedly abolished.

it was put in place to control black folks. what is shocking to me, here the callers about the department of justice this and that. now, the department of justice is focusing on overall crime amongst whites as well. not only focusing predominantly on black individuals. like martin luther king, malcolm x, i could go on and on. when it comes to them, republicans complained about merrick garland's job. the man has been biased throughout his entire time. anything that comes up with the bidens, he hands it off to someone who was selected by a previous administration. i do not hear anything for many republicans talking about how donald trump had the department of justice, walking around with

the department of justice in his pocket. i am confused about the way americans think when it comes to the democratic side come independents and republicans. god, bless these people with common sense. host: here is one more portion from yesterday, any trust, particularly when it comes to tech companies. the questioning by senator amy klobuchar about the departments work, here is that portion. [video clip] >> i wanted to focus on legal changes we would like to see. we have a bill on the marketing side on google, we are having a hearing coming up on that topic. i know the department recently announced a new antitrust case against google for blocking competition in digital advertising.

can you talk a little beyond that, what you think legal changes would be helpful as we see a changing internet economy and on the kids side that senator durbin asked about? we have not seen changes to the laws. but also on the antitrust side, the preference and of their products, whether it is amazon or apple. we have not seen changes. talk about what you would like to see to give you the tools to better combat the issues we are seeing. caller:-- >> gratitude for the merger, the increase gives us the opportunity to staff up and be able to have enough lawyers and economists to impose the private sector, we have fewer antitrust

employees than we had in the 70's. >> the biggest companies the world has ever seen to try and deal with. >> exactly. on the legislation side, we supported i believe it was called the online choice act, did i get it right? the open apps act, that is close to the correct title. we have had testimony by assistant attorney general cantor with respect to the open apps act. we are always interested in working with congress to modernize unitrust laws to take account of the network effects and two-sided platforms that we now have in high technology companies. host: in mississippi, republican line. caller: hi. good morning, thanks for taking my call.

i know you are not going to be happy with what i'm going to say. i would like to know why republican caller that calls in and says something positive about trump, you always question them to death. but when a democratic, uninformed brainwashed democrat calls in with lies and more lies about trump, you let them go. host: hold on. you made the point, i'm going to answer you. i question people on both sides on a lot of things. president trump not necessarily being the topic, the justice department is the topic. since you called on that, what is your comment? caller: i've watched the show for years, i know what goes on. host: one more chance to stick to the topic at hand. do you want to comment on the justice department?

caller: i do. the justice department is compromised. just like the lady from california said. this people arrested on the street at the protest should not sit in jail for two years without a trial. of course it is compromised. host: is that it or do you want to finish it off? ok. let us go to joe in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you? host: i am well, go ahead. caller: barr muddied the waters and admitted it to the january 6 committee. he writes a book about all the things he did wrong and now he wents to be -- he wants to be an angel. host: that is joe.

that finishes our calls looking at the justice department. thank you for participating. our first guest is running late. we plan to keep him, jamil jaffer of george mason university talking about the recent hearing held this week taking a look at china. until he gets here, we will switch to open forum for a period of 15 to 20 minutes. here is how you can talk about anything when it comes to politics if you want to weave that income including the merrick garland hearing if you want. (202) 748-8000 free democrats -- (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take your calls when washington journal continues. [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]

>> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings of hearings from congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of watching internal and find scheduling -- of washington journal and find scheduling information and a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. host: again, we will go to open forum for a short time until we wait for our first guest to arrive. the number is (202) 748-8000 free democrats -- (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202)

748-8001 four republicans, and for (202) 748-8002. your first up. caller: good morning. i wanted to get in on the last statement. about the justice system and the hearing from yesterday. i have two things to say, two words, bill barr. that is when i noticed a lot of people's trust in the doj started going down, and it just continued to go down from there. i do believe that merrick garland is trying to restore faith in the justice department. i watched the hearing yesterday, and honestly, as an american, i

was appalled at the way mainly ted cruz spoke to someone who is in charge of the highest law enforcement agency in this country. he would not let the man answer questions. he wanted to get an answer that he wanted to get. so he kept interrupting, and finally answered for him. and i go back to january 6 hearings and the professionalism that was done in that, how it was easy to watch, how, when the representatives would ask the witnesses questions, they would allow them to answer. i think that the republicans on this panel yesterday just -- they don't want the truth to come out.

they just want to bend the narrative in the direction they want it to go in. host: that is patty in kentucky. let's hear from stanley in florida, independent line. caller: i have to tell you why these people get the wrong information. fox news is being sued. the truth has come out that they lied for ratings. some of these people here the election was stolen, the election was stolen, the election was stolen. they were told this over and over by hannity and other people every day. the election was stolen. the votes were being changed from biden to trump -- trump to biden. so these people listen to fox. first of all, hunter biden has nothing to do with this thing. but they listen to fox and they are being sued but they did not want to say anything because they are worried about their

ratings and money. that is why they have the pillow guy on there. he is the biggest liar ever. they listen to fox all the time. fox was worried they were losing their audience and did not want to get donald trump riled up so they went and lied every night with hannity, tucker carlson, the other one after that. they lied and lied. now we know they did it for profits and money. host: that is stanley in florida. this topic coming up on the house side. it was house minority leader hakeem jeffries talking about he and the senate majority leader, chuck schumer, a letter they sent to fox executives about their practices. here is a portion of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> the letter speaks for itself and relates specifically to the issue of the big lie, which apparently was well understood at the highest levels of fox

news, and i think leader schumer and myself simply express the position that since everyone seems to clearly understand that joe biden won the 2020 presidential election, that donald trump perpetrated a big lie to the american people that has had dangerous consequences, including a rise in political violence and an insurrection as part of an effort to halt the peaceful transfer of power that perhaps it is time for america to be able to move past that big lie and an important step would be those who know it was a big lie to publicly repudiate it. we will cross that bridge when we get to it. host: that was from yesterday. the washington post following up with fox news on the lawsuit. it is facing that $1 billion lawsuit over the airing of those conspiracy theories that a

voting machine company helped rick the 2020 election. fox is trying to claim that the claims were not so wildly improbable. they have invoked their first amendment rights, saying it merely reported on fraud allegations raised by donald trump and his allies rather than endorse them. speaking of former president trump, he will be part of the cpac coverage saturday. if you are interested in hearing from him, go to our website for that schedule. on our republican line, in alexandria, indiana, hello. caller: yes. i would like to talk about the january 6 -- i just cannot understand why pelosi was not charged with something and the capitol police was in charge of

securing the capitol and it was just like all the riots that took place over in boston and all over the democratic states. it was just a stand down, you know? let them burn the cities down. it was the same thing there, just police, capitol police, everybody just stand down, let them come in. you can see them taking the barricades down. they just motioned for them to come on in. and it's a big joke. host: ok. dennis on our republican line speaking of the january 6 committee. former vice chair, representative liz cheney, former representative from wyoming, has accepted an appointment as professor of practice with the university of virginia center for politics. the employment is effective immediately. it will run through the 2023

fall semester with an option to renew. she goes on to say, preserving our constitutional republic is the most important work of our time and our nation's young people will play an important role. i look forward to working to advance the important work they are doing to promote democracy here and around the world. greg, washington, d.c. caller: i wanted to say merrick garland is doing a pretty good job. he is trying to be as bipartisan as you can, you know, and i wish he was a little bit more mean. he is kind of a mild-mannered guy, though, you know? and the people who broke in the capitol. the lady said they was in solitary confinement. you had asked her where did she get her information and she said from marjorie taylor greene.

