these television companies and or including comcast. you think this is just a committee center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers to create wife by enabled areas so low income families can get the tools they need to succeed. >> comcast support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning, testimony on the federal response to new covid 19 variants with dr. anthony fauci and dr. rochelle wilensky and others before the senate health committee. watch live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at www.c-span.org or watchful coverage under new video app, c-span now. >> coming up this morning, a discussion henri's and efforts to change voting laws in various

state legislatures with american enterprise institute resident scholar. the national nurses united president talks about the latest on the u.s. coronavirus response and efforts to keep nurses safe. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning from washington on this tuesday, january 11 u.s. and russia officials met yesterday in geneva, switzerland over the russian aggression on the ukraine border. this morning headlines read that the two countries remain far apart. we begin this morning with your take on how the united states should respond to russia's aggression. dial in this morning. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002.

you can also send us a text with your first name, city and state, to (202) 748-8003. or join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span and you can send a tweet as well with handle @cspanwj. the headlines in the papers this morning, this is "usa today code go u.s. -- usa today," "the russian foreign minister said no progress was made on the moscow demand that ukraine is permanently barred from joining nato." ahead of the talks yesterday antony blinken was on the sunday shows and here is what he had to say about negotiations. [video clip] >> it seems unlikely that putin will withdraw troops or take some of them off the border without some concessions by the

u.s. you already said that those mentioned at the top are not on the table. what about using u.s. weapon -- moving u.s. weaponry out of poland, moving the missiles, limiting the scopes of u.s. exercises. is any of that on the table? >> i don't think we will see any breakthroughs in the coming weeks. we will see if there are grounds for moving forward, but here is what i can say. first, any progress we could make will have to be on a reciprocal basis. if the u.s. and europe are taking steps to address russian concerns, russia will have to do the same thing. second, nothing is happening without europe. third, it's hard to see making actual progress in an atmosphere of escalation with a gun to the head of ukraine, so if we are going to actually make progress we will have to see

de-escalation, russia pulling back from the threat it poses to ukraine. host: in geneva yesterday, the top diplomat talking with russia, wendi sherman. she is an experienced diplomat who faced off against north korea in the 1990's and the iranians during the last term of president obama. this is what she was quoted as saying to reporters following the eight hours of talks. "we will not allow anyone to slam closed the nato open-door policy and we will not forgo bilateral cooperation with sovereign states that wish to work with the united states and we will not make decisions about ukraine without ukraine, about europe without europe, or about nato without nato. david sanger writing this analysis piece in "new york times," saying --

host: the analysis piece from "the new york times" this morning. your turn to tell washington what you think should be done about russia. john, bridgewater, new jersey, good morning. what you think? what should the u.s. do? caller: russia has the upper hand, they have more at stake than we do. i predict that they will invade and the west will do nothing about it militarily because we

are not in the position that we used to be. we are afraid to have any losses and this is russian territory. a lot of people don't understand this. you know? it's almost like, you know, if they were on the mexican border putting nuclear weapons. it's the same thing to them. i'm not saying who is right or wrong. you don't take sides, but it just seems inevitably to me that vladimir putin isn't backing down and is going to continue to move forward. host: do you think the u.s. should respond with military force? caller: no. no. it's not our sphere of influence anymore. the world has changed since 45. we have to acknowledge that there are other countries with other interests. it's not in our interest to send american troops there.

we don't have the political will to do it. host: what about trying to cripple russia economically? caller: of course we are going to try that, but that doesn't matter to vladimir putin. he doesn't care about that. he doesn't. whether the russian people do, we don't know. it's a different system than ours. but of course that's what we are going to try to do but i don't think that will deter them, i really don't. host: all right, john, bridgewater, new jersey. people looking at this map looking at where the troops are stationed. they have ukraine surrounded on three sides. the red dots tell you where all the russian forces are. the tanks, the vehicles, artillery, other military installations.

