genes. >> when it was first brought, but as it rolled on year after year through different appeals and machinations it became increasingly clear that there was something important going on. by the time it got to the supreme court, i knew this was going to be a very important landmark case and one i wanted to tell the story of. >> author of the genome defense. to meditate :00 eastern on c-span's q&a. host: this is washington journal for january 9. president biden's federal vecsey mandate will go into

effect tomorrow barring intervention from the supreme court who heard oral arguments on friday about the mandate. some said they would follow the mandate. others said they would join other states in legally challenging the requirement. for the next hour we are interested in hearing from you about the legal challenges surrounding the biden administration and whether you agree or not. if you are an employer, particularly if the mandate affects you, (202)-748-8000 is the number to call. if you are an employee that may be affected, (202)-748-8001. perhaps you are a health care worker, (202)-748-8002. the line for all others is (202)-748-8003. you can use that same line to text us. you can post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span and on twitter @c-spanwj. here is what is set to go into

effect when it comes from the biden administration. this was issued november 4 by the occupational safety and health administration, osha. it would require workers at businesses with at least 100 employees to be vaccinated or tested weekly and it would impact more than 80 million workers nationwide. particularly when it comes to health care workers they would receive a mandate as well. it was issued november 4 by centers for medicare and medicaid services and it would apply to 17 million health-care workers, particularly at facilities that receive funds from medicare or medicaid. when it comes to the supportive mandates, back in november axios did a poll. when it asked employers if they should require all employees to be vaccinated, 54% said they should, 30% being republican,

78% being democrat. then they asked the question if should be illegal for companies to deny unemployment to the unvaccinated. 51% agreeing with that concept. 55% republicans registering approval, 46% democrats. if you want to see more, go to axios to see more. on friday the supreme court considered these vaccine mandates and oral arguments, hearing from lawyers for the administration and those opposing. one of the exchanges you can find on the website at c-span.org from the audio released by the supreme court was justice elena kagan questioning scott keller, representing the national federation of independent businesses. they opposed and here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> i am sure you are right that there are all kinds of public

health and economic trade-offs that have to be made in a policy like this. all kinds of judgment on the public health side, the economic side, how those ought to be balanced against each other. who decides? should it be the agency full of expert policymakers and completely political accountable through the president? this is not the kind of policy in which there is no political accountability. people like this policy they will go to the polls and voted that way. if they don't like it, they will vote that way. this is a politically accountable policy and has the virtue of expertise. so, on the one hand, the agency with their political leadership can decide. on the other hand, courts can decide. courts are not politically accountable. courts have not been elected. courts have no epidemiological expertise. why in the world would courts decide this question? >> congress in states and

governors wielding power are the ones that have the power -- and we acknowledge that -- over vaccines. the idea that osha would be the agency in the federal government, not even under health and human services, that does not have expertise over communicable diseases like the fda or cdc, that would be an odd place for congress to lodge a sweeping power over the people. >> osha has a lot of expertise about workforces and the dangers workforces can confront individual employees with. i am sure osha also talked to other agencies within the federal government to consider public health issues and brought that knowledge to bear as well with its knowledge of how workplaces function. again, came out with a well

supported policy that has political leadership behind it and all the political accountability one could wish for. why is it courts would displace that judgment and say it is up to us to decide about vaccination policy in the employment settings of this country? >> well, first of all, what osha did hear was not an industry by industry analysis. the line it drew with 100 employees, they were doing that because they thought larger companies were the ones that had the administrative capacity. it was not because they were denser working environments. you can have a company with 100 employees and everybody is working somewhere else. even they say 9% of landscapers and 5% of highway workers are the only ones that would qualify for exclusively working outside exemption. even occupations in which you would think someone is almost exclusively working outside, they are still covered by cps.

it is those types of internally inconsistent positions that are not taking account of the full problem that could have been explained and should have been explained. host: that was part of the argument that took place last friday at the supreme court. if you are interested in hearing more about those arguments about the employer mandates set by the biden administration, go to c-span.org. if you want to call and let us know what you think about those mandates, if you are an employer, (202)-748-8000. if you are an employee, (202)-748-8001. if you are a health care worker, (202)-748-8002. all others can call us at (202)-748-8003. some of you posting on twitter and facebook this morning. bc venice, i don't see how covid vaccine mandates are different from those in place for childhood diseases other than it is the adults behaving childish. jimmy ryan from facebook

posting, hoping the mandates are buried at every level. some of the ways you can reach out to us. linda ray in pittsburgh, pennsylvania who is an employee. caller: i want to talk about the vaccine mandate but since it is the one-year anniversary i will remind everyone it was january 4 trump called for the national guard to protect the capitol but they had security stop it. host: to the mandates please. caller: just letting you know. i did listen to the justice's comments on those arguments and go back and listen to thomas' comments. they are clearly unconstitutional. not even the executive branch under biden are mandated to take the shots. not even congress are mandated

to take the shots. it's a shame 111 u.s. pilots forced to take their shots or lose their jobs have died. and the government website has stopped recording all the deaths from the shot. there are over 100,000 they are not reporting. that is why my free doctor will give anyone a free medical excuse for these poisonous vaccines. host: go back to the mandates though. you said they were unconstitutional. the employer mandate or even health-care workers for places that receive federal funding under medicare and medicaid? caller: both. both arguments. yes, they are overstretching. congress, we the people decide about the mandates. osha, that was something else. it is overreaching. pay attention to the health care

workers that are giving up their jobs rather than get the shot because they have seen the harmful effects of the vaccines. host: health care workers, if you want to call in and make your thoughts known, (202)-748-8002 is how you do that. mike from montgomery, alabama identifies as employer and employee. go ahead. caller: good morning. a few comments if i may. the emergency temporary standard osha set on this mandate for 100 employees plus i think adds to the divisiveness of the country. case in point, i work for a manufacturing company in the deep south and, you know, there are political overtones to this. a quarter of my workforce skilled, up skilled welders,

machinists, already saying they will walk out. this is going to add to the chaos that is going on with this country in regards to the pandemic. i just don't see this passing. if it does, it is really going to harm our workforce down here. host: has your place of employment already broached this topic in any way as to how to prepare or what they are expecting once this -- once the supreme court weighs in? caller: absolutely. we have our ducks in a row. we are ready. if they decided they were going to pass this, the supreme court that is, i would have pulled my staff and yesterday to prepare. we will be compliant. however, the aftermath is really going to hurt us. host: mike in alabama giving us his perspective from an employee

and employer perspective. thomas in humboldt. caller: happy new year. one of my clients came down with covid so she is in quarantine. it is out there believe me. people keep saying some did this, some did that. he said it was a hoax by the democrats, remember that. host: to the mandates, let's start with that. as a health care worker what do you think about that, or at least their impact? caller: i had to get vaccinated. i took my booster about two weeks ago. i am glad i did. as far as the mandate, i mean, if you don't want to get vaccinated, i don't think there should be a mandate. by the summer we will find out who lives through it and who didn't. host: ok. that was thomas in texas. the des moines register reporting it was iowa's labor

commissioner saying friday the state submitted notice it will not be adopting or enforcing the biden administration vaccine and testing requirements for large employers. the decision comes days before the requirements set to go into effect across the country. also comes as the controversial federal standards being heard by the supreme court. ron roberts said in a news release the state is determined its existing standards are "at least as effective as the federal standard change." iowa among 21 states that have plans for work for safety that gives the states options of writing its own workplace rules for public and private sector workers. those can be weaker than what the federal occupational safety and health administration requires. you can find that at the des moines register. freddie on the line for others about the legal challenges to the vaccine mandate. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say as a former employee working in the uaw,

osha is very good at staying on top of situations like spills or viruses, things of that nature in the workplace. as far as the mandates, i don't -- other than calling the mandates -- it should be mandatory like it was with polio, with the march of dimes and that type of thing. people survived that. the iron lung situation. some people were severely paralyzed or lost their lives because of the ignorance some

people have, you know, put out about the different terminology. people are afraid of needles. you have pills but you have to get the needle first. my generation got the vaccination from lining up in the gym. host: you are breaking up a little bit so thank you from the comments -- for the comments. denise, hello. caller: how are you? host: fine thanks. caller: as a health care worker i always seen the repercussions of the mandates and the thing about them already, at least around here, is they are saying hospitals are filled to the max but the truth of the matter is because of the mandates already they have lost so many of us.

it is just the nurse to patient ratio cannot be maintained. yes they are to capacity but there is plenty of room. they just don't have nurses. there is hospitals closing down around here and surrounding counties. i don't understand why that is not being talked about. how is this the only area that is suffering repercussions? it is not. host: since the federal mandate has not gone into effect you are talking about mandates put in by employers aside from what the federal government wants to do. is that what you're talking about? caller: the same mandate with the vaccine. i am not even talking about the mandates put in place we are tied and they are forced to administer remdesivir when it is causing people to die.

host: but you are talking -- then what mandate are you talking about since the federal one has not gone into effect? caller: then what was put in place temporarily when all of the hospitals and all the employers of 100 or more acted as if they had to abide by them? that is exactly what happened. host: let's hear from mitchell in new jersey, an employer. hello. caller: morning. i am a director of operations for a not-for-profit. we have about 110 administrator and staff. we have about 3000 people who are direct support workers for people with disabilities. it is one thing for people to be arguing about the vaccine itself. i think most of these arguments are ridiculous and they are not grounded in reality and fact.

but beyond that it is very disturbing people won't even subject themselves to testing. we are trying to get a hybrid model of our operation opened up, at least for administrative staff, and it is becoming problematic because so many of the staff remain unvaccinated. these are people i really had before covid viewed as responsible. people who really want to protect the people around them and it is causing problems. initially, you know, there were just people getting upset about being required to get vaccinated. but there were lots of people who are immunocompromised who are furious at the coworkers they will not subject themselves to the vaccine. but why can't we even get tested? what is the problem here? i mean, it is basically saying

they just don't want to be told what to do and they don't want to suffer any consequences. host: callers letting us know about the challenges, at least their view of the legal challenges for the vaccine mandates. you can do the same on the lines and send us tweets and texts as well. the text number is (202)-748-8003. one of the arguments heard by the supreme court last friday was between chief justice john roberts. he was questioning the solicitor general who defended the mandates. go ahead. [video clip] >> seems to me the more and more mandates that pop up, i wonder if it is not fair for us to look at the court as a general exercise of power by the federal government and asked the question, why does congress have a say in this? why doesn't this be the primary responsibility of the states? >> congress absolutely has a say and it spoke here.

it promulgated section 655c to empower osha to take action to protect workers from grave dangers. >> when did it do that? >> it was enacted in 1970 i believe and the agency, as explained in the preamble, documented substantial evidence to show why this constitutes -- >> i don't think you can say that specifically addressed this problem. >> well, mr. chief justice, there's a statute in front of it that needs to be examined. there is no doubt covid-19 is a hazardous agent within the meaning of the provision. i think the immediacy and magnitude of harm clearly constitutes a great danger. unvaccinated workers stand a one in 14 chance of being hospitalized, one in 200 chance of dying. >> sounds like the sort of thing that states will be responding to or should be and that congress should be responding to or should be rather than agency by agency, the executive branch

acting alone responding to it. we are supposed to say, yes this is an osha problem, yes this is a federal contractor problem. the military is on its own. they take orders. again, i guess i'm just repeating myself. it seems we should be looking at it across the board issue. host: that is from the oral arguments on the supreme court's mandate. it was supposed to go into effect january 4 according to this explainer from the associated press. republican attorneys general, business associations, and several media groups appeal the ruling. it was osha that announced it would not issue citations before january 10 for vaccination mandates or before february 9 for testing requirements to give employers time to adjust under the health worker mandate.

