judiciary committee meets in new york city to discuss violent crime and the prosecutorial policies of alvin bragg. watch live coverage, starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span now, a free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. coming up on c-span's "washington journal" your calls and live on the air. we will speak with sam quinones. -- and brad bowman. washington journal starts now. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." there have been calls from

democrats for dianne feinstein to step down because she has been missing votes in congress because of illness. the real question is whether she is too old to serve as a senator at age 89. some are pushing for an upper age limit to serve in office for people like feinstein and chuck grassley of iowa. as well as possibly for 80-year-old president joe biden or 76-year-old possible challenger, donald trump. our question for you this morning, there is a minimum age to serve for political office. do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? we are opening up special lines for this question, by your age. if you are under age 30, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you are between ages 31 and

50, we want to know whether you support a maximum age limit. your number is (202) 748-8001. if you are age 51 or older, do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? your number will be (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us your answer at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading our social media on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. on twitter at c-span wj and you can always follow us on instagram at c-span wj. the question came up this week about senator dianne feinstein of california. she too old to serve in her office of senator? is there an age limit where you are too old to serve for senator? for house member?

for president? this week, feinstein announced she will temporarily give up some of her duties as senator as she gets over her illness. i will read a couple of paragraphs from her washington post story that talks about what she said this week. senator dianne feinstein says she will temporarily give up her seat on the senate judiciary committee. announcing her decision hours after her fellow california democrat called on her wednesday to resign. feinstein, who at 89, is the oldest member of the senate, drew criticism from some democrats who noted her absence from the senate for nearly two months after being hospitalized for shingles treatment in early march has contributed to a confirmation slowdown of president biden's judicial nominees. she has not cast a vote since announcing she will not run for reelection in 2024. in a statement released

wednesday night, feinstein provided no timeline for her return to the capital, which she said has been delayed due to continued complications related to my diagnosis. she says she plans to work from home until her medical team says it was safe for her to travel. once again, dianne feinstein is giving up her seat on the j -- senate judiciary committee because of her illness. there are people questioning whether she is too old to continue to serve. as the washington post story says, represented of rohan -- ro hanna called on her to resign. >> i have an enormous amount of respect for representative feinstein. it has become painfully obvious to many of us in california that she is no longer

able to fulfill her duties as she does not have a clear return date. we have not been able to confirm judges at a time where women's rights and voting rights are under assault. senator urban said the reason we have not been able to move these judges is because senator feinstein is not there. as someone from california, i felt an obligation to say what so many are saying in private, that the time has come for her to gracefully step down from a very dignified and distinguished political career. host: we want to know what you think. do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? we are breaking these calls down by age. if you are under age 30, call (202) 748-8000. if you are ages 31-50, you are (202) 748-8001. and if you are 51 and older, (202) 748-8002.

let's get into our phone calls. let's go to patricia, who was calling from houston, texas. patricia, good morning. caller: good morning to you. host: go ahead. caller: hi. i live and was raised in connecticut. my mother's boston so you know we are democrats, right? then i moved to l.a. for 30 years and i was a democrat. i voted for biden, obama. the whole thing. guess who i'm voting for? host: who are you voting for? caller: i am now a raging independent and i hope to god that trump will be reelected. host: do you think there should be a maximum age limit? president biden is 80 right now.

former president trump is 76. do you think there should be an age limit to be president? caller: not really. i know people who are 99. i have a friend named jean. she is 99 and she is like a 20-year-old. she bounces around and is sharp as a tack. and then i know people who are young that are brain-dead. i think each individual is different. i agree, there is an aging process. but there are some people who are superhuman and they are just very, very bright and very feisty and very strong. host: that brings up a question, how do we tell when someone is too old for their job? keep in mind, we have had senators as old as 100 in their seat. how do we tell if someone is too old or their job? caller: i think if they are doing a good job. that is all relative to what side of the aisle you are on. i think that feinstein, i think

it is time to call it a day. i think biden, it is time to call it a day. but trump, who i didn't vote for, i didn't vote for trump. i didn't like trump. but, he won me over because i've never seen anybody get piled on like that and survive. and i think he is the right man for the job. i didn't see him as a person i would like. i was a democrat, i was very against him. i thought he was a horrible person. but once i saw through the cover, i saw this is a man who loves his country. i really get that feeling that he really loves the country and he really cares for the country. i think he did a good job. i watched him and i thought he did a good job. host: patricia, what about 89-year-old chuck grassley from iowa? do you think he should keep his seat as well? caller: i'm wishy-washy on him. i'm not crazy about him.

i am disappointed in a lot of politicians nowadays. i personally, i hate to say this, but i think biden is probably the worst. host: let's go to anthony, calling from detroit, michigan. anthony, good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is an interesting topic. i think it would be discriminatory and certain laws, probably the 14th amendment, to discriminate based on age. but i think the voters should be more discerning. like he said, grassley is up there. president biden, you almost feel bad for biden. he is trying to walk up the stage and he doesn't answer reporters questions very often. i don't know if he can.

it was good to see nancy pelosi step down from her position and i'm glad our senator in michigan is retiring. not only their age but their ideas are old, tired ideas. host: if it is discriminate -- discriminatory to have an upper age limit, would it be discriminatory to have a lower age limit? you can't be president until you're 35. wouldn't that be discriminatory as well? caller: i guess it is but it is in the constitution and it is older than the 14th amendment. i don't know which one balances out harder. bernie sanders doesn't have any steam left in him. these people are not very good for us. i will be supporting rfk jr. in 2024. host: anthony, do you think there should be an upper age limit for president and first senate and house or are you saying just for certain offices? >> i just hope the american

public would be more discerning of their capabilities at that age. host: and how do we get that knowledge? we can't go to the doctor with the senators and with the presidential candidates. how do we find out whether they are capable of doing their job? caller: you just look at somebody like president biden and his past media appearances. they leave a lot to be desired. a lot of people warned us about the current situation we are in with some of these older politicians. no disrespect, it just is what it is. host: let's go to matt, who is calling from woodbridge, virginia. matt, good morning. caller: good morning. this is an interesting topic. we want to legislate a cap on how old someone can be to run for office. that is like legislating to

protect the voters from ourselves. the voters vote these people in knowing full well how old they are and how old they will be throughout their term. senator feinstein got elected by the voters of california. president biden, who i think is a great president, got elected. we have to live with who we vote for. we know going into this full well how old they are. president biden will be, i guess 82 or 81 when he runs for office again. former president trump, we elected him and we had to live with him for four years, god forbid. you don't want to undermine the voters by capping a candidates age. the voters voted him in and we have to live with who we vote for. host: all right. let's go to pete, who is calling from new hampshire. pete, good morning. caller: good morning, america. i've been listening to this show for a long time and i've never been compelled to call in until

this morning because i feel so strongly about this. absolutely, there should be an age limit. it's easy to see that these folks have lost a step. i'm not talking about democrats or republicans, but in general, there is no way a 70-year-old can have the same faculties as a 40-year-old. and it's not just in politics, but in business as well. people get into these executive level positions and they just cling to it, tooth and nail, to the absolute inner end. you have to let some new people and fresh ideas come in. so, those are my thoughts. host: what should be that upper age limit? every 80-year-old is not the same. how do we decide that this age is too old to be serving in public office and this age is not? caller: i understand your question.

but, there is going to be an age and it may not be applied or it's going to have to be applied equally. my number would be 75. i think mitt romney looks pretty good. he is about 75. these other -- there are other 75-year-olds that need to take a step back. enjoy their retirement. they have led a full life and work hard. let some fresh blood in there. host: our previous caller said that putting an age limit on politicians is taking choices away from voters. shouldn't voters have the ability to say for themselves this person is too old or this person is not too old at the ballot box, instead of having some law saying that? host: -- caller: you are right. that is a valid point. i think the majority of voters would agree with me that there should be an upper limit, though. host: all right.

let's go to alex, who is calling from arlington, texas. alex, good morning. >> good morning. [indiscernible] the biggest problem is this young generation. we elected them, we except them. -- accept them. that is what i think about it. age is just a number. let it be. joe biden is doing a good job.

thank you. host: let's look who the oldest members of congress are right now. we have already talked about the person at the top of the list, senator dianne feinstein of california. she currently is age 89. so is senator chuck grassley. republican from iowa. but, representative grace napolitano is 86 years old. representative bill pascrell is an 85 your own. and delegate eleanor holmes norton is 85 years old. these are the ages of the five oldest members of congress right now. now, former house speaker nancy pelosi has responded negatively to calls for senator feinstein to resign.

and, there is a story about what senator plosive said that was in the daily beast, where she seems to imply that it is sexist to call for senator feinstein to resign. i will read a paragraph from the story to you. representative nancy pelosi appears to imply that she thinks calls for senator dianne feinstein to resign over her vote absences on health grounds are sexist. democratic lawmakers have urged the 89-year-old feinstein to resign after she temporarily gave up her seat on the senate judiciary committee on wednesday, due to continued complications from her diagnosis. feinstein's repeated absences have made it difficult for her colleagues to confirm president biden's judicial nominees. speaking to reporters on wednesday, plosive called

feinstein a champion for california, who deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty. it is interesting to me, plosive continued. i don't know if political agendas are at work that i going after senator feinstein that way. i've never seen them go after a man who was sick that way. former house speaker nancy pelosi, talking on what her thoughts are on senator feinstein. we have an interview with nancy pelosi that i want to show you where she goes on to talk a little more about this issue. here is former speaker nancy pelosi. >> senator feinstein has been a champion for california. for 20 years, i have been the leader or the speaker of the house, fighting for california and i have seen up close and firsthand her great leadership for our country but especially for our state of california.

she deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty. it is interesting to me. i don't know what political agendas are going after senator feinstein that way. i've never seen them go after a man in the senate who was sick that way. host: let's see what some of our social media followers are saying about whether there should be a maximum age limit on elected officials. here is one tweet that says 89-year-olds should be enjoying their twilight years, not working as presidents, senators or anything else. here is another tweet that says i don't support age limits. i think if a politician can win an election, they win the job. another tweet says no, but i do support term limits. two for senators, four for representatives and then done. one final tweet says of course,

feinstein is too old for congress, along with many others. our question is do you support a maximum age limit or elected official? if you are under age 30, your number is (202) 748-8000. if you are between ages 30 one and 50, it is (202) 748-8001. and 51 and older, (202) 748-8002 . let's talk to d'andre, who is talking from baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning, c-span and america. in my opinion, there should be an age limit and a term limit as well. the obvious, what we have been seeing with our president, i feel like he needs assistance

most of the time. the people running our country and creating policies for thomistic and foreign affairs, there comes a time where you have to sit in the back a little bit, chill, be in the rocking chair and advise and provide counseling to who is coming up after you. but trying to stay there like a forever pillar, i think it is slowing things down. all of this stuff that is getting fast and quicker, we have to at least keep up. people like the ones you just named and people who have served terms forever, it feels like things are staying stagnant and not progressing. we have to pick up the pace. host: what age should the maximum age limit be? should it be 60? 62? 65?

