als and other neurological diseases. on c-span2, the senate is back at 10:00 to consider nominations for the u.s. attorney for massachusetts. on c-span3, the supreme court hears oral arguments about a tuition payment program in maine that excludes religious schools. in the afternoon, the ceo of instagram testifies on the social media platform. coming up this morning, nebraska republican congressman don bacon , veteran and member of the armed services committee, on the annual defense bill, and the challenges facing the biden administration. and then the bloomberg law supreme court reporter kimberly robinson, talks about the findings of a white house commission report examining the potential changes to the supreme

court. and arizona democratic congressman ruben gallego on his book, "they called us lucky," the life and afterlife of the iraq war's hardest hit unit. washington journal. ♪ ♪ host: in a call to the russian president, president biden warned the leader that the u.s. is prepared to protect the ukraine, telling him things we did not do in 2014 we are prepared to do now. good morning, everyone. we begin with your thoughts on russian aggression and how the u.s. should respond. if you are a republican, your number, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us with your

first name, city and state, at (202) 748-8002. we will take your thoughts on facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. we'll begin with national security advisor jake sullivan at the white house yesterday briefing reporters on that to our video conference call between the two leaders. [video clip] >> president biden was direct and straightforward with president putin, as he always is. he declared support for ukrainian territorial integrity and said that if russia further invades ukraine united states and european allies would respond with strong economic measures, providing additional defensive material to the ukrainians above and beyond that which we are already providing and we would fortify allies on the eastern flank with additional capabilities in response to such an escalation. he also told president putin

that there is another option, de-escalation and diplomacy. the u.s. and european allies would engage in strategic issues, including strategic concerns with russia and russian strategic concerns. that we managed to do this at the height of the cold war and we developed mechanisms to help increase transparency and did this in the port -- post-cold war era. there's no reason we can't do that going forward, provided we are operating in a context of de-escalation rather than escalation. the united states, as we have been for some time is prepared to support efforts to advance the minsk agreement in support of the normandy format, including a cease-fire and confidence building measures to help drive the cut -- the process forward. as i said before, the discussion was direct and straightforward. there was a lot of give-and-take, some finger wagging, and the president was

crystal clear about where the united states stands on these issues. we believe that there is no substitute for direct dialogue between leaders and that's true in spades when it comes to the u.s. russia relationship. host: national security adviser jake sullivan yesterday, briefing reporters on the two hour video conference call between president joe biden and the russian leader. now, that was closed to the u.s. press. our question for you this morning is how do you think the u.s. should respond to russian aggression and mark according to news reports there are 70,000 russian troops massed along the border with ukraine and according to intelligence officials, that number could grow to 175,000. the biggest test of whether the video meeting changed the mind of mr. putin will be, according to "the times," if there is a military buildup that abates.

let's listen to the republican take. here's ted cruz on the senate floor. [video clip] >> joe biden was sworn into office january 20 of 2021 and four days later vladimir putin began building the put -- pipeline again. why? because the button white house made the decision to waive the sanctions on nord stream 2 and give vladimir putin a multibillion dollar gift for generations to come and in doing so, to set the stage for the invasion of ukraine by russia. when biden waved sanctions on nord stream 2, ukraine and poland both said it was creating a security crisis in europe. increasing dramatically the chances that russia would invade ukraine. this invasion that we are facing

, the very real prospects of, is joe biden's fault. but you know what? it's also the fault of senate mcgrath's. for two years we had bipartisan agreement to stop nord stream 2 and we succeeded and when there was a republican president in office, donald trump, i and other republicans were perfectly willing to hold him to account to press him to stand up against nord stream 2 and he did. as soon a democrat got in the white house, our democratic colleagues decided partisan loyalty was more important than national security. that partisan loyalty to the democratic party was more important than standing up to russia, more important than defending ukraine. suddenly we have seen the democrats in this chamber bending over backwards to avoid stopping nord stream 2. mr. president, i want to be very clear. a lot of discussion about joe

biden having a phone call with putin today. that phone call is real nice, but it's not going to stop and invasion. i will tell you what will, joe biden could stop the invasion today by simply following the law and sanctioning nord stream 2. host: ted cruz there. do you agree with him? with the white house? john, illinois, we will go to you first. how should the u.s. respond to russian aggression? caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. cruz is correct, joe biden could do the nord stream 2 sanction dance and he seems to think that like ted cruz and joe biden are on the same page there in terms of threats of aggression if it is just a matter of sanctioning the gas pipeline. but ukraine has the

third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world behind ours. they disarmed because we told them we would protect them and here we are, russia invaded what, six or seven years ago. obama didn't do anything. should have. now it's just like putin has it. i think we should just bring ukraine in. sounds like ted cruz would be in favor of bringing ted -- bringing ukraine under the nuclear umbrella and protect these smaller countries from these thugs, including china. host: also, bring ukraine into the nato alliance? that's what the russian president sees as provoking him, he wants, he does not want ukraine to be a part of that nato alliance. caller: we made a commitment to ukraine a long time ago [indiscernible] host: you broke up a little bit.

are you still there? caller: yes. can you hear me? host: we can hear you now. a commitment? caller: that if ukraine got rid of the nuclear arsenal, we would protect them. that's the agreement. they did that and we need to protect them against this aggression. of course, he'll back down. putin will back down. they stand up to our values but he understands that we don't stand by our word anymore. host: what about sanctions? does that -- go ahead. caller: i'm all for it if it worked, but i don't know why anybody would, i don't know that joe biden would reconsider this. what's germany's position on that? maybe it's a more complicated matter than that but it sounds like we have at least bipartisan support for defending ukraine and ted cruz, apparently, would

support it. host: ok, john, illinois. john who is a republican in bridgewater, new jersey. hey, john. caller: i would like to be more subtle, of course. we don't want to see russians using the word aggression. the problem is that ukraine has been a part of russia for hundreds of years, if not more than that. they are concerned about missiles being at their border. i compare it to when the cuban missile crisis, when we objected to russia putting missiles in cuba, 90 miles away. it's not that simple. to say who's right to recognize, i think, the complexities of these things.

they are just not black-and-white. we like to make them that simple for political purposes. like you say, i'm a republican. obviously, you know, i don't want to see any wars. but we have to be sensitive to this. it's a real issue for them. host: this is from open your times." "the most extreme -- "the new york times." "the most extreme step would be cutting off russia from swift, but some think it might be too harsh of a response. jake sullivan held out an alternative pathway to make progress on diplomacy, describing in essence a return to a diplomatic process that russia engaged in six years ago but has largely ignored. officials say the tone of the call was honest and businesslike but the key message, the kremlin

maintained, was that western military activity was a threat to russia in the united states was raising tensions in the region by increasing the military potential near the border. what mr. pruden sees as redline, ukraine and the west see as reasonable defense for a country that already lost control of crimea, still occupied territory in the u.s. description, engaged in a war of attrition in the east." as i said, the call between the leaders was closed to u.s. press . russian state media released this video of the beginning of the call. take a look. [video clip] >> [speaking russian] >> there you go. >> hello? >> good to see you again.

host: from russian state media. this photograph was released by the white house of the video conference call. you can see the president there flanked by his top advisers meeting with the russian president. this morning we are asking you how the u.s. should respond to aggression along the border with ukraine. sean, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. exactly what joe biden is doing, we have to have diplomacy first. russia doesn't have that big of an economy that we need to worry about their economy. vladimir putin runs his nation where oligarchs rule everything, they take everything from the people. to this day i would like to know what all of the officials were doing in russia.

on our fourth of july celebration, you can't get an answer. i can't get an answer from my congressman. went to russia and came back, i called my congressman, my senators, no one knows. no one gives me an answer. but were the senators doing their? we don't want to be like oligarchs, do we? host: this from twitter, so what if russia takes back ukraine. i'm not willing to die or spend a dime for it, what value does it add to america? from the article in "the new york times," "the u.s. has provided $2.5 billion in support to ukraine including

host: doug, republican line, new jersey. caller: i just don't trust this administration. china and russia have been doing joint exercises for the last five years together. i believe china will invade taiwan and simultaneously putin will invade ukraine and that's probably a two front war that we could lose and it's a set up and they both know they can get away with it and that's why they're doing it. host: tom, democratic line, florida, good morning. caller: that last caller, it's actually trumpets week. not only was he weak, he was

like a puppet. putin was the boss and trump was the puppet. let's be realistic. you have to understand the history. vladimir putin thinks he's tough. most russian people don't like him? why? let's see, he's corrupt. he killed his opponents. that is what trump wants to be. the trump ideology is to be vladimir putin. he wants to be like putin. then again, trump is not smart. i mean let's be honest. he brags he's a stable genius? come on. host: pearl, nashville, georgia, what do you think? caller: good morning, how you doing?

yes, my name is earl from georgia, deep south. excuse me, just got off from work. i think that what president biden is doing is a good thing and i think we should sit back and look and wait. here's the mandate that i think we should do. we should cut off all ties from russia. it's like they said in desert storm, cut off the head, can't run. cut off supplies, can't eat. that's what we need to do. the oil, cut it off completely. that will bring russia to their knees. host: all right, earl, georgia. "the daily mail" has this headline, ukraine -- "ukraine warning of a bloody massacre and 5 million refugees fleeing into europe if russia invades."

those words spoken by the ukrainian defense minister. take a look. [video clip] >> i do not believe they will have a victory. it will be a bloody massacre. the russians will come back. >> there is also belief in ukraine that russia, which denies plans to invade, can with the help of the united states and its allies, still be deterred. host: philip, michigan, what do you say to this russian? u.s. response to russian aggression? caller: as i told the guy before when i got on, the elephant in the room is this hyper speed

intercepting rockets. russia has developed one. they tested it. china just developed and tested it and shot one around the earth twice and it landed in china and a hit the target they were after. i called to her three years ago to talk to a guy from the dod and said look, we have got to get this hyper speed interceptor , we've got to hurry up and develop these. they are going to make icbms obsolete. once they are mounted on the flat tops with the launchers like on the ford right now, they'll be able to launch them and if they are near north korea they could take it out before it even hardly gets there. just as soon as it enters a little bit of height, these hyperspeed rockets can take it out. if we don't hurry up and develop these things like china is doing

, our icbms will be worthless. it's like we really need to start spending money on things that will make a difference. biden should have used the pipeline as a bargaining chip. he should have used their pipeline as a bargaining trip -- bargaining chip, some think trump would have done off the bat. host: you are talking about the nord stream 2 pipeline that goes around ukraine and go straight into germany to supply them. talking about that pipeline? caller: that's the one. host: listen to the president on the call with a russian leader, victoria nuland of the state department was preparing to testify before the senate foreign relations committee yesterday afternoon about the policy towards russia. listen to this exchange between ron johnson, republican, asking the under secretary of state about the possibility of sanctions on the pipeline.