look who she is getting information from. host: representative greene and other legislators did visit where those who were held -- maybe six months or a year ago, but they did make those visits, but go ahead. caller: but they were not sitting in solitary confinement, where they? host: the story is too past to remember. caller: they knew they was wrong doing that anyway. i don't know why these people just call in to talk about the riots, burning the streets and all that kind of stuff, but what these people did was just horrendous, man, you know? at the capitol. host: richard in bethlehem, pennsylvania, independent line. short session of open forum. go ahead. caller: talking about fairness on both sides, antifa -- two years ago, three years ago,

burned down places. a cnn reporter standing there saying, this is a peaceful thing. on the other side of life, the republicans, mr. navarro and roger stone, they got attacked, actually got attacked, by the people with the guns and everything else. there was no reason for that. so i am looking for a little treatment on both sides fairly. that is about all i have to say. host: florida, republican line, gordon, last call on this open forum. go ahead. caller: i want to get something off my chest. you would not let me call in and all my friends are saying you are not fair. sean hannity no longer lets me calling because i am too conservative but i have a solution for the student debt problem and i will set the standard for all conservatives. i had a face-to-face interview

with congresswoman virginia foxx in lakeland and i confronted her to her face and said, look. we need to stop using taxpayer dollars to guarantee loans in the first place. she said, i would get rid of the department of education. i said, do you agree or disagree with a republican out of wisconsin, whose student loan bankruptcy bill would force the department of education to stop lending trillions? only with the bankruptcy defense will be lending stop. without it, taxpayers and students will both be heard. no matter what happens at the supreme court, there is no solution unless bankruptcy is required by the u.s. constitution. host: ok, gordon. thank you for the call and we will leave it there and finish this session of open forum. for those of you who participated on that, thanks a lot. student at one of the topics we will be discussing throughout the program -- student debt one of the topics we will be discussing throughout the

program, but first, taking a look at china with jamil jaffer of george mason university law school. he is the national security institute founder. his thoughts on the hearing and the u.s. relationship with china next. later, we will be joined by wisdom: the naacp on student debt by wisdom -- by wisdom cole of the naacp on student debt when washington journal continues. ♪ >> the united states of america was originally built on two important documents. the first, the declaration of independence, was signed by 56 million in the middle of 1776. the second, the constitution, was signed by 39 men in september of 1787. six of those men put their john

hancock on both documents. authors denise kiernan and joseph dagny have written short background stories about 95 of the signers in two books, signing their lives away for the declaration of independence, and signing the rights away for the constitution. >> denise kiernan and joseph dagny on this episode of book notes plus. but notes plus is ave on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> the name of america, which belongs to you in your national capacity, four score and seven years ago. >> asked not -- ask not what your country can do for you. >> a look back in history. presidents have delivered pivotal speeches during inaugurations through challenge, tragedy, war and farewell. on saturday, watch our 10 part

series, speeches that defined the presidency. here the words of george washington, abraham lincoln, john kennedy, ronald reagan, george w. bush and barack obama. this week, john kennedy and his 1961 not girl address challenging -- 1961 inaugural address challenging americans to ask what americans can do for their country and his 1963 speech in berlin, germany. >> we are all citizens of berlin and therefore, as a free man, i take pride in the words, ich bin ein berliner. >> watch our series saturday at 9:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> washington journal continues.

host: our first guest, jamil jaffer of george mason university's law school. he is their national security institute founder talking about things concerning china when it comes to issues of national security. a little bit about the institute. where did the funding come from and what position do you take when it comes to discussions of china? guest: we get our funding from the george mason university foundation, private individuals, foundations and the like. we have to acknowledge the threat that the chinese communist party presented to the united states. it is an economic and national security threat. to be clear, the bipartisan leaders of the china select committee in the house said a couple days ago this is not about the chinese people, not about chinese-americans. it is about the chinese communist party that brutalize it's it -- that brutalize is its own people.

this is not about china or chinese people. it is about the chinese communist party and their bad behavior. host: mike gallagher described this as an existential str uggler. frederick or reality -- rhetoric or reality? guest: they want to see competition with china. we want to see competition with china. we do not want conflict. china's government is flying spy balloon's over our country, threatening taiwan, engaged in all sorts of bad behavior around the world. there's potential they may supply russia with weapons in the ukraine conflict as iran has already done. this is a significant problem and even though we think it is

better to collaborate and work together economically, they continue to threaten american allies and interests around the globe. host: what does that mean for the administration not only to handle specifics on those fronts but the overall relationship china has with united states? guest: it is a challenge. we will have to on some level disconnect our economy from china. to disconnect in a large sense is impossible. it does not matter much if we buy cheap goods in the form of clothing and the like from china. what does matter is that we are relying on china for critical minerals that will be key to the green energy revolution or fighter jets and the like or semi conductors that go in every automobile, pharmaceutical precursors, ppe. we have to make sure that's being made in allied countries and countries where, if china does get into conflict with another country or with us, that

we are not reliant upon the chinese coming is party to supply us those goods. host: you talked about in a recent op-ed that there were things going on with china well before the tangible things we have seen over the last few weeks. describe what was going on in the background and how it has manifested itself now and does that change the perspective people have of china today? guest: americans have woken up to the challenge of china that we talked about during the pandemic. for years, for the better part of a decade and a half, china has been stealing billions a year and trillions in total of intellectual property out of the u.s., through physical theft, hacking and the like. speaking of that, that know-how, that ingenuity of americans, turning it into economic prowess and power overseas. companies like huawei have good telecommunications but their routers looked just like a cisco router because it was.

they stole the information, sold it on the cheap and innovated on top of that. so it's become an engine for the chinese economy. it is not just an electoral property, right. it is the fact they have educational institutions, pressure groups, police stations we did not even know about until this year not just in america but around the globe. these spy balloons? over 40 nations have seen chinese spy balloons overtime. they have been floating over the u.s. since the trump administration and even during the biden administration without the white house knowing about it. these are huge issues we have to deal with and the question becomes how do we ensure we can have an economic relationship with china, which we will not disconnect from completely, but also understand their behavior at home and their effort to export the repression they practice at home globally will not stand when it comes to our allies and partners. host: our guest.

if you want to ask him questions concerning china and its practices and relations with the u.s., (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you describe those things. it seems like maybe the congress and white house, even going back, saying, shrugging their shoulders, this happened, what can we do about it? is that an accurate assessment or how would you go about changing that? guest: what the trump and biden administration have -- so we have seen some forward leaning activity. both administrations have accused china of genocide when it comes to millions of muslim uighurs. and it is not just muslims. it is christians, buddhists, practitioners of falun

gong. they had this belt and road initiative. these economic develop programs come with strings attached, loans, debt to countries around the world, developing nations who want the money and investment the don't realize what is happening is they are not getting to mess to jobs. the chinese government is bringing chinese labor to build these efforts in these foreign countries. this debt makes them reliant on china. these are issues not just inside of china, not just in the periphery of china, but around the globe, and they are now affecting us here, the theft of intellectual property, the spy balloons, the threat to our supply chains, semiconductors, ppe, pharmaceutical precursors and critical minerals and rare earth metals. it's a massive problem. host: here is the ranking

member's assessment and what he wants to see of the committee. [video clip] >> we must always protect american values and interests. second, at our best, this committee can help us as americans to up our game as a people, for example, through investments in technologies of the future, workforce improvement, and fixing weaknesses in our economy, such as our supply chains and immigration system. third, we must practice bipartisanship and avoid anti-chinese or asian stereotyping at all costs. we must recognize that the ccp wants us to be fractious, partisan and prejudiced. host: mr. jaffer, that last point the ranking member made, is this a bipartisan issue? can this be a bipartisan effort that works? guest: this may be the one spot in congress where everybody can agree. you see roger krishnamurthy,

mike gallagher. there's almost no daylight between the two of them on how important this issue is, the threat that china poses. and this is not about racism or threats to the chinese or chinese people. it is about the chinese communist party, bad behavior to its own people, how it treats our allies and partners in the region, and the very real threat it poses to the hunted states, our economy and at the core -- to the united states, our economy and at the core our national security. host: our first caller is from canada, dominic in ontario. go ahead. dominic in ontario, canada. go ahead. caller: i am trying to understand why we are trying to start a war with china. with china.