70, 75, 80 five? what number do you think the cutoff should be? caller: i would say 65 with monthly physical examinations. i know some 65-year-olds that are still rocking and rolling. and then others who have certain ailments. probably a pt test, monthly. that's about it. that would be my opinion. 65 with monthly pt tests. host: here is where i see of it of a problem, d'andre. we have a representative democracy. don't people who are older than 65 deserve a chance to elect

someone who represents people of their age range? caller: i feel like those people -- the young people have the best interest in mind of the people who are older. we have many, many people, great patriots out here working on these things. being firsthand on the ground with these people. it is there. we are not trying to exclude old people and say your voice doesn't matter. it matters. it is our elders. we have to take care of them as well. that's what i'm saying. we have to take a little bit of the slack off of their backs, you know what i mean? it's not necessarily trying to exclude anyone and say your

opinion or viewpoint doesn't matter. it's just we have to pick up the pace. we have to pick up the pace. host: let's go to teresa, who is calling from chicago. teresa, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i'm in my 60's and i have to say that as people age, they do often times get wiser because of all of their experience. i think it is good to accept elderly people like myself. before anybody makes it into federal government, politically or as a politician, i think they should take a test, a constitution test that demonstrates how well they understand the constitution, to

give us a base of where they stand on that level. because i think that is what being a federal politician is all about. regarding the constitution, caring about the constitution. obviously, it is more than that. the job is more than that. but, i don't think age should be the limit. there shouldn't be a limit on age. but i do think that people who are in their 70's, 80's, 60's, however old they are, maybe there should be some test to make sure that they are all there. some people are great until they are 90. some people lose it when they are younger. don't think you can take everyone of a certain age and rolled them into one category. we shouldn't stereotype anybody for any reason because every person is a different person. that is how i feel. host: but teresa, without age

limits, don't we have the possibility of having people in office who cannot do their job and have unelected staff members actually making decisions? for example, the oldest person to ever serve in congress was senator strom thurmond. he was 100 years old and 29 days. he was 100 years old and 29 days, while in office. now, as a former congressional reporter, i can tell you that the staff members in strom thurmond's office were running his office. not strom thurmond at age 100. don't we risk that situation happening again, where people who the voters did not vote for, the staff members of the senators, the staff members of the representatives, are making the decisions, not the people who people voted for, because they are too old? caller: i think to some degree,

a group of people helping politicians, there is nothing wrong with that. but if the politician himself or herself are unable to make decisions, i think there has to be some, i don't know what kind of test. this has to be thought about carefully. i'm just listening to your show and responding. but yes, i think there should be some sort of line that if it is crossed, maybe -- it is really difficult. because how do you advertise somebody's psychological tests, their intellectual tests, whatever you want to call it? their mental health, their physical health. i think whatever it is, the standard has to be the same for everyone.

if someone at 90 can pass all of those tests, it is fine. i don't think there age -- their age should be the only determinant of whether they can serve or not. host: let's go to tony who is calling from st. louis, missouri. caller: how are you doing today? host: great. go ahead, tony. caller: i feel like a lady that was just on the phone. if someone is not able to perform their job for a while, there should be a process where they do get replaced. if i had to leave for six months because i was sick, they would find somebody to take my place. because the world has to go on. if they become incompetent because of health reasons or psychological reasons, they can be removed. i don't know about the age limit but when you are in bad health or incompetent, there should be a process to you out of there. host: tony, it sounds like you

are making an age limit -- a difference between an age limit and someone's health. because someone at age 35 can have a condition that prevents them from being able to serve. it sounds like you're making a difference between the two. is that right? caller: to an extent, yes. senator feinstein is trying to recover from illness and it is taking a long time. i think the ages playing a part to double. host: ok. -- caller: i think the ages taking a part too. host: ok. let's go to andrew, calling from dallas. caller: thank you for having me. i appreciate it. host: go ahead.

i was going to mention one about strom thurmond who was 100 years old. he started his politics -- i was 2.5 months old when he started and i'm 69 now. personally, i'm against the maximum age limit. that is up to the voters to decide whether they want that person, no matter what age they are. host: for example, you are saying the california voters knew dianne feinstein would be 89 years old in office. since they knew that, then everyone else should be fine with it, right? caller: it's up to california. california is responsible for their own senators, just the way strom thurmond was supported in his state. let's look at it this way. you have politicians who want to raise the age limit for

retirement to collect social security, forcing us older folks to work longer. seriously? no. the voters decide that. host: all right. the topic of age will be coming up during the 2024 presidential election. once again, president joe biden, right, is age 80. so far, it seems like he intends to run for reelection. so, he is already addressing some of these issues, already. in the hill, president biden talked about the whole age issue. president biden said in a new interview that concerns about his age are legitimate as questions surround whether he will run again in 2024.

biden was asked whether he was considering his age when he was deciding whether to run again, which he said no. however, it is legitimate for people to raise concerns about it. it's legitimate for people to raise concerns about my age, he told david meurer. the only thing i can say is watch me. biden, the oldest president in u.s. history, would be 82 when sworn in if reelected in 2024. that is coming from the hill newspaper. former president donald trump is also speaking about this. trump is currently 76. in an interview with tucker carlson, he spoke about president biden's age going into 2024. here is what he had to say. >> do you think biden will stay in the race? >> look, i watch him just like

you do. and i think it is almost inappropriate for me to say it. but i deal with other people. i don't see how it is possible. it's not an age thing. i have friends who are 88, 89, 92. bernie marcus at home depot is 95. smart as hell, sharp as he was, until he. bernie marcus, the founder of home depot, one of the founders. i had a meeting with him a few months ago. he was 100%. i know people who felt their fortunes from 80 to 90. they were struggling and they made a fortune from 80 to 90. a couple of people in particular, it is amazing. he's not too old. they do the age thing because i am four or five years behind. but there is something wrong. i saw his answer today on

television on whether he was going to run to our broker. -- al roker. that was a long answer. i don't think he can. host: let's go back to our social media followers and see what they think about our question, do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? here is a tweet that says how about we outlaw teleprompters for politicians so we can see if they know what they are talking about. another person tweeted if we had term limits, we likely would not need age limits. another person said it depends on the person. some old people are wise, some are not. some young people are close minded, some are not.

i will support a left-wing old part over a left-wing young conservative. -- right wing young conservative. another said we don't let old people do surgery or drive a city bus but we will let them make laws that impact us for decades. go figure. in texas, and he says i believe there should be an age limit but voters won't go for it. voters know age equates to seniority, which leads to other positions of power. that means those officeholders get more done for their district or state. voters know this and will keep putting very old people in office. our question to you this morning is do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? let's talk too lowe in

washington, d.c.. good morning. caller: i do not support age limits but i support term limits. two terms and you are out. i think that, like they said, age is manifested differently for different people. the other thing that would concern me is if you start doing that, with that then start to show up in private sector types of work, where they start limiting your age to do jobs? people get pushed out as it is after a certain age in some situations. but, i think for the senate, two and out. you can't age in place like that, beyond 12 years. host: let me bring this question up to you. earlier, a caller said an age limit would be taking away a choice from voters. wouldn't a term limit also take away a choice for voters, if they want the same person doing a good job to continue to do

that job? wouldn't a term limit be taking away a choice from voters? caller: if you know you have 12 years to get something done, get it done. someone has to sit out another six years before they can run again. that gives them the opportunity to do that if they want to do that and if the voters want to do that. that is how i see that. host: let's go to steve, who is calling from san jose, california. steve, good morning. caller: i will be the first to bring this issue up. it is the heart of the matter. i'm not so much in favor of term limits, but the question is cognitive ability. and i believe that if you are going to be president of the united states, you should take a test administered by a

bipartisan group of doctors. and the results should be made public if you are going to be running for a candidate of the united states. and if a person scores 50%, you can have a right to vote for that person. but, be well aware that you are voting for a person that is 50% diminished in capacity. now, trump passed it with flying colors, 100%. and i'm proud of that man. host: how do you know that? caller: it was published. a person that administered the test, i think it was ronny jackson was his personal

physician. it was made public at the time that he passed the test. he would not have taken the test if it wasn't for the insistence of the democrats that he passed it. they were hoping that he showed diminished capacity. but just like his tax returns, he passed it with following -- flying colors. 100%. that is the only fair way to do it. it is not a matter of age. it is a matter of cognitive ability. we want the best, don't we? host: would you also put the same rule in for senate and house? caller: i was just going to say that. i believe if you should run for public office, it would be an excellent idea, an excellent

idea that we get the very best people. i would go so far as to say that during their term, that if a group of doctors or some type of group could, if they show signs of not making the right decisions, i think that some group of people could suggest that a person take the cognitive ability test. i know that that could be pushed back but if we want the best, we deserve the best. host: steve, is not putting a lot of power into the hands of unelected doctors? caller: well, if you -- if you

have your mental facilities and your wits about you, what is there to fear? host: a doctor who would lie and say this person is not competent when they are. caller: that's why it is a bipartisan group. bipartisan. host: so, you would trust a panel of doctors to tell you whether your favorite candidate is competent or not? caller: yes, i would. if it is bipartisan. host: all right. there is an idea. let's go to tom, who is calling from ithaca, new york. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. my opinion is no, there should not be an age limit or term limit. you let the people decide. it is historically, as you look back, a tactic that would be used by one side or the other to try to legislate people out of

office. in the 1980's, it was a criticism of ronald reagan that he was too old. you let that pass, the founders that everyone talks about were of an advanced age. you let the voters decide. the process has to work out. it's like the late justice antonin scalia would say, you have to fall in love with the gridlock that our system creates. you can't legislate a way opposition. thank you. host: let's go to patricia, who is calling from florida. patricia, good morning. caller: i don't believe there should be age limits. and no test, because i don't have much confidence in doctors, the way they have been handling

covid and chronic disease for the past 40 years. they would have their own agendas. i think the country as a whole needs to pay more attention to issues other than what affects their pocketbook. i think if everybody read his five books, they would be voting for the country as a whole. pedro, you have had so many good points. arguing for this and against this. thank you. host: let's go to ross, who was calling from california. ross, good morning. caller: good morning. i am in advocate of public education. i think you start kids young. by the time they get to high school, they are ready. they know that their future is what they will inherit. i think that politicians, this is going to surprise a lot of people, should be between 15 and

