Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 01312022  CSPAN  January 31, 2022 6:59am-10:05am EST

6:59 am
affordable internet. bridging the digital divide, one connection and engaged student at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> get c-span on the go. watch the days biggest political events live or on-demand, anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app. c-span now. access top highlights. listen to radio and discover new podcasts free. download c-span now, today. >> coming up this morning on washington journal, paul kane of the washington post talks about what to expect in congress this week. then, a conversation on the tensions between russia and ukraine. our guest is tariq cop -- tara
7:00 am
cop. also, james bovard discusses covid-19 testing. washington journal is next. ♪ host: it's "washington journal," for the last day of january. the united states is a vector to square off against russia later today at united nation security council over ukraine. you can see that at 8:00 on c-span two, c-span.org, and the c-span now app. to start off this morning we want to hear from current and former members of the military about the potential conflict and ukraine, what it could mean for u.s. troops. if you are an active member of the military and want to give us your perspective, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call.
7:01 am
if you have previously served or retired, (202) 748-8001. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook and on twitter as well, facebook.com/c-span is how you do that. twitter is @cspanwj. the united states security council meeting that you can see later today will feature at least the first direct discussions between the u.s. ambassador and those in russia about actions in ukraine. the associated press reporting that linda thomas-greenfield said the russian actions pose a clear threat to international peace and security in the u.n. charter and councilmembers must clearly examine the facts and examine what is at stake for russia, ukraine, europe, the core obligations and principles should russia further invade, she said thursday, announcing the meeting. you can see that at 8:00 tonight
7:02 am
on our c-span two channel and you can also watch for it at c-span.org and view it on the c-span now radio app. it was friday where the defense secretary held a press conference talking about the actions of ukraine, particularly the concerns over russia and what has been going on as far as the border. from the event last friday he talked about that possible russian buildup. here's a portion of that from friday. [video clip] >> as we look at matt -- look at that amount of troops and hardware in the region, it far exceeds what we typically see them do for, for exercises. so, it's very concerning. where this could lead us in terms of a type of conflict or where it could put the region in terms of, you know, future activities, i won't bother to
7:03 am
speculate on that. i would just say that we are focused on making sure that we do our part to provide the president options to support and reinforce nato if, in fact, he does make a decision to invade ukraine. so. >> does it feel different? sure it feels different. in terms of what we have seen in the past in terms of russian exercises, this is larger in scale and scope and amassing of forces than anything we have seen in recent memory and he would have to go back quite a while into the cold war days to see something of this magnitude. they do annual exercises that we watch closely but this is different and we will continue to monitor it closely but yes, it does feel different. host: that full event at
7:04 am
c-span.org and if you want to see the comments, you can see it there. if you are a military member, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call to give us your perspective on russia ukraine. if you have prior military service, call us at (202) 748-8001. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. the hill this morning, taking a look at the biden administration in the decisions it has to make, the commander-in-chief must also account for domestic politics characterized by rare i partisan support for a free ukraine and deposit -- public hesitance to be caught up in another conflict following the disastrous end to the 20 year war in afghanistan and that could factor into the decisions biden ultimately makes as he looks to manage the unfolding crisis and according to experts i do think generally there is a disinterest in fighting another war, the story
7:05 am
citing that for example only 31% of likely american voters said that they think u.s. forces should be sent of russia attacks ukraine according to the rasmussen reports released last wednesday and on the sunday shows yesterday it was the former defense secretary of the obama administration leon panetta talking to greta van susteren about events in russia and getting perspective on what it could mean for u.s. forces involved. we will show you that in a bit. again if you want to call and let us know your thinking you can post on our twitter feed and you can also post on facebook as well if you want to give your comments there. a couple of other perspectives according to the post, it talks about the countries surrounding russia and ukraine and how they viewing the potential for conflict. this is from the front section of the post saying that the kremlin is attempting to ask
7:06 am
lloyd ukraine with propaganda that accuses the ukrainian government of oppressing russian speakers but many in host: on panetta on potential conflict in the you rain and what it could mean for the u.s. [video clip] >> i'm not so sure that sanctions are the issue that is going to turn this around. you know? look, i think there are some heavy sanctions that can be applied against russia. there are some steps that will
7:07 am
hurt them in terms of international banking and new technologies, cell phones and ships that could impact their economy. but i think this comes down still to a military issue. i think that what will persuade putin is whether or not if he engages in war, he could get a black eye and one things -- one thing bullies don't like to do is get a blackeye. that is where our strongest leverage is. supplying weapons to the ukrainians, moving forces up into nato, deploying aircraft and ships, that's the most important deterrent we have right now with regards to russia. >> with that mean that our men and women would be involved in actual fighting or would it dna support capacity? >> i'm sure that the president is i'm sure
7:08 am
thinking of them in a support capacity but let's face it right now there are u.s. military advisers in the ukraine working with the ukrainians to try to develop their capabilities and so, you know, if something happens, there's no question that u.s. lives are also going to be at stake here. host: again, that's the former defense secretary leon panetta. politico europe gives the perspective of some of the other countries and how they are viewing a potential conflict in ukraine, reporting that russia has sent thousands of troops to belarus but that their authoritarian leaders set on friday that there were -- there will only be war if aggression is committed against them or their ally, russia and that they will defend the sacred land together
7:09 am
host: citing that the worry that those forces plus 100,000 russian soldiers gathered around ukraine will be watched and if russia doesn't succeed in the demand to reshape european security relationships and give it a sphere of influence over eastern europe. if you are an active member of the military or perhaps a former military and you served previously, we are getting your perspective this morning. (202) 748-8000 for active-duty members and (202) 748-8002 for those with -- and (202) 748-8001 for those with prior military service. joel, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. how you doing today? host: well, thanks. go ahead. guest: well this mess over there, we have no reason to
7:10 am
participate in this. even the germans don't want to participate in this. having served in the cold war from 1961 to 1964 in europe, we were, we were defending our country at that time because we was against russia. but today, this mess is not ours. we cannot afford this. we don't have the oil now. the fuel prices will go up here. i just would like to say one more thing and close. host: before you go there, you said we don't have an involvement but is there a concern over what might happen over those other eastern european nations of russia invades and ultimately does that become a u.s. issue? caller: i appreciate that question. that is the same thing be said when we got into vietnam and we was, we was worried about what
7:11 am
was going to be the domino effect. and what we did to south vietnam when we signed the peace treaty, we promised them, when we got the south vietnamese to the sign on, we promised if they were ever fired on or if there was firing on the north vietnamese, nixon promised them we would take the troops home and replace every helicopter and every tank that we had to, but the demorats was in charge and they defunded the money from the south vietnamese and we see what happened to the south vietnamese. so we don't need to be in this mess and thank you for taking my call, sir. host: joel, their, former member of the military. clark of jupiter, florida, hello, you are next. caller: how are you doing?
7:12 am
am i speaking to the host? host: you are on the air, you are former military? caller: yes, navy, 69 through 72. i was in listed military. even though i was in college, i went ahead and joined in that time. i did not get a deferment. so, this is very upsetting that people don't take the military serious anymore because of this politicization of the military. we want the military to be nonpolitical. we want them to protect our homeland. i want the military to be caring about all of the other military in the united states. we have five, now six branches at every v.a. hospital i go to. i see that people are trying to be caring about things, but we have many military members that have died recently in
7:13 am
afghanistan and also in a rack and other conflicts around the world. host: the current issues around russia and ukraine, what do you think about those as far as u.s. involvement? caller: he's trying to rebuild the ussr, would every name you want to put on it. the countries who are scared of belarus and russian military, just like in the second world war. host: you are saying there is a u.s. role? caller: to defend europe. it's really easy like how hitler's went into spain or italy, they say they aren't going to do anything but than they did something. we don't need to play the role of chamberlain in the u.k. and come back and say vladimir
7:14 am
putin, he's going to be peaceful. all you have to do is look at crimea. he wasn't peaceful and he isn't peaceful. but the military needs to help join nato in an aggressive, strong way. host: that was clark and jupiter, florida. this, i will be upset to lose my life or become injured in this. joe, north carolina sing isolate russia, make putin blink, avoid a war. you have heard former members of the military and you can call us on that front if you wish and text us if you wish it if you are an active member of the military, give us a call as well . anthony is next. anthony in sierra vista, arizona, former member of the military.
7:15 am
anthony, go ahead. caller: good morning, team members. i want to give a shout out to major general anthony hill, commander of the united states army intelligence center, excellence, one of the finest officers our nation has ever produced. my comment is, i'm a use two words. pray and prey. the reason i use those two words is, i have a quote. the prey only fears the predator when pursued. a dog needs to be careful when it chases a car because it just might catch that bumper. this week we have the air force thunderbirds here doing training and i want to give a shout out to them and thank them for demonstrations of america's
7:16 am
pursuits. host: so what do you think the appropriate role for the u.s. is in a response? are you former military? caller: yes. host: from a former military perspective, what would be your perspective on that? guest: we -- caller: we must stand up to any predator. we cannot be there pray. -- prey. their prey. host: let's hear from jose in lincoln, alaska. former military, good morning. jose in lincoln, nebraska, good morning. we will try one more time. ok, again if you want to give us a call and are an active member of the military, (202) 748-8000.
7:17 am
if you are a former member of the military, (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. if you want to give your post on our social media sites, facebook dots facebook/com -- facebook .com/c-span. gary off the facebook page identifies himself as a cold war retiree saying that when it comes to that, deterrence is an appropriate response to what's going on. smokey on the facebook page has let them fight their own battle. john keeley says to fend -- send folks to train the ukrainian military. send supplies and intelligence support. combat and air support, sanction officials in russia if they invade. when it comes to the diplomatic approach, that is the perspective of russia and ukraine. it was the sunday shows yesterday where the ukrainian
7:18 am
ambassador to the u.s. was on the program and asked about reports of the frictions between the u.s. and ukraine and here is some of the perspective that she gave yesterday. [video clip] >> mark milley says he hasn't seen a build up like this since the cold war and that the impact would be horrific. president zelensky stood up and said russia may simply be applying psychological pressure. why is your president downplaying the risk. >> we are not something the risk. we know what russia is capable of, they have attacked us already and for eight years we have been at war and have defended our country. at the same time to defend our country, we have to get ready, all of us. not only are military, our very
7:19 am
capable military and veterans, but all civilians. so, we know and we see what's going on. this is the reality with which we lived for eight years. the reality of recent escalations since april. so, we monitor it, we assess it. we share the information with our friends and allies and are very grateful for the united states and their strong relations and response. >> but he said i cannot be like other politicians were grateful to the united states just for being the united states. it sounds a lot like there is some friction here. >> there is no friction. look, we can have discussions and a difference of opinion but the united states is our strategic partner in strategic friend. our relations over the last year have been at the highest level
7:20 am
ever, i would say, in 30 years. host: that was from the sunday shows, getting that perspective from you active and former military members on russia and ukraine and don't forget later today it's the u.s. security council where diplomats will be around that table talking about the events and you can see that at 8:00 this evening. watch it on c-span two or c-span.org and our c-span now app if you want to monitor what goes on later on this evening. let's hear from braun in macon, georgia, former military, go ahead. morning, you are on. caller: i believe that putin, china, north korea, they are trying to undermine our democracy from within, to get us to fight against one another within an have all kinds of controversial issues between biden and trump and obama and
7:21 am
bush and we should support the president of the united states as long as he's doing what's godly and what's right and we need to be very careful about ukraine. as we support sovereign nations as they seek to be a democratic nation, we need to be very diplomatic and understand that as we risk the lives of america's so -- america's soldiers and airmen, we need to be careful and diligent in what we say and not just go headlong into these conflicts. however, if it comes to a fight, we must have the heart and mind to fight, as we have always had in this country. not to go at it halfheartedly. just like we did with desert storm, desert shield, if necessary to fight. host: i was going to say, in
7:22 am
your mind what justifies a military involvement involving u.s. forces supporting nato. what justifies that? caller: i don't know, i can't say, i don't really have the kind of expertise. i just know that we need to be steadfast in whatever position we take. not playing political games. host: let's hear from on. hello -- owen. hello. caller: good morning. ukraine is not a member of nato. we have treaty obligations as being a member of nato to other countries who are a part of nato . our business is not in ukraine. period. host: if that does happen does it become a u.s. problem? caller: it becomes a u.s.