[video clip] >> one thing i believe the foreign relations committee is unified on, might not unanimous, support for sanctions against the nord stream 2 pipeline. many of us were disappointed that those sanctions were not fully implemented and that the construction continued. i can't think of a more powerful way to punish russian aggression than by rolling back the progress that has been made and, if at all possible, prevent nord stream 2 from ever being completed. is that something that is being discussed with allies or contemplated? >> absolutely. as you recall from july, that was very much in the statement. any moves against ukraine would have a direct impact, that's our

expectation and the conversation we are having. >> direct impact is one thing but i'm literally talking about rolling back the pipeline. loosely defined, taking action to prevent it from ever becoming operational. >> i think of president putin moves on ukraine the expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended. host: the undersecretary for political a fails -- political affairs testifying on the policy towards russia. your turn to tell washington what you think should be done on russian aggression. from "the wall street journal," they note on the pipeline that strains have complicated efforts to forge a common position over russia and chief among them is the nord stream 2 two gas pipeline that germany and russia are moving to complete and that the biden administration has begrudgingly accepted,

delivering russian gas to germany, bypassing the ukrainian pipeline network. opponents, including biden critics, warned that the project gives mr. putin the ability to manipulate the european gas markets. in july the government of angela merkel, the outgoing german chancellor, co. signed an agreement with the biden administration committing to taking action against russia should they attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive acts against ukraine. lloyd, west virginia -- ukraine." lloyd, west virginia, your up. -- you are up. caller: biden can't even take care of his own country, let alone get involved in another country. he don't know what to do with the border. he didn't know what to do with afghanistan. and so he needs to stay out of russia's business and he needs

to do more to help his own country and he's doing it in the wrong way. trump was a whole lot better president. thank you. host: all right, we are asking you to dial in with your thoughts this morning. republicans, (202) 748-8001. how should the u.s. respond to russian aggression? democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. remember, you can also text and we will read some of them. just include your first name, city and state, at (202) 748-8003. had to facebook.com/c-span and you can also send a tweet @cspanwj,. earl, you are next. caller: first of all, russia is not a country, it's an organized

crime entity that has tentacles wrapped all in the american system. they are all over us. we had a president who laundered millions for these guys? how do we expect to compete or fight or whatever? they are all over us. host: all right, earl. adele, springfield, illinois, what do you have to say? caller: good morning merry christmas, i forgot to wish you happy thanksgiving but you are on your break at the time. my response to this question would be that this is all a military-industrial complex issue. i have been calling for years. there is no military solution to russia or a war with china. that's armageddon talk, right? that's not going to happen. my position would be that they are responding to our and nato's

coming to their borders on their southern and eastern side and feeling that this is a response to nato and our actions. in a way we are somewhat violating a treaty that we had that we did under gorbachev. it would be as this if there military surrounded us on multiple sides, how would we feel? we would respond in a similar manner. the ukrainian build over russian troops is directly responding to that, saying that if you allow ukraine to be in nato, this is what's going to happen. they took a crimea, it was wrong for them but i did hear that there were a large number of russians in that population in crimea that wanted a more

russian ethnic. that was their response. guess what? we didn't make a military reaction and we did the same thing with georgia. the russians did it with georgia and we didn't think anything of the reaction. in china, taiwan and stuff, it's just ludicrous. it's not something that is for humankind. that's my response. merry christmas, happy new year. host: all right, adele. this piece from the journal talks about the fight for ukraine from the view of vladimir putin. he writes that "the master narrative rests on the interpretation of 1000 years of russian history, from which he derives the conclusion that russians and ukrainians are one people, a single hole -- whole

host: keith, lake land, florida, good morning. caller: getting back to the callers before, even more so, it's correct, the pipeline, i believe he used biden with the pipeline to see how he would react and if he gave into the pipeline i believe that is what gave him the gonads to go to do this.

i have seen this coming for years and years. talked about it, read about it, studied on it. i knew that this was going to happen like five years ago. and it has and i can't believe it has gone down exactly like i had envisioned it that i believe the feist -- the pipeline was the first. he had to see what biden would do with that and as soon as he agreed it was over and it will be hard to back out of this. host: you have been reading about this for a long time. what interests you about this? where does it come from? caller: then interested in politics since i was a little kid. i don't know. i actually have a big interest in russia myself. there are a lot of things that we have in common as countries. things we don't have in common, but more in common than not and as a little kid i always thought all of these movies about russia, why can we not it along? i see now why we cannot.

i'm in the hospital in about to go for x-ray. that's all i have. thank you. host: thank you. don, democratic caller, south bend, hello. caller: yeah, i'm trying to get my head around this. if i remember right, the pipeline, the european union countries wanted the pipeline to come in from russia to heat their houses and everything else because you know, a few years ago they were cutting it off, they were doing this and doing that, he was manipulating the prices. what do you think our oil companies do? they don't manipulate prices? the pipeline coming from canada? it's just sewage. it's not even refined, it's so thick and tary, they put it on a ship and send it some place else. it ain't nothing for us. those european countries told us they wanted that, they needed that, so we let them have it.

now all of a sudden everybody is up in arms about this as manipulating prices? we do the same thing. ok? and when you have people like trump out there patting him on the back telling him what a good job he's doing? putin loves it. who stood on the stage in helsinki and shook his hand and through 16 intelligence agencies under the bus. trump did. come on. it's a joke, it's propaganda. it's all a game for these people. ok? do this, do that. european countries, if they wanted us to come over there to do that, they would have said. so far they haven't said it. host: let me get your reaction to this bbc article about this pipeline. the bbc, this is from september of 2020, they say it's not that merkel and her conservative party were enthusiastic cheerleaders of the pipeline.

she inherited it from her predecessor. mr. schroeder enjoys a backslapping bromance with vladimir putin who he famously described as a democrat through and through. they noted, the bbc, the article caller: no, it can't be stopped. natural gas over here, the fracking and everything else, goes on the ship and it goes

over there, the business people in capitalist people over here say hey, there's an opportunity. take it all and throw it over there. give it to them, help them out, we can make a lot of money. you think it's staying here? it's not staying here. no. it's not staying here, it's going over there. that's what cracked me up. it's a political game with all these people and you listen to ted cruz on the floor? who would want to listen to cancun ted? this is bull. it's propaganda. it's fear mongering. the same thing that we had way back in the day with whatever you want to call it. call it a rack, iran, call it who cares. send some diplomats over there, get the deal done. trump is the dealmaker, right? his people were dealmakers. that's why they were there in russia on the fourth of july, making deals.

they were hoping they could create something. once to get reelected again. why else would they be over there? they are going to be like hunter biden was, make a deal over there and lined their pockets with money and then get out of there. have a nice day. host: fraser, michigan, republican, good morning. go ahead, sir. we are listening. caller: well, i'm listening to all of this. it's a big stirring up of stew just for political business, trying to give mr. biden the impression to the american people of how politically involved he is. because of his attitude around what he's done to this country in the border and some other

issues we are looking at, we are going to have to be facing, paying more money through it. how he drafts the, the, the proper drugs into our bodies. we are wondering why it is all occurring now that he's president? in he so heavily screwed up in afghanistan? screwed up at the border? wondering what they think the internal politics of this country is that? he's over there trying to deal with the russians? they will take them to school. that's all i have to say. i'm not going to, i'm not going to run down which party, which, which, which country is doing it and we are trying to interfere with what germany's doing with the russians.

host: ok from the hearing yesterday on capitol hill with the victoria nuland on the policy towards russia, i want to show you this exchange between bob menendez, the committee chair from new jersey, asking her about ukraine and xavier becerra bonding to the buildup of russian military along the border. [video clip] >> would it be fair to say that the buildup of russian troops there, amassed along the borders, that it is in fact causing ukrainians to mobilize in a way they might not have before? >> that's right. as i said, close to 100,000 troops now and many, many more planned. ukrainians have had to think if it lee about their own security and in fact some of the defensive support that the u.s.

has given ukraine over the years they have had in storage containers and we will now see them have to put them out and they will have to think very hard about their own civil defense. >> finally, if hopefully president putin takes a different course and doesn't invade ukraine, that doesn't mean that ukrainian stability is reasserted. there are other ways to try to destabilize the ukrainian government. are we working with the president of ukraine to try to firm up their stability institutionally as well as against cyber and other efforts to undermine the government of ukraine? >> we are, mr. chairman. as i said in the opening, there are significant efforts to destabilize ukraine from within and oppose catastrophic risks

for the government. we have been very clear in sharing our concerns and our intelligence that we have with ukrainians and in supporting efforts they are making not only in the cyber realm but in the civil defense realm to protect their inns. host: you can find yesterday's hearing on our website, c-span.org and download the free mobile app, it's called c-span now. context from the atlantic council, "in recent years russia has combined military operations with disinformation campaigns designed to justify aggressive action

host: nancy, virginia, republican. what do you say on this? nancy, are you there? good morning. we can hear you now.

caller: i'm just overwhelmed over mr. biden and the decision that he's made with opening the border and what he's done in afghanistan. all i can do is pray. host: what are you concerned about regarding russia? caller: well, who knows what they are talking about over there, making deals. undercover deals. with his son being over there, it's hard to tell what kind of agreements biden has already made. host: chris, tipton bill, good morning. caller: i think it's about a kind of control. can i tell you something about what's going on in northwest

tennessee? we've got guys chasing each other around with guns. host: tie this to russia. caller: it's all about control. i think they are wanting to control these people. you know? i think it's kind of all about control. host: all right. johnny, georgia, democratic caller. caller: good morning, how y'all doing this morning? i'm sitting here listening to this and as a veteran, i know that when i was in the military i knew about fighting the russians in all this. the biggest problem we have in this country is division. you can sera -- countries like russia and china, you know, united we stand, divided we fall. that's all i gotta say. host: cj, we are getting your

ideas on how to respond to russian aggression this morning. go ahead. caller: good morning to you, good morning to america. the russian situation, it was around christmas time when we headed into a new year with a president coming off his first year and some of those people who are still filling out the papers from the last election still can't forget about all the things that trump did. so, right now the russian situation i think is just a lot of hype. i don't think it's really gonna go nowhere. no one wants to go into a whole bunch of details about it. that's what i think. host: all right, here's the piece from "the new york times," "pandemic beating putin." this is from the opinion section of "the new york times" from the

independent news outlet. "the kremlin has itself to blame -- host: dennis, ohio, democratic caller. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? i was listening to these people talk that no one is taking it into consideration that mr. trump is a security risk, the way i feel. he has a relationship with

vladimir putin. his son has a relationship with vladimir putin. his whole family. we need to be concerned about this, number one. host: what does that have to do with the situation now? caller: when the next president is in one ear and the new president is in another ear, guess what? they won't make any deals. my understanding is that trump can't get money from banks in the united states. mr. biden needs to check on trump. he may be making deals with them as we speak and we don't know about it. maybe we should check. maybe we should do some real thorough research into the situation. i will tell you something else. i represent a lot of veterans. i do work for them. they are mad. the afghanistan situation has not been dealt with properly. now, we get all the people out of there and we make a big stand

on them, and i mean militarily, from the air, and we take out kabul. totally take it out. leave that message to vladimir putin and the rest of them that we have had enough of it. it's over, let it be done and be done with it. that will send the message that we are not playing around anymore and that we need this done. his approval rate will go through the roof. he needs to deal with this situation and deal with it quickly. host: all right, dennis. marilyn, you are next. good morning. caller: there is so much to say, i don't even know what to say. the last thing he said, bombing kabul? that's insanity. vladimir putin doesn't care about kabul. i don't know if you noticed, every time you ask a question on c-span no matter what it is about, people start talking about trump and biden and the main thing that's on everybody's mind, democracy.