surrounding ukraine on three sides. richard, kansas city, democratic color. hello, richard. what do you think should happen, richard? caller: what should happen? we should put a couple of airborne divisions over there and give nato some back. they've had a free ride over there. trump let them run wild. they have got crimea already. they have taken half of ukraine. if you let this guy, just like hitler's, give him an inch and he will take a mile. it's time for somebody to put their foot down. nato is not going to do it in less we go. host: all right. melba, texas, independent line, we go to you next. caller: this is melba. yes, we need to be careful, stop and reflect, remember.

in the united states we went berserk when the ussr put all the arms there in cuba and basically the conversation was you stay out of our backyard, we will stay out of yours. but we sometimes are not consistent with our foreign policy and cannot always stand on what we believe and what we would want to do and have to create an alternative type of behavior that is not always in our best interest. we need to rethink this a little bit because as the gentleman ahead of me said, this is a new day and we just can't do new math with an old math mind. host: brent, maryland, give us your thoughts. caller: morning. it's a tough situation here. as the previous caller i think said, russia and putin don't have a lot to lose here. i think timing is interesting.

not coincidental. i think we are being baited a little bit. i hope that we have got people who can make some smart decisions and, you know, help us get to piece and keep things as stable as possible. host: duane, westbrook, maine, independent, are you concerned about russian aggression on the ukraine border? caller: i am not because there is no russian aggression and i'm interested in finding out why you phrase the question that way. there's never been any russian aggression to put troops on their own side of the border because we are arming a regime that we installed, a foreign right neo-nazi regime that we installed in ukraine because we are extending into eastern europe. we are confronting them. they are protecting their border.

i don't understand, what is this russian aggression. all that the mainstream corporate media does is gin up the american people with propaganda, nonsense and fear so that they can justify an imperialist agenda that the neoconservatives in washington are pushing. we have no business confronting russia. all the nuclear weapons are still there. what are we doing extending nato into eastern europe and confronting russia by installing neo-nazis in ukraine on their border. they have a right to put soldiers on their own border in their own country. host: let's listen to what the white house said yesterday but the eight hours of discussion between the united states and russia. here's the u.s. press secretary jen psaki. [video clip] >> the president as you know meets with his national security team regularly, as he did this

morning. i don't mean a formal meeting, i mean the regular meeting where he receives regular updates and as you know the talks just ended late this morning. i think you have probably all seen wendi sherman who did a briefing following the conclusion of those. i would just reiterate some of the points that she made of course, that the talks were frank and forthright and there was a discussion from the u.s. side of what our expectations are and a reiteration of what the president said and you have heard many officials from the united states say it, there are two paths for russia to take at this point. he can take the path of diplomacy, there are two more rounds of talks this week. we have seen it as a package of three the path of escalation and we are hoping the path of diplomacy is the path they will take. there were a range of topics

discussed, including a reiteration of what's at stake should they decide to move forward and invade ukraine. in terms of assessment of where they stand, i would leave that to the russians to articulate. we cannot assess that from here and ftd secretary sherman did not as well. host: this question is from "usa today," "why ukraine fate matters." here's what they report --

host: robert, east hampton, connecticut, what do you think should happen here? caller: i don't think that we should send troops. the first thing that biden did when he got into office was give the ok for the nordstrom pipeline. that should have been held as a bargaining chip. it makes no sense, sending troops. he's just a buffoon. the important thing is the new covid information that the head

of the cdc said yesterday, about 75% of the covid cases, over 75% had comorbidity. host: ok, let's stick to the topic this morning. dan, independent, oregon, democratic caller. caller: thank you. why is no one talking about the treaty that we signed with ukraine along with russia and great britain to protect ukraine if they gave up their nukes. i would like to know why no one wants to talk about it. maybe i'm just too old or something. host: dan, tell us why that is important. caller: what? host: tell us why it's important. what do you remember about that? caller: we signed a treaty saying that we would protect