7:23 am
problem if a nato member is attacked. host: to the point that the president has already put 8500 troops on high alert, do you think that was the right decision by the president to do that? caller: his public intent is to send those troops to nato members on the flanks of the ukraine situation. not to ukraine. that is an appropriate response. host: ok. we will go to jerry in nebraska. hello. caller: yes i was in germany in the 1970's. the troops being a big deal, the job over there was to track soviet troop movements and they would move troops into east germany and czechoslovakia all
7:24 am
the time and we done the same thing. we had an exercise where we would bring thousands of troops over to train with nato forces for 30 days. it's just not -- i don't think this is that big a deal. thank you. host: so you are ok with the stance the u.s. is currently taking on russia and ukraine? caller: well, i think a lot of this that biden is doing is to take the notice off of our domestic problems. now it's all you see in the news is ukraine, ukraine, ukraine. the old soviet union used to do that all the time, send troops into east germany and czechoslovakia. especially when we were doing our exercises. host: for the actions of the
7:25 am
russians along the ukrainian border, do you view those as a serious threat to be considered? caller: i think he's just, i think he's just pushing his power. i don't, i don't really believe he's going to invade ukraine. there's too much for him to lose . he's got us over a barrel right now. he can set there and we are jockeying around in our oil prices are going up, our economy is going down the tubes. he's doing what he wants done already. host: then what do you think he has to lose, then? caller: he has nothing to lose. he can just set there on that border forever and oil prices will keep going up in germany will let him finish nord stream 2 bang. -- nord stream 2. he will be selling that oil at a higher price and make aliens. host: all right, we will hear
7:26 am
from joe in single -- signal mountain, tennessee. caller: i got a solution to the problem. all of these illegal flights, the illegals coming across the border, they need to start sending them to ukraine and they can teach the illegals how to fight. host: let's stick to the current situation. what do you think the appropriate u.s. response should be to the buildup on the border? caller: get more people to help ukraine, send the illegals over there and give them a place to get establish and teach them how to fight and they could say i fought for this place so i can stay here in get all my kids in school. get all the free help i need. host: ok. that's joe in signal mountain. ross, adding this thought, we already sent arms and aid to ukraine, former president obama made that pact, let the ukrainians fight their own work.
7:27 am
identifies himself as a vietnam veteran from 1968. janice from sibert oh, louisiana. former military member. hello. caller: hello. i was a member of a civilian group who went into the military for a while. war with russia over ukraine, absolutely not. russia wants to be less communist, more socialist like europe. socialism is not, is not communism. people have got to get over that. we all need to get along. host: so, what do you think about the current stance we are taking towards those actions there in russia?
7:28 am
caller: i think we had got to be awfully careful, that's all i know. we need to get along with russia and i think that russia wants to get along with us, too. the main problem is that ukraine , they want more money for russia to pay a couple of ships for trade and the black sea in order to get to the mediterranean. that's what they want. and they want to become more like europe and a more socialistic like europe. it's working in europe beautifully. host: how would you characterize the buildup then? caller: many and ukraine want to
7:29 am
be a part of russia and russia is reacting but we cannot sucked in to ukraine by this man who is in charge of ukraine who wants more money from russia just to have a couple of ships in the black sea. the man in charge is trying to suck us into scaring russia. host: this headline from "the post," from david stern and robin dixon, a full-scale russian attack if it reaches the urban centers will be horrific and terrible. zielinski has said repeatedly that he doesn't think that the result is imminent and that the anxiety over the attack is growing but
7:30 am
host: larry, caller: my call. ukraine is a sovereign country. russia, first while they are going to attack because economically they would destroy russia. russia is not in the best state right now it all. vladimir putin is trying to get
7:31 am
the united states to take up sanctions and just trying to have his way. it's a reflection on how his economy is going. like i said, i was in desert storm, desert seal, i was -- i have a daughter that was in the last war. what the states need to do is send equipment over there. i've got a cousin at fort bragg on hold. they not going to ukraine. but that is where they should send them. russia's got stuff in ukraine. you know? you send united states over there. you send equipment over there. russia would not attack ukraine with the united states over there. all these other people saying that, they won't do it. host: what convinces you of that? caller: if they take ukraine with united states citizens, that's a problem.
7:32 am
that's a problem. just like what happened in syria when they had to attack those stuff and they had those mercenaries from russia. russia started saying no, no, that's just people that went over there. they would not attack ukraine with united states soldiers on the soil. they do not want that problem. they do not want that problem. host: let's hear from john on the line for former military. hampton, virginia. sorry, i think i pushed the wrong button. julian, good morning. caller: how are you? host: well, go ahead. caller: the russians have military equipment over there already. if a war starts, this thing could quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange. nobody is talking about that. if that happens, to me that
7:33 am
would be the end of the whole world. fox news bears a responsibility for that. they talk about biden 24 hours a day, belittling him and berating him. 24 hours a day. host: back to russia, you are saying that as far as current involvement, what should it be? caller: what should it be? it shouldn't be anything but it's going to happen. and when it happens it could escalate into a nuclear exchange m saying and fox news berates the commander-in-chief 24 hours per day and it makes him look small, makes him look small to russia. they are partially responsible for this thing. host: john, hampton, virginia, hello. caller: i believe that ukraine
7:34 am
has a population of about 3 million, 4 million. we shouldn't send any u.s. forces into ukraine until every available 15 to 40-year-old person in ukraine picks up a weapon. what are we going in there for? we fighting for their democracy? we need to fight for american democracy here. when domestic terrorists attacked the united states capital, that's the democracy we should be protecting. host: what you are currently saying is that we should not be sending forces into ukraine? caller: i mean i served in berlin, germany. we went to the czechoslovakian border. i was a combat engineer. we went to denmark and i just don't see any american forces going to die for ukraine with 3 million people to 4 million people that won't die for themselves. we have died all over the world
7:35 am
for other people's democracy when terrorists attacked the capital and we had police officers die right here. host: ok that is john in hampton, virginia. we are opening it up now. if you are former military you are still welcome to call in but we will be changing the lines to bring more of you into the conversation if you want to talk about the appropriate u.s. response to russia and ukraine. democrats, it's (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8001 --(202) 748-8002. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. as we are taking those calls we will let you hear from the nato secretary who spoke at in event last week in washington, d.c. at the atlantic council to talk about why russia should take
7:36 am
nato seriously considering their current actions. here is a part of the interview from friday. [video clip] >> in 2014 they were not willing to deter a partner and vladimir putin saw that and he knows now that there is not a willingness to use force to stop him. why should he take nato seriously now? >> we are there to protect our allies and we have demonstrated once again our commitment and readiness and those capabilities to defend and deter an attack against nato allies so i'm absolutely certain that they take nato very seriously when it comes to our ability to protect and defend allies.
7:37 am
we demonstrate that every day. when it comes to ukraine, i'm certain that russia understands they will have to pay a high price. after they use that force against ukraine in 2014 we imposed severe sanctions on ukraine and we stepped up our support for sanctions on russia of the use of force against ukraine, broadening some work to ukraine, increasing the presence in the eastern part of the alliance. so, if russia wants less nato at the borders, they have achieved exactly the opposite and are using it for gain against ukraine, achieving even more nato at their borders.
7:38 am
host: that was the nato secretary-general and you can still find that interview on c-span.org. on the remainder of our lines we will be discussing nato, ukraine, u.s. military involvement in what's appropriate. republicans, (202) 748-8000 -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. this editorial on a hybrid war, ukrainian security services reported hundreds of fake thought -- fake bombing threats this year, bringing down it ukrainian government websites with a message on one site saying be afraid, expect worse, he believes the attack was carried out by , calculating --
7:39 am
four interest in the un security council viewing on what happens later this evening, 8:00 is when the meeting is set to take place and you can see it on the channel, c-span2, watch it on c-span.org or the c-span now app. regarding the appropriate russia ukraine response, jim you are up first. go ahead. caller:6 thank you for having me on, it was easy to get through this time. normally i'm a republican but i'm tired of the politics and i'm just going to vote for who's right.
7:40 am
on the russia thing, i was in the military. i retired from the air force. i was in europe when the wall came down, when they pulled out missiles. what's going on right now, reagan would probably roll over in his grave, what's happening. i was in bosnia with the russian military and they came into the same chow hall with loaded weapons just like we had. you know? we are going back-and-forth and we don't need to be at our worst. we need to be careful, but we need to show something. also, i was up in alaska at two remote sites with alert aircraft. i've seen, when we shut those bases down, the bombers were still coming over into our airspace. we need to be careful about this.
7:41 am
host: maureen, new hampshire, go ahead. caller: i'm just wondering, when this first started to escalate was brought up that when russia left ukraine, they left several, if not many, atomic bombs, atomic weapons behind. and that we assured them, the ukrainians, that we would guarantee their sovereignty. now you don't hear anything about that anymore. at least i haven't lately. i just wonder why this isn't being brought up anymore. host: as far as the current situation, what do you think about those events and what the response should be? caller: we should stick to the
7:42 am
deal in guarantee their sovereignty and i wonder why when everyone is talking about this and that, this deal that we made hasn't been publicized more. host: ok, republican line, james, hello. caller: i'm retired air force and vladimir putin has been looking at what's been happening over the last year with joe biden, supplying terrorist organizations with our military and getting our borders open. vladimir putin in the chinese are not worried about joe biden at all. there's an old saying, peace through strength, not peace through weakness. host: so, what should the u.s. response be, then? caller: he's the commander in chief. i don't know. if he leaves americans behind enemy lines, i don't know.
7:43 am
this guy is clueless, man. he's clueless. host: let's go to joseph. good morning. caller: my take on this, we need to remind russia that the u.s. has alliances that russia respects and russia has alliances that the u.s. respects. ukraine is aligned with the united states. if russia doesn't respect the alliances with ukraine, there will be other countries aligned with the russia that may be, that may have u.s. interests around the world. russia is getting involved in a protracted invasion in ukraine, the u.s. might decide to send
7:44 am
troops into the ukraine in the middle of winter. host: country such as what? caller: it's a big world out there. there are a lot of countries aligned with russia. there are countries involved in civil war. we could react, well the first thing we need to do is tell them that, to give them something to think about before they invade. that hey, if we get into ukraine, maybe we will do something, just pick out some names. yemen. or cuba. host: you don't see escalation coming from that overall? caller: there comes a time when you actually have to stand up to people. i don't think this is really so much russia versus nato, this is putin's versus biden and they
7:45 am
see us as we and if we don't do anything and let them just run in, they are gonna. host: let's hear from rick in altoona, pennsylvania. caller: we just get out of one more and shouldn't get into another war. these people who say we should go do this, we should go to defend ukraine, they have to figure that when they say we that means other people's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, family members going into harm's way. i cannot understand why we are in sending them warlike materials to fight. we got to keep out of these other people's wars. israel, into thousand 19 we gave 38 billion dollars to israel to build up their defenses. we could keep that money in the united states.