november 5 wide range of medical providers that received federal medicare and medicaid funding would require workers to receive the first dose of covid-19 vaccine by december 6 and be fully vaccinated january 4. it would affect 17 million workers, 76,000 health care facilities and home health care providers. going to the previous caller expressing those concerns. cambridge, maryland an employee, this is dave. caller: good morning. host: what do you think? caller: i think justice roberts hit it on the head. congress has been lax in addressing this issue. i have a heart condition. i have a fib and some other complications. i had the choice to get vaccinated or lose my job. where does that put me? host: a regular test is not an option for you? caller: a regular test? no, i am talking about the

vaccine. host: you are saying your employer is requiring it. caller: yes. host: when you have to have it by? caller: i have to have it by the end of the month or i lose my job. host: aside from getting a vaccine you are saying your employer is not giving you the option for testing on a regular basis. caller: they are giving me the option for testing but they are putting in a mandatory requirement whether or not to be vaccinated. i mean, that is one of the issues they say. host: have you appealed to your employer about this? caller: yeah. host: what has been the response? caller: the response is, you are goin to lose your job if you don't get vaccinated. host: lisa in maine under the line for employees. good morning.

caller: hi, how are you? host: well thanks. caller: i don't think they should enforce it. we have our customers asking if our techs are vaccinated and we cannot give that information out. my employees are not enforcing it. host: as far as the supreme court's decision, what happens at the mandates are allowed to continue do you think? caller: people are going to quit. host: let's hear from an employer. cj in atlanta, georgia. caller: thank you so much. first of all, we are dealing with a political issue. at the end of the day this is a political issue and it should not be in the courts but since it is anyway it going to have to be addressed. we have already seen the ripple effects of the vaccine on employers, on employees. to that end, we have a vaccine

that is not even stop transmission. even if you don't have any epidemiological experience, we know this vaccine does not stop the transmission of the virus. at the end of the day we have a health care concern. we have a health care threat. we do not have a health care threat. we need to stop the mandate bottom line. thank you. host: these are some of the samplings of people under the employer whether they are employers, employees, health-care workers giving their thoughts on this vaccine mandate by the biden administration. currently being debated at the supreme court. you can make your thoughts known as well. for employers in the audience, (202)-748-8000. if you are an employee, (202)-748-8001. if you are a health care worker, (202)-748-8002. all others can call us at (202)-748-8003. you can also use that line to text us your thoughts. we will hear from jason an

employee. caller: good morning. i work for an employer who has a mandate and i support it completely.

>> if it doesn't eliminate transmission it still reduces transmission. host: let's go to kathy in michigan. you next up. caller: good morning. a couple of things, the woman several phone calls back that hospitals are at capacity. the fact is people are leaving in droves because they're are so overloaded. that's a whole big story, that's a lie, she was lying. host: why do you think that? caller: i know that. i read the headlines of local newspapers throughout the state of michigan constantly. i know what's going on in my community. i know people who work in the medical field here in the hospital. people are stressed to the max. you can keep employees when they can't handle it anymore. mean, the situation needs to come to an

end as soon as possible. we are two years into this pandemic and children, because i am working in education currently, they ar 42 elementary schools -- the school in which i work were positive. i know i sat next to i know i sat next to greater than six. i had my booster the first of november. march of last year, i received my vaccination. we have to face it. this is a serious contagion but manageable. if you are educating highly or whatever your education level is, people are fighting it. i don't know why. it does not make sense to me anymore.

michigan. the detroit news offers an editorial looking at the vaccine mandate. you can find it online. the nation is already facing a shortage of covid tests despite president biden's assurances he fixed the problem. it is unsure where businesses would acquire the tests to comply. there is no federal solution. the president should take his own words to heart. breakthrough cases are common and vaccines will not stop the spread. the better approach would make sure states have adequate access to testing and the early virus treatment. such expensive federal mandates go against our constitutional rights and are likely to slow the virus. that editorial from the detroit news. other editorials locally across the united states looking at the vaccine mandates by the biden administration. in alabama, a health care

worker, this is thelma. caller: i am calling because it is getting to be ridiculous that the unvaccinated people think they have more over us than anybody. host: as far as the mandates themselves what do you think of them? caller: i think they should be mandated. host: why is that? caller: because look at it now. everybody is going against the mandates because of president biden. they are not going against it because they know what is right. they know we are not going to get out of this if it is not through vaccination and it is a shame. it is a shame, really a shame. the wall street journal, they bear some responsibility because they come on here and let all the republicans come on here. and the businesses, if they do not get their people vaccinated,

there is going to be a backlash against them. why should we come to them when they have these people unvaccinated? i got vaccinated, the booster, the shot, i got everything. the religious, they don't want to do anything. i think they need to be put out of this country because they don't love this country. this country stands for everyone, not just the business people. that is who is calling in here. host: with that include people who decide they don't want the vaccine for certain reasons? that is a fair part of this country as well. caller: why should we come into your stores and you got unvaccinated people in there? it is not right and we should be able to sue you. host: your calling in under the health care worker line. where do you work? caller: i work at a hospital. host: in what capacity if i may

ask? caller: if you asked those people what capacity they do? it is just like the wall street journal. host: that was thelma and alabama letting us know her thoughts on the mandate. you can do the same. we have done this for half an hour and we will continue until 8:00. (202)-748-8000 for employers, (202)-748-8001 for the employees, if you are a health care worker, (202)-748-8002 and the line for others (202)-748-8003. we will go back in time. president biden back in september when he announced both employer mandates and the health care worker vaccine mandate. here is some of the argument he gave back then. [video clip] >> my job as president is to protect all americans. so tonight i am announcing the department of labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together

employ over 80 million workers to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week. some of the biggest companies are already requiring this. united airlines, disney, tyson foods, and even fox news. the bottom line, we are going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers. we are going to reduce the spread of covid-19 by increasing the share of the workforce that is vaccinated and businesses across america. my plan will extend the vaccination requirements that i previously issued in the health care field. already i have announced we are requiring vaccinations of all health care workers who treat patients on medicare and medicaid because i have that authority. tonight i am using that same

authority to expand that to cover those who work in hospitals, home health care facilities, or other medical facilities. a total of 17 million health care workers. if you are seeking care at a health care facility, you should be able to know that the people treating you are vaccinated. simple, straightforward, period. host: if you want to see more of that, go to c-span.org for the president's announcement on vaccine mandates. a hearing next week you should look out for if you are interested in these topics is on the variants of covid-19. two people that you see in the news regularly, dr. anthony fauci and dr. rochelle walensky, will appear for the hearing. you can see that on c-span3 on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. follow along at c-span.org and you can follow along on our c-span now app.

from joaquin -- i may have said this wrong -- montgomery, alabama, an employee. caller: yes, it is jay-quan. host: i apologize. caller: you good. i feel like these mandates are for crazy, for real. if people don't want to get vaccinated, they should not have to give vaccinated. you are giving them the option to either go to work or not go to work. most people if people are on the streets dealing with people on a daily basis, they are going to choose not to go to work over everybody else having the vaccine. from what i have been watching and what i have been getting is the people who is vaccinated are the ones who are giving the unvaccinated this virus.

that means something is not right. the vaccine is not working and they need to go back in the labs, do they testing all over again. host: but do you think a lot of people would have the option to not go to work over concerns about getting a vaccine so much if they are mandated to do that? do you think they have that option? caller: no. i don't think that is right. you are giving the people to choose over their livelihood. either you go to work and make money or you stay at home and not make no money. host: they can also get a regular test as part of this as well. caller: right. on that yes, if they want to get a test, they should. it is the thing of you don't know if you have it or not. but if you are around people that does have it or been vaccinated and said they have it

and they go around somebody and catch it again, that don't sit right with me. host: we will hear from david in south carolina, a health care worker. hello. caller: hello. good morning. i listen to the justices' oral arguments about the 100 employee mandate. one thing -- what i am saying is i think the use of osha to enforce this -- sorry -- is political and not scientific. i have not heard any logical reason why employers with 99 people are less dangerous. i think 100 is a number used by the president or his advisors

and maybe it is his effort because there was no national plan. that is all we heard about trump and now he has a national plan. but the 99 versus 100, i did not hear any scientific reason why there is a difference. maybe you are good with resources. maybe you can come up with something. host: to the previous caller's point, what kind of work do you do? caller: i was a medical technologist and i moved into i.t. for financial reasons. host: the report to the workplace every day in the health care field? caller: i am 100% remote. they got rid of our offices and we are entirely remote but we are still mandated, required to get the vaccine in the booster. i had side effects from the first two shots and there is no way i am going to get the booster. the side effects are inexplicable and i think i know they might be caused.

they are neurological. constant low-grade dizziness after the first dose and big-time second day after the second dose. host: that is david giving us his thoughts. health care workers, if you are in the medical field, give us a call on that line. some of the legislators on capitol hill giving their comments via tweet after last friday's hearing. senator mike braun on his twitter feed saying, the supreme court must acknowledge president biden's vaccine mandate is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government. there are other tweets as well you can see. let's go to luke in georgetown, south carolina, an employer. hello. caller: hello. to continue on the theme of the prior gentlemen, what the government and health care refuses to tell us is there are vaccine injuries. while rare they occur.

my wife got the second vaccine and has been incredibly sick, bedridden 50% of the time the last seven months. you cannot get any help because they don't know what to do. we have been to every kind of medical person. cardiologist, gastroenterologist, virologist, rheumatologist, and there really has been no help. host: you identified yourself as an employer. what kind of business do you own? caller: i have a small printing business. about 10 employees and we don't require vaccines. i have been vaccinated. i believe the u.s. was built on the backs of people who make their own decisions, not from central planning from the socialist government. i am not an anti-vaxxer. i believe it is one man, one choice. it may be for the greater good we get vaccinated but it is not for the good of every person you would get vaccinated. host: how do you ensure safety

and your printshop if you don't make these requirements? caller: we have had covid come through the shop three times. so, when someone comes up as positive they leave the shop, everyone else gets tested. we have yet to have a direct transmission and we work fairly closely together. it is a small shop. while we have not had the omicron variant come through, at least to my knowledge, we have had the first to come through. host: you said they all get tested. is that a requirement for you? caller: no, it is all of us doing it on our own. you worked together years and years and you treat each other like family. that is what a family do, get tested. host: ok. that is luke giving his perspective as an employer. dr. roger marshall on his

twitter feed about the supreme court hearing, they will begin hearing the vaccine mandate. medicare and medicaid should not be weaponized against the heroic health-care workers who continue to run to the front line of the covid battle. kevin hearn saying, another month another dismal job. added 99,000 jobs in december. his refusal to abandon his unconstitutional vaccine mandate coupled with unwillingness to end expanded welfare benefits are stifling economic recovery. and from mary miller, as the supreme court hears those arguments i hope the justices are guided by precedent. limiting the power of unelected federal bureaucrats at agencies like osha. these are just some perspectives from legislators, particularly to those arguments that were heard last friday. you can hear them for yourself if you wish. go to c-span.org.