them and russia did the same thing and great britain did the same thing. why are we reneging on it? host: so you think we should protect them militarily? caller: i don't care how, we gave our word that we would. like russia is? that's what i want to know. host: ok. tim, michigan, democratic caller. hello, tim. caller: russia invaded poland at the same time hitler's did. does vladimir putin really think that anyone from nato is going to invade russia? heck, no. he's the one who is the instigator playing games because he can, because he has got total control of his country and we have to go through political things and hours. host: thoughts there from michigan. the previous caller mentioned

the nordstrom pipeline that russia is ill doing around ukraine to pump oil into germany . senator ted cruz, republican of texas, secured about on the floor on the legislation around re-imposing sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline. here he is from last month. [video clip] we speak -- >> hundreds of thousands of russian troops are amassed on the border waiting to invade. the reason for that is because joe biden surrendered to vladimir putin on the nord stream 2 bang pipeline. that is the direct cause of the invasion right now. vladimir putin didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade ukraine. he has wanted to for years and in fact he did so in 2014. but he stopped short of a full invasion because he needed to

use the ukrainian energy infrastructure to get russian natural gas to the european markets. because of that, that is why vladimir putin launched nord stream 2. to have a pipeline directly from russia to germany going directly under c to cut ukraine out of the transit loop so that then the russian tanks could invade ukraine. this body right now should be talking about the crisis in ukraine and about how to counter vladimir putin's aggression and expansionism. the best way to do so would be to immediately put sanctions on nord stream 2, bipartisan sanctions that we had in place that i authored that both of the senators from delaware supported and that indeed had overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of congress, passed into law. host: senator ted cruz on the

floor talking about sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline. from axios, "the biden administration called it a harmful russian geopolitical project to use energy as a weapon host: here's a recent headline from radio free europe, operators of the nord stream 2 pipeline say it's ready to deliver gas. melissa, caller: caller: independent line. good morning, greta. good morning, america. thank you for having this topic today because i think this is one that we really need to give great thought too. my number one concern is that

this was all a part of the ussr and a lot of these people feel russian. i think 50% of them believe that they themselves are russian. we need to think long and hard about these relationships there. this isn't our fight. also, vying for the first spot in my concern is creating an unstable russia is a terrible idea. they are a nuclear superpower. if our administration threatens them with these sanctions, kicking them out of the banking industry? this is incredibly unwise. how will they pay their bills? how will they keep their economy going? this is so foolish of us to get involved. if they have to fight it out, they can. that is their business. we cannot force project so well over there.

as americans we need to think long and hard. we have this guy, joe biden, who cannot find his slippers and he is not someone to go and get us into a war, even though he is a warmonger. we should not fall for this. it's a deadly trap to send americans over there. i predict russia will probably invade ukraine. but that is also a very corrupt country. we do not need to be involved in the corruption of eastern europe. they have been having a war on the european continent with russia now since obama messed up everything. host: we spoke yesterday with william palmer and at the wilson center, who was saying that ukraine would not be allowed to join nato until they cleaned up the corruption. caller: i was watching that

yesterday, he seemed wonderful and spot on. but they have, they have always been corrupt. i don't remember, i remember you had a guest on talking about the most corrupt nations. i don't remember the exact number but i think they were like number three, which to me was very shocking. host: i want to jump in on some thing else that you said about ukrainian separatists and their fight against ukrainian independence. take a look at the map that we showed you from "the new york times," this circle right here, 20,000 russian troops are near two breakaway provinces where ukraine has been locked in a grinding war with russian backed separatists since 2014 and this map shows ukraine surrounded on three sides by russian troops as tensions arise between the united states and russia over

their stance, their military position, in ukraine. we are asking you to tell washington what you think should be done. how should the u.s. respond? joe, independent line, good morning to you. go ahead, sir. caller: i had a comment about vladimir putin. in general, you know, the way he operates reminds me of organized crime, you know? if you think about it all he is really doing is placing his troops around the border to instigate leverage so that he can bargain for things that he wants. you know? sounds like a game of risk. in general. considering, you know, he was the, you know, the russian assassin the mafia was going to bring into kill castro but they