7:46 am
host: are you saying that to the extent that they could be involved in helping nato troops, that couldn't -- shouldn't happen? caller: yes. it seems like when the people of the united states, it just seems like we, once america is doing this and that, they are coming down on america. they are not saying the other countries in nato. and we keep supplying multimillion dollar jets, war materials. no. i'm totally against sending our young men and women over there. mothers and fathers to die for other people. i'm just so tired of it. host: that is rick in pennsylvania. let's hear from larry on the republican line in hempstead, new york. hello. caller: good morning.
7:47 am
my thing is this. isn't it strange how we are talking about war now where in the last four years with the former president trump we had not even the hint of war and now all of a sudden we are talking about war when we have got all kinds of things happening in this country that need to be addressed and i think that this is somehow a deflection away from those issues. host: since you are talking about the modern day, what would you see as an appropriate u.s. response to what's going on? caller: for the ukrainians to handle our own -- their own business, we have too much of our own. i don't think that that's that big of a concern, to be honest. host: james, south carolina, you
7:48 am
are on. go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm hearing a lot of gibberish. because people don't understand, unless you wore the uniform, you wake up, you've got to put your loins and the duffel -- duffel bag and get ready to go within the hour, these people know what's going on. the rest of this stuff is plain bs. i understand what we said about the other countries defending themselves, they can't. i'm sick of watching the television and seeing bs all the time. host: to the topic we are talking about, what's the appropriate u.s. response to what's going on? caller: what are the other countries doing, you know? what are they doing? they've got to learn how to protect themselves. stop letting the politicians right checks that thereabouts can't cash. host: no u.s. response is
7:49 am
appropriate? caller: they can say with a want to say but vladimir putin is only one man. host: ok. hank, independent line, you are next. caller: to begin with, i'm a 21 year veteran of the united states submarine service and in that time the russians have continually challenged us with anything and everything. going back from prior to the korean war, thereabouts were right off the coast, causing us to stop our operations and return to port. secondly, the berlin crisis right after world war ii, where we had to fly, excuse me, we had
7:50 am
to fly supplies in to keep the people of berlin alive. host: i appreciate the historical context but what does that mean for today? caller: i'm saying we have to meet them head on. every time we do, they back off. the cuban missile crisis was absolute, absolute way of showing this. khrushchev backed his missiles out and he realized that he had to take them out because we had ballistic submarines off the north coast of russia and i happen to be there when that happened. so, we have to provide as much, as much assistance to ukraine as
7:51 am
possible. i don't say we should perhaps put troops within, but we can blockade the place and, and retaliate if he should make a move. host: ok, hank there in connecticut giving us historical and military perspective on what he feels would be an appropriate u.s. response. you can add that to the mix. abilene, texas, roger, hello. caller: i feel like we possibly in response to what's going on right now, nato, we should show our support for nato, go in and try to, try to set the situation up. i'm totally against going clear across the country to defend somebody else's border when we have a border issue of our own. host: you are saying it's ok for u.s. troops to support nato troops but you would keep it at
7:52 am
that? caller: nato needs to be, let them do what they are supposed to be doing. we have a forum that is the world leader. let them try to at least do something. vladimir putin, he's got troops, he's got to have them doing something all the time anyhow. why not send them there to make him look relevant to the world? i mean he's just, he can waste time. like the one caller said earlier , he's making money on the oil every day that he wait. he can just run around and do what he wants and make everybody believe he's a big factor in the world. host: roger giving us his thoughts. let's hear from ron. caller: that support for ukraine
7:53 am
and russia conflict, i say no go. no nothing. why can't we mind our own business, for christ's sake. i can understand what those people are doing. maybe they need to stand up for themselves and start dishing it out instead of hunkering down, you know? if they want to run, let them run. russia is going to do what they want to do but have y'all ever consider that there might be some backlash from other countries, like china? you know? look at what's going on now with competing over there in the elections, that was crazy. we never should have sent them over there. we did anyway. this thing with russia, it needs to -- good god, i was in the cold war in the navy and i'm telling you, the russians are, they got it together.
7:54 am
they know how to -- how do you say, pick our brain? the person in the white house now, he ain't the one that should be there. host: ok, that's a viewer from blouse star, virginia. ed, good morning. caller: i'm at a loss. i'm upset about the whole situation. i was drafted in 68 and i went over to vietnam and i walk around the rest of my life on my conscience, shooting on those little kids. these people that call in saying oh boy, let's go. it's obscene things. but my main thing i want to say is could be pleased with this, this is crucial, highly important topic, could be please
7:55 am
encourage the caller to not waste time talking about saying good morning to each other. please -- could be please call in and don't ask how we are doing, we already heard 10 times that pedro is doing fine today, thank you everybody. host: baltimore, maryland, independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for take my call. a quick question. for the last several years, israel has been bombing syria and iranian targets in syria. why can't russia come to ukraine? israel bombs iran every day. a foreign sovereign country. why can't russia do the same host:? as far as the u.s. russia response, with the appropriate response in your opinion? caller: we should stay out of it. russia has the right to protect and defend itself. we should stay out of it.
7:56 am
host: do you think russia is under a true threat from ukraine? caller: not from ukraine, but nato. nato is trying to incur in this is directly on the minds of russian security. it's not rocket science. missiles are there that with host: ok. -- that would threaten russia. host: ok. caller: i think we should be sending soldiers over. this is just wagging around from biden so he wants soldiers to get the people up off of what's going on with him to something else. 85 -- host: 8500 troops have been put on alert. do you think there is no involvement in your opinion for the u.s. should mark -- in your opinion for the u.s.? caller: [indiscernible]
7:57 am
we have been into too many wars vietnam -- wars. wars not easy. we don't go to vietnam people, china, everybody else clapping over there with congress taking over. host: ok. those countries, by the way, russia, china, the united states, all players to watch later this evening when the un security council meets to discuss the actions in russia and ukraine and you can see that tonight on c-span two, c-span.org, available on our app, c-span now. mary and washington state, democrats line. hello. caller: i wanted to remind everyone that today is the 54th
7:58 am
year of the tet in vietnam. my husband was there, he's no longer with us. i wanted to shout out to those marines and them that fought and the men that stood up for our country because this is going to run into us one way or another, whether we go now or later. the thing is, with russia, it's like they said -- i don't know how many people study history or keep an ion it, the thing is they always said they would get it from the inside. in other words, they could fight us physically, they would get us mentally. the thing is, the other stuff that's going on with the genocide in china, there's so much stuff that's going on and i hear these men and it makes me wonder what happened to the america before 9/11.
7:59 am
i wish we would heal from that. host: ok. one more call on the texas caller: can you hear me ok? host: go right ahead. caller: i wish they would divide ground to air missiles. host: ok. appreciate those of you who participated. coming up we will talk with paul kane, the senior congressional reporter from "the washington post," discussing efforts to keep the government funded and what it means for legislators trying to send money home to their constituents. and then we will talk more about russia and ukraine with the defense department reporter, tara cop. those segments and more, coming up. >> the u.s. called for a meeting
8:00 am
of the united nations security council to discuss the buildup of russian troops on ukraine's border. watch tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, online on c-span.org or watchful coverage on c-span now, our new app. >> this week on the c-span networks, the house and senate are both in session. the senate will vote on nominations, including amy gutman, to serve as u.s. ambassador to germany. on tuesday, two hearings for the nominations for white house budget director and deputy director. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, they will appear before the senate homeland security committee. at 2:30 p.m. eastern, live on c-span.org and the c-span now app, they will testify before the senate budget committee. on thursday at 10:00 a.m.
8:01 am
eastern, former employees of the washington football team testify before the house oversight committee about reports of sexual harassment, verbal abuse and discrimination within the organization. the hearing comes a day after the team is excited to announce its new name. watch this week, live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, our mobile video app. also head over to c-span.org for more scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> on the cover flap of debbie applegate's 2021 book, madam, the biography of icon of the jazz age is written the following, quote, simply put, everybody went to her. she was a diminutive dynamo whose manhattan brothels were
8:02 am
more than a no basis of illicit sex, where men paid to top dollars for the company of her girls. according to the author, pauly's powell's included -- powell's -- pals included many others. applegate is an amherst and yale educated -- based in new haven, connecticut. >> debbie applegate on this episode of book notes plus, available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: paul kane is not only the senior congressional reporter for the washington post, he served as a columnist for that publication. good morning. guest: good morning. host: i want to point viewers to a story, taking a look at something you describe at least in the headline, called the e
8:03 am
word and what that means for capitol hill as they debate back and forth on funding the government. can you start there? guest: that he word. they used to call -- the e word. they used to call it earmarks. members of congress would insert it into the annual funding bills. they would sometimes be for something as small as a local interchange, a highway stop area. sometimes as little as $100,000, $75,000. sometimes more, into the millions. these were projects that were the bread and butter of what members would be able to say they had delivered for their constituents back home. the problem was in the late 90's and early 00's, it became an explosion of earmarks and became a politicized thing where
8:04 am
congressional leadership would look at those members of congress and steer the money to those in races and it was about those who raised the most money. slowly but surely, the whole k street lobbying community caught on and realized one way they could get more clients was to hire people, former staffers for specific members who were particularly good at per -- at procuring earmarks. they would work to get clients who had connections to that lawmaker, in order to get more earmarks and pretty soon you had this earmark explosion, and many of them were still very good and helping communities get through key issues that they needed funding for, and sometimes the bureaucracy just takes so long that the community needed instant help and a member of
8:05 am
congress could do that. but then there were just some really bad earmarks that got into these bills in some cases through down white -- downright corruption where the lobbyists would be raising money from these clients would be giving gifts to the members themselves. more than a dozen lobbyists and federal agency representatives and a few lawmakers went to prison about 15 or 16 years ago, and that led to the banning of earmarks. he became a very distasteful thing, mostly led by republicans and john boehner and tea party republicans when they took over the majority in 2011. but also democrats like barack obama really did not like the practice and thought it was corrupt. that is why it ended 10 years ago. what people realized over the ensuing decade was it really sort of devalued what a member
8:06 am
of congress was doing here. you reach a point where your average rank and file member of the house of representatives really struggles to explain what they were doing in washington. they had nothing to deliver for their constituents. it also created this environment in which the members who used to only think the government funding bills, the basic duty of congress, to fund the government and keep it open and give the federal agencies the budgets they needed. that became a secondary or worse task for people. they didn't really care about it as much. they didn't have any skin in that game, and that is -- you have a bipartisan special committee in the house from from 19 -- from 2019 to 2020 that concluded the reason we experienced so many government shutdowns lately, 35 days across 2018 and 2019.
8:07 am
they said part of the reason we are having all of these shutdowns is because members themselves didn't have the real input into the budget. they didn't see any good of it coming out. now the democratic led majorities in the house and senate are trying to bring the practice back. host: with that as a set up, if you want to ask our guest questions about this process of earmarks and sending money back to constituents, you can call us. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. text us at (202)-748-8003. paul kane, you said they are coming back. do we know them as earmarks as we've known them before, or are there different things now? guest: these are very specific terms. we called the e-word in our headlines because members of congress don't like to say
8:08 am
earmarks anymore. they think it has a very bad negative connotation. the senate, in their bill, the senate is calling them congressionally directed spending. the house of representatives, calls it community project funding requests. that is because they want to get away from this idea that these things are similar to what they are using -- what they used to be. there are a bunch of new rules that apply to these earmarks, this current version. you must disclose them, you must write letters and post them on your website, explaining what your requests are. you cannot request money for private companies. these have to be nonprofits, things like water and sewer authorities back in your district and your state.