the audio the supreme court releases we have produced and can air for you. go to the website to hear more. from north carolina an employer. this is mike. caller: good morning, c-span and good morning, america. i really thank c-span for the oral arguments that you recorded. i have one employee by the way and neither that employee or myself believing getting vaccinated and there are many reasons for that. i don't have time to tell you all the reasons and the research i have done. on your website when i went to the oral arguments and i think it was the one hour and 34 minutes when they were questioning the solicitor general, he asked her are there any risks in taking the vaccine? she said, finally she said yes,

there are risks. then i went to the mayo clinic website who were debunking the myths of the vaccine and one of the facts they reported about the vaccine was during this time the vaccine adverse recording system received 6968 reports of death among people who receive a covid-19 vaccine. they think it is minimal but -- host: back to the mandates. why do you not support them? caller: you don't have time for me to list all of them. i can give you a few reasons. host: what about the top reason? caller: it has got foreign chemicals in it that are not

good for you. that is my top reason. host: mike in north carolina giving his thoughts on the mandate. you may want to do the same. just a couple of issues with how states are treating this. going back last year to the november election the victory of glenn youngkin, republican in virginia. reporting now days before he is set to take office virginia will join other republican-led states in challenging the biden administration mandates intended to increase the nation's covid-19 vaccination rate. once the governor-elect takes office, "while we believe the vaccine is critical we do not think the federal government can impose its will and restrict the freedoms of america and virginia is at its best when people are allowed to make the best decisions for their families and businesses." you can look for that in the coming days.

it was back in november the florida governor ron desantis signed a bill specifically blocking the covid mandates from the federal government. here's some of his argument from back then. [video clip] >> montana had done something, tennessee had done something, and people were saying this was not something that was going to end up happening and they understood what was going on. i made the call to say we got to do this now because people are losing their jobs right now if we do not do these protections. we needed to do that and they stepped up and i think it is something that is going to make a big difference for an awful lot of people. we are respecting people's individual freedom in the state. [cheering] that is something that is very important. [applause] ultimately, i don't know how it ever came to this point, but at the end of the day, even fauci, all these people would say, no mandate.

now they are seeing you should not even be able to work? some people say kids should not be able to go to school and this has gotten so, so far out of whack. host: that was governor desantis from last year. let's hear from earl an employee in atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. this is anecdotal but i support the mandate. i work for a moving company. i am 65 years old, two time cancer survivor. i just found out recently, last week, another friend of mine died. that is two guys in about six months that do what i do. i got really sick about a weekend a half ago. i worked in a freezing cold warehouse, people coughing all over me.

by the time i got home i felt like i was going to die. i fell face first onto the bed and i laid there for a minute and i thought, this could go either way. it went the right way and i have been feeling like superman ever since. the next morning at 9:00 i had no symptoms, no pain, no nothing. i have been working strong ever since. the two guys who died, buddies of mine, they were unvaccinated. host: through all that experience you had what about your thoughts on the mandate? caller: yeah, we should have a mandate. this is political man and it has become shakespearean in the ignorance around it. get out of here. host: when you say it is political, what do you mean by that? caller: the right has made everything political and there are undertones of racism in it.

all of this antigovernment stuff started when the government forced integration. white people love to the government before then. host: let's go to james in akron, ohio, an employer. good morning. caller: we have 11 people in construction. most people don't want you in there. they do not want unvaccinated people there. everybody is vaccinated. we had one person who quit. he said he was afraid of the vaccine. it was killing people and he gave a bunch of excuses nobody else had. anyway, i wanted to mainly call in, there was a lady a while a

back that said there was 111 pilots that had died. i googled it. i can't find it. i would like to answer -- i would like you to answer if you know. host: as an employer for your business, have you mandated your employees get vaccinated? caller: no, no, not directly. i asked everybody to do it and i know several people that died that were not vaccinated. but no, i did not mandate it. today i would mandate it. all the hospitals are full right now. we have the national guard in the three hospitals here. we have freezer trucks outside. i mean, it is crazy in here. for anybody that don't want the

vaccine i just don't understand it when they are watching people next to them died. host: if i may ask, do you think if you impose the mandate, would you lose a good deal of your employees or some do you think? caller: no. we only lost the one and i think he quit because everybody was telling him get vaccinated. he quit about two months ago. in fact, i thought he had been vaccinated. i did not know. somebody brought it up and then they was hounding him about it and he left. that is the way it is. i don't understand. back to the one thing, you are not allowed to correct people like the lady that said the pilots died. is that the way it is? host: people bring a lot of their own information to the program. we are not particularly fact checkers on the fly.

we do correct things as we go forth in some cases but that explains your point. thomas in raleigh, north carolina, an employee. hello. caller: i have been vaccinated. i do not believe should be mandated. my neighbor had a stroke and had a feeding tube put in. somebody has to remind justice, i think it is justice sotomayor, there are not 100,000 children -- you would think a judge would know that before oral arguments were presented. i am not for the federal government telling you what you should do and what you should put in your body. however, i had the shot because i had to with my job. host: given the option of vaccination or regular test why not keep those as options under the mandate?

if regular testing could be an option besides getting the shot itself. caller: that is what they are doing. if you don't get the shot, you have to get tested weekly. i don't have a problem with that. host: let's go to vi in ohio on the line for others. caller: hi. can you hear me? host: yep. caller: i am a registered nurse and i worked in the hospital 25 years. i was withholding my employment status because of people's unwillingness to be vaccinated. when i was raising my children if they did not get the polio vaccination, tb test, they were not allowed to go to school. look back to the other areas before we had therapeutic -- eras before we had therapeutic drugs. it was unthought of to spit on the street.

i think the lack of courtesy to protect others is very profound and i think any public servant, whether they are working in dietary areas, the police, the firefighters, anyone in a hospital and teachers and administrative people. they are the leadership the protect the children and others. let's encourage other people to do the same and protect their family by choosing to get the vaccination. as data comes out, i know it is not perfect and we learn more about sars and all of this -- host: you said you were withholding your employment status. can you explain that? caller: i am a registered nurse but i will not go back into the hospital until, you know, i just will not work. host: i was going to ask you, what has to change for you to go back? caller: well, i think the

majority of our adult population -- because i work with cardiovascular -- if they would be vaccinated, it would be less detrimental to me and my family. host: let's go to randy in greensboro, north carolina an employer. caller: i would really like to know why natural immunity is not considered in the mandate. why we are not testing before we vaccinate people. why aren't we leaving some unvaccinated so we can go back and check their bodies after we have gone through this for a few years? host: what kind of business do you run? caller: i run a small electrical company. just a one-man show. i have to hire people from time to time but i go into a lot of homes in that business increased when the pandemic started. we started out masks, rubber gloves.

i had a mother in intensive care for about eight months and we grew to use those protective devices as a way to see my mother. host: as far as the people you hire do you make requirements of them being vaccinated or not? caller: absolutely not. host: why is that? caller: i feel that is their choice and what we know from the very beginning is we can use an approved mask, not a handkerchief over our face. we can wash our hands and we can maintain our distance from people. host: that was randy in north carolina. sean and north delaware, a health care worker. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a nurse. i have been a nurse 21 years.

i have exited the health care setting. i am tired. health care workers are tired. the cdc is a joke. the government needs to focus on data. decrease spread and people will be more apt to receive the vaccine. explain titers and how they correlate to necessity of receiving the booster shot. we need data, we need numbers and i am not impressed and what we are getting is not legit. host: because of health care workers you have probably seen stories and data about how hospitals are being impacted. even with that you would impose a mandate on specific health care workers? caller: i personally would not. that would be the individual's choice because we are currently caring for people and are ill enough to be in critical care units. host: would you say you had

enough staff for treating those people? caller: definitely not. we don't have enough staff, who don't have enough beds, we don't have enough equipment, especially respiratory equipment. however, more has to be done with data to decrease spread. a vaccine alone is insufficient. we need to look at what they did. host: let's hear from lee in california, an employee. good morning. caller: good morning. i am working at a company mandating us to have the vaccine and i have had the vaccine, but i find that they mandate everyone be tested before they go into the office every day so we can be sure rather than the mandate to get vaccinated. it just does not seem to be

clear that people who have the vaccine are not spreading it. testing to be is a better mandate or why are they only mandating people who are working? if it is going to be a mandate, shouldn't it be for everybody? host: do you think testing every day would become too labor-intensive for companies? caller: i think that is the only way that osha, they are the ones trying to make sure we are safe in our work environment that can be guaranteed. i have older parents that are uncomfortable about going home after going to the office. i would like to know if people have been tested daily. again, if that is the path we are taking, it is an osha thing and they want to keep employees safe. it is labor-intensive but that is what we need to do. host: that was leigh finishing off this hour of calls.

thanks to those who participated. two guests joining us. we hear from former republican congressman doug collins about the week in politics, his recent book, a front row look at the democrats' obsession with donald trump. later on author and law professor kimberly wehle on the january 6 investigation and the threat to our democracy. those conversations coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> this week on the c-span networks, the senate will debate imposing sanctions on a natural gas pipeline that has become involved with u.s. diplomatic efforts between the rush -- between the u.s. and ukraine. senator chuck schumer also will debate filibuster rules. and the house returns to take up veterans benefits. tuesday on c-span 3, dr. anthony

fauci, rochelle walensky, and other members of the covid response team appear before a senate committee to discuss the omicron variant. tuesday a 10:00 a.m., the senate banking committee holds a confirmation hearing for jerome powell, who president biden nominated to serve a second term as federal reserve chair. live coverage on c-span.org and the c-span now mobile app. the senate banking committee returns thursday at 10:00 a.m. for a second federal reserve confirmation hearing for the vice chair. they will also consider the nomination of the director of the federal housing finance agency. an coverage of several supreme court oral arguments. monday through wednesday, live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.org and on the c-span now video app. head over to c-span.org for further scheduling information or to stream video, live or on-demand, anytime. c-span, your unfiltered view of

government. >> can human genes be patented and owned? that tackled tonight on "q&a." it talks of a case -- >> i did not think the case at a huge chance of success when it was first brought, but as it rolled on year after year, through different appeals and machinations, it became increasingly clear that there was really something important going on here. by the time he got to the supreme court, i knew that this was going to be a very important landmark case and one that i definitely wanted to tell the story of. >> jorge contreras, author of the genome defense on "q&a." listen to "q&a" and all of our

podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> get c-span on the go. watch the day's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere, on our new video app. listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts. download c-span now today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest's doug collins, the former house judiciary committee ranking member for the state of georgia, he served from 2012 to 2020, and the author of the book "the clock and the calendar: a front-row look at the democrats' obsession with donald trump." representative collins, thanks for giving us your time. the title of your book, this exception you talk about, how would you characterize that? guest: being the ranking member

coming into that congress -- we had seen it since president trump had been elected, but when the democrats to back majority in the house, it became the all encompassing obsession, in the judiciary committee in particular. everything seemed to focus back on what can we do to investigate president trump, what can we do to continue the russian narrative, the mueller narrative. that was really the only interesting thing that they wanted to take part in. as i talk about in the book, we tried multiple times, because i had worked with many other democrats before, on different issues number but we couldn't get any traction unless you had to revolve around their new agenda or this agenda of investigation of the trump administration. host: as far as trying to break that traction, how would you go about it? guest: in fact, we did not break it to that was the biggest thing. you look at the hearings from that time -- i go in depth -- i

did not do a historical piece. this is not a dry historical piece. it is a front row seat on what i observed in dealing with this. the mueller investigation, the hearings, then the impeachment process, which is where the name of the book came from, "the clock and the calendar," the democrats realize they were up against the clock and the calendar. the timing before the next election cycle was the most important thing. it was frustrating for us working on criminal justice reform, antitrust issues -- all of that seemed to stop when the new congress came in. host: would you apply that sense of obsession to the current work being done investigating january 6? guest: i think it is a continuation. it is frustrating to sit back and watch. not being part of that, it would be hard for me to characterize that apart from the firsthand expanse i had in the previous congress. host: in the sense that is a

committee investigating these matters, do you think such an investigation should take place? guest: i think they are taking place -- the only interesting that came from my time in there and the correlation you're asking about is what we found was, during my time in 2019, 2020, the democrats were willing to change the norms of the house. they were willing to change rules, procedures to get to an end result they were wanting. we are seeing that in the january 6 investigation in an unprecedented move where the speaker of the house was determining who would be on the committee, who would not be on the committee. those are carryovers from that time. it sets an interesting precedent. what does this mean going forward? where are we going to be, no matter who is in charge. is there minority representation, majority representation? is this something that will move forward, because right now, the house is the majoritarian institution. there was always the

consideration of minority opinions and rights. i had been there six years under that process. so i am seeing that fall over a few the question would be under whoever's majority with that continue or will there be settling back in? host: what do you think of the minority representation currently seen on that committee? guest: again, that is a frustrating position for most republicans, who feel like, if you look at how these processes have worked for years were not followed. represent cheney and kinsinger were bitten by the majority to be on that committee after the breakup of the process and putting in what is typically a majority-minority decision. host: if you want to ask our guest questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. one more question about the

investigation. to what extent do you think president trump had a role in the events of january 6? guest: groups that are tell, ans

point, my question is what is being done to move forward in the future? host: if i understand it correctly, you, after he left congress, was providing legal counsel to the former president. can you expand that? guest: very little. i am not working in that capacity at all now. it is a simple fact that, going back to norms -- this is the bigger conversations i've. the -- to have. the executive privilege and norms going forward. what may look like it applies now in a way that someone would want it to apply, how does it also apply later? that has been the thing for the last for years in congress, looking ahead to say what work in the past, is it working? is there a new way of looking forward that the majority will do whatever they want to to end up getting the results they want?