half of this country thinks we are losing democracy because the election was stolen from trump. half of the country is worried about democracy because they are worried that they will steal the election of from biden last time but you keep asking questions about other things hoping that if you give more people more information about the fact that if there was no deal ever made, that ukraine was not going to go into nato, it's a fact. you just told people that there was no deal made that ukraine would not go into nato. what did they do? they talk about trump. the guy two people before was right. they hear biden in one ear and trump and the other. c-span is tone deaf. you have to understand, half the people in this country believe alive. host: so what are you suggesting we do here on this program? caller: i don't know.

in my opinion trump people are vaccinated against truth. they can't hear truth anymore. i don't know what c-span is going to do but i don't like that c-span can't seem to tell people know, that's not a fact, yes, this is a fact. no matter who is saying the lie, please tell people that's a liar that's true, but get to the point. we are losing democracy. host: it's impossible for whoever sits in this chair to be a real-time fact checker. it's not possible. but the beauty of the show and that i have said this many time is that people like you can call up and dispute what seminoles has said to. it's a conversation and we are having it live on national television every single morning. it's your opportunity to tell the lawmakers who are coming to this capital and the other decision-makers here in washington what you think about what they are doing.

on capitol hill yesterday a deal was made to raise the debt ceiling. this was "the washington post." "top democrats and republicans signal that they have clinched a deal to raise the debt ceiling in the country, settling on a complicated legislative maneuver to help them stave off another high-stakes battle to prevent the u.s. government from experiencing a catastrophic default -- host: the political front page says mcconnell secure his support for the debt strategy. let's hear from louise. caller: hello, good morning. i just wanted to comment on the maryland caller and the ohio caller. they can't see the truth.

i wanted to mention the thing about russia. it's a red herring. i don't go into the store and purchase made in russia. but i do hunt i go to the store, everything is made in china. i think they are trying to concentrate on russia, look over here, and ignore the big giant monster in south asia. that's what i think is going on. it wouldn't surprise me that they would start a war because i think we are going to go into a great depression. start a war. it's what happened in world war ii. so you know. i'm a fan of putin myself and i will tell you why. five people owned 90% of the resources of russia when the wall collapsed and the corrupt clinton administration came in.

vladimir putin came in and took the money away from them, put it in the treasury and built-up russia to where it is today. so, yes, he is a strong man. he is a smart man and i hope to god that nobody would go to war with russia when we are being taken over by china and i think biden is into the other guy. i think biden is compromised by china. all the deals that he and his son and his brother have done over the decades with china, i think he is throwing us in to look at russia so that we don't see china. host: all right, we have heard your point. larry, hello. caller: they were calling you about trump and trying to tell you how he was in with ukraine

but what he was saying was this, we know that trump had secret meetings with vladimir putin and nobody could get in. then donald trump had a thing where he let putin take 20 miles near crimea and he pulled out and trump pulled out. after he did that, a lot of people were killed. he's doing the right thing, biden loves his power. it's about what is his intention because the american peoples are

not going to stand by and let him go in and take it over, crimea, when he knows there is a lot of oil there. the oil is running on the ground and he knows he could take over those things. host: ok, larry. more legislative action this morning, this from "the wall street journal," house and senate negotiators tuesday unveiled a 778 billion dollars defense policy budget bill that authorizes 25 billion dollars more in military spending, or rested by president biden, creating a commission on the war in afghanistan three months after america's longest war ended in a chaotic and bloody withdrawal --

host: john in chicago, independent, what do you say about russian aggression on the border? caller: thanks for taking my call and letting us call the balls and strikes, i think that's how it should be. the conflict there has been going on for six years or more. it hasn't been a quick build up. it's been happening for many months. military service as i understand have had their finger on this for quite a while and i'm surprised that the politicians

seem to be behind the ball a bit. and also the media. for my part i think the problem needs to be accurately defined. is it an energy crisis in europe? does putin feel internal pressure to do something to redirect the audience? is it outreach somehow to the west to prevent the buildup in the baltic, that those states have developed their own cyber capabilities to prepare for a ukrainian invasion? and i also wonder the degree to which the near east to russia, the near west to russia, those old soviet bloc states would respond to this. i think we need to be careful and proportionate and i would recommend that folks check out "bloodlines," that time after the second world war where that part of the world was caught

between hitler's and stalin. a lot of people will know that the ukrainians within living memory had internal immigration forced north by stalin. i'm not sure there is so much unity between ukrainian and the soviets, causing me to wonder how far this could go in terms of escalation if there is a history of bad blood. host: i hope you stay with us this morning because up next we will be talking with congressman don bacon, republican of nebraska, the cochair of the house baltic caucus. i'm going to ask him about what he's hearing from those blocks of countries. i hope you stay with us to hear the answer. mount pleasant, pennsylvania, republican mine, good morning, go ahead. caller: how are you today? host: i'm well, i'm well. how do you think the u.s. should

respond to this? caller: in the last residential debates there was no topic brought up to mr. trump or mr. biden about foreign policy in these debates. also, no topics of economy. i believe that mr. trump was a good president. he had pompeo behind him to handle all the foreign policy. i'm hoping that president biden and his people can also somehow be able to handle foreign policy. that wasn't really president biden's strong suit. host: ok. alex, silver spring, maryland, democratic caller. caller: i am going to make your morning and actually going to talk about russia.

i'm not going to use the t word or the b word. for starters, i'm going to express a little bit of disappointment that you are phrasing the question for your viewers as responding to russian aggression. but that would be too much time to go into while i feel that way . personally. i'm going to reference and i know there isn't a lot of time left for the segment a particular article that you might want to maybe put up for your viewers or something that i would recommend called, it's titled america's ukraine policy is all about russia. to give a brief summary on a couple, in my opinion, a good summary of some of the events going on right now in ukraine and how russia and america are both responding. but as far as the current crisis goes, i will be people with two questions to consider. one, do we think that vladimir putin was more or less likely to

invade before or after the american press started releasing all of the intelligence reports that russia was planning on invading ukraine? it wasn't the american government that said that. it was all released by the press saying that the american intelligence agencies had this information. as far as intelligence agency reports go, what little we know of it, our american intelligence agency stupid or are the russians stupid? the briefings that we know of suggested that the russians were planning on invading sometime between now and january. which is the winter. in russia. i think that is extremely unlikely. i will leave it there. thank you very much.

host: all right. anthony, democratic caller. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was prompted to call when you asked what trump has to do with russia and forgive me for going on this whole, in the mueller report, in the section on paul manafort, there's a small section about his dealings in that part of the world. it's actually pretty frightening when you read into what he was trying to do their in helping russia get acceptance from the american president for them to come in invade. just something to look into. i would encourage everybody to read it. thank you very much. host: all right, anthony. we are taking a short break and when we come back we will talk to republican don bacon, member of the armed services committee, we will talk about foreign policy challenges facing this president. later, kimberly robinson will

discuss the findings of a white house commission report examining potential changes to the supreme court. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> the ceo of instagram testifies today on the impact of the social media platform on young users. watch the hearing live at 2:30

eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now. stay up-to-date on the latest in publishing with book tv's new podcast. plus, best seller list and industry news and insider interviews. you can find about books and all of our podcasts on the c-span now app. you can watch about books sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2, or unlike anytime at booktv.org. >> download c-span's new mobile app and stay up-to-date with live video coverage of the day's biggest events and key congressional hearings. white house events and supreme

court oral arguments, even "washington journal," where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. "washington journal" continues. host: representative don bacon, republican from nebraska with us this morning, he represents the second district of nebraska in the omaha region. he is a veteran. your assessment of u.s.-russian relations right now. guest: thank you for having me. the relationship is in a very bad state. it is dangerous. russia has amassed approximately 150,000 troops on ukraine borders and it appears there are more troops on the way. our intelligence is saying it is a threatening situation. it is shocking to me that putin would risk war.

when i talked to my colleagues and other folks in the national security arena, we are taking this very serious. if we do not handle this right, we could see china do something similar with taiwan. the baltic states would be under threat. i am taking the serious and we need to get this right. president biden is paying for some of the feckless behavior we saw with afghanistan. he has to get this right working with putin. host: the read out of the call between president biden and russian leader vladimir putin, was it handled properly? guest: i think it is heading the right way but it is not enough. if they threaten ukraine or go into ukraine, we need to take

serious economic sanctions. i think russia is willing to pay that price. president putin harkens back to a dynasty. he would like to rebuild the empire of russia the weight used to be. i think he is willing to pay an economic price. ukrainians need defensive weapons, antitank weapons, we need to get them there fast. we need to train ukrainians how to use them. we need to make this so painful for russia they will decide not to do it. host: what is their military posture in that area? guest: we have some forces to help ukrainians train. we should help them with new weapons. i am not suggesting we should go in there and fight their battle, i do not think americans are ready for that, but we should

help ukraine be able to defend itself. ultimately, it is about deterrence. we want russia to know this will hurt. if you invade ukraine, you will lose forces. there will be an economic price to pay. i am of the opinion that putin is willing to pay that economic price if he can take back ukraine. host: how long can he pay that price? guest: we were talking about when they invaded crimea. most people have forgotten about that. president biden, one of his first actions was to approve the pipeline into western europe. if we put sanctions on russia, maybe five years later or so, people move on. they are willing to pay that price. i do not know the president putin takes president biden's

economic threats that seriously. host: the nord stream 2 pipeline running around ukraine from russia into germany -- guest: correct. host: does the united states have any power -- if germany were to agree to shut that off? guest: i think it has some impact. i think the bigger impact is president putin saw how joe biden handled afghanistan. there is an assessment around the world that there is weakness in the white house right now. i think president biden can recover depending on how he responds. i think afghanistan, whether it is russia, china, iran, north korea, they saw a weak leadership out of the white house and this is a response to that. they will see how joe biden response. this is a test for joe biden, bottom line, and that is what

putin is doing. host: we had an earlier caller asked about the neighboring countries, the former countries of the soviet bloc. you deal with the delegations from estonia and lithuania. i am wondering what they are telling you about russia? guest: they are serious about what they are soon with ukraine. it is a threat to them in the long run. we have to make sure we have a strong deterrence posture in estonia and lithuania. we should make that as part of the baltic states as they are part of nato. the baltics have better capabilities to defend themselves. air defense systems that can compete in that part of the world. they are gravely concerned by

what they see and they want to ensure that america is also gravely concerned and responding. host: ron in springfield, virginia, independent. go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning. we invaded and occupied multiple countries in the last 20 years. we are bankrupt with moral authority. the fact that we are lecturing another country with interfering with their neighbor -- we have occupied countries 5000 miles away -- it is ludicrous. it is perfect timing -- selective service, we dropped out of the -- it is like a godsend. host: congressman, why should we care if russia takes back ukraine? guest: i totally disagree with the caller. people are trying to whitewash

what happened in afghanistan. they provided a safe haven for the taliban. we have every right to respond in afghanistan, take out the taliban and go after osama bin laden. there is a broader debate about iraq. that is a situation i went back to 1991, when iraq invaded kuwait. we are a democracy. we have the bill of rights. we defend human dignity around the world. i think we are a good example. we should not look down upon ourselves like the caller was saying, in my view. we should care about what goes on in ukraine. if we respond weekly with the russian invasion of ukraine, china will likely invade taiwan. and then you will have the baltic states under threat, maybe the country of georgia on the southern portion of russia.