flipped it around and they killed kennedy instead. the thing is, you have to realize, kgb, he's straight mafia. like the whole country has been taken over. not only their, but here in america, watch out for donald trump, he's part of the mafia, too. host: all right, judy, crowns ville, maryland. caller: i would like to support the man, the earlier caller, who told you that we have treaty obligations to protect ukrainian territory. i can't remember if it was, which treaty it was, but again that earlier caller was absolutely right. we the ukrainians and the russians negotiated and we said, you know, if ukraine would give up their nukes, we would

guarantee the geographic, you know, the protect, we wouldn't allow russians to take over the, you know, the ukrainian territory. there's another person who called in and said you know, so many of these people have russian backgrounds. what you don't recall is that in 1930, stalin had imposed the what do you call it? host: take your time. caller: shoot. ok, all right. stalin had put in the reorganization of the farms. the communes. the deal was that those farms were failing in russia and

stalin was in political trouble. so what happened is they simply, stalin sent in the troops into the ukraine and stole the crops. leaving the ukrainians to starve. this was called the [indiscernible] people know about the holocaust that this was the mass slaughter by starvation. ukrainian crops, they had had a good crop that year and there was this absolute devastation. so you know, there are, there are grounds for the ukrainians being not only suspicious, but outright hostile to the russians. once russia started calling the ukraine part of their sphere of influence, they moved in, russian settlers.

so, it's just very disturbing. host: can i ask, where does your interest come from? what's your interest in this? caller: i listen to c-span on the radio a lot. you broadcast a program with the atlantic council, which is where i learned about the horrors of the [indiscernible] and i can't tell you what year it was, but, but they had a, there was a movie that ukrainians who had moved to canada funded. to create this. they were upset that people, well, they wanted better knowledge, they wanted more people to have a better understanding of the relationship between the ukrainians and the russians.

host: got it. let me bounce this off you from wikipedia. the budapest to mendham refers to three identical political agreement signed at a conference in budapest december 5, 1994, to provide security assurances by signatories. the russian federation, the united states, china and france gave weaker assurances, but it was russia, the united kingdom, and the united states that signed the political agreements. judy. caller: thank you. i couldn't remember the political agreement, but i remembered that there were agreements and a lot of people who were really upset when vladimir putin marched into crimea. crimea had been a part of the ukraine. host: judy, thanks for the call.

judy, -- james, good morning. caller: your last caller was dead on. with the things she said. but this whole thing with vladimir putin -- host: we are listening. caller: he is setting up his army up there on that border. the thing that's going to be a problem is if nato tries to go in there into ukraine and tries to get them to join nato and that's not going to happen because the ukrainian president doesn't want innocent people killed over whatever, putin wanting to go crazy. he's not going to do it. now trump, much as i hate to say it, because we know what happens

when trump was in there. trump called out all the people. vladimir putin went to and did what he wanted. took two or three miles of that border, killed all those innocent men, women, and children to do it. now we have a president that knows how to run the white house and he's not going to push vladimir putin. he's not going to gouge him. they are going to have an agreement. the media is making a bigger deal out of this. host: yesterday we spoke to russia -- to a military strategist who said that they

would respond economically. here's what he had to say. caller: -- >> --[video clip] >> i said we wouldn't intervene militarily but there is a large discussion as to what kind of sanctions the united states and european allies will impose if russia invades ukraine. a lot of the messaging has centered around the swift banking system and russia being exiled from the international finance community. but there are also various discussions about serious export controls of technology against russia. so, the calamity is not just to the military, but the economic isolation that will ensue if russia indeed decides to invade ukraine. >> economically what sort of