or is there a process of balance in which things are worked out in a process? this is the part that frustrated me most in. writing the book. congress is not set up have the, do not do it the right way, then you end up with frustration, because the institution itself was not made to run in a very authoritarian kind of manner. . host: as far as the use of executive privilege, what do you think of that argument? and as far as norms are concerned, legal arguments going back to president nixon, particularly watergate, what do you think of those connections? guest: you hit on a great topic here. if there is an objection to be made, and we have always known this in congress, and there are some injunctions and executive privileges that congress has not recognized, but there is also the format of the courts to adjudicate this.

when you are not concerned with going through the process or taking the time to go through the process, then you are leaving out a very valuable part of the process, which is the courts to adjudicate, as you say, all the way back to nixon, adjudicate what is a confirmed privilege. what is something that can be allowed, what is not? i know that frustrates a lot of people, but depending which side of the scale you are on, it is also the proper way to do it. host: from our calls, from colorado, raymond on our independent line with doug collins, former member of the house, author of the book "the clock and the calendar." you are up first. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, congressman. i have a question. have you had a chance to read mary trump's book? and i also have a comment of you think that there is such a thing

as white privilege? the 73 million people that voted for donald trump, i think it had something to do with this privilege in america and the fear that they are losing it. thank you, god bless, and i will listen to your comments. (202) 748-8001 thank you for your kind -- guest: thank you for your kindness. no, i have not read the book yet and i do not accept the premise of your comment. you are free to have that premise. we will move on. host: farm pennsylvania, randall, democrats line. caller: good morning, mr. collins. it is my delight to have the opportunity to talk to you on behalf of the american public. we know the role that you have played, trying to support the deception on behalf of donald trump. it is terrible what the american people have witnessed. and it continues. you talk about process. there was a process that was

offered to the republican group. we know who -- through association that some of those characters -- the gentleman from ohio has been intensely involved in this activity. it is disgraceful what has happened. let's be objective. what the american people have witnessed. mr. collins, you have been a part of it, and it continues. i've never listened to your podcast, nor will i ever, but we do have the ability to have various media sources in our nation, and i listen to marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz and their nonsense that they were expressing on behalf of themselves and the constituents they represent -- host: of all those things said, do you have a specific question?

caller: yes. why will you not support the continued effort to uncover what has happened? host: ok. we will leave it there. mr. collins, go ahead. guest: randall obviously has opinions he likes and opinions he does not like, and he has made it clear he does not want to hear my opinion in any of this. like i said, i have not been in congress in over a year. a lot of what he is discussing has not been part of what i've been doing. i go back to simply the process. whatever investigation going on, i hope he finds it satisfying. host: we heard the president last week talk about that investigation during the january 6 anniversary. i want to get your response to it. [video clip] >> no election in american history has been more closely scrutinized or more carefully counted. every legal challenge questioned

the results, and every court in this country that could have been made was made and rejected. often rejected by republican appointed judges, including judges appointed by the former president himself. from state courts to the united states supreme court. recounts were undertaken in state after state. georgia counted its results three times, with one recount by hand. partisan audits were taken, long after the election, in several states. nine changed the results. in some of them, the irony is, the margin of victory actually grew slightly. let's speak plainly about what happened in 2020. even before the first ballot was cast, the former president was preemptively sowing doubt about the election results.

he built his lie over months. it was not based on any facts. he was just looking for an excuse, a pretext, to cover for the truth. he is not just a former president, he is a defeated former president. if he did by a margin of over 7 million of your votes. and if all and free and fair election. that is simply zero proof the election results were inaccurate. host: mr. collins, your opinion. guest: president biden obviously was frustrated and expressed his frustration out i think there are a lot of people who heard his words, and they have watched the actions, and for those who voted for president trump, they are still very frustrated joe biden is president. host: and to his election -- and

to his assertion of free, full, and fair elections and zero election fraud? guest: he won the election, is president of the united states. that is the question that keeps coming up. let's continue on. mr. biden continued to put forth an agenda that is not looking at courts but looking forward. we will see if he does that. host: from ed in maine, republican line. caller: good morning. listen, i've been a republican my whole life and will be a republican my whole life, but i will always be a conservative. i guess i've to flip the question of your book and why is your party so obsessed with president trump? we have a whole bunch of highly qualified, highly intelligent, highly likable people that we could focus on, but people like you are stuck with this obsession with trump, which i do not begin to understand.

the man is a stain on our country. for smart people like yourself, you are pouring us down the drain with this guy. you talk about the judiciary committee investigating trump -- trump literally went to a foreign country and said i will give you a bunch of military dollars if you will launch a pretend investigation into my opponent. what in the name of gosh was that? i did not like hillary. nobody likes hillary. but you were not completing that much when we were investigating hillary for four years, using the judiciary committee, investigating emails. so a man who has been told by courts that he cannot ever run a charity again because he had a fraud on a charity, has been told he had to refund $240 million because of a fate stupor college of his -- and this man is a stain on us. why are you so obsessed with him -- host: ok, that's --

guest: i think it was ed from maine. what is really interesting is obviously, in this conversation, he is the one obsessed with him, not me. he was a former president, he is still out there. if you look apple after poll, there are a lot of republicans who would rather vote for him if he ran again. he has not said is or is not running. i want to break apart a little bit of that conversation. the book that i wrote about with the obsession was everything revolved around donald trump. fine, if that is what they wanted to do, that was their prerogative to do it. then there was interesting, that someone went to the ukraine and told them to do something -- that is the whole basis narrative of the impeachment with zelensky and the phone call pp did not go to another country, it was a phone call. the transcript is out there. you can watch the transcript. even zelensky himself said he

did not feel pressured. there's this whole narrative of that. i agree. if you are a republican and do not like donald trump, you have that right. you seem to be more obsessed with donald trump than i do in that regard. donald trump will do what he will do. we will see what happens. poll after poll shows that are a lot of republicans who feel that is something they would like to see happen. i agree completely, though, with another obsession, that we have a lot of good republicans out there. a lot of good conservative thought that will continue to come forward. we have to continue to base that narrative on the facts of policy. that is the one thing i've tried to get that, whether the caller said they will not listen to my podcast, fine, but i would encourage people to because we have people talking conservatives, how do we take our conservative policies of limited government, less taxation, the issues that we have come and make it apply to people. i think people are responding to

that when they see it. also this idea of the bigger form of government that many of the folks he just mentioned, whether it be desantis or others, have been fighting back in their states, providing a great vantage point to see these conservative ideals actually work. we can have disagreements that is the great thing about the republican party. we are also individuals in that perspective. but again, this idea that we are not open to ideas is just wrong. moving forward, we will see. if president trump decides to run again, it will be the primary -- there people and voters who decide that, not doug collins or anyone else. host: alan in wisconsin, independent line. caller: good morning. i do not think that last caller was a republican, but anyways -- [laughter] guest: i would tend to agree with the. caller: i really do not care

about this palace intrigue nonsense, from the impeachment to the biden laptop. all of that stuff has nothing to do with blue-collar economic issues, like, for example, the student loan issue. i got to tell you, the reason that you guys lost georgia -- there are 2 million people in georgia with student loans. the state budget of georgia is $48 million. the people of georgia of $82 billion, mostly federal student loan debt. you know, you republicans say you are about smaller government and say you do not like the colleges -- why did you let the state of georgia be conquered and enslaved by this nonsensical federal debt that donald trump could have canceled during the pandemic and would have won the election. he did not. that was the reason the election was even close.

guest: i appreciate your call, and you brought up a great conversation -- this is when you could have a conversation about a lot. i am really concerned -- i do not think he intended to do this, but basically the implication was donald trump, if you just done away with student loan debt, he would have won the election. is that really the way we want elections to run? but let's talk about this issue of student loan debt. joe biden has talked a lot about it and done nothing about it so far, driving many of his constituents on the left to be frustrated. but i have a question. if we decided today -- you use the example of georgia. i was in george's edges later. i was the offer -- the author of a bill that revamped our hope scholarship program gate if you do not know where that is -- what that is, that is where money is given to covert tuition in georgia for students who have

a grade-point average to get into school to have their tuition paid. it is a great way for our students to go into school, have lower debt loads as they go forward, and have the opportunity, under scholarship, to have a completely paid for. we do it through our lottery funds, dedicated solely to education. but i have a question that comes to mind. maybe you can ask this. if today joe biden came out and said student loan debt is done, if you currently have stone debt -- and that could be from 20 years ago or from five years ago or from someone just graduating -- what about the people who have paid off their debts. what about the student loans were paid off -- i paid off student loans, there are others who paid off student loans. the missing component is that there is a choice between the student and the college where they're going to take on student loan debt -- it is an

interesting topic to discuss. but if you cancel student loan debt now, is there no student known -- student loan debt moving forward? are we moving to the bernie sanders model of basically free higher education completely? it sounds good. should they be reforms to it, should we limit the amount of student debt that students can get into, we probably should, but from coming from a smaller government perspective, the government should not be deciding that issue. but if you are simply using a four political gain, there is a bigger problem we have got. host: so another topic aside from student loan debt is that of voting reform. the vice president will go to your state to talk about this. what do you think of this visit and how voting law is characterized in georgia? guest: i think they are

continuing the false narrative and light of george's voting laws, especially the last year, being jim crow 2.0. it's a lie. it's not true. an honest, objective look would look at that and see -- the election should be held in which the integrity of the election is important, but when you come to georgia and talk about this -- i was in the legislature. early on, we implemented voter id. it was set at the time that will destroy voting participation, people will not have a way to do it. the actual fact was it was reversed. african american and hispanic male and females both gross in the numbers. again, it is something that is a base play, something talked about a lot, but the reality is it is just not playing out,

especially on the voter suppression side. georgia just went through -- what we call our municipal elections, off year elections. we just went through, under the new rules, and the voting went fine. i think it is more of a play now when your agenda is sidetracked -- this is something that plays well with the left and the base and a narrative that is not playing out to be true, especially in a state like origin. host: let me then ask you -- let me play a bit of the georgia secretary of state on this program talking about the 2020 election with the claims or at least the questions from donald trump about those results. i will play a little bit, you can respond to it. [video clip] >> well, i stood on the truth, stood on the facts, stood on the