8:09 am
a university, a state university trying to do research on stuff. those are the types of projects. your local and state departments of transportation, if you wanted to send money directly to them. that is what you are allowed to do. in the house, you are limited to just 10 requests per lawmaker, which is a real democratization of the issue because it used to be that the speaker of the house, the house majority leader and minority leader and the higher up leadership, the more you get in earmarks and the house just said every lawmaker can ask for 10 and that's it. they also set a limit of the overall portion of these federal agency budgets, which will come between $1.4 trillion and $1.5 trillion this year, if congress can reach a deal. earmarks will be 10% or less --
8:10 am
1%, excuse me. you are only looking at $10 billion to $15 billion in earmarks sitting out there in the universe of these congressional bills, that they are trying to come together and pass. host: is there more interest now from legislators to get an overall government funding bill passed now that they have the ability to make these requests? guest: that is the sales pitch. it definitely skewed 10 to 12 years ago, and the direction that republicans not this was government waste and it was corruption. overall back then, republicans were just opposed to this. what has come about now is 108 republicans, a little bit more than half of the entire congruent -- conference, supporting a vote, a secret ballot vote.
8:11 am
108 went out and filed requests and have earmarks sitting in these bills, for it -- for a total of more than 700 different projects. every single democrat in the house filed requests and they have more than 2000 projects in the wings. what is being said to these members is you may not have cared about these government funding bills in the past and thought they didn't do a whole lot because it was just empowering federal agencies, but now you have skin in the game. you have to pass these bills, or else those earmarks go up in smoke. the only way you can get to deliver for your constituents in those earmark requests you have submitted is by voting to approve a big government funding bill, and that is the sales pitch being made. they've got until february 18, the current deadline.
8:12 am
they could punt on that end by a little extra time and pass a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at last year's budget. that might be what happens. but there does seem to be momentum here, among both sides, to get a deal, and we are going to see whether or not the idea of earmarks as helping greece the wheel, to get this sort of government funding going -- helping grease the wheel, to get this sort of government funding going. host: first call for paul kane this morning, kenny in north carolina, democrats line. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: my comment was years ago, that was how rural communities got any federal funding. if you wanted to build a library or anything to help the working class community, you couldn't
8:13 am
get that money unless it was through an earmark. that is why we've got so many rural communities struggling. this might be a little bit off subject, but there were two things i used to say on a blog. 100% of the money, politicians ought to raise 100% of the money out of their own district. that keeps money from outside influencing that election. if you can't vote, you can't give, meaning no corporations, no unions. this unlimited secret money called citizens united has destroyed the fabric of america. host: we will leave you there. to kenny's first point as far as rural communities and the impact
8:14 am
they have with the earmarks and the lack thereof over these years. guest: historically, kenny makes a really good point. if you lived in a rural area, it was harder to get money. there is definitely a sense of you need to be connected to a powerful figure. there are several figures, especially in rural areas, who knew this system and worked it in currently well. in the senate, robert seabird, longest serving senator -- robert c byrd, longest serving senator in west virginia. there is a robert byrd everything. highways, parks, you name it. he delivered for his state in that regard. ted stevens of alaska.
8:15 am
he basically poured money into the state of alaska, and there were people who accuse them of spending too much money, but there is no doubt that they poured money into the rural portions of their state. up in pennsylvania, you had two members who for decades were basically side-by-side. one was bud schuster, who ran the house transportation committee. the other was john murtha, a democrat from johnstown. they were good buddies, and they worked and help each other. murtha ran the defense subcommittee and they basically poured money into their districts. over time, murtha in particular,
8:16 am
both of them ended up under federal investigations because -- and it goes to something else kenny was talking about -- they were raising so much money from corporate pack interests -- corporate pac interests who were not in their district, just looking to get earmarks and money, and there became this sort of triangle of interest, of hiring former staff, finding clients from around the country, paying the former staff and lobbyists who would then raise money, and it did create this scene of influence that did not sit well with a lot of people. that is part of the reason why these ended up going away, but they are going to try and make this system cleaner and narrower, and get people to understand what they can do with this money. host: democrats, (202)-748-8000.
8:17 am
republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. paul kane, a viewer says our earmarks, what they used to call pork. guest: to every man, pork is a prickly sizzle to stake. john boehner viewed earmarks as sort of a gateway drug, that if you were out there getting earmarks for your district and you are willing to spend $500,000 to help create a community library in some area that just didn't have that, just make up an example, he always felt that meant you were then willing to go spend $500 million on another project or $500 billion on another project.
8:18 am
that was the standard operating playbook of anti-spending deficit hawks. there is some validity to that. in the grander scheme of what we have just been through in the last five to six years in terms of government spending, when there have not been any earmarks. i think the total now it's up to $6 trillion in pandemic relief money, that poured into all manner of life in america and all the different agencies, to try and combat the coronavirus pandemic. there were no earmarks in that. there was a nearly $2 trillion tax cut that republicans approved at the end of 2017, to reduce revenues.
8:19 am
that happened without earmarks. we are looking at a different era right now, in which government spending has exploded by every possible measure, and the federal debt has exploded by every possible measure without earmarks. i think the proponents are trying to say let's try to see if people can care more about the way government is funded. you've got republicans out there. steve scalise, the number two house republican, in line to be house majority republicans win back the majority. he is asking for earmarks. he has some in these bills right now. $1.5 million for a hospital mobile streaming unit outside of new orleans. john boone, his counterpart, who would be senate majority whip if republicans win back the majority. he is seeking $30 million for a
8:20 am
big highway interchange in sioux falls, south dakota. they believe these are valid projects and that they know better than the bureaucratic agency representatives who would take years and years to wind through the system before they approve that spending. they believe they know this better than those agents, and they are pushing for this money. host: let's go to mark in fort lauderdale, democrats line. caller: good morning, and thank you to c-span for your continued good works. i like this subject a lot. maybe on a strange or different than ordinary voter, i never thought of earmarks as being inherently bad. it is just some money that was already allocated to other budgetary means -- needs that got directed to certain projects and it was the grease for the
8:21 am
wheels of government. you support this project in my district and i will vote for your bill. once they stopped earmarks, that is when government got jammed up. the problem with government money is there always going to be sharks circling, trying to get something for themselves and it happens over and over again, so we can only have hope that this new earmarks process may be avoids that -- maybe avoids that. i do have some issues with how the guest talked about republicans being eager to get rid of earmarks. the reason republicans were eager to get rid of earmarks was to get rid of the scandals. they were the ones with a senator in alaska having money funneled to him like crazy.
8:22 am
there was the vietnam pilot from california who got in a lot of trouble. that is why republicans pushed to get rid of them back 15 years ago because they want to get that scandal behind them. host: mr. kaine, -- mr. kane, go ahead. guest: back to the day when earmarks scandals release sort it to run before 2004 and 2008, it definitely had -- there were more republicans that were under investigation, facing criminal charges. the pilot he is referring to is duke cunningham, who was a top gun pilot back in his younger days in the navy, who went on to become a low profile really influential lawmaker on the house armed services committee. he basically set up something that was literally a bribe menu
8:23 am
on a cocktail napkin. it was dollars and cents of how much money you give to me and i spit out this much in earmarks. there were democrats who were caught up in this. there was a member from new orleans, bill jefferson, who was on the house ways and means committee, influential trade issues, and there was a different form of earmarks that he was using in trade bills, to try and help kleptocratic in africa -- coptic rat -- kleptocrats in africa. republicans had more corruption scandals and they probably needed a cleaner slate the democrats but one of the key issues -- cleaner slate than democrats but one of the key issues is you could set up earmarks directly into private
8:24 am
businesses and that really greeted the potential for corruption. i wrote a story for the washington post with a colleague in 2009, about a bunch of people who were trying to start up a new vaio tech company out of boston -- biotech company out of boston, and they had some angel investors who ceded the company with money -- seeded the company with money and one of the first things they did was hire a lobbyist in washington who was asked really well-connected to democrats on the appropriations committee and there were notes and memos about all they had to do was raise $40,000 and they will get $1 million. sure enough, that is exactly what they got. there was never -- there were never charges filed in this case. it may well have been a case that in some ways, the first type of corruption, corruption that was perfectly legal and the
8:25 am
fbi looked at it and cannot make a charge against it because it was legal. that system was not good. i don't know how else to say it. you can choose your own words, some of which we cannot say on air. i like to think of this as a family operation. it needed reforming. that much was clear. that is what they are trying to do now, and it is happening in a very bipartisan way. pat lahey and the senate appropriations committee is working hand-in-hand with republicans and democrats. staff reports so far, you are looking at $10 billion to $12 billion in requests that will probably be honored, if they can since this deal. -- century -- can cinch this deal. there are not a lot of complaints.
8:26 am
there will be a lot of antispending groups that are scouring these deals. all of the requests are public. there has not been any bridge to nowhere, one of the scandals from 16 years ago that came out with an earmark for alaska. there have not been any bad examples so far. not making any promises here, but so far, the appropriators think the process is working. host: let's go to tom on the independent line from pittsburgh . caller: your guest is exactly right about martha -- murtha. we are driving on some safe highways, very safe highways as a result of those earmarks. i fly out of murtha airport in johnstown which is way too big, but i tell you what. the government worked. if you want to get rid of that, the only solution would be what?
8:27 am
term limits. host: tom from pennsylvania, recounting an experience. guest: i'll admit, i had to drive up to schuster's old district a few years back. his son went on to share the same committee. he was facing an incredibly tough republican primary, and he said exactly what i expected him to say. this transportation committee is not my father's transportation committee. he was trying to do highway bills that did not have earmarks, and he was facing really tough primaries from conservative antispending challengers, which was anathema to his father's career. his father used to win the republican primary without opposition and then sometimes he would have his democratic friends in the district mount a write in campaign so that he
8:28 am
could win the demo critic nomination also, and it would be but schuster versus bud schuster in the general election. here we go years later, and his son was facing these incredible he tough primary challenges from republicans. i remember as the caller had suggested, driving around the highways, they were beautiful, they were pristine. bud and bill shuster did their job, stirring a lot of money back home to western and central pa, and jack murtha did the same. there were abuses that happened, and abuses happened in those districts in pennsylvania also, but there is no question that there was a bubbly and overwhelming majority of earmarks that were well intended and well constructed, and the money was well spent. we will see what is going to happen with this process, going
8:29 am
forward. host: for paul kane of the washington post, we will hear from mike in indiana, republican line. caller: yes. you mentioned a while ago, about the bridge to nowhere, but i think all politicians -- i remember harry reid nine or 10 years ago, a big contract for nevada. his family owned constructions so they got all the money and about half of that construction didn't come true. guest: harry reid and mitch mcconnell, both the democratic and republican leaders of their era, mcconnell still being here, those two came up through the appropriations committees and those two knew how to work earmarks, and they were always proud of their earmarks. they faced scrutiny. there were earmarks, i think
8:30 am
there were some that reid steered back toward development of highways and interchanges that were near property that he owned and there were issues as to whether or not that was done and would help inflate the value of his own property. mitch mcconnell in 2014 was running for reelection, in what people thought was going to be a tough campaign. he ended up winning by almost 10 percentage points or more, but he faced a primary challenge from his right flank and then a general election from a well-funded democrat and what mcconnell did on his campaign -- i will never forget -- he loved to talk about every earmark he had delivered, every dollar he had spent, everything he had brought home to kentucky. he embraced it.