damage what that due to russia? >> russia is dependent on foreign technology in terms of several of its industries, including the aerospace industry. russia, one of the fruits of the post-soviet world is that russia is integrated into the global economy. not just finance, but also investments and so forth and again, if we impose sanctions, serious sanctions on russia, economies will be hesitant to deal with russia given the possibility of potential sanctions being invoked. it would just mean that there would be a serious reduction of investment and economic trade with russia. the question is, russia has already survived a series of

these attacks after 2014 during the annexation of crimea. and russia has figured out ways by which to cope and to survive. so, the question is, how devastating these sanctions are. a sanctions expert likes to think that they will be decisive in their action, but over the past few years we have seen that russia can survive sanctions and still have a secure economy. especially because so much of their revenue is related to oil and gas. host: what sort of damage what economic sanctions due to russia? tom, independent line, florida. how should the u.s. respond to russia right now? caller: i really do believe that the soviet union, russia, the

former soviet union, whatever, china, other adversaries, they do things like this to just remind us that they are still here. i don't see it as a serious threat. it's a reminder that how what -- reminder that you know what, don't forget we are still here. keeping with the ronald reagan idea, it's mutual annihilation. i do not consider them on this act a serious threat, because they know better. when all the members of nato and the united states come together, the russians know that no good can come from it. host: all right. alan, new york, republican. what do you say? caller: i'm sorry, i called in on the independent line. but my thought is that since vladimir putin is so prideful, it's important to him to express his power fullness of his country on the world stage. with that we see these

incursions into ukraine as their best way of making an impact on the world stage. coming up, we have the beijing olympics. i feel that if we are able to allow russia to compete under their flag in these olympic games, then perhaps we will be able to mitigate this current disaster on the border and maybe work towards a more positive relationship down the road. host: ok. david, republican line. caller: i wanted to add to what that lady was talking about with the famine. will duranty received a pulitzer prize of 1932 for his writing on the famine and was the only newspaper guy writing about the disease and things like that.

he and the new york times helped to get out the idea that the russians, through the transforming of farms into communes that then collapsed and created the starvation, that, that it wasn't that that what had created it. there were a lot of other news media around that wrote conflicting articles about that, but the times story is the one that prevailed. the basic line was that stalin needed money. the u.k. and the united states had not recognized the soviet union at that point and he gave -- stalin gave duranty all kinds of perks when he was the head writer for the times. the articles that led to the pulitzer prize helped to get moscow recognition. i don't remember all the

details, but there's a setting where duranty and administration folks are sitting at the table. the u.s. recognized the soviet union shortly after that and then we rescued them, the u.k. and the united states rescued them with the loans they desperately needed for quite some time because of these articles. there was an investigation. i don't remember how many years ago. not that long, maybe a decade or two. it was an investigation where the times, you know, initiated an independent investigation because of the brouhaha over the decades and the investigation agreed that the story was fake and that the times should return the pulitzer, which they never did. fake news and lies. the times in the 30's are similar to today in terms of the

differences between the democrats and the republicans and the leftist leaning marxist influence. up to the times where the famine was recognized, the left-wing intelligentsia was really enamored with stalin, the soviets, and the idea of communism. the horrors of it were being pretty well hidden and this story really helped to tie it at that important time. if you go back and look at the new deal, called the brains trust. that's where the term comes from. it was a group of advisers, very much like the biden advisors. professors, the elite intelligentsia of new england in the east compared to the business people like the trump folks have. host: all right, david. we are getting your thoughts

this morning on the russian aggression of the ukrainian border and how the united states should respond. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8002. independents, (202) 748-8002. send us a text to (202) 748-8003 and you can join us on facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet at they handle c-span wj. -- the handle @cspanwj. here is mitch mcconnell in the floor discussing his concern. [video clip] >> the west cannot be lead into betraying our friends, forgetting our principles or excepting a russian sphere of influence. freedoms friends will stand up to the bully well we have a