if you pulled anything in your house apart, you would find a circuit board or piece that has made in china printed on it. you could not -- you cannot go to war with a country that produces all your stuff. guest: i think dominic is right. we do not want to go to war with china. the president has made that clear, chairman gallagher, ricky member krishnamurthy. it is not in the interests of the u.s. to go to war with china and i do not think war with china is imminent by any stretch . the fact of the matter is it is china sending over 100 warplanes a week into taiwanese territory, into their airspace. it is china that floated a spy balloon over the united states. it is china that withheld semiconductors and ppe from the u.s. during the pandemic. and there are very real questions, as we saw from the department of energy, about where the coronavirus originated from, whether it was

a lab leak or natural evolution. i tend to believe the lab leak theory. it is hard to imagine a virus begins in wuhan, there's an incident investigating the edges of what became a pandemic. i am not saying it is intentional. i am not saying it was a biological weapon but we know they were conducting gain of function research there. it is possible but seems highly unlikely given the circumstances. host: think about the guarded way that both the doe and fbi presented their thinking on these topics. guest: this is an important part of the way the intelligence community operates. you have different communities coming together to make an assessment. only two have said they believe it is a lab leak. the fbi and apartment of energy -- and department of energy.

they are saying they have low confidence in this assessment. the way the intelligence community works as they make assessments and say how confident they are in these assessments. we learned that after the arak war misstep -- the iraq war misstep. so it is their view that it was a lab leak. that is the most likely theory. but they have low confidence in that assessment. other agencies, the cia, for example, our preeminent intelligence agency, has not taken a position. they have not decided between lab leak versus natural. there are agencies that do believe it was a natural transfer -- a zoonotic transfer to humankind from animals, but it is hard to imagine that the wuhan institute of virology is doing things with back coronaviruses, conducting gain

of function studies -- you know. i mean, you know, call me cynical but it's hard to ignore the evidence on the ground. host: republican line, caller in michigan. hello. you are on. go ahead. caller: concerning the virus, you know, that is not my main topic. it is not really matter if it was in a lab or came from a cave. it was in wuhan. the chinese government knew it and allowed worldwide travel but did not allow in-country travel in china, so it does not really matter whether it was from a cave or a lab. the main thing is, all right, both sides of the aisle allowed the communist country -- that was not democratic or republican. that with both sides -- that was both sides of the aisle. talking about the inroads

program in south america, which i have spent a lot of time in. they have a lot of potential down there. now, if i can wrap it up here real quick, we are failing ourselves. we are not a sovereign nation. the border is not secure at all. that is a joke. in the meantime, the chinese are very smart. they are spending tons of money in south america, doing the roads program, which you can explain better than me, and they are going to gain more and more control, which russia tried to do from the 1970's, but could not afford it. the chinese can afford it because we are still buying the goods you are talking about. host: allen in michigan putting a lot out for the guest. guest: allen is right. it does not matter where the virus came from because the chinese allowed it to spread after knowing it was there. he is even more correct, exactly right on, this belt and road initiative, the effort around the globe china is doing to

spend dollars, build capacity in these countries, but not for those countries. it is capacity for china to extract critical minerals, natural resources and the like. they need oil for their economy. so that is part of their effort -- so that is what their effort in south america and around the globe is about. it is not about those nations. it is about china and its opportunities. this is an issue, particularly in our own hemisphere. we have dropped the ball on south america and latin america. we do not practice the monroe doctrine. we allowed the chinese into our backyard, allowed them to operate there. it is a mistake. i share alan's concerns about the border but at the end of the day, we are talking about what china is doing, and he's right to focus on these.issues . host: leak in west virginia on -- malik in west virginia on the independent line. caller: you act as if the u.s.

is not -- of the world. i will relate this to the opio crisis. there are for nations -- there are nations -- they are sovereign nations.

china that send that spy balloon, that stole billions and trillions of dollars from the american economy, that harmed the american workers maliki is talking about. host: there's legislation specifically aimed towards china. when is the taiwan conflict

deterrence act, which would activate sanctions if beijing acts against taiwan, the taiwan nondiscrimination act, which would advocate for taiwan's membership of the imf, the taiwan protection act. it goes on from there. to the taiwan issue, what choices does america have if a conflict does take place over taiwan? guest: a lot of americans say, what does it matter what happens in taiwan? the problem with that theory of the case is china taking taiwan is not just about taiwan. it is about the semiconductors we get from both china and taiwan. the vast majority of semiconductors they go in every ipad, phone, car, microwave that is sold in the united states to the american consumers your callers have been talking about are made predominantly in taiwan and in china. and if they dominate that

supply, they can set prices. they can govern our ability to operate. we have seen it. we have a supply chain problem with semiconductors from taiwan and china. so that is why it matters. it is not just economics, though, right? if the chinese take taiwan, think of russia when they took crimea in 1914 -- in 2014. we have never seen any authoritarian regime, whether it was hitler, stalin, the chinese leadership, they will not be satisfied with crimea. we have seen the border skirmishes with india. we will be drawn into a conflict. the best way to avoid lives being lost is to make sure china does obeyed taiwan.

that requires deterrence and that requires our adversary to believe that if they do something they will respond. if we take the position we have taken before. caller: i am concerned about his comments on china because a lot of the businesses in the u.s. are moving over there simply to cut costs and have cheaper labor because they do not want to pay

american workers their due wages, fair wages they can live on. it is cheaper for them to go to china and exploit their labor and sign contracts with the government to operate their. additionally, on the taiwan front, war with china and defending taiwan is a war we cannot win militarily or economically, mainly due to the fact that the chinese military force can operate in the region far more efficiently than our own military can do and a good piece of evidence for this would be a recent piece of information from the pentagon that indicates in various simulations they conducted the u.s. military lost or barely won with heavy losses

most of the war simulations with china. so i think it would be completely advantageous to do things that put our country at risk that ultimately really is not good. host: thanks. guest: samuel is right. we talk about the american economy and our reliance on china and the export of jobs to china, that's a huge problem. american companies are funding the repression happening in china against the muslim uighurs, christians, buddhists. we are funding chinese threats against taiwan, funding the spy balloon program. because we are sending money and sending jobs over there. those jobs should be here in america. they should be in our allied countries if they are going to be overseas. they should be in countries we can rely upon, places where we have relationships and trade agreements. so it is important to call out the real economic and national security challenges and do what samuel is saying, which is bring

those jobs back and on sure those jobs. when it comes to the military point samuel made, he is right as well. china is building a 400-ship navy, a deepwater navy that may be 20% larger than the american navy's current projections today. they are building a nuclear force that will be triple size of their current nuclear force. it is much smaller than the u.s. and russia, but still the third largest in the world. they are about to triple it and we are largely doing nothing. we are worried at home about how we build a small handful of ships. we need to get ahead of that. to samuel's point about china being able to operate against taiwan and us losing that conflict, it is precisely because we don't have forward deployed forces in the region. it is precisely because we have not supplied the time when he's and the taiwanese have not yet woken up to the threat -- supplied the taiwanese and the

taiwanese have not yet woken up to the threat china poses. we need to make sure we have the right equipment, that we have forces position to forward for that deterrence to be credible. i do not want to get in a war that could cause losses or that we could potentially lose. the best way to avoid that is by having a credible deterrent in the region and making clear to the chinese that, if they did invade taiwan, we would respond forcefully and not let it stand. that is why it is important we have the forces there. we have the structure in the u.s. to carry out that redline. host: a column in the washington post this morning says the best thing president biden could do now talking about these large issues is have a direct conversation with the chinese leader. what do you think? guest: i do not disagree but that has to be backed by two things. the president has to be clear about his position. he has been clear. he's been on television and has