8:31 am
he swung into the criticism and said no, that is what i do. i'm a leader in the senate and i deliver for you and that is why you need to reelect me. it worked for him, it worked for harry reid in 2010. he faced a similar tough well-funded appointment -- well-funded opponent and he went all around the vada and said -- nevada and said reelect me and you will keep benefiting from the fact that you have a leader of the senate representing you. host: matthew in new york, democrats line. we are running short on time, so quickly with your comment or question. caller: absolutely not. i don't care what party you represent. this is not a good idea. going back to this idea of earmarks is not good. it is just more corruption waiting in the wings. get rid of the big money, out of the super pac's, get rid of it
8:32 am
all. going back is not a good idea. we should be a progressive nation. come up with better ideas. the corruption has got to go. host: that is met in new york. -- matt in new york. guest: that is an understandable view that a lot of conservatives and liberals will have. this was a practice that at times went sideways a while ago, and i know there are a lot of people that think that this is just going to revert back to the same dirty practice as in the past. i think that is an understandable view. the rosa delauro's of the world will say the last 10 years are worse than what happened before. more government shutdowns,
8:33 am
exploding debt without earmarks. government shutdown after shutdown, crisis after crisis, that was all done by congress. they are just looking for some other way to try to get congress back toward basic functioning. we are going to see if this works. it might not. it could be this particular spending deal blows up in the next couple of weeks and they don't come around to a large broad funding framework, in which case the earmarks want to be brought here into fruition. -- won't be brought here into fruition. it is dicey, and i didn't think earmarks would ever come back. 10 years ago i thought they were done. but congress over the last 10 years became so dysfunctional that it opened the door to bringing them back. you've got members who have been around for 10 years now, who
8:34 am
still don't have a committee chairmanship or a subcommittee chairmanship, and they probably struggle to explain to their constituents, their friends back home what it is they do every week when they go to washington. this is meant to try and incentivize and learn and talk about what they do, to bring home and deliver for their constituents. host: paul kane's story can be found at washingtonpost.com. thank you for your time. guest: sure thing. host: coming up, we will be talking with defense department reporter tara copp of defense one, to talk about the latest as far as how the dod is making plans for potential issues involving russia and ukraine. that conversation coming up next on "washington journal." ♪ >> the heritage foundation hosts a discussion on china's human
8:35 am
rights record and the olympics. watch live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org or on our new c-span now video app. >> on tuesday, a hearing on the nominations for the director of the office of management and budget, and deputy director. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, our new video app. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you'll hear about the 19 624 civil rights act, the dental campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, and the war in
8:36 am
vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> yes sir? >> i want a report on the number of people assigned to kennedy or me the number -- the day he died. if minor not less, i want them less right quick. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings, wherever you get your podcasts. >> weekends on c-span2 are an
8:37 am
intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, book tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: tara copp reports for defense one, she is there senior pentagon correspondent, here to talk about activities involving russia and ukraine. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: we heard from the defense secretary last week about the multiple options that russia has, involving ukraine. if that is the case, what does it mean for planning by the u.s., about how we're going to respond? guest: it is a risk calculation.
8:38 am
you heard last week that the pentagon announced the 8500 troops on heightened alert from fort bragg, fort campbell, all over the united states. they specialize in aviation support and logistics and medical support and they would be sent to those eastern flank nations around ukraine, lithuania, latvia, poland, to assure the nato alliance that if this does go forward, it does not go past a certain point and the u.s. would come to nato's defense. you haven't heard from the defense secretary that there is a really important bridge not to cross, and that is if you send troops in, does that further aggravate putin, and does that raise the risk that he would then take a move on ukraine? there is a lot of diplomacy going on. about an hour and a half from now, the un security council will meet to discuss this, and
8:39 am
russia will have a seat at that table. it is a question of how does everybody dance around this in a way to avoid war? host: as far as the timetables are concerned, you talked about those troops being called up but is there a timetable as far as their deployment is concerned? guest: the 82nd airborne at fort bragg, and the dod has been very cautious, not naming units, but the 82nd airborne has been relied upon again and again, to go in quickly. there are units in the immediate response for that can respond within 18 hours of being called up. they could get over there very quickly if needed. you saw the president talk last week about how they're married -- how there may be a nearer term call up of those forces if necessary. host: let's hear from the defense secretary phone last week.
8:40 am
if you want to ask questions of our guest as far as the department of defense and their planning, and russia and ukraine are concerned,. (202)-748-8000 four democrats. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. if you are active or retired military, you can call at (202)-748-8003. you can also text us at that number. here is the defense secretary last week. [video clip] >> russia has been deploying forces to crimea and along ukraine's border, including in belarus. it has progressed at a consistent and steady pace, involving tens of thousands of russian troops, and it is being supported by increased russian naval activity in the northern atlantic and mediterranean sea. while we don't believe president putin has made a final decision to use these forces against
8:41 am
ukraine, he clearly now has that capability. there are multiple options available to him, including the seizure of cities and significant territories, but also provocative political acts like the recognition of breakaway territories. indeed we are seeing russian state media spouting off about alleged activities in eastern ukraine. this is straight out of the russian playbook, and they are not fooling us. we remain focused on russian disinformation, including the potential creation of pretext for further invasion or strikes. in any russian attack or further incursion into ukraine, it would not only ignite conflict but also violate the bedrock principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and
8:42 am
self-determination. host: tara copp, that was the defense secretary last week, talking about those asynchronous waves this potential conflict could go. what does that mean for the defense department? guest: you heard all throughout the weekend, not only the ukrainian ambassador to the u.s., but you heard the human envoy talking about diplomacy first. to encourage russia to stand down, they've been trying to push the possibility of sanctions. experts that i have talked to says russia since the 2014 invasion of chromium has put themselves in a far stronger economic position to whether those sanctions -- weather those sanctions. what is it they want, to be able
8:43 am
to de-escalate and give putin enough of a win that he could withdraw his forces and not look politically vulnerable at home? at this point, he has 130,000 troops surrounding ukraine on the northern and eastern borders. for that reason, there is a high cost right now, to putin, to have all of those troops there and do nothing and then come home. the question is what will putin do and what does he want in response, to be able to call it a win and de-escalate? host: when it comes to potential casualties, how has the defense department measured for that? guest: we heard the chairman on friday with these very disturbing terms of the high cost of civilians. russia has short-term ballistic missiles all around the border. it has spent the last decade or
8:44 am
so, really modernizing its ability to attack. it's troops are well-trained, well fed. they can inflict very heavy damage. on the ukrainian side, there are about 150,000 active duty forces who have benefited from western training and equipment since that time as well. this is a fight where both sides could potentially incur heavy losses, and i think millie really pressed that to try and encourage both sides to think and potentially de-escalate. host: we will hear from gary in miami, florida, independent line for guest, tara copp of defense one. caller: this is gary from miami, florida. i was around when the united nations were formed, the purpose of which was for countries of the world to negotiate peace and not have war.
8:45 am
if russia wants to present on the scene and be a member of the civilized world and try to start a war, they should be censored and ostracized from the civilized world. now is the time for the united nations to stand up and follow their original mandate and see if they have the courage to do that, and see what putin has to say about this. guest: your caller brings up an interesting point. at the un security council meeting today, russia is one of the five permanent members of the security council. whatever decisions are taken, russia could potentially veto. i think this gets to the larger point that putin is pressing, that these decisions about this post-world war ii security construct in europe, these decisions are being made without him and if you cannot have a vote at the table, he's been using other means such as a military buildup, to try and push his own agenda. some of the experts i've talked
8:46 am
to have said let's get to that question of what could putin really want? if he wants a greater hand at the table, to have a bigger role in terming what type of missiles are on the european peninsula, those could all be effective negotiating points for both administrations to be able to de-escalate this. host: james in california, retired military person. hello. caller: hello there. i have a point. i believe the united states signed an agreement to protect the sovereignty of ukraine if they give up nuclear weapons. i think we should give them back their nuclear weapons and throughout the agreement. guest: there is a point the caller is raising. the threat of nuclear weapons on the european peninsula, russia already has nuclear warheads that can inflict damage on europe and the u.s. has that ability as well. there have been rounds and
8:47 am
rounds of talks about reducing the number of arms, further restrict and what types of arms, and this is something putin and russia are actually very interested in being a part of. i think this is one of those areas of negotiation that could lead to de-escalation of the current conflict. the problem is right now, you have 130 -- 130,000 troops surrounding ukraine and without understanding what putin wants and being able to provide some sort of response, there is no telling that this won't happen again. host: this is a nato operation or at least discussions are centering around nato but as far as discussions from the defense department with allies looking at this, what has been the response from those allies? guest: it has been mixed. germany is not going to be sending weapons, and part of that is because of the very intricate relationship that russia has with some of the european nations.
8:48 am
they rely, 40% on russia exported gasoline and 20% exported oil. they do more than $200 billion of trade with russia every year, so there was a lot at stake. you have seen other nations such as the eastern european flank nations. they are providing ukraine with antiaircraft missiles, to help ukraine better defend itself in case it does come under air assault. it is kind of a mixed result, a mixed bag and in a way, other security analysts say that conflict -- host: a viewer asked about how many u.s. citizens are currently in ukraine, and i don't know if that goes into factoring what decisions we make here about that. guest: we asked the defense department last week, because as you've heard, the president is
8:49 am
not going to send forces into ukraine. they will be positioned around outside. we asked if there needs to be an evacuation of ukraine, will u.s. aircraft or u.s. military personnel be involved, and we did not get an answer on that. as far as the number of u.s. citizens currently in ukraine, i don't know that answer but i do know the state department and dod have urged all civilians to leave the country for now, due to the potential for war. host: our next caller from rapid city, democrat caller. caller: 60 years ago, russia almost caused a nuclear crisis with jfk. a year later, kennedy was assassinated by russian, lee harvey oswald and he was killed two days later by jack ruby. russia has been causing problems. khrushchev was in power at the time and he was going to put
8:50 am
missiles in cuba and kennedy said to get them out of here. i was in the philippines during the vietnam war when kennedy got assassinated. russia has been a problem for 60 years. i hope some people are listening . host: how does that apply to what is going on today, do you think? caller: i don't know how they are going to fix this problem. he's got leverage because they send gas to germany and he is using that. they see how we are fighting over here with each other, and our country needs to get together whether you are republican or democrat, and we need to get serious with russia because they will do everything they can to start problems. that is all i can suggest. host: tara copp? guest: the cold war security
8:51 am
construct has been in place since the end of world war ii. do you engage with russia? do you bring them closer in? do you allow them to have a vote at the table? this administration had really wanted to pay attention to the indo pacific, and now for the last six months because of this troop buildup, it also has to pay attention to europe and this security construct. what can you do going forward? do you inflict such punishment upon russia that it feels further alienated and decides that a stronger military option might be the only choice next time around, or do you do a decision of engagement? these are big policy decisions that the biden administration has to choose. we continue to press the idea of diplomacy first and military force only as a last resort. host: you heard it general milley characterize what is going on with russia and
8:52 am
comparing it to what they have seen over history. can you describe that characterization? guest: yes. so the chairman has more than 40 years of military service and so does secretary austin. over that time, they saw the gulf war, they saw conflict after conflict and he was asked how is this different, and he said he had never seen a russian buildup like this, and the sense that it gave him, that there was an eminent threat now. -- imminent threat now. the last time we did that in kuwait in the buildup of the gulf war, there was no question that u.s. forces were going in. for a lot of people, there is no question that russia is going to go in. the question is, how limited can this incursion be and how strong
8:53 am
a hand can diplomacy have in limiting those damages? host: you heard our guest talk about the un security council meeting that is going to take place today. we will show it to you at 8:00 tonight on c-span2. c-span.org and our c-span now app. let's go to doug in virginia, republican line. caller: hey there, thank you for taking my call. i am a big fan of c-span in general. regarding the topic that we are discussing, i definitely approve diplomacy and trying to de-escalate. but i'm a little alarmed by some of the comments i'm hearing from your guest. it feels like it is on the border of appeasement and i don't know that if that is in anyone's interest. the whole world is watching, china, north korea and iran. if any time some of the present a military threat or at least jockeys that way and we are willing to give some kind of
8:54 am
large concession, do we think it is going to result in more or less of these types of situations? i think in the end, a threat of aggression is in itself an act of aggression. i would be curious to hear your guest's thoughts. guest: i certainly did not mean to suggest any form of appeasement. i was civilly trying to characterize what i've seen and heard from both the government -- the u.s. government as they have expressed where our position is, and also from the security experts i have talked to who have been watching this for a long time. this russian buildup did not happen overnight, it has been building for over a year. this was a long planned move by russia, to try and force the issue of ukraine -- further stopping ukraine from joining nato, and it has not had success so far and the pressure campaign is elicited. the question is do they feel like they have to invade at this
8:55 am
point to inflict heavy damages? at that point, doesn't risk pulling the u.s. into a regional war, or can there be a diplomat solution? that was the point i was trying to make. host: randy in lf -- randy in alabama, democrats line. caller: there will never vino it'll medic resolution with russia for -- there will never be no diplomatic resolution with russia or china. they don't recognize nobody but themselves and general milley has a yellow streak of his back about two feet wide, and austin is a joke. host: why did you characterize them that way? caller: i watch them and listen on tv. i am a military man, and no general back when i was in the military would act as cowardly as those men, but the united
8:56 am
states told ukraine to give up your weapons and we will defend you. now ukraine needs to give their web -- get their weapons back or give them chemical weapons to take care of russia themselves. host: that is randy in alabama. guest: there is a risk. no war is limited and at what point if this becomes a small conflict, initially between russia and ukraine, what is the risk of pulling in nato bordering countries such as lithuania and estonia, and at what point with the u.s. find itself dragged in? does the american population have the stomach for another war? we just left afghanistan six months ago. you solve the large appetite -- you saw the large appetite among the voting population for the u.s. to get out of afghanistan. it is a real question if there
8:57 am
is the political will to engage in a war with russia. host: talking about this, the story about north korea launching their seventh missile test. with all the attention being paid to russia and ukraine, what other theaters of the world is the defense department concerned about? guest: for the last four years, the defense or terry has talked about the concern over china's rise. an unwanted distracted might be awake -- destruction might be a way to describe this because it secretary austin and the pentagon were set on maneuvering forces and resources, especially after the end of the afghan war, to the pacific. this has put a pause on that because all of these same brigades that would be used to support the indo pacific are currently on a swivel to see if it will be necessary to support any count -- any confrontation in the european theater.