chance, or we will rue the day that we did not. other europe, asia, or elsewhere. if putin walks away from this crisis feeling emboldened, he and others will run the same play again, and again, and again . it is appropriate for the administration and our allies to seek to de-escalate the situation. but not at the expense of deterrence and not by throwing our friend's security under the bus. we don't make sure our allies and partners have a seat at the table, they may well end up on the menu. for vladimir. this is about breaking nato, europe, and restoring russian domination of neighbors. i support the stated desire of

to deter aggression against ukraine. but, but his administration must move faster to provide emergency military capabilities to help ukrainians defend themselves and to deter attacks. time is of the essence. moving at the speed of bureaucracy is simply not going to cut it. neither will waiting until russia escalates, at which point of course it would be too late. this is not merely about ukraine. president biden must also work with nato i we have to reassure her eastern flank nato allies in deter threats to the alliance by demonstrating that nations are both willing and able to uphold article five.

the russians have to believe that. host: do you agree with the republican leaders comments on the floor last week? "usa today," what's next, they report that yesterday's talks kicked off a string of meetings scheduled to take place in europe on the russian threatening troop deployments. wendi sherman is due to brief nato and european union allies on tuesday before attending a council meeting in brussels on wednesday. she will also attend a meeting for the organization for security cooperation in vienna on thursday, though the talks are not expected to yield any major progress but they may buy more time as the u.s. looks to rally more allies behind potential sanctions if vladimir putin decides to escalate tensions. bruce, new york, what do you think the u.s. should do here?

caller: in response to what mcconnell is saying, i have to say there's a lot of lip service coming from him but no unified voice that has traditionally come from the republican party as a whole. i'm 70 years old, my entire life i have seen the republicans aggressively go after russia, russian transgressions. more than they needed to and they always kept a hard line against any kind of boundaries being tested. you know, i guess the obama failure to stop russia from crossing boundaries, which i'm not faulting obama, it's just historically correct. it gives vladimir putin a certain amount of i think false

confidence that he can do what he can do that biden is in and there really is no, no, no price to pay because he holds all the cards as to how far he's going to go. meanwhile, we always talking about american presidents waiting and of domestically prudent isn't doing well in terms of solid support in his own country, this is one way he can shore up his own unified support during pandemic and the economic frailty of russia right now and it also allows him to attack biden and the united states, you know, in a way that's passive-aggressive and he basically wins across the board because he can ratchet this up or he can pull it back down and he's playing games, more or less game theory, with, you know,

global politics, which distracts everything. it distracts any kind of movement that we might be doing in healing the global unification of democracy. so he is winning on all fronts and i think it makes him look stronger, you know, globally, just because of the news headlines constantly moving in his favor in terms of him stalling ukrainian gridlock in the world. that's pretty much all i have to say about that. i'm a little surprised republicans haven't come through a little better. host: joel, arkansas, republican. caller: how are we doing, now? i would just like to say that i'm a little nervous. i don't see russian aggression here. if we would remember, russia had the biggest part to fight in

world war ii. our news is always reporting that we had the biggest part, but that's wrong. russia lost millions in world war ii. their country was invaded in world war ii. our country was not invaded except for hawaii. a lot people talking this morning, they don't realize what's at stake. hawaii was attacked by the japan, by japanese, i'm sorry. this is not our problem. we did not like when russia put people, their military in cuba. kennedy almost had to go to war. these people that's talking today are probably too young, except the last gentleman that got off the phone. i think he said he was in his 70's. i'm pushing 80. i served in the military 22 years plus and was awarded the bronze star but that's beside the point.

russia, that's their mess over there and if somebody was trying to take texas away from us, we would be very unhappy with those people in texas up in the north somewhere. these people in congress, they never served in the military. you got joe biden, you got trumped, you got mitch mcconnell. they stayed in the back and they never served or anything. this is not america's problem. we have too many problems in our country right now. host: let me ask you about the cold war with russia and how vivid the memory of it is for you? caller: i was just a baby, then. 1942i was born, but i served in germany 1961 in the cold war and i could talk to you on and on about that.