30 and no older. they used to say when you reach 30, you are over the hill. the young kids, let them make some good, smart determinations. the whole culture would definitely benefit. caller: ross, are you saying there should be no public official over the age of 30? host: i think ross jumped off. let's go to gary, who is calling from texas. gary, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: i don't think there should be age limits. you look at biden, he is what? 80? kamala harris is in their 50's and they are both brain-dead. how can you put on age limits? host: all right.

let's go to paul, who is calling from west palm beach, florida. paul, good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think age should be a factor. the cognitive ability, the mental condition of the person going into office should be a big concern. trump, biden and the senator they elected from pennsylvania, some of them are only there one day a week. their cognitive ability is so poor. look at trump, he is so sharp. biden does not want to take any questions. he is afraid that he will not give a proper answer. they don't want him to take any questions. thank you. host: former representatives

gary franks, a republican from connecticut has an idea that would apply across all of federal government. here is what gary frank had to say. we need to work for a constitutional amendment that will clean house of t old folks once and for all. this amendment would be a simple e. it would require a mandatory retirement for all federal government workers at the age of 80. this includes every branch of the federal vernment. executive, legislative and judicial, as well as their supporstaff. as well -- anyone seeking to be elected to the staff, president or vice president, would be prohibited from running if during their term of office, they would reach the age of 80. gary frank says nobody should be

in government, whether it is as a supreme court, the congress or the white house. or anywhere across all of the federal government, if you are over the age of 80. and once a constitutional amendment to do that. what do you think about that? let's go back to our phone lines and talk about scott, calling from queensbury, new york. scott, good morning. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. i feel that there should not be an age limit, because being under 30, you don't want people like us in there because we are too temperamental. you take somebody who is older, they have the wisdom and the experience because the difference between having 30 years of experience in congress and one years experience is 30 times. people who are younger people the same thing over and over. the old people, they have some

experience under their belt. host: ok. let's go to benny, who is calling from stockton, california. benny, good morning. caller: good morning. i think there should be an eight limit. i am 71 years old. a lot of the things i could do when i was 60, i can't do anymore. i think that there should be an age limit. i think there should be a test to determine if they have the mental capacities to perform the activities. that's my thoughts. host: all right. let's go to alex, who is calling from albany, new york. alex, good morning. caller: good morning. so, my thought is that to be an elected official, you should have to be within 10 years of the median age of the country.

right now, that is about 35 years all. the same age to be the president. i feel like if we have represented us between the ages of 25 and 45, we would have better representation in this country. host: ok. let's go to paul, who is calling from pennsylvania. is it latrobe? caller: that is correct. right outside arnie palmer town. host: go ahead, paul. caller: i'd like to say first of all that the competency test should be given and it will be a test on the history of the united states and another test on the constitution of the united states. and then, the candidate must admit that the ethanol fuel program is absolutely absurd and only exists to buy off the corn farmers out in the midwest. i would only make an exception

if your face is orange. host: all right. coming up on monday, on monday, the house judiciary committee will meet in new york city to discuss violent crime and the prosecutorial policies of manhattan strict attorney alvin bragg. you can watch that live with coverage beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span now, our free mobile video app, or you can watch that hearing live online at c-span.org. once again, we are asking you, our viewers, do you support a maximum age limit for elected officials? let's talk to hermann from round hill, virginia. caller: yes, i think 70 years old would be the limit for

senators and perhaps maybe 75 for the supreme court. i will be 96 in september. there are exceptions to all rules. i believe that past 70, there is less competence and you are less effective. i think 70 should be the top. and i believe in term limits for the house of representatives and the senators. i think 70 would be the age for competence and cognitive skills. host: ok. cbs news pulled americans back

in august of last year to ask americans should there be maximum age limits for elected officials? i want to show you what that poll says. 73% of those polled said there should be age limits. 27 said no, there should not be age limits. if we were to break it down among political parties, 71% of democrats said there should be term limits. 75% of independents said there should be age limits. and 75 percent of republicans said there should be age limits. that's break that down by age. 18-29-year-olds say yes, there should be a maximum age for our elected officials.

30-44, 75% of those said there should be maximum age limits. the same number for 45-60 four-year-olds. and it goes down 1% for 65 and older. age 70 was the top answer given. fyi, this is older than the current average age of members of congress. but about one third of current u.s. senators are 70 years or older. once again, we want to know, do you think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials? is 70 the magic number? what do you think? let's talk to cora from west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, cora. caller: here is when i think. i just turned 82.

and i have worked from the time i was 18 years old until i retired a couple of years ago. here is why i think this last party, and i and calling no names, but i think anybody over the age of 75 should not try to run the world. they've been through too much. and make too many mistakes. and they have done things that people disagree with wholeheartedly. i have nothing against them, personally. it's just they are too old to run the world. especially since the world has changed so much and everybody knows that. even the younger kids know that.

my kids know that. and i've got grandkids and great grandkids that i'm worried about that won't be taken care of. it ain't going to be who they vote for. getting going to be who they don't vote for. that's the way the world is going. host: let's go to rick, who is calling from east strasburg, pennsylvania. rick, good morning. caller: hello. i think there should not be any kind of competency test because it opens the process up for corruption. the voters are the ones who are supposed to decide and they want to be able to figure out if somebody is competent or not. unlike us in pennsylvania, who elected a senator recently. thank you, very much. host: dennis, who is calling from front royal, virginia.

dennis, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe what the congressman said about -- is perfectly right. we have to get back to the basis of america. make it strong and how it used to be in how we should go forward. there shouldn't be an age limit. it should be based on competency and how you have done in the past in your life and what you've achieved in your life. so, i think america needs to go forward and get back to the basics of life. host: let's talk to christopher, who is calling from chicago, illinois. christopher, good morning. caller: let me turned on this. hi, jesse. good morning. you are doing a fantastic job. i personally don't agree with age limits. i understand that people, over

time, lose their faculties. i see it as we are taking away an opportunity for us as voters to vote on a person when, you know, if we had age limits, we wouldn't be able to have that opportunity. i see it more, especially in the case of -- feinstein as she is not doing her job. we need to get these justices or judges appointed. and that, to me, is more important if someone is not doing their job. host: ok. several calls this morning have talked about cognitive tests for officials. nikki haley is also talking

about the same thing. she is calling for cognitive tests for aging officials. in fact, she has talked about this before. there is a portion of her speech from january. >> and when it comes to our politicians, we will light a fire under them. [cheers and applause] >> their job is not to say things on tv, their job is to do things in d.c. like solve problems, instead of ignoring or creating them. in the america i see, the permanent politician will finally retire. we will have term limits for congress! [applause]

>> and mandatory mental competency tests for politicians over 75 years old. host: let's take another call from november, calling from florida. caller: i think you may have misunderstood me. i'm 83 and i don't think -- my brain is going very far. what nobly talked about is physical stamina. that is something that worries me, particularly with the president. the president is doing a hideous job. we can see the way they age in their photographs, how quickly they are aging. if i were made president, i would live about three weeks before it killed me.

the same thing is true about legislators. they need the stamina to be able to read all of the things that is thrown at them. i think physical stamina is another thing that can be seriously considered. i have no objections for a mental competency test. provided that it is given to every candidate. i have seen some young ones who are pretty flaky. i think there could be some way to figure out their stamina or judge, statements from the candidates doctor.

i remember john kennedy, his doctor said he was ok and that was untrue. may be a non-bipartisan medical team. host: we would like to thank all of our colors for those wonderful suggestions and comments. --all of our callers for those wonderful suggestions and comments. coming up next, sam quinones addresses the fentanyl. then, defense of democracies brad bowman will be here to discuss biden administration's report on the 2021 withdrawal from dennis dan. we will be -- from afghanistan. we will be right back. ♪

>> correspondent was calvin coolidge. i had just been elected to the united states senate. >> white house correspondent dinner saturday, april 29. watch live coverage from the washington hotel, including comments from authors, journalists. president biden is expected to speak. the white house correspondent dinner, live april 29 on c-span, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> order your copy of the congressional treasury now available at c-span shop.org. your access to the federal government, contact information and important information on individual committees.

scan the code on the right to order your copy today or go to c-span shop.org. 2995 plus shipping and handling. help support our nonprofit organizations. >> this year, grand prize winners are eighth graders at dr. martin luther king middle school. this is for their documentary. watch the grand prize online at c-span.org. >> c-span shop.org is the online store. look at our latest selection of products, apparel, books, home to core and accessories. something for every c-span fan. every purchase help support our nonprofit organization. shop now, anytime on c-span

shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and we are joined by sam quinones, author. he is here to discuss the fentanyl crisis in the united states and the world. good morning. sam: good morning. host: tell us about your background and journalism career. sam: i have been a journalist for six years now. i started out as a crime reporter in stockton, california. i lived in mexico for two years. came back to work for the los angeles times where i worked for 10 years. i have written since, two books, what i am better known for. the first one was about the opioid crisis, prescription

painkillers by doctors, promoted by drug companies, followed by heroin. another book about community and a lot of things, focused around the idea that we live in a new time with synthetic drugs, fentanyl and methamphetamine. host: your most recent book, "hope and the time of fentanyl and math -- meth," what have you learned? sam: the mexican trafficking world has transitioned towards synthetic, drugs.

it is about supply creating the demand, once they have ingredients to import, once -- which they do in mexico. irrigation, farmers, anything. this is an arm asleep more profitable. it is a huge risk because it involves your people. there are benefits from the trafficking world from making the synthetic drug. i believe we are now in the synthetic era of the drug. i do not believe we will be leaving anytime soon. host: as we move into synthetic drugs, this is also means that these trucks can be made anywhere in the world?