said clearly that america would defend taiwan militarily with american troops if need be. the problem is, every time the president has said it, within minutes, the white house staff comes out, jake sullivan, other people from the national security council, say, what the president meant is we will supply the taiwanese with weapons. a very big difference between american troops defending taiwan and weaponry, so which is it? is it the president, his staff? we know the president is making the choice. so if the president is clear with the chinese leader, president xi, and says we will defend taiwan militarily, if you cross that line, you better believe i will do it, that has an impact on our capability to do it. the problem is we do not have the forces in the region to effectively carry out that fight. if china was to invade taiwan tomorrow, we would not be there in time to be successful, or it

would come at a huge cost. so it is about having the forces there. it is about giving the taiwanese the capabilities they need to defend themselves as well alongside our forces to be successful. that is what will deter real behavior could david ignatius -- real behavior. david ignatius is right, and unfortunately, given the failure to enforce the redline, the failure to take the fight to the russians at the beginning of this conflict, and our atrocious exit from afghanistan, we are not viewed around the world as we should be, the fiercest foe to our adversaries and strongest ally to our friends. host: that headline, halting the slide in u.s.-china relations. caller: good morning. two points. you said something about

afghanistan and obama -- whatever -- that he was given refuge in afghanistan but the plan started with the 16 terrorists in saudi arabia, which after that were given the largest military aid in history. that's crazy. second thing, before nixon became president, china was one of the brokers countries in the world. we created our own problem. keep financing -- you keep financing the destruction. it is insane. host: thank you. guest: the caller from los angeles, my hometown, is exactly right. one of the challenges we face is, week, in a bipartisan way, across the board for 20 or 30

years thought, if we opened up china to capitalism and the global economy and created the one china policy, which we never really abided by, that china would be reformed and we would beat communism or they would be at least a more western version of communism. the reality is that did not happen. we were wrong. politicians across the aisle were wrong about china. they took capitalism, made it their own, created an economy stealing our intellectual property, and then repressed their people. they are an authoritarian regime. we talk about the social credit system they have, where if you do not toe the party line, you cannot get on buses. people talk about american surveillance and the like. china makes american surveillance look like amateur hour.

they conduct surveillance through huawei of americans and the like, but people say the american government does that too. we do it with laws, federal judges appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, separated from politics. we can say whether that -- we can debate whether that works or doesn't, but the chinese government, judge, jury and executioner. there is no line where they operate or where the surveillance they conduct is. there is no comparison between our system and their system. they are funnily different -- they are fundamentally different. the caller is right. we have allowed this. the chinese have brought over one billion people out of poverty but they have done it on the back of a system that's ultimately corrupt, a system that rewards the party leadership, and a system that represses its own people, so

even though they will look down in poverty, they don't have mobility, opportunity to succeed because they live under this authoritarian repressive regime. they will take that repression and export it abroad. host: bill, go ahead. caller: mr. jaffer, thank you for being on. i agree with you and it is refreshing to hear someone speak so honestly about this. for years, the united states, as far as trading with china, they just let things go. for example, all our pharmaceuticals, our ingredients, 97% of them are made in china. if they wanted to stop sending us pills, pills people survive on, they could do it. that is a matter of war.

what happens is all these administrations beforehand, no one wanted to deal with this. the first one, like him or hate him, boisterous or not, president trump to china, stop. you will pay tariffs, pay your fair share. we will bring industries back to the united states. that was starting to happen and then look what happened. wuhan. gain of function research, the worst virus in history hits us and stops everything in its tracks. stops trump from being reelected. host: we got the point, caller. thanks. guest: bill is right that we have become addicted to these goods from china, these supplies. the pharmaceutical precursors issue, as he mentions, we learned from the pandemic. are we willing to do what it takes to bring that capability

back to the u.s., our allies and partners, whether they are in europe or asia or here in the -- in our hemisphere, the western hemisphere? the challenge we face the bill highlights is that it is not just pharmaceutical precursors. you think about critical minerals, the things we need for the ev revolution. those batteries, they require things like nickel and cobalt. i work with a strategic metals company. we are doing cobalt in the u.s. the problem of course is that 96% or 90 plus percent of the world's cobalt is refined in china. it is extracted in africa but it all goes to china. so imagine, if china decides tomorrow, we are not going to refine cobalt anymore. we cannot build evs. we cannot build the batteries we need for that electric revolution. and if our economy turns off of

gas powered and electric powered cars, what are we going to do? it is a huge problem. we have to recognize that. and cobalt is one small example. we are talking about all kinds of rare earth metals that are actually not that rare. it is the process that makes them hard to get out. so even though they might be obtainable in parts of the world, if china controls the processing for them, that's a huge problem. we have become reliant upon it. it is a bipartisan problem could what is great about these -- bipartisan problem. what is great about these hearings this past week is that there will be a partisan -- is that it is clear there will be a bipartisan solution. all these people coming together to work across the aisle to get legislation through a republican house, democratic senate, and

signed by a democratic president. host: what do you think about the effort to ban tiktok in the u.s.? guest: i think they are right to be pushing this legislation. this is the right thing to do. a lot of americans say, i do not get it. why does anyone care about a chinese application that has videos of kids dancing on it? why does that matter? the amount of data that tiktok gathers on children, adults, who you share information with, who your social network is, the kind of games and things you are interested in, that alone is not that interesting, but when you take that data and combine it the credit card data we know the chinese government was involved in, the theft, the huge theft of data about every single holder of a security clearance in the american government was involved. you combine all that data and feed it into a machine learning

algorithm and train it on that data, about where people go, where people traveled to, who they stay with, what hotels they are and, who their network is, their credit card records, their security clearance, background checks, where they live, where they grew up, now you have a powerful tool for assessing what people will do next, how they will behave, act, how you might influence a child at today may be on tiktok but tomorrow in the u.s. military. so that is why it is so important. so why cannot we make -- so why can't we make tiktok an american company? it does not work that way. and it is not just social media paired it is the data that social media. it is the data that underlies it. american social media companies operate under the rules of law, but imagine giving that data to a chinese coming is party controlled company. stt, saying the republicant this

instinct to ban things appea s to be uninhibited. before we take the unprecedented st, congress must consult with the administration and other stakeholders. he goes on to say that by demonstration has existing authority at its disposal to address privacy concerns with the app while conducting a review of tiktok. guest: that is the committee on foreign investment in the united states. anytime a foreign company buys assets in the u.s., they can review that under certain circumstances. tiktok bought an american company could even though that transaction went through a long time ago, that committee went through the process of reviewing whether that was appropriate in an effort to potentially push tiktok out. it is worth noting that, to

congressman meeks's point, the trump administration sought to ban tiktok through executive order. the biden administration is conducting a review but they have not withdrawn it, so they recognize the reality of the threat. this idea that somehow banning tiktok will be like burning books or like fahrenheit 451 or the old days of american but banning, it is not the same thing. let's be clear. we are talking about a chinese data -- government controlled data collection tool. we are talking -- we are not talking about american authors, western books. with all due respect, they are not the same. it is comparing apples to donuts. it is not in the ballpark. host: jeff in dearborn,

michigan, democratic caller. caller: the corporations despise workers so much they would rather ship production to china, giving them 51% ownership in all their proprietary data with the promise of access to chinese markets, and they were materialized. what kind of chump signs up for that? guest: your caller makes a great point. one thing we have not talked about yet is what china requires of american companies when they come to china and try to access the chinese market. they require them to engage in joint relationships, partnerships with chinese companies. they require them to bring electoral property and place it inside of china. it is not just simply about economic development. it is also so they can get access to an electoral property and build around that. and because they have this huge population they can sell to, u.s. companies say, we will do that.