constitution. some people had a problem with that. many did not care what i am grateful for is all the republicans who support me. it was a difficult and hard lost for us on our side of the aisle. but you always believe in the rule of law and fight hard to protect the constitution. they understand. and obviously when i talked to some people these days, i still get cussed by people so aligned with donald trump and they wanted me to somehow fudge the numbers, put my hand on the scale, and i just couldn't do that. guest: i think brad stated his position very well. he will be up for reelection this year. he will be making that opinion and his record, as all of us do who are elected for office. i respect his position. i think he talks to two different things of what we were talking about. going back to this issue of moving forward in this idea that voter suppression is rampant in

georgia -- frankly, he and i have agreed on this. he talked about this as well. this issue of voter suppression is a myth that is being propagated down here. georgia, compared to even liberal states, has had no excuse absentee voting for a long time. we have an extended early voting day. there is just so much here that -- the start of this original question was that president and vice president coming to georgia to continue a narrative that is just false. to continue that process -- it really does not help the narrative of making sure everyone gets out and votes. if you are eligible to vote, meet the criteria to vote, your of age, it is -- a citizen, get out and vote. if you do not vote, you do not have a voice in the process. i am frustrated with people who do not vote yet are willing to propagate their opinions on a number of political issues on who is elected, who is not elected. if you do not vote, i do not

care what if you don't vote, i don't care what you think. any attempts to continue to strengthen that and allow more people to be a participant is things that need to be focused on. host: 15 more minutes with our guest, doug collins. he served in the house four terms from 2013 to 2021. what is your day job these days? guest: working on the podcast. i do a radio show as well. really, staying in touch with voters. i help with criminal justice reform which is something i would like to talk about this morning. that is one of the things i worked on in congress. before the democrats took back over, we had made a lot of good bipartisan progress.

it has made a real difference. it is true criminal justice reform. it is taking those who have committed their crimes but also finding a way to help them so when they get back out they are not going straight back in. that is where i am spending my time these days. that is something i think we can all rally around. you talk about employer shortages, community, families. bipartisan stuff like that, criminal justice reform, is stuff i am working on still. you will see me discussing that a lot. i think that is something desperately needed. we are seeing a lot of things passed off as criminal justice reform which is not and is tearing down what could be a very good cause. host: such as what? guest: prosecutors not prosecuting crimes. when you have a district attorney in new york who says they're willing to take armed robbery and drop it down to a misdemeanor, no one believes that is upholding public safety,

upholding the things you swear an oath to defend. i have done defense and prosecuting work. it is not a matter of not prosecuting crime that makes you a criminal justice reform. it is how you process those who do commit a crime. are they being fairly treated in the court system? do we have due process? if they are found guilty or acquitted -- but if they are found guilty, how do we make sure the reasons they were incarcerated are addressed in getting them back out quickly to a productive life. most of your listeners may not know this. 95% of all people arrested and in jail from the local to the federal level will come home that some point -- at some point. 95%. for those coming back, are we

putting them back into the same system and problem? 45% to 50% of county jails are addicted to drugs or alcohol or have diagnosed me to help conditions. why are we making local departments having to become mental health authorities? there is a lot that can divide us. but when you see these kind of numbers in our society and you see homes and communities, especially minority communities and others, that are being run through a, incarcerated, back outcome and quickly incarcerated again, we are failing on a conservative and compassionate level. if you're not as concerned about the social aspect, be concerned

about how much money we are spending in mental health, criminal justice, these areas. if you are concerned about the social aspect, it is how we are treating people. when i see jurisdictions and district attorney's not prosecuting crimes and raising the thresholds for misdemeanors where people are walking into stores and walking out and not being prosecuted, that does not help the criminal justice system or public safety. i'm trying to find partners on the right and left to say, how do we make good criminal justice decisions in these processes? host: let's go to the democrat'' line. caller: they say there is nothing wrong with what trump done. what if they overthrowed the government?

my daddy and a lot of people died in world war ii for this country. then you are going to say what trump done wasn't anything? it was. these people lost their loved ones and you are telling me it was nothing and you are crazy if you don't love america? thank you. guest: i appreciate brenda getting up and sharing opinions out about me -- opinions about me, someone she has never met before. i love this country. god bless you. great sunday morning. i hope all is well in alabama. host: republican line. caller: congressman collins, it is a pleasure to speak with you. i try to catch your show whenever i can.

i have been trying to find out what we can do about the 86 prisoners incarcerated in d.c. jails without due process and without representation for almost a year now that were arrested on suspicion of what is called an insurrection. what can citizens do to find out what is going on? i hope you would have some insight on what we can do. i have contacted my representatives a partially offices -- my representatives' offices. host: thank you. guest: they need to be processed

if they have been accused of crimes, then process their cases and move them through and get them adjudicated. that is what our criminal justice system is for, treated no less and no different than anyone else going forward. from an individual perspective, it is incumbent for people to be aware of it. there are people across the country that our criminal justice system has to provide fair, and equal, and blinded justice to so they can get their cases heard and adjudicated quickly. any delays of that is not worthy of the system which we have. host: merrick garland gave a speech last week. what did you think of that assessment? what do you think about the charges that have stemmed out of january 6? guest: i have not followed it that much. it is frustrating the merrick

garland situation. it is frustrating to see the focus of the department of justice under merrick garland. he has got to answer for his own discussions. as far as his comments about it, i think those cases need to be adjudicated. they need to have proper representation and get them done and not be held up as anything other than a crime that has been alleged. now, let's adjudicate. host: henry from michigan, democrats' line. hi. caller: i was heartened as a democrat to see president biden give the speech he gave the other day about january 6. and also, merrick garland's comments. i hope they are indicative of a new focus by the biden administration to get voting rights put through to save our democracy, as well as put us on

a war footing against a clear fascist danger. the time has come for the doj and military to purge all of our government agencies, military, and law enforcement of these fascist trump terrorists. then, we need to start a robust campaign to drone, swat, fbi, irs, cia, seal team six -- we need to cross the fascist republican party as it is. doug collins is a profiteer who wrote a book who is still willing to give up our democracy and kill our country for his own profit, just like trump is. host: ok, henry in michigan. mr. collins, go ahead. guest: i guess henry would not

vote for me. i can live with that. what henry just said is frankly disturbing. i will let it stand for what it said. he basically said if you don't think like i do, if you are republican or have different views, i will use the full weight of, he's very committed to using the full weight of the federal government, even military, to squash dissenting opinion. that was pretty amazing. i will let it go at that. that is the concerning part. when did we get to that part? i have democrat friends i disagree with vehemently, but they have the right to say it. the first amendment of the constitution is not for speech you like. the first amendment is for speech that you utterly detest. that is why it was put there, so we can have conversations on

"washington journal." i respect the right for him to be able to call in and say whatever he wants to say in that regard and he can feel however he wants to feel about me or any other republican. but when you go to the extreme, and how you qualify what was said, is anything that associates with ideas i don't like, the full weight of the federal government should be there to squash it. that goes against the founding fathers. that goes against who we are as a country. that is something that should concern us all. this is coming from me as a conservative. i know there are liberals that feel the same way. let's have honest discussion about education in our country, crime in our country. let's have all those kind of conversations, realizing we may be on different sides, but at the end of the day, for 200-plus years, we have been on different

sides of these issues from political persuasion but found ways to work through these things. that is my call to folks who listen to my podcast and have read my book and sit through a sunday morning with me on "washington journal." i'm glad to be here, but these are the kinds of things we have got to work together on. we may vehemently disagree, but we can find ways to work together. if we don't do that, it is not the people who listen to these shows who suffer, it is the american people who suffer because the vast majority of people simply want to get up in the morning, go to work, take care of their families, and come back home to a safe, secure environment in which they have opportunities to do those things. that is what i want to see happen. that is why i try to come on the shows and be as kind as i possibly can. we may disagree. that is fine. that is political discourse. if we all agreed, i would be scared. to simply say we need to do away

with dissent, that is the wrong way to go about it. host: let's go to florida, republican line. caller: good morning, representative collins. i miss you. we need you back. i hope you will run again because waffler robbed you. i've enjoyed watching you during the hearings. i do my research. the problem with people nowadays is they don't take the time to search out the truth. they don't do their own research. a parent the talking points -- they parrot the talking points. he is no profiteer. you are awesome. please run because we need you back. there are so many corrupt people in washington right now.

we need about 95% of them gone. host: that is rhee in florida. no interest in running for senate? guest: we are taking this cycle off and doing things like this. this is the great thing about shows like this. you can have differing opinions. you have somebody who does not like me and somebody who does. i appreciate that so much. this is what america is about. one thing she said i agree with completely as i have to be more conversation and education. i am a conservative who believes the more education, the better off we are. i think that is what is good for our country. host: you said no interest this year. what about a future run? guest: that is possible. we may in the future as we go forward. i am still a young man. i still think there are a lot of ways for me to participate in elected office.

if not, i will find other ways to stay in the process. host: how can people find your podcast if they are interested? guest: anywhere you get your podcast. we are across all platforms. you can find us anywhere. download it. it is a longform interview similar to what we are doing here. it really addresses issues. it is not just politics. we taught music, sports, bow hunting. i believe life is more than just politics. it is a good podcast for everybody. host: this is doug collins, former member of congress. thank you for your time today. another opinion coming up with kim wehle on threats she seems to our democracy. >> book tv, discussing their

nonfiction books. seeking -- he discusses his book and the progressive racism movement. and on afterwards kamala professor rainey barnett and evan burnett discussed their book "the original meaning of the 14th amendment." about the post-civil war change to the constitution. they are interviewed by a yale law professor. watch book tv online anytime at booktv.org. announcer: the house administration committee heard testimony on mediating complaints, training congressional staff online, and the search for a new executive director with officials from the office of congressional workplace rights. watch the hearing monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, online at c-span.org, or watch full coverage on our new video app, c-span now.

the library of congress talked about efforts to modernize the library of congress. he was joined by the director of the u.s. copyright office. other officials testified before the senate rules and administration committee. watch the hearing monday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on our new video app, c-span now. tuesday morning, testimony on the federal response to new covid-19 variants with dr. inch death -- dr. anthony fauci, and others. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three, online at c-span.org, or watchful coverage on our new video app, c-span now. c-span offers a variety of

podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works. while the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years. and talking risks features conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: washington journal kent -- washington journal continues. host: this is kim wehle he, the author of "how to read the constitution and why." thank you for coming on the program again. one of the things we have been talking about is when you look at the events of january 6, it goes back to how we count electoral votes and those things

that need to change. can you share that with our audience? guest: absolutely vital distinction. when people hear about threats to the election, they think about traditional problems like access to the ballot. when the republic was founded, only white males with money could vote. that was expanded. we are still fighting about who should get to the ballot. if you don't have a certain idea, should you be allowed to vote? now, we are shifting that debate. imagine that you get to the ballot box, you have all the i.d., you vote. and then after the fact, politicians that count the vote decide we don't like your vote because you are not politically aligned with me. i'm going to ignore your vote and cast my own vote. that is the critical element. it is tossing out votes at the other end of the spectrum. if people say it is ok if it is politicians in my party throwing

out the other party's votes, you have to be careful to sign onto that because if you change the system, one day it will be your vote. when we get to the point where it is a fake vote, where we have the vote counters picking and choosing what they like and don't like, it is no longer a democracy. it is people in power deciding who gets to keep power under the guise of a democracy. a fake democracy. when the people don't actually get to pick our leaders. and that is very dangerous. that is frankly where we are in this moment. we are seeing states pass legislation tinkering with that. i have said and i don't think it is hyperbole that this could be the twilight of our democracy. the next round of federal elections could be our last real elections, rather than politicians deciding this is really who we want to be in power so we are going to ignore what the people actually asked for.