if they are synthetic, they don't need land and climb anymore, just the ingredients. sam: it is possible. you see methamphetamines being made by many groups, significant production out of asia. generally from certain regions of mexico. you can now make the stuff anywhere. you can make in small labs away from crying or public eye. this is a trend i do not think will be leaving anytime soon. host: synthetic drugs are likely harder for drug officials to

find, a lot of it was about crops and classified informants. without those, how do you track down where they are making these? sam: one of the things i believe much -- is much more productive, pay much closer attention to the ingredients. traffickers in mexico are dependent on ingredients and not love those ingredients are made in scope. -- not a lot of those ingredients are made in mexico. i believe those ports, airports, shipping ports, or places where there is -- where an intense amount of collaboration between the two countries would be

helpful. host: let you, our viewers join us in this fascinating conversation. we will open up special lines for conversation about the fentanyl crisis. if you have been impacted by fentanyl, taken it, a relative, friend, family member who has been impacted, we want to hear from you. your number is (202) 748-8000. we also want to hear from medical professionals. our front line in the fight against drug overdose. if you are a medical professional, nurse, er, driving ambulance, dr., we want to know what you are seeing. medical professionals, your number is (202) 748-8001. if you do not fit either one of

those categories but you still want to get in the conversation, who open up another line or everyone else, (202) 748-8002. if you have been impacted, (202) 748-8000. if you a medical professional, (202) 748-8001. everyone else, (202) 748-8002 . keep in mind, you can also text at (202) 748-8003. we are also looking at social media, twitter, facebook. let's talk specifically about drug overdose deaths in the united states. this is whathe national drug abuse organization is saying. more than 106 deaths in 2021 --

106,000 in deaths in 2021. fentanyl continues to cause these numbers to rise. cocaine, psychostimulants, primarily methamphetamines also continue to increase. 32,507 overdoses in 2021. give us some perspective, is this out-of-control? sam: previously, i would say the record was around 72,000, not sure of the number right now. what those numbers reflect, a function of supply. those reflect what happened during covid, trafficking in mexico had covered the united

states by the time covid hit. a lot of people were isolated, recovering from drug addiction. they tell you when you're recovering, do nicely, which they had to do. a lot of people relapsed. began using drugs on the street that were primarily fentanyl and methamphetamine. a combination of covid and coverage of the supplies for mexico. host: for some of us who do not exactly know, explain what fentanyl is and why it is so popular. sam: i don't believe it is popular. it is a function of supply creating demand. people are not demanding to be hooked on fentanyl.

fentanyl is a great drug surgically. it is a revolutionary antistatic. it does not make you nauseous. you come in and out of anesthesia very quickly. it is extraordinarily potent. in the hands of surgeons and anesthesiologists, it is great. in other hands, it is a catastrophe. i don't think is correct to say it is popular. it has been brought into the drug supply in various ways. lately the form of counterfeit pills, like a xanax, percocet, what have you heard people then use it think it is something

else -- thinking it is something else. fentanyl included in it, it hits those people and then an addiction happens. the idea that people want it -- people who are addicted have to have it but they do not start out that way. host: which brings me to this question. share capitalism. -- sheer capitalism. if you are a drug dealer, what would you want to give someone something that we could possibly kill them? that keeps them from buying more drugs. sam: good question. down in mexico, people who make

fentanyl, there is no control. these people are making it, they just make it, they want to make money making it. those that smuggle it, just want to make money smuggling it. they are not thinking we want to keep people alive so they keep buying it. they are not thinking about people dying, maybe it is secondary. a lot of folks are selling to supplement their own habit. their own addiction. the idea it will kill somebody is, i think secondary to making sure they get their habit satisfied every day. there are a lot of economic reasons also. if you mix fentanyl with cocaine , see take a two week vacation

from cocaine, you mix fentanyl with it, that person is buying it every day. it is awesome as a customer expansion tool, even though it does kill along the way. the highly addictive nature of it means more customers. we are also hearing -- host: we are also hearing a lot about meth. what is the difference? sam: meth is a stimulant, keeps you up, wired. like all the other old where it's -- all the other opioids. norma's supplies of fentanyl -- enormous supplies of fentanyl, typically historians will tell

you drug use from stimulants to depressants back to stimulants and there is a cycle. those cycles have now been abolished by massive supply of massive amounts of drugs coming into the country. the same people making meth and venable, smuggling meth and fentanyl -- there is no cycle. it is a historic change we are in the middle of. meth has its own issues. meth kills you. it has showed itself to be potent. driving people to symptoms of schizophrenia, very pronounced, very difficult to end. host: looks like some of our

viewers want to take part in the conversation. we will start with russell from new york. he has been impacted by fentanyl. tell us your story. caller: thank you. fentanyl killed my cousin in 2012 at the age of 53. he was an experience heroin addict and great person. he just did not know how to measure the amount. i think it started because we are living in a country that people are so miserable that we live in a country of violence were people shoot up schools. in the 1980's, we had crack. these to put it on tv, here is what it does, don't use it. i want to ask sam, you said yourself, this is a great drug. sam, do think the excessive attention that is being paid to

this drug makes it worse? sam: i do not. i think the lack of attention -- i want to be clear, it is a great drug when used properly, surgically in operating rooms. they know how to use it. fentanyl is a terrific drug, wonderful tool. decades now we have been using it, it is a revolutionary drug. i do not believe attention to this problem is exacerbating it. sure, i think people are walking into situations where they do not know what is going on, perhaps that is why your cousin may have died, i do not know. that was a long time ago, when fentanyl was just beginning in this country. people were not aware that the drugs they were using my have fentanyl. i think this is a thing that benefits from very aggressive

attention. we have clearly not been discussing -- most of the conversation has been taken up with covid. rightly so, worldwide pandemic. in my opinion, we have not been talking about it enough, not letting people know, not letting kids in school no, whatever you take has a significant risk of containing fentanyl if you buy it on the street. i just had that conversation with my 15-year-old daughter a few days ago about borrowing someone's aleve. we cannot borrow because we don't know what is in it. host: my daughter has also heard about this, far too much. probably more than any kid should.

i think that is a conversation that every parent needs to have, absolutely. even if it is your best friend that you trust implicitly, that person may not know what he or she is possessing at any moment. another caller from ohio. we have ruth, a registered nurse. good morning. are you there? caller: i am. good morning. i have a different perspective. i see people blaming people from mexico and all this. how about we start taking care of ourselves? why are not there more treatment centers to get people off the drugs? stay off the drugs and stay in until they are off. [indiscernible]

-- you're asking for it because you don't have any control over your body. because we say i am american, you cannot put me in a treatment center. but you have lost the ability to speak for yourself. so we stay addicted, die on the drugs, or you go to jail. sam: that is an excellent point. when i think the era of fentanyl and meth has brought to the forefront and people are having to deal with. you can buy it in some parts of the country and in some parts you can find out what jail would be. people sit, vegetate for nine

months and go back to what they are doing. some states, virginia, massachusetts, ohio, we are seeing places experiment and develop recovery pods in jail. it is a new development. you go to jail but you do not sit around, watch tv, play poker , you are actively involved in your poker -- in your recovery. while you are in jail, this is an option. i believe that this is one thing fentanyl and meth has pushed us to. the longer you are out in the street, the greater chance you have of dying. one, fentanyl is a synthetic drug has changed everything about we have thought about drugs. the other, there is no such thing as a long-term final user.

i've known addicts who have survived 30, 40 years with using heroin. with fentanyl, that does not happen. people are dying quickly. if people can go where they can get off the drugs and cannot access them, we are seeing these very interesting experiments and new approaches to jail happening. all of this is happening in places where the opioid epidemic is happening, like ohio, places like that. in response to the demand fentanyl is making on people and counties. host: one of our social media commenters -- should the government focus on the demand side rather than the supply-side?

possession of fennel is becoming a major felony. sam: -- possession of fentanyl is becoming a major felony. sam: i think possession, with the opportunity of going to jail for recovery, i think that is absolutely what needs to happen. people on the street will die from the stuff. the synthetic drug era is all about supply creating demand. it is incorrect to think the person buying one of those pills buying adderall wants fentanyl. person buying cocaine -- these drugs are so troubling and in our face. it is creating demand in many different ways. the focus has been on demand

creating supply. i really think the fennel and meth era changes that -- fentanyl and meth era changes that. host: what you see is the difference between the cocaine and crack era and this fentanyl era? sam: those drugs you first mentioned, crack, cane, heroin, they were more forgiving. more opportunity for recovery . in speaking with a man who runs a homeless shelter in los angeles who himself was addicted to crack, homeless and on the street in the early 1990's, he said, i still have something within me that said get out of this, move beyond this. part of that could have been the

family structure that wanted him back, but it was also within him . he said, i've seen meth sweep through like a hurricane into los angeles and other places and what i am clear on is that meth squishes that little area in you that says to get out of this. it just spreads people's ability. that is what i find with fentanyl and meth. fentanyl will lead you to symptoms of schizophrenia and kill you. that's what we're we are seeing on the street. it is an addiction. hands were raised, fentanyl, meth, yes, this is what we're seeing across the country period -- country.

host: i want to play this for you. my question is, what happened during the pandemic? earlier this month, a professor and member of the nyu center for -- and policy, offered her explanation on why fentanyl came more available during the covid pandemic. here is what she said. >> a few different reasons. the way that the truck market works is that when there are disruptions to the drug supply there still a lot of demand, people who have addictions or abuse disorder, people will continue to seek out opioids. what happened during the pandemic is that there was a lot of disruption in the network and supply, of really everything. fentanyl became an alternative that is cheaper and because it

is more potent, it is easier to mix in and you need lower doses. that is why we are seeing increases in fentanyl availability and when we try and crackdown on certain drugs, it leads to new emergence of new drugs. that is what we saw that no as an alternative to -- that is why we saw fentanyl as an alternative to heroin. host: you agree and why? sam: some of that is correct. the truth is that fentanyl was nationwide by 2019. by the time covid hit, fentanyl was all over the country. it started in 2013, 2014, 2015,

around there. by the time 2018 rolls around, it is in the hands of the mexican traffic -- at first it was coming in from china in small packages but by 2017 and 2018, supplies are exploding. that is why -- that is when we see the arrival of these pills. there was massive overdose and will before covid hit, fentanyl was everywhere. it got worse with covid, people were isolated and so on. i do not believe it happened during covid. it was already a fact. in portland, maine, they were already addicted, i would say.

by the spring of 2020, fentanyl was pretty much all they could get. host: one of my viewers want to bring this up. or to know if you think this is correct. fentanyl became widespread only after schedule three and schedule two. overly restrictive use." guest: fentanyl became popular having little to do with this type of stuff. this was something where a gradual realization by the mexican trafficking world that this was the future of drugs, and that this was essentially a synthetic heroin.