china never actually opened up the chinese market in an effective way to american companies, american competition. you see a similar problem in europe. you would think the europeans would say we need to work with america and collaborate in this larger threat china poses to the global order and our democratic system and capitalist economy. unfortunately, the europeans look at american companies and say, we need to punish and restrain american companies. they are too big, too powerful. these companies are the very engine that will allow the europeans and us to actually win this economic conflict with china. the europeans and americans need to come together. there's this trade and technology partnership we are working on that needs to be buttressed. so instead of being at each other's throats, we need to work together against the larger challenge we are facing in china, and the same is true of allies in the indo pacific region, japan, australia, india.

india has sort of played a middle ground, not aligned for a long time, are recognizing the threat china poses. they have had some border skirmishes. they are starting to turn to the u.s. it is the world's largest democracy. there is an opportunity with india to make common cause and recognize the challenge china poses. host: this guest -- this caller is on the independent line from florida. hello. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: yes. go right ahead. caller: a couple comments and then a question. the chinese own the financial aspect of the u.s. because of the trillions of dollars that they have bought in government bonds, which is part of our deficit. i am a combat wounded vietnam

veteran. we fought the chinese in korea and vietnam. a lot of people do not know that. my question to you, mr. jaffer, is, on the one hand, you suggested that the united states should enforce the monroe doctrine and, shortly after that, after our caller called in, you agreed with the caller that we should not be telling south america what to do. with all due respect, that is a contradiction. can you clarify that? finally, how much money has george mason university received from the chinese? thank you kindly. have a nice day. guest: thank you for your service as a combat wounded veteran. there are sony like you who served our nation valiantly overseas. and thank you for calling out what may be a potential contradiction. the monroe doctrine on the one hand and not telling our allies and partners what to do.

you are right that that version of the monroe doctrine could involve us dictating conditions to our allies. we should not do that. we should make common cause with them. we should talk about the benefits of working with the u.s., working in this hemisphere, recognizing the challenges and threats china poses. that is not what i meant by it. thank you for calling that up -- american family offices, american companies. we disclose all our donors but it's largely foundation funded by nonprofits. host: that website -- our guest

is the founder of the national security institute at george mason. jamil jaffer, thank you. we will talk about student debt. our guest is wisdom cole of the naacp, but until then, another short round of open forum. (202) 748-8000 democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when washington journal continues. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. risk bonds to the russian invasion of ukraine. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders. it's all in the c-span network, the c-span now mobile app and

c-span.org/ukraine, our web resource page where you can once the latest videos live or on-demanand follow tweets from journalists on the ground, go to www.c-span.org/ukraine. >> live sunday from theestival of books, investigative journalist jeff quinn will be our guest on in debt to take your calls on american history and is written about bonnie and clyde, charles mention in the mexican border war as well as hist book about the 51 day standoff in texas in 1993 betwn federal agents and the vid karesh followers. join us on in-depth live this sunday at noon etern on tv on c-span2.

>> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7 p.m. eastern, for the victims of comet's museum and washington, d.c. join the story of political domination and persecution spanning more than a century with artifacts including a medical x-ray and a transistor radio used to navigate out of communist held cambodia and at 8 p.m. eastern, a santa clara university examines the experiences of gays and lesbians in colonial america. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your pr guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: if you are interested in texting us, you can do that. the washington post reporting that the white house waiting economic aid for east palestine on the derailment saying the details of any potential waste -- white house action is unknown and the administration says the companies that own the train that derailed should pay reparations and says they want to craft a package for a town that has less than 5000 people. that's in the washington post. if you go to the washington times, legislation being worked on in congress when it comes to rail safety saying the measure by senator sherrod around and jd vance of ohio would strengthen notification and inspection

requirements for trains carrying hazardous materials, safety violations and authorizing 21 million dollars on safety improvements but stopped short of dictating major regulatory changes, leaving that matter to the transportation department. we will start off in north carolina, republican line on this open forum. caller: yes, nobody has bring this up. i talked to somebody in the government over a year ago and you remember when covid first started. china came over here and we signed a trade deal with trump and this virus was man-made and it was released. host: we will go to robert in

mississippi, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, just wanted to comment on mr. jaffer. it seems like he gave a lot of conflicting advice concerning some of the policies he proposed which would violate some of the china/american agreement we have now as far as the taiwan situation. and the reason that china is so powerful is because our capitalist owners of big business sent their business over there. we have made china rich so they could come over here and bring their product back that outrageous rates to the american public and get cheap labor in china.

it's our politicians and their wealthy capitalist owners that have caused this problem, i believe. host: jared in west virginia, republican line. caller: the guy who is just on their a minute go, the people are worried about getting into war with china but we should worry about getting into war with north korea. china is not going to attack the united states, they make too much money on us. all these nba basketball players and everyone go out there and buying shoes and all that stuff, china is all over the united states.

i think the united states needs to cut the stuff from china. host: ok, that was from west virginia and the washington times are the president biden will hold a major review on wednesday. the republicans want to scuttle a 401(k) rule. the democratic led senate post -- voted 50-40 six to nullify recent labor department decision relining retirement fund managers to use corporate governance in esg. the vote delivered a victory to the "woke" investments and now it heads to the president's desk. rule on retirement funds will remain in place if it doesn't go through. let's hear from edward in

connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning, sir. i would like to share information that i share with every branch of government that we have available as americans since 2001 as a whistleblower, if you don't mind. i tried to save our peoples lives from the people they elected including our veterans. women are allowed to vote now, congratulations to our american women. we cannot get our loved ones back with all the votes in congress now. that is dead by votes. you know have vladimir putin's killing his people in ukraine in a war they don't belong in that's not in self-defense -- our government did the same thing and every single person in our nations capital was called

by our veterans coming home and begged for their benefits and were not given them before they took their own lives. all hope was taken away from them. we should learn from the past, voting only on representatives and not on the wars we go to. federal taxes that we have to pay. host: that's edward in connecticut this is algernon in trenton, new jersey, go ahead. caller: good morning and happens with -- and happy women's history month. the conversation you had earlier regarding china, in this regard, we are our own worst enemies. no one forced mitt romney to close american factories and ship them to china. we thought he was a great businessman. regarding trump and his relationship with china, he was in mar-a-lago meeting xi jin

ping trying to sign a deal but xi eight his lunch and did not sign the deal. we had the partnership deal with president obama and trump dismantled it. he felt he had to pull out everything obama did. he actually dismantled the human intelligence we had in wuhan monitoring biology and he pulled them out. now everybody is trying to figure out what happened we had american intelligence answering at the cabinet level after the ebola incident and trump dismantled it we lost our market in soybeans going to china. it's our own fault and with africa, we were supporting the

apartheid regime. don't be surprised now that the relationship with chinese and africans is strong while we are on the back foot. host: that's something to watch for on the network today. if you are interested in the event note as cpac, that takes place and started yesterday and will continue today at 10:15 a.m. and you can see some of the programming expected there wi comments by representative jim jordan and senator ted cruz texas and senator rick sco amongst others. 10:15 a.m. is the start time and you cafollow along on our main network, c-span now and www.c-span.org if you wish to do that. npr reporting from a decision yesterday by the administration, president ivan's attention --

nomination. she spent years represent low-wage workers as a civil-rights lawyer and is poised to take over the agency of labor. president biden describing her as the american dream. the room was packed with members of the cabinet. that's a look out for that in the next few weeks. open forum is our time together until 9:15 a.m. and we will talk about student loan debt and if you want to comment on the last couple of minutes of open forum, you can do so. it was yesterday on the house side house speaker mccarthy and others getting together to talk

about efforts to reintroduce something known as the parents bill of rights legislation into congress and here's some of their thinking. [video clip] >> we made a commitment to america that we would wring a milestone bill, the parents bill of rights and that's what today is all about. it's about every parent, every moment dead but most importantly, about the students in america today. it's a pretty straightforward bill. we believe that this bills foundation is built on four or five pillars. today, when you introduce a ill, it's always given a number. then you can reserve the first through 10 and this is hr 54 important reason. that's when you start going to kindergarten at about five. you start your education but this bill sits on five main pillars.