we want to improve deterrence. we want to convince russia it is not in their interest to invade ukraine. if we fail at that, ukraine will not be the last country this happens two. host: congressman don bacon taking your calls this morning. caller: good morning. it has been five or six years since i have called. host: do not be nervous. go ahead. caller: since putin saw donald trump surrender to the taliban, why would that make him afraid of america? guest: go ahead. caller: since donald trump

surrender to the taliban in afghanistan -- afghanistan leaders to participate, when we got out, there was no support here at home to try to help. why should putin be afraid of america? host: go ahead. guest: there are a couple of broader issues. i disagreed with president trump negotiating with the taliban without the afghan government. i thought it sent a bad message to the afghan government and taliban. the agreement is conditions based. the taliban had to meet certain conditions for our withdrawal. in the end, they did not meet the conditions in president biden decided to withdraw our forces anyway. in the end, the withdraw from afghanistan does fall on the

shoulders of president biden. he did not have to sustain or maintained agreement president trump made. it ended up being eight feckless withdrawal -- it ended up being a feckless withdrawal. our allies are being murdered today. they were stranded. we sent a terrible message to our adversaries. even our allies were disgusted. i have talked to leaders all over the world. the afghan withdrawal impacts today. i am not going to defend president trump's negotiations. i thought it was wrong. we should stress it was conditions based in the taliban did not meet those conditions. joe biden decided to do it anyway and it was a disaster. host: north carolina, republican. caller: good morning,

congressman, thank you for being there. i would like to talk about the russian collusion narrative that the media helped with the dnc push for four years. it was a lie. hillary clinton's own people are being arrested as we speak. a russian has been arrested, indicted. i would also like you to talk about the hunter biden story that c-span -- anyone that calls in that wants to come on with a book that is anti-trump, the first place they will go is c-span, cnn. there is a book out right now, number 1 seller, "laptop from hell," number 1 book in america, c-span will not talk about it. would you talk about the

collusion with the media and the dnc to help joe biden win an election, which is a fact, and the hunter biden story, which is a fact. guest: thank you. in 2016, the story was russian collusion. there were two separate issues and it often got conflated. russia does try to interfere in people's elections, not just ours. we see it all over the world. the other part of the story was president trump illegally colluded with the russians during the process. that was the story for a couple years and what we found was the story was planted by the clinton campaign through the dossier they helped fund and produce. some members of the fbi leadership knew about it and he let the story go on. what i like about our system of

government, we had the mueller report. i do not think director mueller was good friends with president trump, but the report showed there was not collusion between president trump and the russians. we do have a free media. i know a lot of the mainstream media might not have covered this, but in the end, he did get some coverage. we have competing media. it allows if someone is not covering it that other folks can. it took a lot longer for the story to get out deny would like but it is out there. when it comes to hunter biden, there was silence by the mainstream media about his computer, about what was on the computer, and i do not think the american voters were well served by the silence. some point to his father's actions decisions. it should have been more clearly broadcast by various media. host: mike in west virginia,

democratic caller. caller: i do agree with representative bacon that we should have a strong presence in ukraine. secondly, i think president joe biden did a fantastic job of getting us out of afghanistan. the republicans are blaming democrats for everything about afghanistan -- i am a vietnam veteran, i fought in vietnam -- i remember in 1975, the republicans, nixon and ford, they pulled all of the troops out of vietnam. if you can remember on top of the embassy with the helicopters, we left one million 500,000 people who fought for us over there with no protection.

do not blame biden for what he did. he did a fantastic job, we are out of their, i agree, we need to have a strong presence in ukraine. if we do not, it will be like the 1950's. soviet union took over czechoslovakia and they will move on down the line. guest: i appreciate your comments about ukraine. thank you for your service in vietnam. i have come to know so many vietnamese who escaped out of vietnam. we adopted one in my family when i was 13, he became my brother. we lost 15,000 americans for a lost cause. vietnam wants to be our best friend. it has come full circle. i have to disagree on

afghanistan. it was a colossal disaster. people falling off of airplanes. the decision to withdrawal from the airbase before we had our citizens out in the rest of our military out was a mistake. the way it was done was about as ineptly done as i have ever seen. it cost american lives. today, we have our allies being murdered every single day in afghanistan. the taliban is going around and finding people who served with us. we are paying for today. we see what is going on with ukraine, we see what china is threatening with taiwan. the other day, the chinese flew aircraft over taiwan. they are trying to intimidate. this is because of what happened in afghanistan. host: a little bit more from you on the adoption you were talking about. how do you think that shaped who you are? guest: it really shows the

american dream. andrew became my brother. he came here with one suitcase. he was like 25 years altered he was a marine in the vietnamese marines. he came with one suitcase. he spoke very little english. he went on to become a ceo of a major company in buffalo, new york. he passed away with some lung issues, it might have been agent orange. he was a man i loved and he showed the american dream. host: how did the adoption come about? guest: it was through a church. they were refugees in 1975. my dad made a decision -- funny story, he did not tell my mom they were bringing in a 25-year-old vietnamese marine.

it turned out well. he was such a gentleman. he lived with us for about two years and he went to college near where we lived and he got a cpa license. he became a very successful businessman. one of the joys of my life. here is a guy who could not speak english, 25 years old, and retired as a multimillionaire business owner. hard work allows you to achieve your dreams. host: connecticut, independent. caller: i do not think that could happen in china or russia. there is not any freedom there. ever since world war ii, we have been conscious of tyrannical powers and fighting them. right now, we cds two big --

right now, we see these two big powers, china and russia. it looks like we are in a big fix right now. if we are going to start printing millions -- trillions of dollars -- we better start putting that money toward a strong defense. we need to check the the chinese. they have the super technologies that we need to check. host: i think tom is referring to the hypersonic weapons. guest: great input from the caller. it speaks to a broader issue. china is nearing our gdp. their economy is coming close to matching ours. in some areas, their technologies are where we are at and in some cases, beyond. americans will have to realize if we do not start working together, we cannot be not

moving forward and fighting each other versus finding solutions. china will surpass us. in 20 years, the chinese currency might be the world currency and not the american dollar. they have genocide going on, they are threatening taiwan, they persecute christians who do not believe or go to the official churches. they do not have freedom of speech. these are the values they want to put on the world. russia is no better. russia's economy is nowhere near china's or ours. we have to work with the free world, our allies, and work together. we need to have economic relationships and agreements, military agreements. countries who share our values, we need to work together and stand up to these other countries because we cannot do it by ourselves.

america cannot fight everyone's wars. we can make it a safer world by working together. i agree with the caller that we are one of the few countries where you can be born and a very poor family and through hard work and character achieve great things. many countries do not allow that to happen. it could be cultural, could be legal reasons, but in america you can. host: the ukraine defense minister told -- he warns of a bloody massacre and millions of refugees. guest: i think it is true. i cannot believe president putin is threatening a major war. it shows how risky and dangerous he is. we should not underestimate him. we should not underestimate what is going on in the president, he

will have to get this right. it cannot just be economic sanctions because i am pretty sure russia is willing to eat those sanctions and in five years they will be all right. they would rather have ukraine under their control and they would suffer the five years of economic sanctions. that is what they saw with crimea. there will have to be more than just economic sanctions. we have to help ukraine prepare their own defenses. russia have to look at ukraine and say, this will be too painful. it will create a humanitarian disaster in europe if this happens. host: henry in michigan, democratic caller. caller: don is atypical republican fascist liar. he is a propagandist. don knows full well that putin

is emboldened and xi is emboldened because of donald j. trump. he gave the customer base to china, which enriches china. putin has donald trump in its pocket. donald trump has our population, the 74 million mentally ill republican fascists on the verge of trying to take over our democracy again by cheating at the ballot box and by talking in code and planning another attack on our democracy. host: what evidence do you have of this? where are you reading this? caller: it is very simple. you do not have to read it. you can see it in real time.

people are going to dallas, republicans are going to dallas to see john f. kennedy and john f. kennedy, jr., they are lining deal he plaza. host: do you want to respond? guest: there are a lot of falsehoods there. i did not agree with president trump's negotiations with afghanistan. there were times when he did not respond rightfully to putin, but his policy was stronger against russia than joe biden's. joe biden talks big and carries a little stick when it comes to russia. i do not think president trump spoke adequately but his policies were stronger. we did all of the sanctions on the russian pipeline. day 1 or day 2 of biden's presidency, he removed the

sanctions. he showed weakness with russia. they do not just look at that, they look at what was done in july and august with afghanistan and it was a disaster. i disagree with the caller on that. i agree with president trump and i disagree were i disagree. i do not believe that you need to be 100% for him or 0% for him. we have to have a compass. i am willing to call balls and strikes with things that were done during his presidency. host: you voted for the infrastructure bill, disagreeing with the majority of your party and the former president. in response, president trump called for a "good and smart america" to challenge you in next year's primary election. guest: my job is to serve my

district. i am a christian first, i believe in the constitution. i am going to do the right thing. i am a party person third or fourth down the line. i did what i thought was right. i also voted to certify january 6 because the constitution requires states to certify their election. i study the constitution and the law that was put out in 1878 or 1879. there were two separate slates. that was not the case last year. the states certified one slate and i thought that was our duty. i am going to follow the constitution and the rule of law and i will stand by that. host: david in wisconsin,

republican. caller: good morning, congressman. i thought a good idea for us right now with our current administration, we should probably just stay out of europe , let the europeans take care of europe because we have enough on our plate right now with china. that is enough, i think, for us to handle right now. thank you. guest: that is a good point, sir. we cannot do it by ourselves. i believe we are indispensable for the free world, but we cannot do it by ourselves. nato needs to do more. countries in the eastern part of vento are paying 2% of their gdp. -- eastern part of nato are paying 2% of their gdp. if we are not leading or

providing a sense of direction, it will not happen. the burden has to be shared more broadly. the previous administration did a great job of that. the nato countries paid $80 billion more for defense. we are seeing japan wanting to do more. we are seeing an alliance developing between japan, australia and india. to your point, we are indispensable, but we cannot do it by ourselves. we have to have other democracies and strong countries step up. that is the only way we can stand up to china, russia, iran, north korea. host: anthony in new york, democratic caller. caller: we are talking about russian election manipulation, correct? i have a great many concerns.