they began to figure this out. the genta see that this was an are mostly profitable -- they began to see that this was an enormously profitable enterprise. it feels like to me there was a fentanyl and math gold rush in mexico the last six years or so where everybody is piling in and making it, and making it and making it. anybody who does not understand -- it seems to me very strongly -- anybody who does not understand the role of profit and ease of making profit and reducing risk to the mexican trafficking world in the fentanyl and meth story is going to miss it. host: let's start with paul who

was calling from new york city. paul, good morning. caller: hi. a couple of things. i am reading a bloomberg story about the opioid settlements. they have led to lower legitimate supplies of adderall and other prescription restricted drugs because the settlements called for restrictions. that is an example of the side effects that can happen from these efforts to restrict drugs not very carefully. there are a couple of things we should think about. very resourceful, these drug organizations are, very very resourceful in terms of finding drugs and what have you. the way you will stop the drugs

coming from china to mexico extremely questionable. the idea that you will be able to restrict guns from america, these guys are very resourceful. they will manufacture themselves but they are very resourceful. i think we have to think about this thing in ways that are more insightful or more innovative than just simply trying to take care of the current problem through some law enforcement mechanism because they will get around it and sometimes in a worse way. this fentanyl issue is extremely serious. you have mentioned it before. that people are buying drugs that they think is something else and fentanyl is showing up in all kinds of things. it is making it worse.

fentanyl is worse than heroin, worse than cocaine. i think people have to think about the idea of this providing more access to these drugs in a more controlled, regulated governmental fashion then simply trying to come up with some magic bullet to stop the current problem. host: that is a very thoughtful comment -- guest: that is a very thoughtful comment. and appreciate it very much. there is no magic lit, but we have -- i very much. there is no -- i appreciate it very much. there is no magic bullet.

corruption is a very severe problem. there are parts of the mexican government that were instrumental in forming the cartel world. we now no in the 1980's -- know in the 1980's. the mexican drug wars began in the savage way they have been going in 2005. that was one year after our assault weapons ban lapsed. all of a sudden the trafficker wars in mexico exploded, and they have gotten worse ever since. assault weapons from the united states are clearly their weapon of choice. might they find it somewhere

else? they might well, that they would have a much more difficult time finding such a ready supply that are trafficked daily across that border down to mexico. i think there are lots of ways -- there is no magic bullet, i agree with the caller on that -- but because there are a lot of different solutions, does not mean we should back away from the law enforcement one. we have done a lot, and the countries' inability to work together is at the root of this problem. host: let's talk to frank in spanish fork, utah. tell us a little bit about your experience with fentanyl and other drugs? caller: i am 76 years old. i am not proud of this, but i

started using heroin in the early 70's, and i used it off and on. the last time i used it was around 2005 or '06. i now live in utah. this is a rural area where i live. salt lake city is north of where we are, and that is the primary place to acquire a hard drugs like heroin from the 70's on to now. it used to be you could not even get heroin sometimes. in the 80's i saw the mexican influence common, and it brought in -- the heroin became more cut. a heroin user wants what

he wants. i wanted to make to comments. we need to consider that fentanyl has been introduced -- i think friend was introduced as a way to save money by the producers of heroin. i agree with the commentator here that fentanyl is being used for economic means. then you have younger users who are not familiar with the old, actual heroin who do not know the difference. the comment i would like to make is, i think we have underestimated the effect, and i don't need to be racist or anything, but the mexican cartel influence up here -- salt lake is not that big of a city.

i used to run with those people up there. it seem to be pretty easy to round them up, yet nothing ever happened. you never hear of a big bust or anything. i don't know what is going on with that. i hope this helps with the conversation. host: i'm not sure how to respond to all of what was just said -- guest: i'm not sure how to respond to all of what was just said. i have met many people like frank, people who have spent many years using heroin. that is common. you are not meeting people who have used fentanyl for a long time. it would be a rare thing to find someone using fentanyl for three years. either you get help and separation from it, or you end up dying. host: originally, when we were

talking about fentanyl in the past it was fentanyl and china, but now we are talking mostly fentanyl and mexico. let me set this up -- house speaker kevin mccarthy is slamming the administration for allowing fentanyl to come across the southern border with the republicans' continued concern over the southern border. i wanted to show some of kevin mccarthy talking about this at the southern border. [video clip] >> i sat and listened to community leaders. i spoke to the sheriff whose jail is only 1% full. no federal money comes in. i listened to mayors representing both parties.

it is sad to hear what is happening in their cities, the high-speed chases. when you hear that in your county, the mexican cartel is the largest employer, you do not feel safe in your own country. the mexican government does not know which citizens are leaving their country. eth american -- the american government does not know who is entering our country. one group does know, and that is the cartel. they know who is coming across and what they are carrying across. millions of americans overdosed from fentanyl every day. if an airline's worth of people

died every -- we will fight to fix this problem. no longer will the democrats be able to ignore the issues and act like it is not happening. we will have hearings on the border. it is the responsibility of all members to attend. those who will testify will come from both sides of the aisle, and they will tell the truth about what is happening. this is got to stop, and it starts with the secretary of homeland. stop lying to the american public. tell the truth about what is happening, and change back the regulation that we had before so our border can be secured. host: what does border security have to do with fentanyl? what should the u.s. government be doing to stop fentanyl from coming from mexico? what should we be asking the mexican government to do? guest: a couple of things, just

responding to that clip. it is true, a lot of what the speaker is describing their, but -- there but, this has been going on since the trump administration. i believe fentanyl reached national coverage by 2020. to make this into a partisan issue, i would say there is a significant amount of blame to go around. i'm not sure how the republicans say one party is to blame. we blewitt to -- we blew it too.

w when countries collaborate, we come to conclusions -- solutions that we were not able to do before. mexican officials came to the united states, came to washington, and they were met by a security advisor to the president. these kinds of meetings are crucial to developing future solutions, to developing future collaboration. it ought to be natural. we should have been doing this for years. since the -- since the time i was living in mexico and after it, i have seen nothing like it. we do not think of this

relationship as an important one. it was a very sad moment. i was very embarrassed as an american, particularly one who had lived in mexico for a long time. i feel very strongly about the country in many ways. i thought this was the kind of meeting where you need to come together, treat each other with mutual respect. n matter what else is happening in the worldo, the relationship between the united states and mexico remains one of the most important relationships we have with any other country in the world, equal to japan, equal to that we have with the united kingdom, i think. host: one of our social media followers brings up what used to be the old standby for taking care of the drug problem.

"isn't the real answer to legalize these drugs and make sure people can access substances that are predictable in both potency and predictability? " will that and the problem? -- will that end the problem? guest: this whole problem starts with legal drugs. from that you can gain cautionary tales about legalizing drugss. we allowed private pharmaceutical companies to aggressively promote legal opioid painkillers for 15, 20 years. i do not believe that in this country we have the cultural dna

that will allow us as a country to put in place the constraints on private business that will allow us to legalize drugs maturely in an adult way, cautiously, slowly, humbly. whenever big business wants us to get involved, we bow and say ok. it is amazing to me that in a time of climate change, we have laws allowing for the sale of indoor grown marijuana. marijuana grows perfectly well in the sun. the carbon footprint of indoor grown marijuana is catastrophic, and yet there are laws saying it is ok to grow it indoors and sell it, because people want to make a lot of money. it is part of our dna. some parts are helpful.

when it comes to drugs, i do not see that we have the cultural ability to say no to large contributions of money, and power when lobbying. you saw that. the opioid epidemic is a classic example of that. host: let's talk to more of our viewers. we will start with schick here from newark -- shakhir from newark, new jersey. caller: good morning, c-span. i want to talk about the humanity aspect. i am a young man. i have a son. fentanyl has touched me really tough. i just started working at an organization as an outreach coordinator. we were doing an event for women.

it was about empowerment. i was glad to see how i wome were able to encourage each other. the event was over, and i am leaving the office. i make a right. there was a lady. she was dead from an overdose, caucasian lady in her 40's. it was so sad to see her. someone was trying to help her, but it felt like they didn't really want to touch her. after covid there is the whole distance thing. we can't even be up close and personal. her closed were little disheveled, exposing herself. there was no one around her to care for her. she was alone. it was 4:30 in the afternoon in the bank parking lot.

the trauma people are dealing with --who talks to the kids about this, what they had to see? when i see an ambulance in town, i used to think it was gunshots, but now it is an overdose. guest: that is a very powerful image, and one i think many americans across the country have become acquainted with, people on the street, strung out, slumped over, who knows if they are dead or not when you pass by them? one of the key parts is just how powerfully they squelch users' instincts for self-preservation. on the street, you can see this on the street very clearly i think, the matter how cold the

temperatures are, no matter how violent the street life is, no matter how much you are getting beat up, it does not appear the people possess that instinct for self-preservation to get them away from it. i think many people, particularly in cities, smaller towns, and suburbs as well, it becomes almost disheartening. the image that you described is very powerful and part of the american landscape right now. host: we talked about fentanyl. we talked about math. last week -- we talked about meth. last week the white house declared in animal -- an animal

tranquilizer as an emerging threat. what do you know about it? guest: it as a sedative for animals -- it is as sedative for animals. iti has been confined tot that used for many years -- it has been confined to that used for many years. not a lo is known about who are why is doing this. the philadelphia area is a big place that has been hit. it is gradually spreading. what occurred to me and, i am learning along with everyone else, but one of the things people were saying, there were about 4 or 5 toxicologists on

this panel, they said they were still figuring it out. one of the things i found interesting though was it seems like it may have the effect of worsening the withdrawal symptoms when you do not use fentanyl. host: it makes fentanyl worse! guest: the withdrawals, the pain. it may also make it more difficult for you to overdose. if those two are true, and this is in the early stages, so people are groping for answers, it would be a remarkable combination of drugs. it would make it very difficult for you to quit because the withdrawals are so fierce, much more fierce, and you would never die. it would deter overdose in some

cases, so it would make sure you live to become a user. this was the take away some of us had. all of this is up for review. more knowledge, we do not know yet. keeping people from overdosing and making it more difficult for them to quit may be the perfect combination, if you are a trafficker in fentanyl. host: i'm sure we will be talking about it again in the future. let's go to ruth calling from california. ruth, good morning. caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. i have several things i would like to bring up. host: we have five minutes left, so you will have to move fast. caller: ok.

public health issues in general involving guns and their maintenance of the cartel's power, the manufacturing of the guns in the united states, the direction they are moving in, over the border into the maintenance of power using the guns by the cartel. that is not addressed whether the border is "open." guest: i think we have already talked about that. somebody wrotean op-ed column -- wrote an op-ed column in the washington post saying this is a front we need to address in the united states. we are seeing them in these mass murders that happen every 2 weeks now.