the right to know what's being taught in school and for you to be able to see the reading materials. the right to be heard, so many times across the nation, we have found that parents were attacked and called terrorists and they simply want to go to the school board meeting to be heard about what's going on. the right to see how they -- the school spend their money in the right to protect your child's privacy. in the right to be updated on any violent activity at the school. you think these are pretty basic rings that every parent should have a right to. it doesn't matter if you are from louisiana, florida, indiana , new york or north carolina or even california. it doesn't matter the color of your skin, your wealth, when you have a child, that is the most

important thing in your life. you give your life for that child really one thing we know this country is education is the great equalizer. we want the parents to be empowered and that's what we are doing today. we want you to have a say in your kids education, not government telling you what to do. host: more there if you want to see it on our website and at. one more call from dave in spring hill florida, democrats line. caller: what is it with these constant republican rallies, cpac, it seems like every few weeks or months, they've got another big rally they are holding. you know who is into that? the nazis. every time hitler's wanted a big pr campaign, he would call a big rally and they would show up in romans salute each other but the modern republican party is not

concerned with doing the people's business. their only concern is winning power and more power. at any cost. the maniac santos is the most recent example of their values. there is no criminal, no psychopath, noted -- no degenerate, no miserable lowlife they won't welcome into the club as long as he or she is ready to carry water trump and they have an "r" after their name and they are goose-stepping fascists and we are repeating history like germany did in 1932. host: that finishes the offer this section of open forum. we will change our topic and talk about student loan debt amongst young people. our conversation with the naacp and he served -- and our guest

service the national college director and will take sessions when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> the united states of america was originally the on two important documents, the first was the declaration of independence signed by 56 men in the middle of 1776. the second was the constitution which was signed by 39 men in september of 1787. six of those men put their john hancock on both documents. two authors have written short background stories about 95 of the signers into books. >> two authors on this episode of book notes+ which is

available on the c-span now at or wherever you get your podcasts. >> cpac, one of the largest annual gatherings of influential conservatives is back in washington, d.c. this week watch our coverage of the conference and featured speakers include former president donald trump, republican presidential candidate nikki haley and former secretary of state mike pompeo and members of congress, conservative activists and media personalities. what's the cpac annual conference from washington, d.c. this week on the c-span d.c. this week on the c-span network. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your in filtered view of what's happening in washington live and on-demand area keep up with today's biggest events with live streams of four proceedings of hearing from u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics at your fingertips.

stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal is for the c-span tv network and c-span radio, plus our podcast. c-span that was available at the apple store and google place of downloaded for free today. get a front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> c-span shop.org is our online store, go through our latest collection of c-span gear. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is wisdom coal with the naacp and he served as their youth in college

national director and he is talking about student debt relief. guest: thanks for having me. host: you were amongst many outside the supreme court as we heard about the student debt plans what was your impression of the gathering outside and what the justices were questioning about? guest: outside was the people's rally recognizing the folks have been working on student debt cancellation for over a decade. there were those people as well as season organizers. over 2.5 million in student debt was in france's supreme court demanding on making sure their voices were heard and recognizing we know that student debt cancellation is legal and we been working toward it in the stories that impact our lives and what's necessary to ensure we finish this. it's important we understand

that it's not done until it's done. this discussion has been happening host: several headlines reflecting the fact that many justices were skeptical about the plan itself. what do you think about the skepticism and what does it mean for the biden administration should not be allowed to go forward? guest: i think skepticism is unwarranted. people have been burdened by student debt for far too long. the naacp just celebrated its 114th birthday last month and we have members from multi-generation to still carry the burden of student debt. folks who educated, folks who have contributed to our society in impactful ways still are burdened with student debt.

people have an opportunity to become homeowners and business owners and have an opportunity to generate wealth so we have to shift how we think about student dealt -- debt. this is an opportunity to have a path forward out of this pandemic to build a strong economy. host: when it come to the present plan, it will be 20,002 pell grant recipients, most are low income borrowers and 10,000 for non-pell grant loans with those making under 120,000 year and put cap a monthly payments at 5% of monthly income. what you think about those specifics? guest: in the conversation with the biden administration as well as senior advisers, i applaud the racial equity lends when it comes to that decision, recognizing there is a difference when it comes to

student debt. this impacts the black community in a different way. the actual black borrower hold on average $53,000 in debt and we were pushing the president to cancel a minimum of $50,000 or more. we would like to see all student debt cancel but this is the first step in a long conversation about our value and cost of higher education. how do we ensure that young people going into higher education have the opportunity to see a bright future? the financial barriers should not be impacting young people's decisions to pursue higher education. i am a millennial and many feel defined by their student debt. we know 35% of millennials have reported they have delayed their plans to become owners because of the student debt. this is an opportunity to give those who are most in need the most support necessary.

it's an equity lens, ensuring we have true justice when it comes to this plan. host: the brookings institution tells us back in 20 after earning a bachelors, black students owed more than their white peers. why is that happening in your opinion? guest: it's happening because the interest that is occurring when the loan is taking out. when we think about the workforce, there still racial discrimination that happens when it comes to hiring. people can graduate from university with the same degree and same skills and because they are black, not receive that job area black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed than white workers and until we recognize there is still discrepancies, let's not get started on the folks who start college and still have the student debt and can't finish. there are many barriers for

black folks to enter into our economic system, eliminating student date debt -- debt is one way to address this. host: if you want to ask him questions about student debt relief in the plan for it -- here are the numbers. if you have student debt and want to put your own perspective into this discussion, this is the number. you can use that same number to text us. i want to play you a little from chief justice roberts when it comes to the present plan and some of the russians he has about his approach. this is a sound bites a let's get your reaction. [video cp] >> it's appropriate to consider some fairness arguments. u ve two situations were to

get him out of high school and caafford to go to college and one kealone in the other sa i will try my hand at settgp a lawn care service. he takes out a bank loan for that. at the end of four yea, know statistically that th person with a college degree is gog doigficantly financially better over the course of le than the person wiout. along comes the government and the government says you don't have to pay your loan. no one is telling the person trying to set up a ln service business he doesn't have to pay is loan. he still does even though his tax dollars are going to support the forgiveness of a loan for the college graduate who will not make a lot more thanim over the course of his lete. it seems to me may have views on fairness of that and the don't count and i may have views on that andin don't count. we usually like to leave

situations of that sort you talk about spending the government's money which is the taxpayers money to the people in charge of the money which is congress. host: that was some of the arguments including the chief justice of what did you think of the comparison? guest: when we put that duality, we fill to address the different challenges and barriers that many young people have, even getting into college. it's important for us to recognize the shifting of the mindset of student cancellation and an opportunity for folks to pour my money in our economy instead of having to pay back your student debt. you can become a home -- a homeowner or business owner so it's important for us to think about this as an opportunity. folks may say that student debt cancellation is unfair. when you think about it, canceling all student debt is what we need to happen. we need to make sure we give people the opportunity to see

relief now. there is still the impact of this covid-19 pandemic which has exacerbated many issues within her situation at large. this is to give the dish to give people the eight necessary to continue on and support their families and they had debts and that they have an equitable future in america today. wisdom call serves the national director of the college division of the naacp. our first call is from oregon from eugene, democrats line, go ahead with your question. caller: thank you, good morning, mr. cole. i have been following this and yesterday, because we've got a right-leaning supreme court, it didn't look that good. i was reading different articles and i read about the lawyer that