host: so, what concerns you hear given your history and experiences? caller: we have no problem. that's russia's problem. do we want someone protecting texas? that's russia's problem. that's europe's problem. host: heard that point, joel. thank you very much. happening today, president biden travels to georgia to talk about voting rights legislation and is going to push for federal voting rights bills and he will speak in atlanta around 3:50 p.m. eastern time and you can watch that live today and he will also be traveling to other places as well in, in georgia. the white house was asked yesterday, the press secretary, if the president was going to endorse the senate rules change

in his speech today. here is what jen psaki had to say. [video clip] >> voting rules, filibuster, is that a topic you expect him to directly address tomorrow? >> yes. >> is there any announcement about whether he will be more forceful or just open to the idea? ask the president has spoken to the issue a number of times as i said before, as recently as december, where he said that if that is how we get this done, i'm open to it. again, he's working on his speech and you will have to tune in tomorrow to see what he has to say. >> has he had any specific legislate -- discussion with senators about rules changes? >> i won't be dealing -- detailing any of that further. >> senator sinema, anything from her office about not young in favor of a change in the rules? >> everyone is going to have to take a hard look at where they

want to be at this moment in history as we are looking at efforts around the country to prevent people from being able to exercise their fundamental rights. go ahead. host: the white house as you need to tune in today to hear what president biden has to say. you can watch on our website or download our free video app, it's called c-span now and you can watch it there. it will re-air tonight at 8 p.m. eastern time right here on c-span. republicans are responding to the threat of a rule change. here is the wall street journal republican leader mitch mcconnell says in issuing a filibuster threat, mitch mcconnell issuing a preemptive threat to democrats considering an overhaul of the long-standing filibuster rule, detailing the plan to cut votes on gop sponsored ills if democrats make even modest changes. aides familiar with his thinking

say the threat is intended to cause heartburn for chuck schumer as he tries to unify his caucus ahead of a possible vote to amend or abolish the 60 vote threshold in the next week. mr. schumer responded by making an offer shortly before the senate adjourned last night that if all republicans agreed to, the senate would hold up-or-down vote's at a majority threshold, with the majority threshold, on each of the 18 republican bills and the election related bills. the voting rights bills that the press secretary was talking about and that president biden is going to push for today. those, that's what's happening behind the scenes. possibly brokering some sort of deal with republicans on legislation that they want to see a vote on. all of that happening in the senate this week. tune into -- tune in to c-span2

for that debate. bob, illinois, democratic caller. hello, bob. bob, we are talking about russia and how the united states should respond to the troops they have put on the ukrainian border. what do you think? caller: well, they were different from most of the world war ii powers. [indiscernible] russia has usually been a buffer [indiscernible] host: texas, independent mine. -- line. caller: i sort of agree with the

gentleman who spoke earlier about it not being our business, so to speak. use too, yeah, world war i, world war ii, that kind of thing, but it's where we want to take care of every little issue and other nations and yet we sit here and cannot even control our own situation in this country. each administration, republican and democrat, always seems to use those little issues outside our country to deflect from the problems we got going on in this country as far as how should the u.s. respond to russian aggressions? depends on what the american people want and if the american people want it to just go away, it's real simple. put the vice president in charge of it. you won't hear about anything else about it, it won't be reported on the news, yet the issue will still be there. irregardless of what the u.s. does, i don't see anybody

getting vladimir putin out of office anytime soon unless the russian people themselves decide to stand up and do it. because of the set up over in that country, there is no way they will ever be able to achieve that, unfortunately. host: let's go to richard and fresh meadows, new york. democratic caller. morning. richard, it's your turn. go ahead. caller: ok, yeah. i believe that the, i agree with that ex military guy, also. i think russia should have, i think america should keep out of , you know, other people's business. i think ukraine is very far right wing. i don't think the american people have any interest in ukraine. russia is not as powerful of a threat to the united states as,