host: the electoral count of 1887 establishes procedures for certifying electoral votes for president, defines the vice president's role, and what congress should do in case of dispute. that was in 1887. does it apply today or does it need to be changed? guest: it does apply today. it has been around forever and has not been updated. there are three key dates under the statute. the statute that implements the electoral college identified in the constitution which is a process for deciding who is president. three key dates. november 4 is the date we all vote. the states certify who won the popular vote in that state for purposes of the electoral college. nothing in the act requires states to actually pay attention to the popular vote. there is no law mandating that.

there is a big loophole. we never had a problem up until now because states have respected the popular vote. there is a culture in american the votes count -- that votes count. the date in december is critical when he states certify their vote. there is a wrinkle in the statute that says if the states think there was an irregularity or problem with november 4, they can pick their own electors. whoever votes on november 4, it will not matter because in december, state legislatures are going to decide who they want to be president. if the popular vote gets through that hurdle, we have january 6 where we saw last year members of congress, republicans decided not to certify the people's vote under a fake claim of election fraud. i know a lot of viewers believe there is election fraud.

but 60-plus lawsuits, no one has come up with anything. and in court court, you have to have evidence. that is why they were all thrown out, because there is no evidence. the act does not require commerce to have evidence of fraud to ignore the popular vote. the electoral count act needs to be changed to say, sorry, politicians, the people are the ones that decide our next election for president. and if you really want your party to win, you better run on issues, not on cheating by throwing up the popular vote at one of these stages. this really is a problem. it is a problem that has never come up before because we have never had a january 6, 2021, before. host: kim wehle he joining us for this discussion. we have lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. you can also text us. recently in the news, mitch

mcconnell opening the door to the idea of changes needed. he is quoted as saying there are some flaws, it is worth discussing. some skepticism from the senate majority leader. do you think potentially some change could come? guest: i think that is really significant. there are two big bills pending in congress to address voting rights. nothing is on the table for the electoral count act. the ones on the table deal with counting the vote. one is the john lewis voting rights advancement act. that is a fix to the voting rights act that the supreme court gutted in 2015. the voting rights act of 1965 was a big piece of legislation signed by johnson, promoted by martin luther king, to stop excuses to keep mainly people of color from being able to vote. oh, you can't recite the declaration of independence, we are not going to let you vote. it did other things. one of the things it did is say

if you are going to change in voting laws, states, you have got to run it by doj. it is that peace that the supreme court struck down. the john lewis voting rights act would put that back in and make sure that states in here -- adhere to the voting rights act nde those of the constitution to make sure everybody can vote regardless of race. the other big pieces called the freedom to vote act, massive legislation. that would do all kinds of things like make voting a national holiday, make early voting easier, make same-day registration easier, make mail-in voting easier, streamline identification so everybody is required to have the same identification, require audits after the fact. make sure there are paper backups. it does a lot to fix election fraud. it also deals with gerrymandering to make sure politicians cannot lock down their power by picking and choosing voters. republicans have not been behind either of those pieces of legislation.

the filibuster is stopping them from moving anywhere. that is why it is significant that mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader, said the electoral count act is something i might think needs changing. i think it signals a couple of things. one, he is worried, like everybody that thinks about this, that it could at some point hurt his party. when the tables are turned, democrats could say i don't care that republicans won the election. we are now in power and going to stay in power and pick our own president. number two, i think it is his quiet agreement that january 6 was a problem. after the second impeachment where they acquitted donald trump of wrongdoing, he made a fiery speech, mitch mcconnell, basically blaming donald trump

for that saying we cannot have this in america and there needs to be accountability. now, the tune has changed a bit and we are gaslighting about whether january 6 was serious. but i think mitch mcconnell understands this is a serious cancer on our democracy that needs to be addressed for everybody regardless of where you are on the political party spectrum. host: let's go to sean in florida, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if you would comment on something i have not heard anyone make a comment on. when the capitol was attacked january 6, the people charged with rejecting the capitol did not open fire when it was being overrun. if it had been black lives matter, they would have opened fire. that seems that is an indication of where we are as a nation. would you care to comment?

guest: not being a person of color, it is hard to comment, but i can say my friends and colleagues who live in america as people of color have made exactly that comment. if this was a best buy and there were 20 african americans, we would have seen gunfire against these protesters. likewise, kyle rittenhouse was acquitted. he walked away having killed three people as a white man in wisconsin. the police just sat there. they did not rest him until a couple of days later. if that had been a person of color, there is no way he would have left the scene with people saying he just killed someone and the police sending by -- standing by. my understanding of what happened with law enforcement, and i have asked this question of other law enforcement experts, is that they were so overrun that the capitol police

did not have the numbers to take those kinds of actions. estimates are that there were between 2000 and 3000 people that stormed the capitol or were around the capitol that day. if you start using your gun, it could have been all out gunfire. my understanding is that was partly the problem. it was not feasible from a safety standpoint to use deadly force on that many people. that being said, there is absolutely no question from a common sense standpoint that if those were not white americans we would have a very different scene in terms of death count. i have no doubt about that. host: ray in delaware on the republican line, go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. i do have a question. in pennsylvania with the law they have up there, my

understanding is the governor and a judge changed the voter law. that is supposed to go through their congress. to me, it does not sound right. the other one is, you were talking about if there were black people going into the capitol, it would have been different. they did not do anything when they were rioting entering burning buildings down -- and burning buildings down. nobody shot at the black lives matter and nt for guest: rates for those questions. i will -- thanks for those questions. with destruction of property versus violence in human beings, the new york times had a very painful, i think, review of what

happened to the capitol police and other officers on january 6 in terms of suicides, deaths on that day and long-term physical and emotional damage. they were bludgeoned and ganged up on and beaten with sticks and flagpoles, brain damage, serious, serious injuries. that is a debate situation than attacks on property. as far as i know, there wasn't that kind of attack around black lives matter on human beings in those numbers, and we have to respect those officers who are public servants. they are there to protect all americans and one of our most sacred places in america, which is the united states capitol. that is really different. on the first question, a really tricky, thorny question you put your finger on and it will take

a little explanation here. the constitution doesn't mention states and the states role with elections and that is really the argument that judges and governors can't do anything about it, but it is not crystal clear and under pennsylvania law, like many states, election administration is not done by the legislature. same with congress. legislatures are bulky and can take a long time, they don't have the expertise. in pennsylvania, that power was handed off to a governor or someone within the governor's chain of command to make changes to the election laws to make elections run smoothly. some people argue the whole system is unconstitutional. i am not sure that is true. there was nothing unusual about this election.

as it stands, making the legislature state election laws, that is not unconstitutional or illegal. it is a blind spot in the constitution that right now people are upset about that has never been raised before. until the supreme court says that is unconstitutional or illegal, it is ok it was made that way. host: you talked about exactly what process with that have to go through and who would have the political will? guest: it would have to be an amendment by the united states congress, both houses would have to vote on it. at this moment we have the filibuster for regular legislation, so it would have to get a 60 vote supermajority in the senate. the constitution only requires a majority, 51%. but as a matter of procedure

learn parliamentary practice, but historically as a matter of respect for the minority party, congress has allowed the minority party to what we call filibuster a bill. in the old days, if you remember the old movies, they would have to stay up on the floor and debate the bill until the time ran out. they would have to pay a price, be up all night. now that has gone away. it has become essentially a 60 vote majority instead of 50, even though 60 is nowhere in the constitution. joe manchin and kyrsten sinema would have to agree to change the rules around voting to go back to the traditional 51 sent in the constitution in order to get it through our mitch mcconnell would have to get 10

people in the senate to sign on. so that is another reason maybe mitch mcconnell is signaling he is ok is a good thing because he does not want to see the filibuster go read if the filibuster goes, than the minority party, whoever it is, loses that power to filibuster. host: go ahead. caller: do -- for the states who still have paper ballots, why can't a serial number be put on every one of those ballots. in florida, we come in and show our sure id that matches our signature and a paper ballot with a serial number on it and embedded in that serial number says what state and pre-sick you are voting from. you vote and you stick the ballot in the voting machine. the fact that the serial number could be a finite number of

ballots. you can't just mail-in ballots with no serial number. you could easily check those ballots with the serial number. the absentee ballots would be a different color than the normal, in person voting. the military ballots would be green, provisional will be yellow or orange or some other colors so they are easy to identify which belongs to that particular group. serial numbers are the way to ensure the integrity of the election. host: thank you. guest: great point. that would require national legislation that would systematize our ballots across the country. in canada, you see the same ballot everywhere you are in the country. here it is by state and can be super complicated in one state and easy in another.

congress would have to step in and they do have the authority to change laws across the country regarding federal elections and that trickles down to the states. other countries and democracies have tried to do other forms of voting to make them secure, like electronic voting, and my understanding is that across the globe, it is really paper ballots that are the safest and least likely to trigger fraud, and that is the big legislation pending in congress would do something about making sure there is a paper backup so that we don't have claims of fraud. the third piece, i think the reason why the common sense reforms art happening, just to make it easy for all of us to vote and secure, is because there are gains to be made in

claiming fraud. politicians can make other changes to the electoral process that give them more power. the americans are being duped by the claim that there is so much voter fraud that we have to rig the game so politicians get more power. that is a scam on the american people. i think politicians need to understand, we are the bosses here, not them, and if they want to have power they are going to have to persuade us on the issues. but that requires americans to understand what is truth and what is fact. we can fix this voter fraud by common sense. we do our medical health records are all secure. we can vote in a secure way, but this lie about fraud is keeping politicians in a position of being able to claim more long-standing power through maneuvers they aren't entitled to. host: one idea for reform, a

voter log, a piece in the new york times said, democrats and republicans could post election, this could remove local election administrators with cause and prohibit -- and post electing audits while requiring standards regarding election results. could that go to this idea of reforming? guest: what you just cited and put in his piece, a large portion of that is in the freedom to vote act, which is a bipartisan senate bill with amy klobuchar and others, and some have argued it is too big and its current form and chunks of it should be passed that are more palatable maybe two

moderates, to ensure the integrity of accounting of votes. just to be clear, the difference between a piece of legislation like that is that would deal with all kinds of elections. the electoral count is about what do we do with the electoral college and the electoral college is only for the president. it is important to emphasize here that the clock is ticking not for the next presidential election, but for the midterms. if the midterm election puts congress in the hands of republicans, we will not see these, very unlikely to see any of these reforms and when we get around to 2020 for an january 6, 2025, there is a very strong likelihood that the popular vote and legitimate certification of the electoral college based on the popular vote will not

happen. if we get to that point, that is the end of american democracy. it might be something people prefer but i would rather have that debate on the table. if we are going to have something else, let's had the debate not pretend it is somehow about electoral fraud and to say by the way, we won't do anything to fix that. they should be sitting up legislation to plug holes in the voting system. host: when you say the end of democracy, are you accused of hyperbole? guest: i think people do accuse me of hyperbole but i say those very soberly and i have thought about this for years. it is back to your first question, we are shifting to who can cast a ballot, how much id should you have, what proof of citizenship should you have? if you have gotten through all

of the metrics, are going to come your votes? on january 6, we had violence around people who did not want to count -- didn't want vote to count. we have no evidence they were invalid votes. so the next round, we will say, i think the narrative is the last round was fraud so we will have the politicians are going to say, we don't care what happens at the ballot box because that is full of fraud. we are going to pick our nominee regardless of what people say or that is the end of american democracy. people choosing their politicians, people handing the power to the politicians. we are the bosses. we are giving you your job description. if you don't like what you are doing -- if we don't like what you are doing, we are going to give you your pink flip. if going to the ballot box is no

more meaningful because they are going to ignore it, then it is not democracy. i don't say it to be alarming, but i say it to be realistic. this is something everybody needs to put front and center on their to do list for 2022. if our ability to hire and fire politicians goes, the next thing that goes is the bill of rights. the next thing that goes is our ability to make sure we can speak freely without bullying from government. if there is no accountability at the ballot box, politicians won't care. our ability to practice the religion we want, raise our children the way we want, have the firearms we want, all of these freedoms we hold so dear are not automatic and they depend on being able to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box if they invade our freedoms.