i am a democrat, i have been forever, and i feel both parties are like bad children not acting correctly. i have lost confidence in the democratic state or the republic that we consider ourselves. i would like to ask the moderator if you might pull up an article. back when barack obama was president when donald trump was elected, barack obama, the day after the election, he -- a bunch of diplomats from the russian embassy, he closed it up and evicted everybody out of there. it was part of the russian hoax collusion. i felt it went right up to the president's office, the russian

hoax narrative that was perpetrated to cover up hillary clinton's private email server, which is a violation of law. a man who had been a guest on c-span multiple times, he pointed out that the tech sector and the telephone industry had been spying on american citizens unconstitutionally. there is a standing class-action lawsuit against at&t. one stroke of the pen, barack obama made that lawsuit go away by depriving american citizens for having been spied on. host: we are running out of time. congressman, your response? guest: the evidence is clear that the clinton paid-for dossier was known about in the obama administration.

president obama approved some of the wire taps. a conspiracy to tarnish donald trump with a fake allegation. it took a couple years to get through this. and outside, independent investigator put a spotlight on that. the caller was accurate that this conspiracy, for lack of a better word, went all the way to the top and the obama administration. it created a narrative for about two years and the trump administration had to deal with that. that was the intention, to weaken them. unfortunately, it was effective. host: thank you for the conversation this morning with our viewers. coming up next, we will turn our attention to a white house commission report examining potential changes to the supreme

court. we will talk with kimberly robinson. later on in the show, congressman ruben [video clip] , -- ruben gallego, democrat from arizona. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> many people do not want to believe that the citizens of the southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve the morally repugnant institution of slavery. there has to be another reason, we are told. there is not. the evidence is clear and overwhelming. slavery was the single most important cause of the civil war. these are the words and opinions of a retired southern born army general that taught at west point for decades.

he lays out his views of his book, "robert e. lee and me." >> look notes plus is available on the c-span now app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> they began working at the nixon foundation as a marketing intern. now, at age 28, he is the foundation's president and ceo. he will talk about the life and career of president nixon and the work of the foundation. >> we are looking ahead to the 15th anniversary of president nixon's trip to china and russia. the signing of the paris peace accord. the anniversary of watergate. we, as a foundation build educational experiences,

conferences around these types of programs, or i should say these anniversaries and make them into programs. we push them across social media. it is working. we hear from young people who say, i did not know about that. i had only heard there was this thing called watergate. i did not know president nixon was the first president to negotiate an arms-control agreement with the soviet union. there are real learnings being had. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> washington unfiltered. c-span in your pocket. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: on your screen this morning, kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter with bloomberg law. kimberly robinson, the president set up a white house commission to investigate possible structural changes to the supreme court. remind our viewers what led to this. guest: that depends on who you ask. i think part of what was behind appointing the commission was some of the rancors we have seen in the past few years in particular in 2016, we saw mitch mcconnell hold open the seat, there should be a say in who picks the next supreme court justice. fast forward to last year,

republicans filled the seat despite the fact the election was just a month away. there was a lot of angst with progressives surrounding the circumstances and some push to make some changes to the supreme court and be more responsive to what they see as the american voters' desires to see who goes on the supreme court. that was fully pushing it. once we have this final report, it will be a way to kick the can down the road so president biden, who does not seem to favor a lot of the structural changes, can wait before making any changes. host: the commission approved, a final vote, what were the highlights? guest: it is important to note this report was not meant to

make any recommendations to the president to adopt any changes. there are no recommendations in their that they impose term limits or expand the number on the court. it is more of a tool, congress will be writing legislation for the public, who wants to be more informed. it is more of a book report, the highlights of, what are the pros and cons of the different proposals. host: what happens next with this report? what will the president do? guest: that is a good question. the white house secretary does not know what will happen next. the president will review the report. there is no expectation of what will follow next. with some of the things the supreme court is considering, there will be a lot of pressure from progressives to actually take this report and do some structural changes, whether it

be legislation in congress or a push to adopt a constitutional amendment. there will be some pressure from progressives. host: from the report on expanding the court, they wrote although there is widespread agreement among legal scholars that congress has the constitutional authority to expand the court's size, there is profound disagreement at whether court expansion at this moment in time would be wise. we do not seek to evaluate or judge the weight of any of these arguments. profound disagreement, kimberly robinson, explain. guest: one of the things that emerge from this report is some of the most controversial changes that could be made, the idea of expanding the number of justices on the court, is one of the easiest things that can be accomplished. the report said congress has the

authority to do it. it has done it in the past. one of the least agreed-upon things, we take the flip side of that, something like term limits , that is one of the hardest things to do. that is something that emerged from the report. i think the cons say what do we do if you are looking at it from a progressive standpoint, what do you do when a conservative is in office? are we just going to get to a point where we have 40 justices on the supreme court? what will be the long-term implications? host: what types of proposals were given on term limits? guest: there are many different ways you can accomplish term limits. the one principal proposal seems to be this idea of having

staggered, 18-your terms. each president gets two appointments per term. it will lower the stakes of each individual nomination to the supreme court and lower the temperature in congress. whether or not that can be done or if it will take a constitutional amendment has been debated. i think a constitutional amendment is something hard to accomplish. host: kimberly robinson joining us this morning, she is a supreme court reporter with bloomberg law. she will take your questions and comments about the commission and about action from the supreme court. if you are a republican, dial in at (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, and

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text to (202) 748-8003. what was the overall reaction from this commission's report? guest: as far as conservatives were concerned, they were happy to report it recommend things like term limits or expanding the court. the report does not speak favorably for those things. it is what the expected all along. something that will not move the needle. host: what is the reaction from the white house? guest: we have not heard from the white house. we saw the press secretary say yesterday they will review the report. after that, they do not have any guidance about next steps with the report. host: what is the interest level

on capitol hill to react to this commission report, possibly expand or have term limits? guest: it has been increasing. we have seen a number of pieces of legislation being introduced to expand the court, modest changes to the court that would increase transparency. things like live streaming of the audio. whether or not the interest can get the votes to pass, i don't think we are there yet. host: the justices heard last week one of the key cases, the abortion case, mississippi's abortion law. what do you think from listening to that oral argument, what you think the outcome will be? guest: the supreme court would do something frequently done, come up with a middle ground that they do not overturn roe v. wade in the right to an abortion, but that kind of chip

away at it. coming out of the arguments, i don't think that will be the case. chief justice roberts did not get any favorable responses from either side, either from the more conservative justices or the more liberal justices. we saw the attorney arguing for the abortion provider say there is no middle ground. it is either roe v. wade or overturn it. host: what did you hear from the conservative justices during the argument? guest: we have a pretty good idea where the most conservative justices are. i was looking toward justice kavanaugh and justice barrett. it seemed -- we saw justice barrett have some concerns about whether or not there is a burden

given that all states allow a woman to turn over their child under so-called safe haven laws. we saw justice barrett say -- we saw justice brett kavanaugh. host: north carolina, democratic caller. caller: i am old enough to remember when it was said we will take over america from within by using your own laws against you. that is what they have done. mitch mcconnell put in over 300 judges up and down the appellate court and circuit court. even when the supreme court

would not dissent about the election, we have already been overthrown. people do not realize that when amy barrett says we are originalists, like all of the conservative judges, they do not really believe in the constitution. they think the constitution should be written hard in law and never changed. it is not a living document. they would like to do away with every amendment. even newt gingrich said we want to do away with every program fdr put in, including social security and medicare. these people on social security and medicare, do they not realize that? as far as roberts saying they will uphold precedent and the first thing it did was pass citizens united, i am not sorry.

corporations are not people. unlimited secret money is not the way this democracy was set up. yes, i feel like we have been overthrown. look at the electiona. -- look at the elections. host: there is a lot there. guest: one thing you mentioned was our very way of life, our democracy, the justices very much have that in mind and the supreme court's role. the way it plays into this is very different. this abortion case is a very good example. the more liberal justices, we see them saying the integrity of the supreme court is at stake. the public sees it as a political institution that changes with the whims of the

political process at the time. that will be a blow to the legitimacy of the court. some think overturning roe is crucial to the legitimacy of the court. there is a legitimacy playing on the minds of the justices. host: elizabeth, delaware, independent. caller: good morning. i believe that the court should be expanded. right now, what we have is a partisan, republican court, who does not believe in the constitution. these people are -- i am talking

about justice barrett, justice roberts. they are not for the constitution. we need more justices that can bring to the table more opinions from the american people. the american people, our views are not even considered in these courts. they are in there for life. they could care less about whether or not we believe in them. right now, the majority of the people do not believe in the supreme court. we do not believe they are standing for justice and democracy, which they obviously are not. i believe that a professor from harvard university has it right. we need at least six justices and we definitely need term limits.

term limits should be at least 18 years, no more. that way, they would think hard and -- host: sorry about that, caller. guest: we started by talking about the white house commission. let's look at some of the things term limits would do. there is a lot of support behind the idea of term limits. one thing that the caller mentioned is it would make the justices think hard and fast about what the public thinks and a lot of people see that as a con. the whole idea of the supreme court is judges and federal judges throughout the judiciary can be independent from what the public things and can make hard decisions, like desegregation, which was deeply unpopular in

the south. it gives them some protection. there are concerns with doing away with that. host: ann arbor, michigan, democratic caller. caller: hello. i am calling as a statement and a question. my statement is about the legitimacy of the court and its historical perspective. my question is, can you name any particular cases in which supreme court justices of the united states were actually recused and deleted from the court and what you can suggest about how they can be done today in 2021? guest: that is a great question. that is something the court made a recommendation on. it speaks favorably about this idea of an ethics code and i

think listeners might be surprised at supreme court justices are not bound by any ethics code. they are not bound by anything and there is not a way to hold them accountable for things like recusal. this does recommend the supreme court or congress adapts and advisory that would go to these issues like recusal, which do pop up from time to time in the supreme court. host: the commission also. with cameras in the court, something c-span and others pushed more. they write, as an alternative to cameras in the courtroom, there could be the current practice of live streaming audio of oral arguments. even long-standing opposition to cameras, near simultaneous audio would be a step toward enabling the media and interested members

of the bar and the public to better follow the court. guest: cameras in the courtroom is something we heard the justices be asked in the confirmation hearings. almost unanimously, they are for it when they are dominated, and then when they're on the court, the are against it. because of the coronavirus, the court has been hearing arguments remotely. they have returned to the court. they continue to do livestream and which allows the public to hear it. it has gone pretty well. it will be hard for the justices to roll that back. we saw the report recommend the court keep that in the hopes that they do eventually come around to cameras in the courtroom. i think with the current justices on the court, that will

probably not happen. host: democratic caller from washington, d.c. go ahead. caller: as far as the court is concerned, it appears to be that one of the reasons for even thinking about change or what should be done with the court is it appears to be more partisan these days as opposed to being an independent body relying on the constitution. it does not seem to be like the warren court. you mentioned desegregation was unpopular but they made the right decision constitutionally. now, you have a supreme court that says it is all right to use certain words. a person's property can be taken for a greater private good. i wonder sometimes if our founding fathers would not be in

the grave shuttering that you could take a person's private property. is it just a perception of the american people? that there is a need to make some changes to the supreme court because of what seems to be a lack of independence of the supreme court body itself. guest: this is one of the big points from progressives who are frustrated with the commission from the start. people who are invested in the institution. some may differ on how they see the court, i think as a whole, the commission thinks it is not a political institution. whether or not the american public sees it that way is something different.