8:58 am
this question of per year were tees and the administrator -- the administration started with the priority of dealing with china, having to put that on hold. host: this is on our republican line, we will hear from karen in alabama. caller: good morning. i have an idea. so the ukrainian president gave a news conference and said we don't need the united states to come over here and defend us, we can defend ourselves. instead of worrying about the sovereignty of a border in europe, why don't we worry about the sovereignty of the border of the southern u.s.? why don't we do that and just but out of europe? guest: the caller gets back to one of my earlier points, about where is the political will? the u.s. has been a global response force for so long, and there is definitely a segment of our country that wonders why.
8:59 am
do we still have 3500 troops assigned to the southern border, not counting the different units of independently since pete -- independently sent state forces. there has been a growing sense of why hasn't the u.s. put more of its resources to protecting the homeland instead of always responding to another nations call. host: as far as the caller's point about the ukrainian response to trying to sooth tensions, how is the dod responding to that? guest: you heard secretary austin come out very clearly and almost immediately, that this does not have to result in a conflict. there is still a lot of time for diplomacy, and that is the message that he has been trying to press as a member of the biden administration. we saw chairman millie also
9:00 am
pressed for diplomacy but bluntly talk about the threat to civilians on both sides and troops on both sides, and then down. so you have these two messages of diplomacy still possible, but the military also saying we will be there if diplomacy is not possible. host: from vero beach, florida, independent line. caller: you remember a yelton of russia -- boris yeltsin of russia -- never happened. nato and the baltic states, alaska, lithuania, and poland,
9:01 am
we are surrounding russia. it is not right. this is aggression. those people used to live for 300 years. what we call crimea. host: let's take one call after that. this is timothy, illinois, democrats line. caller: hello. i feel like russia's gdp is 1/10 of the usa's. its military budget is 1/10 of the usa's or less. it is surrounded by our military forces. it has shrunk massively from the soviet union. it is not a threat. it is not want to invade or attack anybody. all at once is to have a country or two around it.
9:02 am
that is all it wants. i wish we could understand that and stop threatening russia and being the bullies ourselves. host: that is timothy in illinois. guest: there are a couple misconceptions about the russian military right now. one, that is weekend. -- weakened. that is not the case anymore. he has ramped up russia's military capability. you saw this and play in 2015 in syria. russia started to control the airspace. it took the european military leadership by surprise when it launched a missile from the black sea that landed in syria, showing it had developed the ability for this type of cruise missile. there are a lot of things different about the russian military today that are not what it was in 2000. there is a significant risk to
9:03 am
ukraine and u.s. forces if it was going to get to the point where u.s. forces had to engage with russian forces. host: any sense of what we will hear from the dod this week regarding this? guest: i suspect it will be low-profile and mostly the same, to see what happens on the u.n. front and see if things like the letter sent last week will gain any traction, what response there will be. all of us want to know what is on their negotiating table, but until both sides come to some sort of agreement i do not think you are going to see any sort of movement from dod unless biden decides to send a couple of those units just to have them in place. host: our guest is the senior pentagon correspondent for defense one, tara copp joining us with this conversation. thanks for your time. we will take on open phones for
9:04 am
the next 25 minutes or so. later in the program, we will be joined by james bovard as he talks about covid-19 testing and his opinion on how it is going. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we will take those calls in washington journal continues. >> the u.s. called for a meeting with united nations security council to address russia's behavior and the build of troops on ukraine's border. watch full coverage on c-span now come our new video app. >> this week on the c-span networks -- the house and senate are both in session. the house will vote on
9:05 am
nominations including to serve as u.s. investor to germany and to be president of a bank. on tuesday, two hearings for the nomination of the white house budget director and deputy director. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, they will appear before the senate home and security committee. at 2:30 p.m. eastern cannot live on c-span.org and the c-span now app, they will testify before the senate budget committee. former employees of the washington football team testify before the house oversight committee about reports of sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and discrimination in the organization. the hearing comes a day after the team is expected to announce its new name. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now , our mobile video app. go to c-span.org for schedule information or to stream video live or on-demand any time.
9:06 am
c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: you can also comment on open forum by texting us at (202) 748-8003. you can post on our facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. twitter is available to you at @cspanwj.
9:07 am
usa today looks at the various candidates under consideration for the next choice to become a member of the supreme court. this reports judge michelle childs is under consideration for the high court, saying she has served on the u.s. district court since 2010. james clyburn of south carolina supports childs' nomination, should it happen. the story adds that the white house is considering the president of the naacp legal defense and education fund. other names include judge holly thomas, a federal district judge , a judge biden nominated for a spot on the 11th circuit.
9:08 am
a judge on the seventh circuit and judge tiffany cunningham on the federal circuit. that is from usa today if you go to the hill website. it talks about the senate consideration of the future nominee in a story by jordan carney, saying the upcoming fight over the president's nominee is the first time since 2017 when they got rid of the 60 vote threshold for supreme court picks that they have not controlled the chamber or had a gop president in the white house. democrats are cautiously hopeful that they can peel off at least one gop senator, which will let them tell the win as bipartisan -- tout the win as bipartisan. new mexico, republican line. caller: i have comments.
9:09 am
i was waiting on the phone for the last episode you had on tv and i sort of agree with the old veteran. russia has always been a problem . the only way to take care of them i believe is to let nato take care of them. i know we are a member of nato, but, you know, i would say 80 years ago everybody over there would be speaking german if it was not for the usa. that is what i have to say on that. host: this is john in virginia, independent line. caller: i was just wondering, we have a biological weapon siller -- situation. we have truckers that are protesting at the same time.
9:10 am
what they are protesting is having to be injected with gene therapy. they do not want it. then you have the biden administration actively in the middle of the night having illegal aliens coming in who are basically carriers of a biological agent. host: we will go to the republican line. caller: i am a republican, but i am torn come out like the rest of the country. we have a build back better bill on the table. we have probably billions of those dollars earmarked for special interest groups. we have a crisis on the border in russia and ukraine. that is also a concern of mind -- mind because china is just waiting for the u.s. to move on russia and they will move on taiwan.
9:11 am
then we have -- my predecessors have spoken about the united flights into the middle of the united states and everybody sees it. it is on video. it is against the law. our lawmakers are standing up there in washington with their hands out because they want to get the money so they get reelected. i think we need to do what canada did and have a massive protest. we should stand up and say we need some leadership in this country. we do not have any leaders, whether they are in the military, whether they are in congress or they are the president. host: the bbc reporting on what it described as a freedom convoy with truckers in ottawa, canada after a second day of protesting, adding that police have started investigations after several incidents, including footage of women
9:12 am
dancing on the tomb of the unknown soldier. the defense minister said the incidents were reprehensible. elsewhere, truckers blocked the streets around canada's parliament building and some protesters demanded free meals after they were turned away from restaurants for their refusal to comply with indoor mask mandates. the prime minister and his family also left their home in ottawa after safety concerns saturday. that is reporting by the bbc. this is from arkansas, independent line. we will hear from william. caller: sure. my name is william. i would like to speak about the republican party. we as electors keep electing people. arkansas, we have two republican senators might get they only won by 100,000 votes in arkansas.
9:13 am
now we have nobody to represent democrats or independents in the state of arkansas. yet we have a governor who calls himself a trump republican. what i do not understand is how blind can republicans be towards donald trump, the man incited this insurrection. i think it should be called terrorism. the man sent the rioters to the capital to change the vote but yet we have republicans in office that are blind. host: why do you think those in arkansas keep electing those leaders? caller: it is because the republican party lies. the democrats lie the same way, but the republican party lies.
9:14 am
they keep lying. we keep electing these people that are already rich, that own businesses. i as an independent, as a democrat -- i have been living here since 1999. host: are you an independent or democrat? caller: i am an independent. host: you described yourself as independent and than a democrat. i want to make sure you picked the best line that accurately represents you. from pennsylvania on our line for democrats, this is nicholas. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am also a truck driver. i have been a truck driver for 30 years. most of your truck drivers when i go to different places are getting the vaccine. they are also wearing their masks and keeping five to six feet distance.