if that ability goes away because we are allowing politicians to power grab and cancel votes, then the cascade is scary and it has happened in other parts of the world. we have seen it in venezuela and hungary and other parts of the world, seen functioning democracies die in our lifetime. it is real. it happens. i have children. it scares me because this is where we are and i think we have to hold hands, we people, not we the politicians and go back to issues that affect us all. not fight about fake voter fraud because that is a guys for taking away our ability to choose our own bosses. host: let's hear from -- from texas. caller: good morning.

i agree with the concepts you are talking about. i believe this nation is very young compared to other nations that have been there for a long time. we are an experimental democracy. we thrive on voting and all of that and i think the democrats, what they try to do is make sure that when the taxes get accumulated because back to the people, working people, as the tax refunds. that happens because we vote and have a michael c that -- have a democracy. the people that are in power and that type of stuff cannot happen in other countries. i think there are a lot of people who do not understand what democracy is. there should be lessons on how

demography -- democracy effects the lives, because a lot of people don't understand we have health care because of democracy , education because of democracy, women's rights, which is right now here in texas my right has been taken away, my freedom to have an abortion if i am poor and can't handle the stress of having a child. host: you made a lot of points for our guest to address. kimberly wehle, go ahead. guest: i live in washington, d.c. and it is eight melting pot and their people from all over -- and it is a melting pot and people from all over the world come here. i've heard from people in countries who don't have free democracy. to a person, they are stunned that americans don't understand

how fragile this is and what's on the others, when stormtroopers breach the door and your side wins, that you are not really winning. we all are losing. enter live in an environment where you have to be careful what you say, who you associate with, a lot of these rights that we understand are not in the constitution itself. the freedom of assembly is in the constitution, the ability to get out in public and we have seen protesters being clamped down on, that is in the constitution. but the freedom of association is implied. it means who i get to be friends with. imagine government, and there are government that do this, monitor who you associate with. these other kinds of freedoms that could easily go away in

america, and when that happens, it is hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube. if you are a republican and support donald trump, that is fine and if you are a democrat and support joe biden, that is fine, but we are all americans. these politicians are not our buddies. we have to respect and honor the fact that it is each other that are out for us and the way we do that is to retain our power at the ballot box. it is our power and we could lose it. host: i do want to put -- point people to a recent piece that you wrote for political -- politico. can you explain it? guest: we have the january 6 commission doing over 300 witnesses, issuing subpoenas. we have merrick garland, the

biggest investigation and history of the fbi, over 1000 search warrant. the question is, if donald trump and a lot of people believe he committed some kind of crime, liz cheney talked about dereliction of duty. if we need some accountability there, and i think we do personally and professionally, should it go through the criminal justice system or congress. what i suggest in the piece is most people don't understand after the civil war, where we were literally fighting each other, north against south, that ended and a reconstruction effort started. congress is worried that confederates would break us up again. in the 14th amendment, there is an amendment that bans rebels from holding office again and

there is another provision that says congress can pass laws implement in that. what i proposed and some have floated the idea, a lot tailored to if you have done something really bad as an office holder, pass laws changing the description to get back on the ballot, that keeps former presidents out of jail and it will ensure integrity, at least along that line, with officeholders. we don't want people have potentially committed crimes running schools babysitting our children, so that is my suggestion that congress get together and shore up democracy legislatively. this happened after watergate and in one journal is detailed all the laws that were passed

after watergate to protect americans. host: chuck is in jefferson, georgia, a republican line. caller: as a 72-year-old guy, i observed anytime the federal government gets involved in anything, they usually screw it up. my question is this -- there's hours and hours of videotape in every room of the capitol, why don't we see any of the videotape? and the guy that instigated this, they are still walking around free. one guy has been on tv and they have showed it dozens and dozens of time, still walking around, no arrests. he is still walking around free. can you explain that? guest: i share your frustration, i will be perfectly frank with you. this is the largest criminal

investigation in the history of f vi. congress has 30 lawyers working on their end. part of it has to do with timing. thousands and dozens, a lot of material to get through. congress is running against the clock because of the midterms. remember, republicans did not want a bipartisan commission. i agree we should get to the truth as americans. the january 6 commission has admitted there will be public hearings this spring. it will be vital that we see what happened here i want to know what members of congress. i am less concerned frankly about donald trump, but i want to know what sitting members of congress did on that day to facilitate this, because many of their jobs are up in november and i want to know whether they should be rehired.

i think merrick garland made a speech indicating they are starting with the smallest fish and move their way up. i thought that was an important statement. please investigations take times and crimes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. it is good that they are making sure they are doing the work to. there -- two dot their i's and cross their t's. it is a life or death situation for our government that we have enjoyed for 200 plus years. many historically have failed. i am willing to hold out and hope we can get through this dark time.

host: robert is in indianapolis, democrats line. caller: just a real quick comment. we continue to have the republicans call in and say that the government didn't do anything to the black lives matter protesters in seattle and different parts of the country. could you please remind them of the trump government and how they treated the protesters in lafayette park with tear gas, horses, and beatings today that trump held the bible upside down and the general had to apologize for being a part of that. i know they know the difference between what happened on january 6 and the protests that took place in the summer. we were protesting the murder of black men. they were mad because they lost an election.

every time they call and say it doesn't happen to the black lives matter protesters, please play the tape where they ran over with horses and teargas in lafayette park when trump held the bible upside down. guest: thank you, robert. that went through my mind when i addressed that question before. i have friends who were there, absolutely shocking, no accountability around that. this is as core as it gets. the idea that we are going to be the lead by government through the use of force. former representative doug collins said just that. we should be able to voice our opinion civilly. i think we have lost and i have a new book coming out on how to think about -- think like a lawyer and why and we can learn to talk civilly to each other

and understand most of these issues are not black-and-white, they are gray. they are nuances. we are human beings and we need to show each other dignity and respect and be curious and get to the point where we can tolerate not having it all be our team's way. that moment was disgraceful, horrific, and i agree. there is no way that you can say, anyone can say that racism did not play a role in the distinctions between law enforcement and that moment in lafayette park, violence used against them on january 6 and that is another topic and outside of my expertise. i completely agree with the caller that we need to remember that. host: this is daniel in california, go ahead, on our independent line. caller: it seems like we are

ready for major tuneups in our constitutional conventions. the proper way to do that is through a constitutional convention to the people in article five, not proposed by the government itself. do you support the calling of an article five constitutional convention of the people? guest: the problem with that is, i am just not sure who would be in charge of rewriting the constitution. if it could be crafted in a way that it was the people and representative, then maybe. my concern is that the powers of capitalism, influence, money, and entrenched politicians that have infected our constitution and make it hard for voters to actually change the laws. those are the folks that would rewrite the constitution and i don't think it would be rewritten in a way that would

enhance our individual liberties, the little person against big government. it might go the other way. i do agree, one of my problems is what is happening in the united states supreme court. this conservative doherty, the way i see it, and i have a piece out in the atlantic about vaccine mandate, that this supreme court majority is going to rewrite the constitution in a lot of ways, because way -- when the supreme court interprets the law, it becomes like an amendment to the constitution. they are not accountable to the people. i would like to see these changes. the last i checked, six more states and then we can call for one year and i would rather have the changes through congress were congress can change laws at the ballot box and have it

happen with the supreme court, which is presenting to be conservatives and originalists and signaling sweeping changes to the constitution that frankly i don't think they should have the right to do. back in the 19th century, it is that the supreme court decided that it is the supreme court that gets to interpret the constitution. we all need to stay in our lanes and cool our heels, including these injustices, and i think they need to defer more to the president and congress. we are going to see big changes, just by virtue of these new justices, and that is a tragedy for the legitimacy of american democracy. host: one more call from bob in pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: i just wanted to see why you didn't call out the law

professor when she made the incorrect comment of mr. rittenhouse killing three people, which is a lie. guest: two people, thank you for mentioning that. thank you for that correction. caller: ended his hyperbole. as i watch you, you are very smug, i was in pennsylvania and i am not a democrat or a republican. to be honest, i would like to see both parties out. host:last voted for trump. host: are you a republican currently? caller: that there was no fraud, that's unbelievable. host: we will leave it there. guest: thanks for the correction. lots of information going through my brain. sometimes i do miss speak.

two people to kyle rittenhouse killed and a third that was seriously injured. the point still stands that the police should've probably arrested him in that moment and got him off the streets. i've been accused of being partisan by virtue of talking about the constitution itself. i've been accused of being partisan for talking about voting. if you look at my career. people on the left and right mad at me. this gets back to the idea we have to tolerate the fact we are not black-and-white red and black ash red and blue issues. there is no evidence of fraud. i say that as a lawyer and law professor. evidence is what you have to have to get past go in court. 60 plus lawsuits didn't get past go. people bring the evidence, nobody wants fraud. if that's really the issue, then republicans should step up to the plate and amend our laws

nationally to get rid of fraud. but they are not willing to do that either. at this moment i'm just cynical these politicians are really out for regular people and i would like to get to a point where we could see common ground not talk in hyperbole but to the extent to which we understand what is at stake. i'm going to hang on to whatever rock i can, that is where we are with american democracy right now. if that gets people to wake up to say listen i don't want democrats that are antidemocracy in government, i don't want republicans that are antidemocracy in government, i am with you. if you are with the big lie, if you are antidemocracy and pro-authoritarianism i don't want you anywhere near public office and that's my position. host: our guest is a law

professor at the university of baltimore. kim whaley joining us for this conversation. thank you for your time as always. caller: thank you for -- guest: thank you for having me. host: open forum for the next half hour until 10:00 if you want to comment on things political. 202-748-8000 free democrats, 202-748-8001 four republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. we will take those in open forum when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> what is your question or comment? that is how james golden better known for over 30 years as bo would greet callers to the rush limbaugh program. he's written a book about his time as call screener and

official show observer and producer with the most popular radio talkshow during the past 30 years. rush limbaugh died on february 17, 2021. in his book which he says is a tribute to his former boss and friend, he writes about his love of radio and how the program came together behind the scenes. >> on this episode of footnotes plus. it is available wherever you get your podcasts. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations following office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were

being recorded. >> certainly johnson secretaries new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. 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 theirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want to report of the number of people assigned to kennedy when he died in the number assigned to me now. i'll just stay right behind. >> presidential recordings on the c-span l mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. -- c-span now mobile app. host: if you want to participate in open forum, you can text your thoughts in at 202-748-8003.

democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. the front page of the new york times looks at pending talks between the u.s. and russia over issues of ukraine. the biden administration and its allies are simply punishing set of financial, technology sanctions against russia they say would go into effect within hours of invasion of ukraine hoping to make clear to president putin but high-cost to send troops across the border. the plan has been discussed with allies in recent days to cut off financial institutions, global transactions, and embargo on american technology needed for defense and consumer industries. who would conduct what to amount would be a guerrilla war against the russian military occupation if it comes to that.