is arguing for the biden administration. also the solicitor general. do you know anything about her as the solicitor general? she might have swayed a couple of the justices to pay attention. one issue she brought up was standing and i will take your answer off line and i love your first name. host: thanks for the call. guest: thank you so much. she knows that education is right and there are borrowers outside of supreme court supporting that fight because we

want to recognize its necessary to make this happen in this moment. when we think about the fight for student debt cancellation, president biden ran on the fact that student cancellation was on the table. we want to ensure especially for young voters showing when our politicians make promises, that there is implementation to back that up. no more coming into our communities a couple of weeks before the election and making policies. what's happening in the supreme court showing that the policy and plan moves forward. at the end of the day, it's not done until it done and student debt is relieved. host: republican line next, go ahead. guest: i have two comments were questions. caller: it's always in the details. part of the problem is the cart wants discussion that goes on

concerning debt relief. there are many reasons why people don't take that back, much is the fact that it's wrong to begin with. what about all of the endowments that the universities have? harvard has over $50 billion in endowments available to them. the payments for the grant go to those colleges and go to those universities and that's where the money initially went. if you added up all of the endowments for all of the universities in this country, it would be in the trillions of dollars, yet it's expected the taxpayers will pick up the bill on the forgiveness of the loans. the details of how people spend their money to begin with. are they driving mercedes? they are also paying off a student loan debt? when it comes down to the details of who ends up getting

their debt forgiven. that's what has to be worked out in any plan that goes forward, not just a cart launch -- a cart blanch forgiveness of debt. host: thank you. guest: i think you are getting at the root cause of this issue which is the cost of college edgy occasion over the course of the last four years, recognizing it has grown exorbitantly in the cost has kept people from the opportunity to see a true higher education. when we think about the students going into universities, many who are taking the loans are also working jobs. when i started college, i had to take loans and day when i started on campus. i made sure i was able to make my payment and pay for school but having to take over -- take

out those loans and support myself. i live in a quad with four other people. many students are living in the same conditions and many students are going homeless or without food. there are all these barriers that prevent them from focuses -- focusing on the purpose of being in kate -- being in college. people are using it for transportation necessary to get to and from school. we need to think about this as an opportunity and make sure this is an opportunity to change the game but also have a deeper discussion about how we value the cost of higher education. despite student debt cancellation, it should lead to the fight for free college and we are seeing the discussion across america will people discuss free two-year community college and ensuring people have access. host: our guest is a bachelors

in chemistry. did you take debts for those and are you still paying them off? guest: you know it, i have $30,000 from student debt. i recognize i still have the debt and i'm still paying it down but i want to see this happen now. host: what are you paying for interest rates? guest: when it comes to the interest rates, for the black community, they continue to hold us back. when we think about interest rates on loans, you look 10 years out in black folks still have two pay double the amount as their white peers. i've been paying down my loan since i graduated in 2016. that's almost eight years now. i'm still at the same amount i

had when i started. host: seattle, washington, democrats line area good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for c-span. mr. cole, i'm kind of surprised that such a young man like you would be speaking for the naacp but you bring a lot of legitimate points. our president has said he supports many of the causes of the naacp e. do you feel because a man is black, that makes them qualified? host: i'm going to leave it there. let's go to crystal river, florida, independent line area caller: good morning, a little bit confused when you talk about policy that biden put in but not constitutionality.

even democrat nancy pelosi mentioned this wasn't unconstitutional that -- bet. forgive me for saying this but isn't it a little self-serving that you want this loan reduction and that you have loans? i paid my way through college and never took a dime from anybody. two jobs, while in college. i hate to see everybody in this country be come like a tin cup society holding out their hand. people have issues. i've worked all my life from the 60's and fought all my life. host: thank you, caller. guest: the president does have the power to cancel student

debt. there are multiple amide -- avenues we have discussed and is well within his rights to discuss with the department of education to cancel student debt. when you talk about unfairness or the fact that folks have paid back there bills, we have to recognize that every time we want to do a public good or put something in place that serves the people. when we can bail out the copper -- corporations or divide $9 trillion to bail out exxon mobile in the middle of a pandemic but we can't give $20,000 in loan cancellations for borrowers who took it out in 1988 and are still paying it out? at what time does it end? we have to recognize that the way in which student loans are dispersed, it's disproportionate. black borrowers are taking out more loans than others. they are consistently having to pay back more than others.

when you talk about unfairness, that sounds unfair to me. it's about ensuring the people have the opportunity to pursue the american dream were to enter into this economic system. we need to do everything within our power to ensure that happens. host: the editors of the washington post write about the law that mr. biden used to approaches plan. they say mr. biden's debt forgiveness scheme is far more expensive than the two deck -- the two decade old law. could the president have used a

that are approaching this plan of his? guest: we didn't know we would be in a pandemic for almost three years so recognizing there are so many people who have been impacted by covid-19 and often times, those most impacted come from poor households. we have to recognize student debt cancellation is progressive and not regressive. it's to address this moment in time. folks are still facing economic barriers and recovering and still struggling to have jobs. young people have had to be in school and still pay coition and do it virtually. it might be a plus or negative depending on your learning style. we have to recognize there are so many more amazing things we can do when we provide this relief and cancel student debt. it would give people the opportunity to apply the system and the president is using

everything in his power to make sure this happens. we are faced with so many key issues in america to day thinking about the young people i serve. people are facing issues of gun violence in our history is being taken away from us. the cost of college continues to increase. in this moment in time, we need policy that will give us hope. we need policy that will allow us to participate in the future. we need policy that will ensure that we are able to be here not just for a moment but for a lifetime. in this moment in time, we need to make sure we are putting all hands on deck in this moment to ensure this gets done. host: in connecticut, steve on the republican line. guest: i am a father of two millennials such as yourself, one is 36 a nurse practitioner, debt-free and she makes it a bit of money like yourself and my son who is a communication

master degree, both are debt-free free, paid their own death. i paid my own debt and anything you choose in your education is what you are looking at on dollar amounts you may have to pay back. the problem is that you chose the education you have chosen that is very expensive. i'm not sure you are utilizing what you're going to school for, it doesn't look like you are. i think what should be happening is that you keep bringing up the black race. let's make everybody go into the trades, electricians which make up to $250,000 per year. plumbers, all those things are depleted in our country at the moment and that's where we should focus, not giving away entitlement money for your education. that's a problem right now. when you give free money, it will raise the price of education. that's not what we should be focusing on.

guest: when you talk about this choice and you talk about the idea that people made the choice to become borrowers, people made the choice to take those loans what was told us was that if you go to school and get a higher education degree, you can get a good paying job and buy a house and support your family and you can do the things necessary to operate in this society but that was not what happened area folks go to school and graduate and folks don't graduate and still bear the burden and are not able to get the job necessary. when you exclude the racial equity lens, we understand were different communities come from and the struggles they face, young people who are in these college spaces have to send money back home to support their families.

when they graduate from college, instead of getting support from their family to buy a home at the start of business, they have to continue to support their family. where as our white peers will be supported by their families to do those things. that is not equitable and is not fair and it's not an opportunity that gives everyone a true justice in this country. we have to recognize that we want to create a future where everybody has the opportunity to participate. to say we care about racial equity and say we care about social justice, if we say we want a society where everyone has the opportunity to achieve their dreams -- you talked about trade school and they are a phenomenal and fine opportunity but if you want to be a chemist or a doctor or a lawyer or journalist, or activist or organizer like myself, you should have the opportunity to do so in the financial barriers

presented in college should not prevent you from doing that. host: have you or the naacp talked about the cost of higher education and why it's so expensive? guest: the naacp has been on the forefront of ensuring that young people have more access to pell grant and we can discuss a better relationship between federal and state dollars and even understanding the way in which loans are dispersed and thinking about first dollar loans. it's important we re-examine those systems and we have to do that can currently. it's important that as we fight for two student debt cancellation, that we rethink our value in the structure of higher education, the way in which young people are receiving these loans and the weight loans are being explained to people. folks just exiting high school and entering college, we need to understand what is happening.