there is an opinion that it is not a political institution. the justices have done somewhat of a p.r. campaign with speeches they give to law students, trying to capture the idea they are a political institution. they are not motivated by politics, but by their judicial interpretive styles, philosophies. they are not just junior varsity politicians. host: colorado springs, republican. caller: i am calling in regard to the abortion. i believe rape and incensed is number 1. you figure a child that is raped by the father or outsider, it is

ridiculous you cannot get an abortion. i am against that wholeheartedly. you should be able to get that with rape or incest. there should be something done about that. god bless. guest: the issue for the supreme court is not regard to specific exceptions with regard to rape or incest. the issue for the court is something the people should be able to decide or something that is a fundamental right that women should not have to appeal to the states in order to have. the supreme court will not get into whether or not specific exceptions will be required. they will be answering the question about who decides, states or fundamental right? host: independent. caller: good morning. a quick thing on abortion, i do not think any state wants to

totally make it illegal to get an abortion. 12 weights, maybe -- 12 weeks, maybe add a couple more. just my opinion. as far as the supreme court, i would agree more with term limits with congress and government. if we have term limits, we should have them for everyone. the supreme court, the way it is set up right now, it should stay the way it is. this commission was some way for the democrats to try to find out if they think they will be able to get the court packed, and find the temperature of the american public. i hope it does not happen. host: missouri republican. caller: that caller just took all my thunder.

i think the court should stay the same, also. host: kimberly robinson. guest: that is the very thing this commission was meant to consider. even though our callers do not consider themselves progressives, the identify what progressives are frustrated with. it does not impact the changes or reform proposals. it does not move the needle at all. host: kimberly robinson, supreme court reporter for bloomberg law. you can follow her reporting on twitter. thank you very much. appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. host: we are going to take a short break. we will go into an open forum. anything related to public

policy. the phone numbers are on your screen. we will get to that in a few minutes. ♪ ♪ >> at least six president's

recorded conversations while in office. here them on c-span's new podcast, residential recordings. >> season -- presidential recordings. >> season one you will hear about the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries a 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 blunt talk. >> yes, sir. >> what are the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, and the number assigned to me now.

and if mine are not less, i want them less right quick. and if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i will go. i promise you i will go anywhere. >> the next in-depth. >> we believe that we are striving to provide equal opportunity for all citizens. >> c-span's video competition 2022. students are giving us behind-the-scenes looks as they work on their entries using the hashtag -- #studentcam. if you are a middle school high school student, you can enter the competition. create a five minute to six minute documentary using c-span video clips. answer the question, how does the federal government impact your life? >> to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive

it to be, and know that in the greatest country in the history, your view does matter. >> to all the filmmakers, remember content is king. remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your betrayal -- portrayal of both sides of the issue. >> c-span will award $1000 in cash prizes and you have a shot of the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 2022. on how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. ♪ >> get c-span on the go. biggest political events of or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access top highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts, also free.

download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open forum for the next 30 minutes. angela in roanoke, virginia, democratic caller. what is on your mind? caller: yes ma'am. i am concerned about the packages that are in congress right now. i am wondering if this ability of recipients of people on low income are ever going to get another stimulus because we are all out here suffering as far as being able to pay our bills and get things out of the stores and stuff like that. i understand there is a supply aligned problem. you know, i am pretty sure that everybody is trying their best to work on it, but we all out here, there are multitudes of

low income people out here that need more stimulus. if we could get a $2000 stimulus or ongoing monthly stimulus, that would be wonderful for all of us. all of us on low income and no income. host: how far would you thousand dollars take you? how long would -- would you thousand dollars take you, how long would it last you? caller: probably two months, but i am only speaking for myself, but a lot of other people are out here that are on low income and no income that could really utilize that money to survive and get things that they desperately need. host: ok. leon in sunnyside, new york, independent. caller: hi. i am calling simply to ask you guys to do more on climate change and if it is possible to have a regular segment per week

where you address climate change because many of these issues talking about the supreme court is an indication that nothing happens until something happens, but climate change is happening everyday all around us. so, please, just do a regular segment on climate change and i would be very happy. host: ok, leon. deborah in nevada, republican. caller: yes. this morning, i am concerned about our humanity as americans. i am appalled at what i heard on c-span yesterday about the treatment of political prisoners inside the united states of america.

these are american citizens that are being kept in isolation and tortured all because of january 6, which was, if anybody would just stop and think, what an unusual situation we were in at that time. we had had an election, and we voted, voted, a voted, and voted. and you wonder why people questioned the integrity of what happened. these people were emotional. they were being stirred up. host: ok, deborah. deborah, you mentioned the news conference held yesterday by

four republican lawmakers, led by marjorie taylor greene of georgia. she talked about findings that she did on the defendants that participated in the january 6 capitol attack, the treatment of them in jails in d.c. take a listen. [video clip] >> this jail in washington, d.c., is unknown. it has reports of being a despicable place as early as 1976, judge bryant rolled conditions in the jail violated the eighth amendment on the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. a 2015 report showed it was plagued by mold, and water leaks. they had to move inmates because of excessive heat. in november 2021, they found the cdf to be inhospitable. yet, people are still being housed there. the january 6 defendants are

being treated on another level differently. they have been beaten by the guards. they are called white supremacists. they are denied religious services, haircuts, shaving the ability to trim their fingernails. there are more outrageous things happening there, they are denied time with their attorneys, denied the ability to see their families and have their families visit them. they are denied bail and being held there without bail. many of these people have never been charged for a crime before. some of them are veterans, and the treatment is unbelievable. they are told they have to denounce president trump. they are told that their views are the views of cult members, even though these are men every single night at 9:00, they put their hand over their heart and sing the national anthem voluntarily. [end video clip] host: marjorie taylor greene from yesterday's news conference. you can find it on our website.

"the new york times" wrote this piece last month, the problems at the d.c. jail were ignored until january 6 defendants came along. at a hearing this week, they said long-standing issues at the jail, where most inmates are black, did not get much attention until the largely white writers were held there. -- white rioters were held there. yesterday, the inspector general for the capitol police was testifying before lawmakers. here is what he had to see about changes made since the january 6 attack. [video clip] >> our eighth and final report is a summary of the status of our 104 recommendations and security improvements made by the department since january 6. although the department has made several changes to include updating policies and procedures, additional training for the civil service units, and the hiring of a subject matter expert in planning and ordination of large events or

high-profile demonstrations, the department still has more work to achieve the goal of making the capitol complex safe and secure. out of the 200 enhancements the department provided to the oig, only 61 have supporting documentation to support those enhancements to have occurred. some of the other security enhancements the department instituted has been additional intelligence briefings, as well as to department leadership. the department still lacks an overall training infrastructure to meet the needs of the department. the level of intelligence gathering and expertise needed, and the overall cultural change to move the department into a protection agency as opposed to traditional police departments. [end video clip] host: happening on capitol hill yesterday. you can watch that hearing if you go to c-span.org. you can also download the free c-span radio app called c-span now on any mobile device.

carl, in tennessee, democratic caller. caller: my question is this, why do men, men in this country going to call the shots for women? women have babies. why in the world do men want to come in between a decision that a woman has to make? i am a man. we do not have children. and it is a puzzle to me that man want to call the shots for women, want to tell women when they can and cannot have an abortion. it is a problem in this country that man has done things so wrong and stupid that, hey, women need to take over. i am through with it. thank you. host: jerry in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: yeah, i have a concern.

i have a major one that is connected. i would like to ask c-span to please have that author from "laptop from hell" on c-span. i have seen you have authors against trump. i would like you to do that because everybody needs to know what is going on. the reason i bring that up is because i think biden is compromised. i am concerned we have no chance with china and russia because they own biden and the whole family. please, this is very important to the country. i think everybody is concerned. really, our security is of utmost concern, and i do not think the president is capable of making the right decisions. please, if you could have that author on, i would appreciate it. host: we will go to virginia, sylvia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, the reason why i am calling

is about the abortion issue. i am not sure why they will say after 12 weeks. god knew us before we were even conceived. the reason i voted for youngkin was because he was pro-life, and mcauliffe had all these ads that made me nauseated about abortion and how we should have abortions and how they are safe. it really turned me off. i believe babies need to be born, and that god leaves women to take care of them, and other people will take care of them as they go through the process of raising a child. host: sylvia, who did you vote for in 2020 for president? caller: president trump. host: andy 2016, as well? caller: yes, i did. but i dearly have loved our dr.

northrup during the pandemic. i feel he was our governor for the time during the pandemic and kept us safe. i will vote for a democrat or republican, or whatever i think is safe for all the people. host: james in everything, south dakota, democratic caller. caller: -- in aberdeen, south dakota, democratic caller. caller: there is a lot going on with these caller caller here iss where i stand on abortion. , what about the baby's choice? if you don't have life, what do you have? as far as biden is concerned, i think biden is incompetent. he will not even address the border crisis. he will not answer questions, he can hardly talk and walk. i am like, what is going on? i kind of think, ok, you call

him president, what kind of president is that? give me a break. i could do a better job any day. host: happening on capitol hill today, the instagram ceo will testify before the senate commerce consumer protection subcommittee about the safety of teen users. you can watch that at 2:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span3, our website, c-span.org, or download our video app on your mobile phone, c-span now. it is free. brian in michigan, independent caller. good morning. caller: yes, good morning, greta, can you hear me? host: we can. we can hear you, brian. caller: all right, i am talking. i did work intelligence for our government, and i knew from the start, when i have called into c-span, we cannot solve things from the phone, but i knew where

we were utilizing our intelligence agency against an american citizen named donald trump. part of that came out of the patriot act after we got slapped upside the head in 2001. we lost a lot of our rights. you are seeing this played out now using the company cnn and how it is disintegrating now. c-span can play a vital role in this by just questioning the whole investigation of robert moeller. you can even put that fourth the so-called impeachment or whatever was being tried against trump. you can put kavanaugh into that mix. they are controlling the media. greta, let me say this. i have loved your program since 1979, when i was home on leave. this goes back away with brian lamb, of course, but we have got to get down to honesty in our country.