that's from the new york times. in the washington post it takes a look at how omicron and its variants would affect the summer olympics coming up. saying that participants near china and beijing would be closed in with tighter restrictions the tokyo summer olympics. this past -- it will remain it until the end of the games. it officially separates olympic attendees from the local population. with dedicated transport being closely monitored. all participants going in must be fully vaccinated at least 14 days before arriving in china or face quarantine and attendees will be tested daily. mast will be required at all times. no organ -- organizers have not said how many will be allowed. cheering and shouting has been banned. that's coming up looking at issues of the omicron variant.

that issue will be front and center on tuesday. dr. rochelle walensky appearing to comment and take questions from embers of congress or you can see that live at 10:00 today. monitor that on c-span3 and you can watch it on our c-span app. first and clemmons, north carolina, republican line. good morning. caller: how are you today? happy new year everybody. i wanted to respond to your last speaker. she was completely wrong about so many things i don't even know where to start. first off, we do not live in a democracy. we live in a constitutional republic. and we always have. and if we lived in a democracy,

we would be ruled -- it would be mob rule. now also as far as rittenhouse is concerned, she said that he had a couple days before he got arrested. he was arrested that morning, the next morning early like 5:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m.. he turned himself in to the police. they did not come after him. also she is wrong about the riots, so many officers have been injured by antifa and by the black lives matter. host: that's kelly in north carolina. cutty pennsylvania, a democrats line. caller: i just wanted to comment on the january 6 incident. that was the perfect example of white privilege.

had that blend what ash had that been white -- host: that's a hypothetical and why would you make those comparisons? caller: because look at it, a look at the history. host: would you say it is a hypothetical? caller: in reality it would be true that any other group other than white people, angry white people, it would have been a massacre and they would be cleaning up the blood. host: let's go to tom in tennessee. caller: i want to compliment you on your ability to have such an even hand. you are great to watch. i wanted to comment about some of the two far right, too far left. that lady from baltimore, the law professor, law professors are a dime a dozen and may beget

somebody with a little more gravitas up there. really enjoy your show. host: you started by talking about too far right and too far left but you favored one guest over another. >> i thought collins was trying to get people to trying get together. i think that select committee there with bennie thompson, it's just not fair. they should've put some different republican congressmen on there. i don't think that committee has any hope of convincing anybody from the republican side that what they are doing is correct. collins was pretty evenhanded. that last lady up there from baltimore, the law professor. she was just a little bit too left-wing for me. host: as far as what she said, what bothered you the most? caller: this condemnation of rittenhouse was the most.

she was correct he did kill two people but it was in self-defense. it was found out to be self-defense. she is a law professor. he stood trial, that's pretty dangerous in america to stand trial. i just thought -- and people like her, i just didn't care for her -- that attitude. host: that's tom in nashville, tennessee. joe in georgia, republican line. caller: been calling your great network for over 30 years. we have a leadership class and we are doing -- we are teaching young people about capitalism and free enterprise and being involved in politics in a positive way and this saturday, january 15 we are having future georgia governor david perdue speak to the leadership class. we would love for you to come. we would love c-span if possible

to cover the event 12:00 this saturday. we are doing a positive approach there's too much negative in politics. we need to be for candidates instead of against candidates. c-span does a great job. thank you so much for taking my call. host: joe in georgia calling us about issues of politics in this open forum. front pages of major papers today, omicron in school a continuing topic. here's the headline of the washington post. exhausted parents face another wave of school shutdowns, adding the latest uncertainties and create new challenges threating to flood the economic rebound. the new york times takes a closer look at teachers union is more teachers unions push, assorted democrats in the subhead. chicago teachers are voted to go

remote. again those are the headlines on the issues of school particularly with the concerns of the omicron variant. in pennsylvania, georgetown, democrats line. caller: good morning. i have a question for you and i would like to follow it up with an opinion. the question is i was wondering what you would be saying about president bush if he waited 187 minutes after the first plane hit to lift a finger to protect the country. my opinion is the former president's failure to protect our capital was part of a fascist coup attempt with hundreds of republican politicians involved. and that's it. host: why do you draw that conclusion? caller: which are you talking about? host: your second point.

how did you draw that conclusion? caller: that there are hundreds of republican politicians involved? host: you call that a fascist coup as well. how did you draw that conclusion? caller: is there any other kind of coup? host: ok. let's go to patricia in minneapolis, minnesota. republican line. caller: please don't cut me off like you did the last woman who was pointing out the errors from that professor. i bet she was going to remind you this was said yesterday that the black panthers in the 1960's stormed the capital and nobody shot them. they weren't even arrested. so that was false. enter take on rittenhouse was completely wrong. i can tell that there's not one host on c-span that is conservative. you need to start gathering your information from other than the

far left leaning newspapers. host: we use a wide variety of newspapers and you frankly do not know the political leanings of our host directly. caller: you use mainstream media line -- host: we use several national papers. caller: it's my dime let me speak. host: you made assertions towards us. but go ahead. caller: you didn't correct me because i wasn't wrong. when president trump was in office every day, day in and day out you had negative stories about him. biden and hunter biden, nothing. practically nothing. ignoring the border topics, ignoring inflation, i know you had a couple. host: we have done plenty of inflation and border stories over the years. caller: not like you would with trump and you guys did with trump. you guys -- i've not seen one employee that's conservative. host: just wanted to correct

that for you. we will go to trenton, new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning america. the threat we face from people who feel that they don't have their way, that they have a right to overthrow the government is a clear and present danger to the united states. those who minimize the threat from the white -- the right wing who says if they don't have their way every day in all cases will take violence into their hands to overthrow the government to assert themselves is a clear and present danger. and they are fascists because they declare themselves to be fascist. these people make no bones about it. host: we have been over a year since january 6, why do you think it's a clear and present danger? caller: because they are

continuing, a few heard one republican say we might've gone too far. not one. each call in is making an excuse for an overthrow. that's wrong. host: you still think the same thing could happen again? caller: it is going to happen again. nobody is being punished. they are being lauded as heroes. they have reasons to not of been dealt with in a concerted fashion. there is no constitutional right for a people to defy health care laws and ignore vaccinations. host: let's go to ray in colorado, independent line. caller: good morning. i'm a registered libertarian. a couple weeks ago as i was

walking by the municipal center i saw members of the ethiopian community recently leave a rally that took place and there were many signs bringing up the issue about ethiopia and eritrea and how the u.s. government has complicated things. this goes back to an executive order from president biden last year. as a libertarian i believe when it comes to internal affairs of other countries as well as countries that are closer to each other, i think the u.s. government needs to maintain a position of neutrality especially with all the discussions about russia and ukraine. host: ok. senator john fu just to show you the headlines, there were questions on whether he would run for a fourth term in senate. reported by the argus leader he is now changing his mind now

seeking another term in the u.s. senate. you can find that online if you want to read more. this is joy on the republican line. caller: it's time we moved on to something else please. we don't need any more hearings or rallies. we need to get back to mental health issues and issues that are more important to this country. host: the previous caller said it was philip clear and present danger to him. why is he wrong? caller: you might be watching too much tv. host: why do you say that? caller: i'm an african-american and i've dealt with issues like this before. we are missing out on all these other issues we have. host: do you think an investigation into the activities of january 6 should not continue? caller: no it should not should just go away. host: why can't it continue

along with other things they engage in. caller: it's taking up a lot of time. host: ok. let's hear from david in connecticut, democrats line. caller: i was calling about voting rights and the thing that bothers me the most is that is a basic right, soldiers from hamburger hill to d-day did not rush those shores for nothing, they gave their lives for our right to vote for free speech, peacefully protest, not storm the capital. it just upsets me that that's the bottom line. our soldiers gave are a lot -- their lives for the right to vote. i will just say this last thing.

it's ok for people of color to fight in wars but you have to stand in line for 17 hours for one voting booth for people? this is outrageous. voting rights is the number one thing right behind the january 6 commission. but voting rights has to be just a rock. that's what i wanted to say. thank you. host: that is david in connecticut. that's alex in santa fe going back saying it was clear the florida central voter files were manipulated to overturn election results, of the media seems to be covering up. don't know how he made those assertions. he says elections have been rigged and now the other side says it's happening to them. they should accept this is how a broken democracy works. you can text us at 202-748-8003. on our independent line we will hear from priscilla.

go ahead. caller: i was just calling in support of the lawyer from maryland. i feel the reaction i would say conservatives, they won't accept the truth. they feel threatened from her, she was just saying the facts. such as the trouble that our democracy was in and with the vote in. and it looks how the republicans are trying to cheat. i think all americans should be together in trying to save our voting rights. host: silsbee, texas, democrats line.

caller: i would just like -- what i wanted to talk about, with the democrats advocating and would republicans are advocating for. as democrats we want health care, equal wages, we want things that are important to the small people. republicans the only thing they want to seem to get accomplished some tax breaks for the wealthy and no gun laws. normally most republicans especially on the lower class, less fortunate or low income bracket, you normally -- they normally are voting against the own best interest. i was a union member. during my time in the union you had republican union members voting for republicans who were actually trying to get rid of the unions.

with they were doing was voting for people who want to take away their good jobs and their good benefits and it started with ronald reagan and that was the time when reagan was in office, the unions were about 35% of the american workforce. today we are down to 12. and they always preach about -- host: does that say something about the efficacy of unions these days because of the low amount of participants? caller: it was the politicians who deemed unions to be some kind of monster and got people to go into private industry and private industry, what happens is the one man at the top makes all the money in the lower man at the bottom barely making nothing. there were people in the union when i first started out i was

in the sanitation, their people now making the same amount of money that i was making in 1977 because of the switch from union employment to private employment. host: let's hear from tom in illinois, republican line. caller: good morning. i just had a brief comment in the interest of the memory of bob dole i will keep it brief. we have had a lot of commentary about the election and i would be interested in understanding there's a lot of information about ballots that have been done the day of the election and as you know there's been a

tremendous number of ballots or fouts that were cast by mail. to my understanding, that is a tremendous increase in the total percentage of votes that were done by mail versus in-person. i don't know if those are different premises, sure you count the vote, but it seems like when people are bringing up questions about a person who gets a mail-in ballot

according to the partnership of public service, issued nominations at a faster pace than trump did but slower than barack obama and george w. bush. it has taken an average of 103

days for senate to confirm mr. biden's nominees. there is more on the partnership website if you want to read more. w jersey, democrats line. caller , that was trump's first public appearance as well, january 6 of after the election window, -- wynton coconino -- he went incognito. he was pretty much invisible. i remember a lot of journalists were saying there was nothing on the white house calendar and so january 6 emerges and he has his

speech. but also i was listening to yesterday, the guest yesterday and the lies he told about the capital. early on, mcconnell, mccarthy, all of them were on the capital floor and decried what happened. so now the fifth silence is deafening. they took themselves, they themselves, they distance themselves from the committee. so cheney and the other gentleman who is there, that's what they have because they wanted to be there. host: we've got to leave you there. i apologize for that only because the show is done for today. thank you for all of you who

participated in the program. another edition comes away -- comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter invested aliens building infrastructure, upgrading -- billions building infrastructure, rating technology charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public

service along with these other providers giving you a and proceed -- a front row seat to democracy. >> new york governor kathy hochul gives her first state of the state address. she talked about the coming -- becoming new york's first woman governor, the pandemic, infrastructure, climate change, and education priorities. this is 35 minutes. minutes. [applause] thank you, lieutenant governor. you've done job and i'm proud to deliver for

the people of new york. i also want to join them our attorney general, majority leader of the senate, and we do hope he gets well soon. also for representing the girl scouts so well. as i stand before you, i'm well aware of the significance from this moment. the first time in history that a woman has delivered this address but i didn't come here to make history. i came here to make a difference and to show deep reverence for the remarkable past and we are honored by coming together for this assembly chamber. the leaders joined together to serve the