i would say the ready flow of guns south is clearly what is giving the trafficking world the impunity with which they have been producing these quantities of drugs that are now all over the country. host: let's talk to lottie in north carolina. caller: i noticed that a lot of white republicans say it is coming from china, then it is coming from mexico. it is like they cannot make up their mind where it is coming from. it is coming from within. if they have meth labs here, crack labs here, why can't they have fentanyl labs here? guest: pardon me, i'm sorry. we don't have anymore meth labs

in this country. the meth coming from mexico has outcompeted any ability locally to make methamphetamine. all of our methamphetamine is coming from mexico because they have enormous access to large quantities of ingredients much cheaper than any local guy can make. basically, this is coming from mexico. host: are there fentanyl labs in the united states? guest: not that i am aware. there may be fentanyl pill presses, but my impression is that -- i don't think there is much confusion about china. initially a lot of it was coming from china, sold online from chemical companies, a relatively small amount. now the mexican trafficking world are getting this stuff and

this is where the supply explodes to national levels. contrary to some of what the speaker said, i think the speaker should have had some humility and said "we blew it too." host: final minutes. is there anything we could or should be doing to stop the fentanyl and meth crisis? guest: i think this provides a golden opportunity for an impressive ended collaboration between the 2 countries involved. regardless of how well you think it could work, we have not tried that ever. i then get is such an emergency, so severe. from crisis crumbs opportunity.

that is -- from crisis comes opportunity. next time mexico sends six cabinet officials to washington, we hope there will be six american cabinet officials to meet them, to develop that connection. it has really never been developed. we could go on for hours about this very topic. now we have an amazing opportunity to develop that kind of relationship with mexico that we have always needed to have, and the situation between the 2 countries requires. host: we would like to thank sam, author of the least of us: true tales of hope. to me, you could go on for hours

about the whole topic. now would be an amazing opportunity to develop that kind of relationship with mexico that we have always needed to have and that the situation between the two countries requires. >> well, we would like to thank sam, author of the least of us. thank you for being here. hope you can join us again soon. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national ble satellite corp. 2023] >> for two weeks in march of 20 23, a former democratic congressman and retired priest went to poland and ukraine to meet with ukrainians who have fled their homes since russia's invasion in february of 2022.

tonight on q&a, the representative and father join us to talk about their trip and share stories about the people and refugee organizations they visited along the way. >> he and his mother knew they needed to leave when they could lie in bed and hear russian troops torturing other neighbors who had thought maybe russians had given away their position to the ukrainians. >> he later told me that his home was firebombed. destroyed completely. he had that on his phone and he showed it to me. so i asked him what he wanted to do and he didn't even hesitate. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> his latest book not accountable is a critique of that reunion. join philip howard sunday, may 7 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span two. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with a meet and greet, speeches and events to make up your own mind. on the c-span network, c-span now, on the video app, or anytime online. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and we are joined by bradley bowman, from the defense of democracy. he is here to discuss the biden administration's report on the 2021 withdrawal from afghanistan. there has been a 12 page summary of this long delayed report made public so far. but is this what you expected after almost two years after the chaos in kabul? guest: the short answer is no. thank you for the opportunity to join. the short answer is no, when you consider our 20 year experience since the september 11 attacks,

the withdrawal clearly did not go as well as we would hope. one report that was really objective and solemn and tried to set partisanship aside and figure out what went wrong so we could avoid repeating some of the same mistakes, this unclassified 12 page summary of a much longer report identified some truths about what happened, but it does feel almost like a campaign document at times than an objective assessment of what happened in the spirit of learning lessons so that we don't repeat some of these horrible mistakes again. host: can you summarize what this summary says and then tell us where you disagree? guest: absolutely. the first two pages -- and again, this is an unclassified summary of a much longer classified document that has been submitted to congress.

it is a result of after action reviews, what in the military we call hot washes. you look at what has been done and go through a methodical process of saying what went well, what didn't go well, how do we do better next time? this isn't a theoretical game. this is a look at what needs to happen because this has life-and-death consequences. in the first two pages, almost all of the first two pages blame the trump administration for mistakes. to be clear, i think a lot of those criticisms are valid. i think there were mistakes made, including the 2020 agreement with the taliban. but there is a sense in the document where they are willing to blame pretty much everyone but president biden himself.

they blame the trump administration, the intelligence community, the military, and even the president's senior staff. there is a lot of blame and i think a lot of that is valid. we can talk about each of those. but in terms of lessons learned, the main lessons are we need to have better planning in advance, which is almost always true, a better handoff between administrations. the criticism is a very important deal was made in the waning months of the trump administration and then little to no coordination with the incoming administration which put the biden administration, they say, with validity, in a tough position. almost implicit is the point i find very true that they needed to make a decision to conduct noncombatant operations sooner. by delaying that decision, they put the military in a horrible position and arguably made the

evacuation worse than it had to be. host: this summary, do we know whether it accurately reflects what is in the document? this is being seen as a political document the white house put out and not a reflection of the actual report. guest: it's a great question. obviously, i have not seen the classified document and if i had, i would not comment on it, but it is a valid question. the only way i can judge that is the responses of people on capitol hill who have viewed them. if you look at the responses of leaders on the armed services committees and foreign affairs committee, you get what you would expect, a lot of anger, i think it's fair to say, from republicans, and a measured response from the democrats. i think it's kind of sad that we are in a space here where you have the two sides of the political divide pointing at

each other and trying to suggest that all of the blame is on the trump administration or all of the blame is on the biden administration. for someone who has spent a long time -- i am an afghan veteran and who do this for a living. all share some blame here. anyone who suggests that any one party or anyone president is solely to blame is hiding the truth and delaying the day we can have an honest accounting and avoid repeating these mistakes. guest: one of the things that came out immediately was the criticism of reporters by national security council spokesman john kirby calling the withdrawal chaotic. i want to show you his comments on this real quickly. here is what john kirby had to say. >> i remember going through all that, and those first few days were very, very tough. they were very hectic.

we were still taking forces and getting them out to the field. we got them there within 48 hours. about 72 hours after that, that airport was basically, for all intents and purposes, american property, surrounded by the taliban and isis-k. so we not only had to run an airport, get the radar up and running, do tower control, have medical screening, security vetting, diplomatic presence on the ground, but also defends the airport from external threats. that's pretty remarkable. for all the talk of chaos, i didn't see it. at one point during the evacuation, there was an aircraft full of people, americans and afghans alike, taking off every 48 minutes. i'm sorry, i don't buy the argument of chaos. it was tough in the first 20 four hours.

you would expect it to be. there was nobody at the airport, certainly no americans. guest: i don't think it's a big stretch to say that in the best of worlds this kind of issue would be chaotic, but it seems like they are being very defensive about how this is being described. guest: i do sense defensiveness. we are in a hyper-partisan environment in washington. but you don't have to look at the video and read for more than five minutes to see that this withdrawal did not go well. when we say it was chaotic, i think it's important to be nuanced here. service members performed incredibly well. i mean, the biden calls it the largest airlift conducted in u.s. history, and they did it in 17 days. he says the 48 number. they conducted 387 flights every

45-48 minutes. that's incredible. think about being one of those marines standing at the gate and you have a flood of humanity, people fleeing for their lives, people desperately wanting freedom, people who worked with us. they no americans are leaving. they are seeing the planes leaving and they want to get on board. in the midst of that, you have suicide bombers who want to kill people. imagine. we know 13 americans paid the ultimate sacrifice at the gate. this is not a lighthearted political discussion for electoral advantage. this is life-and-death stuff. the failure was largely at the leadership level, at the political level, and arguably some of the department level

leadership. but the service members who were put in a horrible position because of the late decisions that launched the evacuation performed heroically and did one of the most impressive retrograde efforts in american military history, and that's saying something. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independence, you can call (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003 and we are always reading on twitter and facebook. let's back up a little bit too before the actual withdrawal.

explain to viewers what the conditions were. what was the withdrawal framework that the trump administration had negotiated with taliban leaders, the doha agreement? how did it constrain the u.s. and was there any room for the biden administration to renegotiate that? guest: that's a great question and i'm glad you asked it. i think you can't have a complete picture of wet -- of what went on if you don't understand the 2020 doha agreement. it was between the trump administration and the taliban. there are three or four criticisms i would make of the agreement that the trump administration negotiated. first and foremost, they excluded the afghan government during negotiations. think about that. how would you like somebody negotiating your life and your future and you are not even at the table? that would stink.

so the negotiations sidelined the afghan government. when the afghan government is not even at the table, you are directly supporting the goals of the taliban, a terrorist organization, which i think was a real mistake. i would have advised the trump administration to not make those negotiations with out demanding that the afghan government be at the table. the taliban agreed not to attack u.s. forces, and not a single american had died in more than a year up to the point when the biden administration was making some of these decisions, but they didn't demand that the taliban stop attacking the afghan government, our allies of 20 years, to protect all these gains for women and girls and other things. that was a mistake. they also agreed to the release of 5000 prisoners, hard core

terrorist prisoners who went back to killing afghan soldiers. in section two of the agreement, the taliban essentially said we want you to break with al qaeda. what we had on september 11 was an al qaeda-taliban safe haven. al qaeda and the taliban remained attached at the hip for 20 years, documented in methodical detail, and during the last few months of the experience, the american experience there, the taliban and al qaeda worked together to achieve battlefield success. they were working together on the battlefield. so the trump administration expectation that they would somehow break up was not based

in reality. you also have the trump administration making erratic announcements about troop levels, home by christmas, withdraw from the state, one week later resend that. trump was talking about inviting the taliban to camp david on the anniversary of 9/11. to be polite, that's a very bad idea. that's the context the biden administration received. it's fair to say the biden administration received a very bad hand from the trump administration exacerbated by the fact that there was very poor coordination during the transition. but the biden administration implied that the president was a passive recipient of this and not a stakeholder who could make decisions of his own. he did make decisions of his own and those decisions were not based on. he sai the buck stops with me, but in all of his statements, including this report, he is

blaming everyone else and not taking responsibility. on august 20, 2020 one, he says what interest do we have in afghanistan at this point with al qaeda gone? we went to afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al qaeda in afghanistan and we did. that was false when he said it and it's certainly false now. if you want good policy, you have to start by ending self-delusion in washington and seeing your adversaries for who they really are. al qaeda was not gone. he said mission accomplished. depending on how you define the mission, the mission was not accomplished. and he made decisions like ending closed air support, and in contract support, which piled on top of the psychological blows the trump administration dealt, making the situation much worse. host: given what they knew about the doha agreement, why did the

biden administration go forth with this? guest: it's a good question because it's a two-part agreement, and based on facts, the taliban was not honoring their part of their agreement, so why were we honoring ours? even the biden administration itself changed the agreement. they can't have it both ways. you can either abide by the agreement or blow it off. the agreement said we would be gone by may. the biden administration didn't leave until the end of august. so they fudged that. then you are going to turn around and say the agreement forced you to do it? the devil didn't make you do it. you tweaked it here, why couldn't you tweak it again? it was an excuse, in my opinion, for the biden administration to do a withdrawal they wanted to do anyway and it's convenient for them to put all of that on the trump administration.