the liberal side of this country has control of the media, and we are going to have to figure out a way to get through that propaganda. your own network had a fellow i did respect, i think his name was steve. he was even involved in the debate scandal and questionings. drink on tony blueblood. you have more -- tony bublev. you have more than enough evidence that without russia gate, robert mueller, all of those things, without it, donald trump would have been the president and we would not be talking about biden right now. this is without belief. let's get to the bottom of this. we have weaponized the intelligence agencies in the united states, and they have control of the media. we have to get through this, thank you. host: deborah, st. louis, missouri, democratic caller. caller: yes. you know, there was a man who called and said women should

have the rights over their own bodies. well, she did not impregnate herself, so a man should have that decision also. so, i disagree with that man, and, also, there is a woman who came on the line, and she was saying that biden and his whole family is wrapped up in china. well, these people tend to forget that trump has been dealing with china for a very long time and got all his shirts and a whole lot of other things that has been made over there, and when he was in office and went to china, he brought back 17 licenses for his daughter and himself. i guess people must not read the

newspaper or listen to the news on all different stations, but they do not have their information, and that is the sad thing about this. host: ok. yesterday, after the president spoke for two hours with vladimir putin, the russian leader, over a secured video conference call, the white house national security advisor jake sullivan gave a readout of the call. [video clip] >> president biden was direct and straightforward with president putin. he reiterated american support for ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity. he told president putin that if russia further invades ukraine, united states and european allies with respond. we would provide additional information to the ukrainians, and we would fortify our nato allies on the eastern flank

with additional capabilitiesin response to such an escalation. he also told president putin there is another option, de-escalation and diplomacy. the united states and european allies would engage in a discussion to cover larger strategic issues, including strategic concerns with russia and russia's strategic concerns. we managed to do this at the height of the cold war and developed mechanisms to increase transparency. we have done this through the nato russia council and other mechanisms. there is no reason we cannot do that going forward, provided we are operating in a context of de-escalation rather than escalation. the united states, as we have been for some time, is repaired to support efforts to enhance the agreement. this could include a cease fire and confidence building measures that help strive the process forward. as i said, the discussion between president biden and president putin was direct and

straightforward. there was give and take, finger wagging, but the president was crystal clear about where the u.s. stands on these issues. we believe from the beginning of this administration that there is no substitute for direct dialogue between leaders, and that is true in spades when it comes to the u.s.-russian relationship. [end video clip] host: jake sullivan yesterday at the white house after the president spoke with russian leader vladimir putin for two hours. that conversation making headlines in today's papers. this morning, we are in open forum to discuss public policy issues with all of you. michael in san diego, california, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank c-span for giving us a place to vent our opinions. abortion issue. for one thing, where's the written law in books or a man is told what he can cannot do with his own body?

any bill drafted about birth-control or abortion, men should have no input at all. they should be drafted by women. i believe a man' is vote should only count half of what a woman's vote should count for. i could vent about a lot of other things, but i thank you very much for letting me talk. host: ok, len, wisconsin. did i pronounce your city right? caller: hi, there. i read this book called "dark money," the hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical rights. after reading this, it was very lightning. my question would be, do you recall interviewing jane meyer and her book "dark money?" host: what is your point?

caller: no, i am just saying, have you interviewed as part of your book reviews, have you had jane meyer on the program? host: i am not sure. if you go to our website, c-span.org, we have a search engine at the top. you can put in that name. i cannot recall off the top of my head. raymond in aurora, colorado, independent. caller: good morning. good morning. i would like to say that jesus christ came to this world to give us a choice whether we are going to sin or not sin. also, he came out a time when rome was the most oppressive country in the world. they said what a season to give

unto caesar. i am an independent and on the fence. when you're on the fence, you are not on one side or the other. i am just stating facts. so of all the people in the world, they should read revelations, especially the part that talks about the beast on the land. i would say that we need to love one another and understand what is going on in the world, thank you and have a blessed day. host: robert in virginia beach, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i just wanted to commentate on all the recent labor strikes that have been going on. that is a very good thing for the workers to band together and grab power back from the bosses and also the office workers that are attempting to keep work-at-home going as we get out

of covid. for that reason, i would think it would be a very good thing if the senate would pass the act to help labor and workers. we have three democratic senators holding that up. i think that is a shame that these moderate democrats are putting big business over workers and their rights. host: eric, california, democratic caller. caller: good morning, america. something is bothering me about equal protection under the law. i want to refer to the insurgents on january 6. if a citizen after the election saw we are campaigning that the election was stolen and went to court, and they went to court and show me it was wrong, then me and my friends got together and said, hey, we are going to go to washington, d.c., and still campaign about this, and

we are going to run into the capitol, and then before then, i called the attorney general and said, hey, you need to change these votes for me. and then we went to washington, d.c., and ran up and somebody got killed, i would be in jail. for doing something like that. i'm very find i had documents that i had people make up, and the president and all these people were involved in this stuff? i would be in jail as a simple citizen doing this mess. please, attorney general, for equal protection under the law, you all need to explain something to me about this one because it does not look right to me. in jesus christ' his name. host: pat in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i am sick of people talking about private

citizens being investigated by investigative agencies, donald trump, the russian hoax. we were not spying on donald trump's campaign, we were spying on russia, and the campaign contacted russia. so, these people have got to understand reality. thank you. goodbye. host: susan in alabama, republican. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host:host: it is your turn -- host: it is your turn. caller: i wanted to talk about the audits on the election of 2020. how the election was stolen and all of that. i hate to say garbage, but garbage. one things they have proven across the board -- can you hear me? host: we are listening. they have proven across the board? caller: there are two things. these audits have proven across the board that people need to know, number one, they have

proven that the american voter, we, the people, have until integrity. number two, they have proven that we, the people, the american voters, do not lie, cheat and steal collections. we do not commit fraud at the ballot. i do not care your party. that is what those audits are proving. that is what i wanted to say. host: ok, we are going to wrap up today's conversation with all of you. our next half hour is with ruben diego, democrat of arizona, serving the seventh district --ruben gallego, democrat of arizona, serving the seventh district, out with a new book called “they called us 'lucky': the life & afterlife of the iraq war's hardest hit unit." we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on

c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. watch our coverage of the wisconsin book festival with their discussions on history, technology, science and the criminal justice system. at 2:35 p.m. eastern, we talk about "empire of rubber." and then one authors experience growing up in puerto rico and miami in "ordinary girls." and jarret adams with his book "redeeming justice: from defendants to defender, my fight for equality on both sides of a broken system." and on afterwards, 1619 project creator nicole hannah jones looks at american history, slavery, and the legacy in present-day america. she is interviewed by a professor, stephen hahn. watch book tv every sunday on

c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tells the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, the former clinton white house lawyer talks about the influence of the people closest to the chief executive in his book ". first friends" -- his book "first friends." at 2:50 p.m., a look back at pearl harbor with coverage from the international conference on world war ii. here discussions from the american and japanese viewpoints and the effects of the attack on african-americans. exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

>> a new mobile video app from c-span,. c-span now download today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman ruben gallego is joining us, democrat of arizona, and author of this book , “they called us 'lucky': the life & afterlife of the iraq war's hardest hit unit." congressman, you are talking about the marines that you served with. describe this unit. how many were there? why do you call it the hardest hit? guest: when i state units, it is the company of marines, roughly between 160 and 162 marines depending on the scope of the war you are involved in or the operation you are involved in. i was a young infantryman, lance

corporal, for most of the war. statistically speaking, at least going back to the beirut bombing , this company took the most casualties of the iraq war and afghanistan in modern warfare, so one third of those service members were killed or wounded, which is a number that has not been seen in quite a while. host: what was it like? guest: war is hell. one of the things i described in the book is i think there has been too much clarification of war. i wanted to see war from the viewpoint of enlisted men. it is not about me but the great man i serve with, these great marines, navajo men, latinos from new mexico, these white boys from ohio. we all came together and basically fought together for six months and hard conditions to survive and serve our country. you know, we had some good times

and we had horrible times. more importantly, we still have hard times even, 15, 16 years since we have left the war. host: why did they call you lucky? guest: for the first two months of active combat, and we were always in active combat, we were able to dodge any casualties. it seemed we had this look running on our side, whether it was ied's not causing harm. i got attacked by an rpg at one point, and, so, the other marine units started calling us lucky, and just as fate would have it, irony came and we became part of the unluckiest unit in the iraq war. host: why did you decide to join the marine corps? guest: i am lucky. i am from an immigrant family. my dad is from mexico, my mom

from colombia. they came here with nothing. i have got to live a privileged life. i always felt that the first generation set of immigrants, you have to repay in some form your country. i'm not same for everyone it has to be the military, but for me, i thought it would be great to serve in the military. i signed up for the reserve contract. i was just going to do my part. i do not know it was going to be the weight that it did -- the way that it did, but i thought it was important i do what i did. host: you enlisted after going to harvard? guest: that is a misconception. i got kicked out of harvard and enlisted. everyone is really nice about it, but i got kicked out of harvard after going for two years. i was a very amateur young man -- very immature young man. i partied a lot and did not

study as much as i should have, and harvard said, you need to leave, and after one year, if you feel you are ready, reapply, and we will see if you are ready or able to come back to harvard. there was no guarantee. i decided i was going to serve my country, so that is what i signed up for, the reserves, i did trainings, the boot camp, reapply to harvard, and they let me back in. host: what were some challenges when you were in iraq? share one of the stories you share in the book. guest: some of the challenges? host: yeah, what you saw, what your company saw. guest: we saw everything. you know? man getting blown up in front of us, direct hand in combat, awful things. i had to watch over my friend's body parts and shoot at animals

and wild dogs in the middle of the night trying to take away his flesh. living with the idea that i should have been dead. there are many times where something weird happened and i survived, but we had a triggered mine we rolled over, and the real feeling that took me forever to get rid of, especially toward the end of the war, when it seemed everyone was dying, was the inevitability that i was going to die. in my mindset as a 25-year-old, i accepted i was going to die. when you do that and accept that, it really messes with your brain and your soul. it was really the only way i could have survived the rest of the war and to continue doing my job with honor and not be a coward. that is the nature of war. i try to remind people, see these generals and politicians talking about war and you have

to remember that anytime these fancy people are talking about war, there usually is an 18 or 20-year-old doing these actions. host: and it seems like all of those emotions still resonating within you, congressman. guest: they are. i carry ptsd, and i will for the rest of my life. the only reason i did not write the book earlier was because i could not. by physically and emotionally could not write this book. ptsd had taken a hold of me. a lot of my other marines try to write this book, too. they cannot do it or find a publisher and all this stuff. it was incumbent upon me, and i was urged on my friends to do it because i am a member of congress and have access to people who can help me to make sure this is published, and i had to suck it up. it was traumatizing to write this book, but it needed to be written. host: you note in the title,