host: let's hear from greg in texas, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, i see you are young in age and if you can, want you to step back and see exactly what's going on in the naacp. you got to look back when ronald reagan was in office and bush was in office, the young people get out of college looking for jobs and they say you are too educated. all the educated people went overseas to get jobs. the trade schools being taught in this country, the main thing is for people who have jobs and hispanic people have an education and air conditioning. they are educating their people in these trade schools. our young like people are running around thinking everyone is your friend and they are sitting around smoking weed on the job and getting set up.

then they take a urine test and lose their jobs. host: what would you like to ask your guest? guest: caller: when the student loans were handed out and student loans are high because we start getting an education. they have to make their money because they want to get paid for educating us of the student loans got high because we started to college. guest: i find it very interesting that the time like folks are integrating into institutions, the cost of college started to increase. barriers started putting -- charting to be put into place not helping the people who wanted the education or these degrees to ensure they have a better future. the cost started to increase it was important that we recognize the trend000 going.

we need to give people the opportunity to see a better future. you test upon the mental health implications of student debt. generations have been defined by student debt for so long so we need to make sure we are eliminating that mental and emotional trauma. we have gen z'ers interested in pursuing higher education but they look at previous generations and they say this is not for me. we need to get people ample opportunity to enter into these systems of education to better our futures and to help us think about the path forward. we want more diverse mines in these institutions of higher institutions because we have a plethora of problems that need our diverse skill sets to solve moving forward. host: there is a story in the wall street journal as to the

pauses in place already for student debt. what happens amongst those once those happened? guest: it's going to be devastating. it's a travesty if these loans get turned back on. it's not going to be ready for that in this moment in time. it's important we recognize there are multiple plans being put into place to support borrowers paying back their loans and we have to recognize that and have ease of access to do so. until we see this plan put into effect, nobody should be having to pay to pay the student loan back. it's not done until it's done, we have to finish the job. we need to finish this and evaluating systems of higher education and ensure the plan is put into place. host: this is from twitter --

guest: you are exactly right. we need to cancel student debt but we also need to continue to fight for free college. we need to ensure that people have access the financial barriers should not be put into place. if we believe that education is a right for every american, everyone should have access to higher education. host: from connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. you somewhat answered one of my questions about where does the college responsibility lie. it seems the younger kids are doing online courses so doesn't that reduce their overhead? my other question is, is there something in the plan that says they have to use this tour there debt and maybe not something else, a.k.a. a vacation. guest: in this plan, it would

directly go to eliminating that student debt so that would be a real cancellation of that. when we think about the emerging world we are in where we are vastly moving into a hybrid reality where we have all people having the option to engage. the cost of these courses continue to remain whether they are in person or online. the only thing that switches is the difference of paying for housing. people have different learning styles. some of my fondest memories from college were being in the classroom and having a conversation, talking with my peers and professors and building cultural knowledge and recognizing and building that

black genius and wondering -- and realizing who i was in college. i hope and wish for every young person to have the opportunity to go to college and having a transformational experience to understand themselves and the world and become changemakers. host: a similar sentiment was expressed in this text -- is there responsibility for the majors they pick and they could give them the support later on to pay back the loans? guest: not at all, college should be the opportunity to explore who you are and learn how to think and critically think. it's a dialogue to come up with

the most radical ideas ever. young people consistently are discussing different ways which they can change our future and ways they can start businesses and create new and exciting opportunities for the future. regardless of your major, there are so many different opportunities. i was a chemistry major and now may -- i am a civil-rights leader and that made me think. i intended to become a doctor. i recognize there were much bigger things for myself and my future and my community and that's why i became a national organizer with the naacp. we want to make sure that people have the opportunity to explore the issues they are most passionate about we need the most radical and progressive ideas to move forward in society. over the last couple of years, we have been faced with so many different tragedies. we need new solutions. we need people who can correct those solutions and that happens

in that environment. host: let's hear from barbara in michigan, republican line. hello? caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: hi, i'm calling because it seems there is an accommodation for everything, the mental -- if you grow up in the world, you will accumulate debt. one way or another. it has to be paid off. i'm am not in agreement with that. the dream that everybody should achieve what they want, that is true. it's an opportunity but sometimes you have to wait for those dreams. i went to school and i paid for my education. i still have to go home and find money and send money to my family after i graduated. everybody has a right to it, to

the college education but you still have to pay for it. medical expenses are being covered and people are still entitled to get food stamps and are able to use this money for anything, vacations, cars, housing. go to florida and look at spring vacation. host: we will leave it there, thank you. guest: how long must we wait? young people have been waiting for decades for this to change. the cost of college has continued to rise and folks have been advocating and talking and discussing with their elected officials and were sick and tired of gang sick and tired. this is an opportunity that has been building for quite some time. it didn't happen overnight, this has been a movement and generations of organizers continuing to advocate for this

moment in time. i don't think folks need to wait any longer. we just need to follow through on the promises. this was a promise that the president ran on an election officials have spoken on. 10 years ago, young people came up to the capital to speak with their elected officials and say it was time to cancel student debt and sit -- and they said they were crazy for thinking that but in this moment, the majority of legislators are tweeting out that today is a great day to cancel student debt because it is. this is an opportunity for us to reduce the racial wealth gap and give people the opportunity to become homeowners and business owners and have discretionary generational wealth building opportunities. let's think about this in a way in which we are liberating all of us. when we support the most marginalized people and put

policies in place to allow them to be successful, everyone benefits. host: president biden yesterday spoke to democrats and expressed the fact that the supreme court may not allow his plan to go forward. do we know what that means for student debt? guest: the white house has not expressed anything to myself or our team but i recognize they are confident in their plan of attack when it comes to ensuring they fight. we have been in conversations with the white house and president biden around the student debt cancellation right. i believe we will make this happen very soon. host: from california, democrats line. caller: good morning, i was listening to this this morning and i am disturbed by one caller. he talked about how he put his kids through school.

they say how nonwhites are leaning on the system but that's not true. we were told in the 60's you go to school and you go to college and you go for the american dream. no one ever told me after my bachelors degree, i never took alone until my master graduate row graham. no one ever told me that i would not be able to find a job. no one ever told me when i went into an interview that i would be discriminated because of the color of my skin. also, no one ever told me that i would be hitting charged interest on the student loan if the government or anybody decided to make a change and that needed to be rolled over or put on a different plan. no one ever told me.

they are allowing for the banks to rip us off. then they turn around and you allow these big banks to take out theseppp's and take our money and every time we turn around we are helping people in another state. no disrespect to the train wrecks and i pray for those people, but how is it that company is trying to put it the government to help? host: we will leave it there. guest: you are exactly right. we need to ensure the we are building a future where we put people over profits. we need to serve the interests of the people who elected you in the first place. you are right about the way this is executed. we have money for corporations but not for people. we need to make sure we invest

more into opportunity for public good make sure we are giving people a leg up but understanding that equity wins. we are giving people what they need. this plan is giving people what they need in this moment in time and hopefully through conversation, we can see more because it ensures we have a more equitable future. we don't want to be burdened by student debt but are diving deep into their majors. we want to create the changes in society. they need to live out their ancestors wildest dreams. host: the website is naacp.org. the national director for student college at the naacp, thank you for your time. that's it for the program today. another addition comes your way at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning on my see you then. host: caller:

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up in about 15 minutes, the conservative political action conference known as cpac. conservative leaders and activists are joining gop lawmakers at maryland we will hear from jim jorda ted cruz and rick scott. liveoverage starts at 10:15 here on c-span. you can follow live on c-span now, our free mobile video app or on c-span.org. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more,