host: bill is calling from buffalo, new york, on the independent line. caller: good morning. we don't talk that the days when reagan spent a billion dollars in afghanistan giving weapons training. we don't talk a 2001 when the american government after 9/11 went to afghanistan and was pounding down the taliban and the other forces, and in december 2001, bush and cheney shut -- the main priority was attacking iraq which cheney said would take two months and $2 billion. here we are 40 years after reagan, trillions of dollars, it's a tragedy. 12 people died helping people, but how many died?

a thousand people died? and we are sitting here talking about mistakes trump made, biden, obama. it was all caused by bush and cheney and ronald reagan and we never discussed that. and our congressmen never, never, never stood up for the constitution. you talk about false information, the whole thing about weapons of mass destruction. my son was in the air force, and in the 1990's, with iraq, the air force was always taken out of iraq because there would be a fighter jet and they would blow it up. everybody made a lot of mistakes, but the main mistake was caused by reagan and bush

junior and cheney. host: thank you for the call and thanks to your son for his service. i am a student of history and i think i understand how we landed where we did in 2001. you actually should go back further than you mentioned in the 1980's. you mentioned the iraq invasion. for sure, that drew attention and resources away from the effort in afghanistan in a way that was unhelpful to the objectives in afghanistan. i don't want to sit here in the safety and comfort of washington and throw blame on everyone. that is hopefully not the tone you are getting from me. i am approaching these issues with humility and respect. but it's not about the next election or who is up or down in politics. it is really trying to understand what happened so that we don't repeat these mistakes.

sadly, there are still terrorists who want to kill us. although we may move on from afghanistan, afghanistan may not be done with us. we know there are roughly 20 u.s. designated terrorist organizations in the afghanistan and pakistan region. the ones most interested in killing americans in our homeland are in that region. while president biden may be right that the terrorist threat is more diverse and diffuse than it was in 2001, the region remains the capital of international terrorism. understanding history is important. two more things to consider, in 2011, the obama administration withdrew from iraq contrary to the situation on the ground and the advice of military commanders, a premature withdrawal based on some of the same motives we saw 10 years later, and what happened? it led to a series of events that led to the isis caliphate and we were forced to return to

fight the isis caliphate. leon panetta, a democrat, said in a forward to a monograph i published in 2020, we should absolutely scrutinize military inventions given the sacrifices and that they are usually much more difficult and longer in duration than we would hope and expect, and we should also bring that same intensity to withdrawals. some interventions are dumb and so are some withdrawals. host: part of this report said to manage the potential threat of a terrorist attack th president repeatedly asked whether theilitary required additional support to carry out their mission. senior military officials confirmed that they had sufficient resources and authorities to mitigate threats, including those posed by isis-k.

whether president biden followed military commanders recommendations wasn't just -- was it just wrong intelligence or were they simply too optimistic? guest: thank you, it's important to be precise here. there are two things going on, the decision whether to withdraw and how you withdraw. do the commanders have what they need to conduct the withdrawal, which is different than what they advised on whether to withdraw. host: ok, let's go back to the phone lines. doug is calling from wilmington, north carolina on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am really enjoying mr. bowman, great guest. to the last caller that called out, with the weapons of mass destruction, it really offended me when bush was giving his

little presentation and somebody asked about weapons of mass destruction and he jokingly looked under the podium. it was so insulting. it really offended me. i don't know if it offended anybody else but i thought it was in very, very poor taste. but i'm so glad this report came out because number one, the withdrawal took place and fox news and everybody else were like biden, biden, biden did this. they emphasized the poor people hanging from that airplane knowing they were going to fall off. but these people don't want to go back. they just want to blame the democrats for something. listen, it was your guy who started drawing down the troops in afghanistan during that time. i know i am repeating what you said, but he negotiated with the taliban, not with the afghanistan government, even though they were corrupt. and then the release of all

those prisoners. i mean, and you are trying to say this is biden's fault? it's the worst thing. and for all these people who keep calling and saying that c-span, i think the greatest talk program in the world, has a bias, shut up. it's not a bias, they allow all opinions on there and all that. let you all have your point of view and all that even though sometimes it might be wrong. anyway, thanks a lot. you have a great day. guest: to be clear, i did not say it is solely biden's fault. i don't know if you are suggesting that. i tried to lay out that there is plenty of blame to go around. the truth is everyone has some culpability. the administrations of both parties have culpability here. if we want to get the truth, we have to recognize that and learn from it, not for an intellectual exercise, again, but to avoid it happening again. host: one of our social media

followers has a question. mr. bowman, do you think afghanistan is another vietnam? why or why not? guest: it depends on what you mean by another vietnam. if you're talking about those images of americans fleeing from the embassy via helicopters and transposing those with the images of the united states aircraft leaving the hamid karzai airport in kabul and people hanging from those aircraft in the sense of desperation i talked about earlier, there is a similar field to those things. there is no doubt that america's adversaries, namely the people's republic of china, are trying to use those images to great effect. in fact, the chinese foreign ministry put out the image of that american aircraft of parting and people hanging onto it, and right next to it put an aircraft of china flying into

afghanistan with humanitarian aid, which is quite ironic, right? because who has given more in money, lives, and treasure to the people of afghanistan in the last 20 years than the united states? but here is china using that to say look, america is a country in decline, a power in decline, unreliable. we are reliable. we are going to be here for you. it's just another example of how when we make these decisions, the consequences are not isolated to a particular region or country. the world is watching. i suspect vladimir putin was watching and looking at the withdrawal and saying what does this tell me about washington? what does this tell me about the leaders there and what may be i can get away with in ukraine? undoubtedly beijing is watching. tehran is watching. pyongyang is watching. it's difficult to prove these things, but perceptions of our strength and political will have very real ramifications in places like the taiwan strait,

the middle east, the korean peninsula, and elsewhere. host: calling from orlando florida on the republican line, michael, good morning. caller: hello. appreciate you very much. one of the things i hear from the independence and the democrat is looking back 40 years. i understand it's an important point to make. we have hardware and military goods on the field and now afghan is stan -- afghanistan is the second largest arms dealer in the world. do you think if we had not withdrawn or withdrawn in a more orderly fashion that putin may or may not have invaded ukraine? and since you are airing things, do you think the ukraine war going on -- should we support

them earlier than we have and is a lot of the money we are spending, is it being spent well and are we fighting to win there? thank you for taking my call. guest: there is a lot there and i will try to answer it quickly, with your permission. as far as arms, we had a 20 year campaign where we trained thousands of afghan forces and gave them billions of dollars of equipment. there are a lot of headlines being thrown around that are not quite precise. we see the $7 billion number cited in the white house daily briefing. admiral kirby kind of resisted it and said it's not accurate. the distinction here, the nuance, is that the equipment that was in american custody was

left behind. it's relatively small and the department of defense claims it was decommissioned in a way before we left so that most of it could not be used by the taliban. but over year -- over the 20 year campaign, we gave billions of dollars of equipment to afghan forces, and when those afghan forces collapsed, obviously the taliban got all that equipment. a lot of weapons, a lot of ammunition. so when you look at these headlines, you have to distinguish between equipment that was an american control and equipment given to afghan forces, and obviously when they collapsed, the taliban got a lot of that. some of that has been showing up in a variety of places far afield. it's horrible to think about, but it's a reality, a consequence of the decision to withdraw and how poorly it was conducted. you talk about putin. let a mere putin is a predator.

i think that's clear. -- vladimir putin is a predator. i think that's clear. he invaded georgia, crimea. and of course we have this massive invasion in february of last year, the largest invasion in europe since world war ii, unprovoked. he likes to blame and some of his folks in the united states repeating kremlin talking points try to blame nato for that. as i like to say and have said on the show in the past, i think the real reason putin doesn't like the nato argument is that once a country like finland becomes a member of nato, he can no longer bully and coerce them at no cost. he knows nato is not an offensive threat. it's a collective defense

alliance. there is no threat to russia. it's not napoleon. it's not nazi germany. russia needs to respect its neighbors and respect borders. and in 30 seconds or less, i think the biden administration was slow in starting support for ukraine. they lost valuable time. secretary blinken was mourning the previous year that the invasion could happen. but once they started to move, the biden administration has moved heaven and earth in one of the most impressive security operations in american history to support ukraine and ukraine exists today for two reasons, the bravery of the ukrainian people and american-led security assistance joined by our european allies. that is a fact. it's a good thing. they are not asking us to fight for them. they are asking for a means to

defend themselves against unprovoked invasion and i think withdrawing support would be a big mistake and beijing would be watching if we did that. host: amy on the independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. let's hope that what happened in afghanistan with us giving all that military equipment to them doesn't repeat itself in ukraine. and the same thing with saudi arabia. trump gave them a bunch of ribbons -- weapons right before he left office and now they are aligning -- i really hope that we can learn our lessons. regarding the afghanistan withdrawal, i really feel like biden is getting all the blame

dumped on him even though it was a campaign promise of his. he said we will be leaving afghanistan. when he got into office in early 2021, he stood firm on that. as early as april he made a formal announcement. and he caught a lot of flak from republicans and even democrats that i guess have donors in the industry. i remember biden was taking nothing but flak in the spring about the upcoming afghanistan withdrawal and i feel like the people who got left there, they had six months to leave, but i really think that they thought

biden was going to cave like every president before him and that we would just stay in afghanistan, keep putting money there, spending on weapons, and that the gravy train would just keep flowing. guest: there is a lot there. i wish i had time to respond to all of it. a general comment on american arms. the united states is the leading provider of arms internationally, no doubt. it's not even a close race. think about this a little bit. when we have allies and partners on the frontiers of freedom, if you will, we want them to be as capable as possible. you have to have american forces there doing the deterrence or you have to have allies and partners going in. the more effectively armed they are, the more of a security bird

and they can take on our behalf. so often the same people are criticizing our allies and partners for not doing more, but you can't have it both ways. if you want them to be effective and work well with us, you have to give them the means to do it. that's easier said than done sometimes, especially when you're talking about a war zone. i think we need to bring a more nuanced approach to this conversation. host: there are going to be two hearings on this issue. do you expect to hear anything new? guest: i think the main thing to watch now that you have a republican majority in the house of representatives, they have

subpoena power they didn't have when they were in the minority. they have been asking for some things for some time. you're going to have republicans reading from classified documents, seeing things there they think the public might want to know about, and i expect they are going to be pushing to have some of that declassified. as somebody who had a security clearance for a long time, i will just make a general comment that there is sometimes a practice to classify things that are not at all about protecting sources and methods but are about protecting a particular administration from political embarrassment. i am not saying that is happening here, but if it were, it would not be the first time. guest: let's -- host: let's talk to nancy calling from bowling green, kentucky, on the independent line. caller: good morning. sir, you speak so well.