"the afterlife." can you talk about that? guest:guest: the book -- guest: the book has a certain portion dedicated to what happened to us when we returned. people forget that i think people want to hold veterans and the military in a moment of time when we have this whole complex life that happens before and after the military, and what we deal with. i talk about what a lot of us deal with afterwards. specifically the story starts with me talking to another marine, sergeant mackenzie, a great marine out of the navajo nation, who suffered through a bout of ptsd and was rejected by the da, and i am rushing from phoenix to albuquerque to meet him. that is how the story starts, about me recounting to him are war stories. and i talk about his ptsd, but i also talk about my and how i had

essentially ignored it to the point where it ends up becoming militating, and i had to start dealing with it. host: congressman ruben gallego, democrat of arizona, author of the book “they called us 'lucky': the life & afterlife of the iraq war's hardest hit unit ." he is our guest this morning to take your questions and comments and what you are hearing from him this morning on his book. if you are a republican, dial in at (202)-748-8001. democrats, (202)-748-8000. independents, (202)-748-8002. you can also text, (202)-748-8003. guest: greta, can i say one more thing? host: please. guest: this is actually not a political book. you will find almost zero political commentary in there because i wanted to make sure you saw the perspective of a young corporal. so, you will find a commentary on war, not on policy. i don't really talk about what

we should do to fix things in the future because that is not what a play five or 20-year-old was thinking in the middle of a war. host: ben., go ahead. caller: good morning. first of all, semper fi. i am an old marine. i was in echo 24 back in the early 1980's, and so i will go out and purchase that book. i just wanted to say that a lot of times people do not understand the impact of combat on an individual person. and some people are so cavalier about young men and women and going into these areas to deal with these things, and it is not

a videogame. i think we really have to have people like yourself and congress to really understand and know what exactly we are putting out our young people in the situation where we are putting them in the city because i was told in the marine corps about older gentlemen in vietnam who said, you know, war -- warriors hate war. you will not hear combat veterans sending people into these situations because they know the ripple effect of all of this stuff. guest: yeah, and that is the purpose of the book, for people to get an unvarnished view of war. outside of politics, but you see what a real infantry has to deal

with, and that is what the book is the purpose of. host: gary in north carolina, democratic caller. hi, gary. caller: republican caller. host: it is alright, just turned on your television if you could -- turn down your television if you could. what is your comment for the congressman? caller: my comment is that until recently, disabled veterans have been receiving their medication at the v.a. for free. recently, they started charging veterans for the medications they prescribed at the v.a. this is very strange since biden keeps talking about how much he is doing for veterans. i just wanted people to know that things are not as rosy as they might sound. host: all right, congressman?

guest: it sounds like you are saying veterans are being charged a co-pay at the v.a. i am not aware of that, but i will check on that because a lot of us still use the v.a., even myself, so let me check on that. host: fran, birmingham, alabama, republican. caller: i am a democrat, but, good morning. host: we have to get these lines straight. go ahead. caller: thank you to you and your family. i finally understand my father just listening to you, and i cannot wait to buy your book. how do you feel about the members of the service getting vaccinated? and the other one, how do you feel on how our president got the people out of iraq? guest: out of afghanistan.

ok, in terms of vaccines, once the fda approved the vaccine, i think it was correct that we mandated the military to get your vaccine. you already received about 17 to join the military. i had to take an anthrax shot and a smallpox shot for me to go back to iraq. also, you have to remember the literary men, especially marines, we live in close quarters. any kind of disease that is commendable could end up making us extremely -- communicable could end up making as combat inefficient. even though covid really only affects the elderly, if you get it, you will be out. you have to be worried about combat readiness, so we cannot have a lot of people getting sick. number two, in terms of evacuation, i do not think the

afghanistan evacuation went well. it was a horrible mess. i think the vice president did do the best he could. i think we should have gotten out of afghanistan, but you cannot look at that situation and say that was the best way to do it. now, the best thing we can do is to make sure we do the best for the evacuees we have here and the asylum-seekers. also, still trying to get people out. i am still trying to get people out of afghanistan. host: charles in virginia, republican. caller: no, i am a democrat. however, i have a question for congressman gallego. initially, you spoke of the makeup of the unit involving young men, perhaps young women come from all over the country. he did not mention black americans. i am sure there are many around the marine corps. guest: you broke up. caller: you did not mention any

person from of color. guest: that, i apologize. you are right. we did have a significant portion of african-americans that were actually in service, 10% to 15%, largely from ohio. unfortunately, one of the first casualties, a good friend, was a guy named williams, an amazing man, a father, who dies unexpectedly while doing house searches. when i say that this unit was a cross-section of america, you are right, that included african-americans and immigrants. we had a pakistani immigrant, a family -- he immigrant, people from -- bangladeshi emigrants, but we did have significant african-american representation, also.

host: do those who survive keep in touch? guest: we do, largely through facebook and text messaging. they love to rip me a lot. -- rib me a lot. a lot of them are republican or trump supporters, so they love when i go on television and they can comment and send me funny texts, but we love each other. luckily, we have done better. they were scary times for a lot of us. we still have issues, and, unfortunately, some of us are starting to die. we have lost three people for my company the last three months that were significant. host: robert in ohio. caller: hi, i would like to ask the question, the military law for people being convicted of crimes, how come they do not have the equal protection under the law as you and me?

also, i would like to ask, how come in 2022, they had wrongful convictions and did not include the u.s. military service people? guest: let me make sure i got this right. most of the people in the military, unless you did actions outside of the military, you are under the jurisdiction of the code of military justice. you do have the right to a lawyer, to a trial, and an appeal, but it is separate from the civilian judicial system. so, i don't think there is an exemption, but there are different tracks. let's say you are a marine and you killed a civilian, you probably still will be prosecuted in civilian court but also military court.

we have to keep the good order and discipline because sometimes there is a two track system. in regards to your second questions, it involved 2002, so i would have to get that question again, but i was not able to put it together. host: we will go on to howard in chicago, republican. caller: hi, congressman. guest: how you doing? caller: good. thank you for your service, even if you are a democrat. guest: i'm from chicago, i don't know that helps. caller: my biggest issue when you are talking about posttraumatic stress disorder, and i understand the implications of everything, but, you are an intelligent person. when you go to work, what did you expect? when you look on the writings on this throughout history from the greeks, the romans, world war i,

the civil war, all the trauma that the men experienced, they called it different things. today we call it what we call it, but, and, especially, you are a marine. it is not like i am going to join the cushy is coast guard -- the cushy coast guard or air force. guest: i get what you're saying, sir. my explanation is not that -- i do not regret joining the marine corps, it is just ptsd is what happened, so i'm talking about that in the book. i talk about war not as an opinionated thing. i chose to join the infantry and wanted to join the infantry, but ptsd is also not a guarantee thing if you join infantry. there are a lot of marines answered with who do not have ptsd. the other thing, and i talk about this in the book, some of

us have different levels of ptsd. you can still be a functional human being and have ptsd. maybe you are exhibiting it in different ways. i talk about that in the book. i knew that was going to happen. i have no regrets. even though i know what it has cost me, i was still going again to serve my country. but this book is not for me trying to limit my service. it is the -- lament my service but to note the guys i served with. host: good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i just have a comment. i think most egregious statement i can think of is referring to what our men go through is it is not yours to reason why, it is yours to do or die. i do not think that that is an appropriate message to give command as they go into battle

supposedly to protect their country. instead of making them feel like they are special, they are made to feel like they could be used for whatever they want to, and that their lives do not matter. and those guys in offices who do not put any physical effort into wars but just have an amazing time putting everybody else in that position. i think it is about time that we quit putting them in a position to take other people's lives. it is not a natural thing, and it should not be to do or die. host: all right, joan. guest: look, i talk a little bit about this, but it is not really a political book. i was against the iraq war. i thought it was a fabrication why we were going there, but i enlisted to serve my country, not certain wars.

a lot of men felt the same way while we were there. we were there to save each other's lives, and we were going to conduct ourselves in the best way with dignity and to uphold the value of the u.s., even if we did think the war was illegal or wrong. i agree with what you're saying in some regards because it sucks when you have all the men in general leading these young men and treat us like pawns. the same time, the book is illustrate that so people understand that happens all the time. host: is the culture that she just spoke about something that you heard and saw every day while you are serving in iraq? guest: yes, i felt we were forgotten, especially once we started dying, we do not have enough manpower. we were covering all the sites from west virginia to the syrian border, dealing with hard-core terrorists.

i felt that we were basically forgotten being told to do whatever it is. to some degree, that was supposed to happen. i do not reject that. that is what i signed up for. i was not there to make decisions. and you want a disciplined army and marines who would listen to your orders. of course, there is a feeling of disempowerment, and the book talks about that. host: keith in huntsville, missouri, democratic caller. caller: yes, i was just wondering, first, i would like to say, thank you for your service from one veteran to another. guest: thanks, bro. caller: in regards to the withdrawal, and, of course, like i said, i don't know if this is covered in your book or not, but your general opinion and as a representative, you know, there was a number of people left

behind that should not have been . yet, they still found time to haul out about 1000 refugees. i just wondered what your thought is on that. host: congressman, you spoke a little about it and the continued efforts to get people out. guest: i do continue to try to get people out. i believe the evacuation went wrong. i am a democrat and support the president's choice to get out of afghanistan, but i think the process could have been better. the fact that we left men and women behind, i think that was going to happen, that is the nature of a 20 year war. a lot of afghans did not understand how quickly the war was moving. so we have to get back into it, but there was no denying that the evacuation did not go well. host: why are you still trying to get people out? what is their story? guest: a lot of different stories. some people do not get their

visas in time, and that is a partial problem from the trump administration not processing them. a lot of them did not think the government would devote this quickly, and now they're hiding out and tried to get to other neighboring countries and get out. so it varies. some people do not realize that they were in danger until the taliban told him they were because they were not only working for the government just as cooks, but, for some reason, they were now listed by the taliban. there are a lot of situations like that we are hearing. host: these are largely afghans? guest: yes. host: congressman, the book is, “they called us 'lucky': the life & afterlife of the iraq war's hardest hit unit." there it is on your screen. congressman ruben gallego, democrat of arizona, represents the seventh district, thank you for your time this morning. the house is about to come in any minute.

just some departing words really quickly. guest: thank you for reading this book. this book is for the men of the company 325 out of brooks park, ohio. please pick it up. hopefully, you will learn something from the best men who ever served. host: congressman ruben gallego, to live for your time this morning. we appreciate it. guest: thank you. host: thank you all of you, as well, for calling in. we will be back here tomorrow morning, 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can begin to call in, text us, tweet, post your comments on facebook. all of that conversation will be happening tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. the house is about to gavel in. the senate is in session this morning, as well. yesterday, a deal was struck on raising the debt ceiling limit in the house and senate. it appears that they will also

get that done in the senate with a vote on thursday. also letting you know that the instagram ceo is testifying on capitol hill this afternoon, 2:30 eastern. before the senate commerce consumer protection subcommittee. you can watch that on c-span3. you can watch on her website, c-span.org -- our website, c-span.org, and you can download the free c-span radio app called c-span now. and moments away here at the supreme court on c-span3, you can listen to oral arguments about the private school tuition program, maine's private school tuition program over on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span.org. you can also find it on our c-span radio app, c-span now. the house about to gavel in.

we will bring you to the floor now. live coverage here on c-span. expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 8 it 2021 -- december 8, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with