9:15 am
my other comment is the only reason we have such a problem with some truck drivers is because of the 1980's when ronald reagan decided -- then you had rush limbaugh attacking unions. the majority of truck drivers are not in a union anymore. so all these lies that these republicans regurgitate, they are excellent on having each republican repeat it word for word. they are just lies. host: when it comes to electoral politics, the iowa caucus is coming into play over recent meetings by the democratic national committee. usa today writes, democrats eye iowa caucuses. the virtual meeting of the rules and bylaws committee launched
9:16 am
conversations about iowa state as calls grow to strip it of its caucuses in favor of simpler, more inclusive primaries and remove it from the front of the nominating calendar. since january, 1972, iowa's caucus has kicked off the presidential nominating process. for nearly as many years, other states have vied to assume iowa's coveted status. this is john, independent line. >> i wanted to come -- caller: i wanted to comment on president biden's pick for the nomination. i think it is disrespectful and diminishes the credentials of the people he is looking at picking what he bases it on race or gender. i think the supreme court is going to be looking at this. there are a lot of qualified people. if you wants to make that pic, you should base it on the most qualified person. i think it diminishes their
9:17 am
status. it limits it. host: are you there? caller: yes. host: are you done? caller: yes. host: let's go to george, pennsylvania, republican line. georgia pennsylvania, hello? caller: hello. host: you are on. caller: i am worried about why are we so worried about sending troops over to ukraine and the russia stuff? why aren't we sending our troops down to our southern border to protect our own border? host: linda is next from las vegas, nevada, democrats line. caller: i am wondering about
9:18 am
this chernobyl point to ukraine. it is only 90 miles outside of kyiv, the northern part of ukraine. host: what is your concern? caller: my concern is in 1986 the soviet union was in charge of sure noble. in 2017, they had to rebuild a giant hut over it to protect this for 100 years. why haven't we heard anything about chernobyl from anyone? host: that is a linda in las vegas, nevada. the lead story in the new york times looks at various people that have denied the 2020 election and their effort to run for various secretary of state positions across the united states. this is highlighting some of
9:19 am
them, saying the significance of the america first coalition efforts can be seen in arizona, or the slight -- where the slate's candidate has become the leading republican contender for secretary of state. he has raised $663,000 for his campaign according to state filings, more than the two leading democratic candidates combined. the coalition's other candidates include a former state legislator who contends that mr. trump actually won in a deep blue state. and kristina karamo in michigan who made uncorroborated claims. members include mike lindell and
9:20 am
a former executive at overstock.com, both of whom have filed election denial campaigns. that is the lead story in the new york times if you want to read at their hearing for the next 10 minutes on this open forum, we will hear from martin, lincoln park, michigan, independent line. martin in michigan, good morning. caller: it is an open forum and i believe president biden should be charged with discrimination of some kind because when you go to fill out an application for a job anywhere it goes through this whole thing of race and creed and caller and all of this stuff -- color and all of this stuff and i think you should give everybody a fair shot. host: angela in roanoke, virginia, democrats line.
9:21 am
caller: as far as election of a president or anything, i believe america should start a fourth political party. we have democrats, republicans, and independents. we need to go to a foundational list party and get back to the roots our country was founded upon and elect ryan upchurch for president. host: you identify as a democrat. what is wrong with your party? caller: my party is too far to the left. we need to get back to the roots that our nation was founded upon where people help each other or had respect, where people were faithful to god and believed in the founding order of our nation. host: why do you think a political party is going to help achieve that?
9:22 am
caller: it will bring our country back to where we were founded on. the original ideas of how our nation was founded. i know we were founded in a lot of violence and turbulence from trying to gain our independence from england, but it is just the way it had to be in order for our nation to prosper and become our own units. it has gone way too far with everything. ryan upchurch would bring us back as a nation again. host: let's go to paul in south carolina, independent line. caller: i have a little paragraph i want to read you. because of this, you're losing voters because of this. you think you are gaining voters because of this.
9:23 am
you are killing children because of this. you're putting in slavery because of this. you are bringing in drugs because of this. you are spreading disease because of this. host: what is the "this"? caller: -- border because of this. host: let's go to bob in texas, republican line. caller: i'm calling for we are texas. i keep hearing people say stuff about president trump that has been debunked. it has all been proven false about that ukrainian phone call but we will not get the transcript of president biden's phone call with ukraine or we cannot get work lebanon there -- mark lebanon there? host: what do you think is
9:24 am
important but the conversation that president biden had with the president of ukraine? caller: it is about president trump that have been disproven. he called of the national guard. he wanted them to be there. nancy pelosi did not sign off. host: what is important about the call? why do you think it is important for people to see? what is important about that call between the president and president of ukraine? caller: because president biden lied and said he did not say the things he said and the president of ukraine came out with the truth. he said every thing went fine into the president of ukraine thought everything was good. he does nothing we are doing good and he things we are panicking, causing all sorts of trouble. if we release the phone call, at least we will know what they said. host: let's go to john in
9:25 am
beaverton, oregon. democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say i was born in canada of american parents. i was disturbed with the trucking convoy to ottawa where what they did on the tomb of the unknown soldier. there have been reports that they urinated on it. then terry fox with putting a canadian flag upside down and also reports that there have been people who have been harassed at the house of the good shepherd that are trying to help homeless people. unfortunately, the kind of misinformation and over celebration of individual rights
9:26 am
, lacking responsibility, has spilled over into canada. on the supreme court nomination, i heard joe biden speak when he was talking about who he would be nominating and he listed integrity, honesty, and credentials, then mention it would be a black woman. when mitch mcconnell -- his response was we better make sure that joe biden is not taken over i the radical left. i am getting tired of that. these people are elected to be leaders in service to everyone. host: let's go to chuck in maine. caller: i would like to say, first of all, biden is not a good military leader my opinion.
9:27 am
i think we need to elect a republican president and we will see a different attitude over there. host: if you go to the washington times, they have devoted most of their front page to taking a look at the current president's trips to his homes in delaware, sang mr. biden spent 95 days in delaware and 45 days at camp david. he surpassed president trump? -- president trump's white house total by more than two weeks, totaling 110 days at his golf properties. you can see more of that at the washington times. we will go to austin in kentucky, democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been trying to call in.
9:28 am
i am glad i got through this time. i have been watching tv and everything and wondering when they were going to hold the public hearings on the january 6 insurrection so these people can be brought to justice and so the american people can see what is going on, all the wrongdoing, all the background stuff and everything. for the public to actually see that. we need to hold those hearings publicly. so we can bring all those people to justice. i will take your answer on when everything is going to be scheduled to be shown on television. host: a previous announcement had it going into the spring, but i will see if i can find something more definitive. taking a look at the events of january 6. mount vernon, indiana, democrats line.
9:29 am
caller: i have been trying to get an answer to this question for several years whenever mr. trump claims he is going to make america great again. now i understand his new motto is make america great again again. i would like to ask the question, what timeframe, century, decade was he talking about when he says make america great again? i have not been able to get the answer to that question and i would like to know from his supporters what exactly -- what timeframe is he talking about when he thinks america was great? i have always thought america has been great and getting greater every day. host: tim in arkansas, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro thanks for taking my call. i saw a newsflash on my phone
9:30 am
about mike pence. trump says he should have overturned the election. i do not know if you remember me calling you about this. january 6, the riot was caused to keep mike pence specifically from deviating from certifying those slates of electors that came from the states that ran unconstitutional elections. they violated the u.s. constitution in states like pennsylvania -- and states like pennsylvania violated their own state constitution. this was a result of democrats pushing for two years to change local laws. they changed that, that was a violation of the constitution. you cannot have anybody but the legislature making voting laws, so people need to realize -- they keep calling this in insurrection. the riot was there to keep
9:31 am
people from not certifying those states. it was not there to keep from certifying real states but to keep from sending back. he should have pulled his nancy pelosi at the state of the union address and when the slate of electors came across his desk he should have just ripped them in half and given them back. host: let's hear from sherry in montana. caller: i have been a lifelong democrat. i am 50 three, always loyal. this -- the party has gone insane. i cannot see myself even -- it is terrible. every decision that biden has made has been backwards, everyone all the way down the line.
9:32 am
our country is going right down the path. you have to see that. get rid of all the spin and the garbage. this is from a loyal democrat. caller: and he voted -- host: and he voted for president biden? caller: no way. host: why didn't you? caller: he had in his basement -- you will not answer questions. host: you say you are a member of the democratic party? caller: i am. host: what is currently wrong with your party? give me a specific. caller: aoc and her squad. host: what is wrong with her? caller: climate change is the biggest problem and they ignore the border. they see how it is destroying the south. host: let's go to diana in ohio,
9:33 am
independent line. caller: c-span reportedly had cameras january 24, the second opinion hearings led by senator ron johnson. i invite anybody who has not seen it to go see it. i was wondering -- they had scientists, dr. malone, all kinds of world scientists in the hearing and nurses that have encountered situations on covid and all the aspects of it. did c-span air that at all? host: i do not know what you're talking about. you will have to be more specific. caller: c-span reportedly -- one of the doctors was interviewed afterwards and said he saw c-span cameras in there. it was ron johnson's second opinion hearing held last monday on the 24th. i was wondering if they had cameras in there. has it been aired?
9:34 am
i have not caught it, obviously. that is what i was wondering. everybody should see that hearing of all the opinions and experiences on covid and everything about it. scientists were in there. it was fascinating. host: to answer your question, i do not know because you are talking over a week ago so i'm not sure specifically as far as coverage of that event. if it happened on capitol hill, there is a good chance we covered it depending on our capital -- camera availability. let me see if i can find an answer on that and get that to you. from mississippi, this is myrtle, democrats line. caller: what i wanted to say is that when joe biden announced he intended to nominate someone to the supreme court, there has been so much pushback because they are saying they should look
9:35 am
at all candidates, but no one seems to have -- either do not remember or choose not to remember or have no idea -- i have no idea, but reagan said he was going to appoint a woman to the supreme court. trump said he was going to appoint a woman to the supreme court. what is the difference? is it because these are democrats appointing this woman and the woman is black? i feel the supreme court should represent our country. it should not represent a block of elitist people. that is all i have to say. host: from arkansas, this is glenn in greenbrier. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: i have a comment and i would like you to not hang up on
9:36 am
me. joe biden was vice president when him and hillary clinton and obama gave all of our uranium to russia. the first thing joe biden did was give the money to do this fight. host: let me stop you for a second. if you are by a window or something, if you can get closer to it you are coming in and out and i think your signal is not strong. if you can get closer to a place where you can strengthen your signal, go ahead. caller: i will step outside. he has given all this stuff to russia and there is nothing that has been said about all that. he has given to russia ever since he has been in office. they get millions of dollars in gas and cut our supply off so he could finance them. his choice for supreme court --
9:37 am
he did not make a choice on who was qualified. he made a choice on letting black people choose to be slaves. host: i'm going to leave it there. when it comes to russia and the topic of sanctions, on the sunday shows yesterday two committee members talked about, as far as their committee is working and the sanctions they are working on and where they are in that process, here's a portion of that from yesterday. >> let's talk about what you just mentioned. you are working together. the two of you are leading a broader discussion to put together legislation to sanction russia. the ukrainians have written the two of you and the broader group are asking for help. how close are you to a deal on this legislation?