oh my gosh. i love how you speak. i don't think that we have to understand that country is not americans. number one. they don't have our thoughts, our values. i could not believe how cowardly these people were. unfortunately, we can't teach bravery. and courage. and standing up for the right thing. we can't teach those things. those things have to come within us. ever us -- and for us to think we can go into a country and give them everything that we believe and stand for, i could not believe how cowardly these men were, that they threw down their weapons. they should have been training those women to defend that country because they had more skin in the game. they had children. and i just can't believe how

cowardly these men were. guest: thank you for the call. i want to respond to four elements that i think our fundamental issues if i may. you said they are not american. afghans are not american, for sure. kind of implying that they want different things. certainly, they do want different things. they have a different history, different geography, different culture, different language, but i am a little old-fashioned in believing that generally speaking people everywhere would rather be free. and they would rather not have their women stoned in soccer stadiums because they didn't wear the right clothing item or they said the wrong thing. i'm a bit of a universalist on that. i think some things are right or wrong wherever you are. that's not about me going in and imposing it by force. i'm just making a general comment that all things being equal, a government for and by the people is better than

religious totalitarianism in the form of the taliban. and then the cowardly comment. as someone who studied this for many, many years, i would really encourage you to avoid words like that because tens of thousands of afghans fought and died for their country. that's a fact. tens of thousands paid the ultimate sacrifice, far more than americans died, and some were fighting up to the very end, particularly in the south. is it disappointing that afghan security forces collapsed after all of that money and training? absolutely. is there plenty of blame there? absolutely. but it's also true that tens of thousands fought for their country and pay the ultimate sacrifice, and some did it until the very end. if i were a family member of an afghan who was fighting bravely until 2021, i would not appreciate the word cowardly. host: unfortunately, we are out

of time. we want to thank brad bowman for coming to discuss the biden administration's report on the withdrawal from afghanistan. coming up next, we are going to move to open forum, where you our viewers can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. you see the numbers on the screen. start calling now and we will be right back. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate return. the house will vote to override president biden's toe -- veto of the repeal of the clean water rule. the senate will resume work on extending aid to local fire departments. on tuesday, alejandra majorca

testifies before the senate homeland security committee on the departments budget. on wednesday, lisa monaco appears on holding russia responsible for the war on -- in ukraine. and then the secretary of labor appears before the senate health committee. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our free mobile app. had to c-span.org for schedule information. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> book tv every weekend on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest books. university of baltimore law professor daniel hatcher argues that the u.s. justice system has turned the poor and children into commodities. on afterwards, the book fool me

once examines rising crisis -- cases of fraud in the u.s. and explores the motivations for committing white-collar crime. watch book tv every weekend on c-span two and find a full schedule in our program guide. go online and watch any time at c-span.org. >> listening to programs on c-span through c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker play c-span radio and listen to washington journal daily at 7 a.m. eastern, important congressional hearings and other public events throughout the day, and weekdays at 5:00 and 9:00 p.m., catch washington today for a fast-paced report of the stories of the day. tell your smart speaker to play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable.

>> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. this is the start of our open forum segment where you, our viewers can call in and talk about your most important political topic of the day. we are going to use our regular lines. that means republicans you can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, your line is (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, twitter and facebook. let's jump right into it and start with april who is calling from rock island, illinois, on the republican line. good morning. caller: how are you? host: doing great. go ahead. caller: well, i just wanted to

make a couple of comments about what you have been talking about on afghanistan and wars and stuff like that. you know, trying to get us out of all the wars, we got rid of isis in syria and like a year. it makes me mad when i hear people talk about iraq because we gave saddam hussein 17 months to get his weapons out of there. and we found mass graves and chemical, people with chemicals all over the country. so he did have them. as far as afghanistan goes, trump was not going to get out of there unless the taliban was going to do what they said they were going to do and we just go

right back in, you know. host: i think we lost april. let's go to emily calling from vermont on the democratic line. good morning. are you there? emily? are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: you can hear me? host: we can. caller: ok -- host: i don't think emily's line is working, so we will try chuck who is calling from virginia on the independent line. good morning. caller: i would like to know how many of our supreme court judges get to take a half-million dollar vacation. hello? host: we can hear you, chuck.

go ahead. caller: when donald trump's taxes came up between the supreme court, there was one vote to keep his taxes secret, and we know who that was. i thought it was probably because of his wife and all that she did. i didn't know it was about him selling land and his mom living there and the vacations. he is so corrupt. he should not be in the supreme court. host: let's go to francis calling from new jersey on the republican line. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: doing great. go ahead. caller: somebody was talking

about the most important thing congress should work on. with all the hush-money payments and this and that, the 1997 congress allocated close to $19 million into a slush fund to pay off hush money for violations to congressional -- that congressional people did to other people, sexual harassment and all of that. i think all of that should be released, not the names of the people, but the names of the congressional members and the amount of money that was paid to hush people up using our money. trump used his own money. i want to find out the congressional people using our money to silence people. ok? host: ok. let's talk to dorothy who is calling from canada on the

independent line. good morning. caller: still there? host: you are here. caller: ok, listen, i have never watched c-span before. i have to commend you especially for bringing on the kind of bull you just brought on. the last two speakers -- kind of people you just brought on. the last two speakers educated me more than anything. i am very interested in the american people and the american way of life, but from a canadian perspective, i see no dialogue happening between the two. the left or the right. these people brought up education. it's so important to educate people so they understand historically what is happening in their country so that you have dialogue and move forward instead of this left and right, left and right. i have to tell you, i love this

program. your program is amazing. i hope more people watch it. i hope more people listen to it. i hope more people understand what you are trying to do because it's very commendable. host: always great to know we have another c-span fan, but don't thank me. thank all of the wonderful producers and directors who schedule these guests and come up with these segments for the show. i just get to sit here and use their information and bring it to you, but it's always great to know there is another c-span fan out there. please join us every morning from 7:00 a.m.-10 :00 a.m. on washington journal. let's talk to frank who is calling from kentucky and the democratic line. good morning. caller: so recently, ex president trump was advocating that teachers be armed in school. i have a phd in education. i have been a teacher for 35

years. let me tell you, arming teachers is a bad idea. teachers don't have the training to carry arms. their student -- if students can steal an exam for teachers desk, imagine what they could steal if they are armed with loaded guns? where would a teacher keep a gun? in their pocket or purse? in a locked vault? who would have the combination for the vault? it's a bad idea to have a criminally indicted ex-president advising us how to keep our children safe. host: i will tell you that both of my parents are retired public school teachers in mississippi and tennessee and neither one of them would have liked the idea of having to be armed in their classroom. i am a college professor now and i will tell you i do not want to take a gun into my classroom either. let's go to june calling from california on the republican

line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would just like to say i have become so cynical on this political sewer we have in this country now that 90% of republicans and democrats are lying 90% of the time to the american public and it's a shame. thank you. host: let's go to stephen calling from scottsdale, arizona on the independent line. stephen, are you there? one more time, stephen, are you there? let's try melvin calling from south carolina. how are you doing? caller: enjoying it, living the dream. a couple of things speaking of

south carolina, that balloon was shot down in our state. people try to pretend it didn't happen, but it did. that's a quick topic area and that air force guy talking about the documents, those are the things we need to be talking about. people go to the store and purchase all the bullets. for what? if you want to shoot the balloons down. the afghanistan thing, they had plenty of time to get out of there. if you are silly enough to get on the plane, what do you want the plane to do, stop and pick people up? host: let's go to teresa calling from alexandria, kentucky, on the republican line.

caller: good morning. i would like to talk about the sentinel crisis -- fentanyl crisis. yes, it has been going on for decades, but at least trump built a wall. it is harder to get across the wall. trump did engage the mexican government in trying to control the border crisis by having stay in mexico. when biden came in the first thing he did was undo everything trump did. i don't think it's a solid political move to just cancel trump and start over and now we have a major border crisis and fentanyl crisis. host: let's go to tim on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. love the bow tie.

your previous guest left out a few things about afghanistan. i think they stopped payments to the soldiers before they left. and karzai filled a helicopter with millions of dollars before he left. nobody ever suggested leaving the bagram air base. biden's new name could be the surrenderer in chief. he surrendered the southern border to cartels. he surrendered the bagram air base to china. he surrendered afghan and millions of dollars worth of weapons to the taliban. he surrendered women's sports to the fascist trans plan that wants to destroy what it means to be a woman. my top story though is mccarthy needs a committee on -- every

republican needs to head a committee on all these things that are going wrong. we need to impeach biden and his crew and we need to stop giving away our sovereignty to the new world order that biden wants and china. host: i just have to say that my bow this morning was chosen by my george washington university students, some of whom have joined me this morning for washington journal and are watching from backstage right now. they chose the bow tie for me. thank you for showing up this morning. really quickly, we want to remind you that on monday, the house judiciary committee meets in new york city to discuss violent crime in the prosecutorial policies of manhattan district attorney alvin bragg. you can watch live coverage beginning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at

c-span.org. let's see if we can get a couple more collars in. let's go to glenn calling from madison, illinois, on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning, jesse. let's get something about these ar's. let's make a three shot limit on the magazine. get rid of all the 50 and 100 clips. host: go ahead. caller: get rid of the magazines and make it a $20,000 fine if you are caught with one. host: all right, let's go to david calling from maryland on

the republican line. caller: the thing i want to say is that i think all of these issues are tied together. we see people looking at guns, regulating guns and bullets. as far as the drug crisis, they are trying to look at the drugs, what is coming in, the designer drugs coming in. the reality is, it's a cultural issue, tied to our culture and how people deal with the stress of the environment by using alcohol and drugs to deal with the state of affairs. host: unfortunately, we are going to run out of time. we would like to thank all of our guests, all of our viewers, and all of our social media followers for joining us for

another washington journal. continue to wash your hands and stay safe. have a great sunday. [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]