9:38 am
>> the senator and i have been working with our staff and colleagues on the foreign relations committee and members of the committee in an intensive effort over the last week. we are on the one yard line and hopefully we will be able to conclude successfully. there is no doubt there is an incredible bipartisan resolve for support of ukraine and a strong bipartisan resolve to have severe consequences for russia if it invades ukraine. in some cases, for what it has already done. we are building upon the legislation that the senator wrote and i wrote which i called the mother of all sanctions, to include a variety of elements, massive sanctions against the
9:39 am
most significant russian banks, crippling to their economy, meaningful with consequences to the average russian and their accounts, more lethal assistance to ukraine, the ability to deal with russia's sovereign debt, to look at elements of russia's economy, which is largely an extracting economy on energy much to strengthen its sovereign debt. these are sanctions beyond any we have ever levied before. i think that sends a clear message. >> how do you get from the one yard line into the end zone? specifically given the fact that you and other republicans want the sanctions to take effect now. the biden administration wants to wait until after any invasion. how are you going to compromise? >> i think that bob's description is a good description of what has happened
9:40 am
and where we are. there has been a 24 hour a day effort for the last several days. as always with these things, people have different ideas of how to get to where they want to get up. if you have parties on each side wanting to reach the same objective and both sides are working in good faith, if you have both of those, there is no reason you cannot get to the finish line. >> so you will get there? >> we think so. i am more than cautiously optimistic that when we get back to d.c. tomorrow we are going to be moving forward. i know bob shares that hope. host: that is a portion from the sunday shows yesterday, a bit of a programming note, we were scheduled to have tim's bovard join us to talk about his recent piece looking at testing. we are having connection issues
9:41 am
establishing a call, so we will postpone that for today and reschedule it for another day and continue with open forum until 10:00. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. maria in pennsylvania, independent line. caller: can you hear me? ok. i have two comments. one is the comment of the lady from ohio. it is true. i wish c-span would air that medical expert panel of different individuals, doctors, scientists, nurses, lawyers talking about covid and the corruption happening now. number two, my comments are biden's choice for supreme court
9:42 am
judge. he is almost saying no men, no hispanic, no asians, no white individual, no native americans. he is not going to even look or think about them. just a black woman. i am a woman and i am against that. host: why are you against that? caller: you are just picking from a small group of people. he should pick the best individual, man, woman, hispanic latino, asian. i am asian. host: some have brought up the idea of ronald reagan expressing a desire to bring the woman -- a woman onto the court. are you sang that was wrong too by him? caller: yes. host: let's go to tammy in louisiana. caller: first i'm calling about
9:43 am
last week. that was such a joke. that first caller that cold in -- called in -- you could not have licked nobody's boots more. i do think you should have covered ron johnson's roundtable. when it was happening, i could not believe you were not airing it. host: as i said before, i do not know if we covered it or not. we are trying to find that out. caller: i guess you do not cover stuff live? host: we cover a lot during the course of the week. instant recall of a specific event i will not be able to do for you. caller: tamia, this was very important. to see the other side -- to me,
9:44 am
this was very important. to see the other side you had some clown on saying nothing to see here. why won't you have somebody like ben shapiro, joe rogan, somebody like that on? host: what do you think they would contribute? caller: contribute? host: what do you think they would contribute if we had them on? caller: what do i think they would contribute? debate. they would contribute thought, freethinking. think about it. just because democrats say it does not make it true. host: ok let's go to renee in florida, democrats line. caller: i wanted to thank you for everything you do and how you educate the public. with the senate hearings, i appreciate being able to be in the senate hearings.
9:45 am
and replaying those hearings so people can catch them if they were not there. a second thing is about the judges. host:host: i cannot hear you. i did not say anything, but go ahead. caller: i was looking at my tv and thought you were talking. about the judges and the black judge, a black female, it is time that we have a black female on that court. i remember when reagan nominated the first female and she was a great judge. so that. i think these radio talk shows should have to have a disclaimer if they are lying. i think we should go through the fcc and have that as a rule.
9:46 am
. . host: that was renee and florida. when it comes to the president's desire to nominate a black woman to the supreme court, the politics section of the highlights senator susan collins . she welcomes the idea of replacing the retiring justice stephen breyer with a black woman but criticized how mr. biden came to the decision. i believe that diversity benefits the supreme court, but the way the president has handled this nomination has been clumsy at best. it adds to the perception that the court is a clinical institution like congress when it is not supposed to be. more of her comments there. from minnesota, independent line. caller: just a quick one. i am retired for 2, 3 years now. i have a lot of time to watch
9:47 am
news and what could be helpful in our situation is, before i make my opinion, whatever folks, you name them, and then i make my opinion -- many people just take news and pre-digest it and make it their own opinion. it could be helpful if we all started thinking for ourselves. host: that is a viewer in minnesota. when it comes to congestion, there is a small blurb in the washington journal this morning about ports and congestion. this was a story at the end of last year and somewhat continuing to this one, saying upset plaguing u.s. ports have been mainly concentrated on the west coast. the vice president of operations
9:48 am
said a rise in backups at east coast ports suggest congestion is worsening there. the average wait time for a berth extended to 4.2 days last week according to the port data, up from 1.6 days last january. port charleston on thursday, a backup of 19 container ships was waiting offshore for a berth. the is where you can read that. for the next couple minutes, open forum until 10:00. later today, we will show you that security council meeting at the united nations, the discussion over russia and ukraine. we will show that to you at 8:00 tonight. another way you can monitor it is from our c-span now app. let's go to barbara and oklahoma city -- in oklahoma city, democrats line. caller: i want to say again, why
9:49 am
do we talk about the border and we never talk about trump? you have never told the people about his university that was a scam, that he stole everybody's money there, about the people coming over the border. he hires illegals three times in his lifetime. it takes them 20 years to get their money. he lost another lawsuit while he was president. they found him guilty again of stealing money. after the election, he stole out of his own voters. host: the president has been out of office for over a year. why does it matter still to you? caller: because he is still doing it. he does it today. he does it yesterday, tomorrow. people go, biden did this. biden did not open no border. they call in and say, give me my
9:50 am
gun, i hate them democrats, i'm a christian. i do not think that is christian, republicans. i do not think it is christian to hate. it is not on both sides. we do not hate. we are not doing all of that. biden is a decent, good person but we are not wagging after him like he is a king. he makes mistakes like everybody else. people on c-span, why do we not hear these things about him lying to everybody? host: you have made that point. caller: people need to learn forms of government and who gives you rights. any dictatorship, a dictator dictates what rights you have. in a party system, the party decides what rights you have. in a democracy, the majority
9:51 am
decides what rights you have. in our constitutional republic, the constitution -- it is stated and declared in the constitution who has rights. that is our form of government. we are a constitutional republic. host: why do you think people do not know that in this day and age? caller: people do not realize even the individual has rights. they are trying to say we are a democracy where the majority decides who has rights. that is not the way our system is set up. host: we will hear from james in lancaster, kentucky, republican line. caller: i would like to talk about the border. i am all for legal immigration, but this illegal immigration, we need to shut it down. send them back. have them come in legally.
9:52 am
as far as ukraine, i ain't really worried about ukraine. if russia wants it, we will probably end up at war with them over it. but that is -- we need to worry about closing our southern border first. host: james in kentucky. politico has a story as of today looking at the january 6 committee, looking at the events of that day, saying in the past few weeks the panel has prevailed against donald trump on seeing pivotal documents related to the former president's effort to subvert the election, secure testimony from the highest levels of his white house and texts from his son and top aides on top of a string of legal victories against mr. trump's current and former advisers. the run of luck was punctuated when a federal judge in california delivered rulings in defense of committee efforts and
9:53 am
implemented a process for a key trump associate to begin forking over thousands of pages of emails. the recent success has heightened the importance of lofty expectations. the committee's aim is ambitious and twofold, commence americans how dramatically the country teetered toward an authoritarian takeover by the former president, then propose policies to prevent a former threat. axios writes that job growth numbers might be about to turn negative for the first time since president biden took office in the white house. under their big picture section, it says vast millie -- numbers of americans missed work due to the omicron variant and drag down january job numbers. the white house believes these effects will be temporary.
9:54 am
job numbers now are based on how many people are working. more of that story if you go to the axios website. you will go to thelma in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. my question is i thought mr. biden, the president, he should pick the most qualified person. it should not be a black or a white person. it should be the most qualified person on the court. i disagree. host: let's go to ohio. paris, ohio, independent line. caller: how are you today pedro? i feel like you are a babysitter some days with these lines. i have a question for c-span. i have only been here for six
9:55 am
months. and a comment about the supreme court. host: go ahead. caller: i support third parties. you bring candidates or just leaders of the third parties on ever? i heard andrew yang. host: yes. caller: as far as the supreme court goes, i have seen six activists judges in the last three months give three different opinions on bodily a tana me in two court cases and you are complaining -- your listeners are complaining about a qualified justice? they cannot even interpret the constitution the way it is. host: the wall street journal takes a look at the price of prescription drugs. their headline says the list prices rose an average of 6.6%. they write about 150 drugmakers raised prices on 866 products from january 20 according to an
9:56 am
analysis. this highlights some of the specifics, saying there were large price increases. a seller of generic drugs more than doubled the price of a chemotherapy drug to $30. pharmaceuticals raised the price of a generic to treat high blood pressure by 536%. depending on the dosage and package size. if you want to read more of that, the wall street journal is where you will find that story. we will go to tommy in kentucky, democrats line. caller: i would like to question why jeffrey epstein has not been more in the news. i wonder about all these politicians. you check matt gaetz, jim jordan
9:57 am
and a few others, you will see they have been in some kind of sex scandals underage people. i wonder why that is not pointed out more. host: diane from pennsylvania, republican line. good morning. caller: i wanted to address the woman who called and talked about repose being done toting, god loving people and that trump listener. i am is appointed. the republican party is about so much more than trump and gun toting christians. i would like to refer to that woman and explained to her that the border is wide open. there are hundreds of thousands of people pouring into our country illegally and if she
9:58 am
does not understand that she is getting her news sources from the wrong places. host: robin kansas, you are next. -- rob in kansas, you are next. caller: any time someone calls in and complains about the border, they are watching fox news. when we were little boys, my mom arched us into a clinic and we got a polio vaccine. now that she is an elderly person and has been watching fox news, it took her 10 months to take her vaccine. i had to add more channels so she would quit watching fox news so much. as soonish she quit watching fox news, i got her first vaccine and second covid vaccine. biden is doing a great job. it is our responsibility as citizens to listen to medical science and follow it so we can
9:59 am
all get better and get back to a near normal. host: one more call. this is from tennessee. this is jane on our republican line. caller: i wanted some clarity on the stop the mandate rally. i am disappointed that c-span is not knowledgeable of it. it was huge. 17,000 doctors have signed a petition in protest to dr. fauci and the cdc director to sit down and have a discussion with them on what these doctors and renowned scientists, dr. malone, dr. reese, what they have found in treating the patients and discrepancies. just an open discussion for the transparency of massive amounts of information.
10:00 am
i echo what other callers have said. i am not on rumble -- i guess you cut me off. host: you are still on. finish your thought. caller: the only way i found it was i get an email from dr. malone and there was a rumble link. it is a five hour hearing where senator ron johnson sits down with this panel of doctors after the march that i think i heard 85,000 people peacefully marched from one spot in washington to the other. host: we have to leave it there because that is the end of our program. we thank those of you for watching and participating today. do not forget that u.n. security council hearing that will take place tonight. you can watch it on c-span two, c-span now, and c-span.org. that is it for our program today. another edition of washington journal comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then.
10:01 am
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> coming up in half an hour at 10:30 eastern british prime minister boris johnson will address parliament after the release of a report about parties held at his official residence during britain's covid-19 lockdown. his statement will be live on c-span. you can also watch on the video app. >> c-span is your unfiltered government, comcast is partnering with a thousand community centers to create wi-fi enabled location so families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything.
10:02 am
comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the senate returns later today at 3 p.m. eastern and will consider several of president biden's judicial and executive nominees. it includes u.s. ambassador to germany and the president of the export import bank. on the other of the capital, the houses back tuesday at 2 p.m. eastern with votes later in the week to bolster u.s. research and development to better compete with china and aid the semiconductor chip industry. members are expected to vote to enforce arbitration agreements for sexual assault and harassment survivors in the work waste. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2 online at www.c-span.org for our
10:03 am
new c-span now video app. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of them on c-span's >> podcast. season one focuses on lyndon johnson stuff you will hear about the 19 624 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones you make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there is. >> you will also hear some blunt talk.
10:04 am
>> presidential recordings, find them at c-span now or wherever you get your podcasts. >> get c-span on the go, watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand any time, anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio app and discover new podcast for free postop download c-span now for free. paul kane is not only the senior congressional reporter for the washington post, he served as a columnist for that publication. good morning. guest: good morning. host: i want to point viewers to a

45 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on