just because the only threat they are to the united states is because they have nuclear weapons and i see a lot of people agree. the american people seem to, your callers don't seem to very much care about, they think we should keep out of it and let russia take back ukraine. used to be russia. that's all i've got to say. host: lloyd. kernersville, west virginia. republican. caller: hello? host: good morning. caller: yes, everybody is worried about russia, but china is one that put the bars on us and nothing has been done about that. they have to let the elliptic speed done in china? it just shows you what kind of leadership we got. that's the wrong people. host: ok. silver spring, maryland,

democratic caller. caller: we need to simplify this and let everyone know, russia is not our friend. i had to explain this to my son back when donald trump was flew -- flirting with vladimir putin. russia is not our friend. autocracy is taking over democracy around the world. this is why we shouldn't be flirting with orb on or erdogan. we should be very careful what we work -- what we wish for. mitch mcconnell, i don't agree with him on anything except this, vladimir putin is a dangerous guy and we have to be careful. host: steve, what do you think? caller: i have been listening to some of it. it's a u.n. problem. russia is a united nations problem. we are not the police force, hello. host: we are listening. we are not the police force? caller: sorry, sorry.

i'm just saying that the u.n., the united nations, it's their problem with russia. or with any other country. the united states is not the police force of everybody. i say let them handle it. work it out how it works out. host: could there be a breakthrough? both sides have sought to downplay the chances of an immediate breakthrough. top biden advisors say that that cannot occur until troops are withdrawn. wendi sherman told reporters that it's not clear if moscow is prepared to de-escalate tensions. officials have threatened sanctions if russia invades ukraine. officials say that there are some areas for compromise and sherman and other officials say they are open to revising a treaty that regulates the deployment of intermediate nuclear missiles in europe. the trump administration

abandoned that treaty in 2019 citing russia's violations but sherman says the two sides discussed the possibility of renewing the treaty and looking at reciprocal limits. saying that the two sides did not discuss troop levels in europe during the monday session. taking the relationship out of choppy waters with a sustained dialogue, reworking european security orders in other ways, reviving the inf treaty and other confidence building measures that could reduce the danger of a conflict. we will leave the discussion there for now. coming out, elections and voting experts from the american enterprise institute join us to talk about the president, the congressional democrats's renewed push for voting rights and later we will be joined by the president of the national nurses united to talk about how the recent omicron surge is

impacting frontline health care workers. we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including comcast. >> you think that this is just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast is creating wi-fi enabled locations so that students in low income families can use the tools they need to get what they need. >> giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> what is your question or comment for rush?

that is how he would greet callers to the rush limbaugh program. he wrote a book about his time as a calls in her an official show observer and producer with the most popular radio talkshow of the past 30 years. rush limbaugh died in 2021 and in his book, which golden says is a tribute to his former boss and friend, he writes about his love of radio and how the limbaugh program came together behind the scenes. >> book notes plus is available on the c-span now app or where you get your podcast. >> this morning, testimony on the federal response to covid-19 variance with anthony fauci, rochelle lewinsky and others. watch live at 10 a.m. eastern on

c-span three, online at c-span.org, or watch full on the new video app, c-span >> download c-span's new mobile app and stay up to date with the latest political events with live streams of the house and senate floor and key congressional hearings. washington journal where we hear your voices every day. c-span now has you covered. download the app for free today. >> washington journal continues. host: with president biden set to push for federal voting rights legislation later today congress should in as well, we have invited john to talk to us. residence scholar at the american enterprise institute on changes to federal state voting laws.

let's begin with this abc poll. americans face an election integrity drop. only 20% of the public were -- were very confident in the country's elections. why do you think that is? >> i don't think it is a good number. i also don't think it's necessarily the best measure of where we are. clearly we are in a place where the parties are very divided. we are in a long covid situation where people are unhappy and frustrated and that translates into numbers like that. i think there tends to be in paul's the losing party, whichever party it is, whichever election they are more frustrated with how things are run in elections. we will see a flip back in her republicans take progressive seats. i don't have a magic answer to

making this all better. i think there's a lot of things to work on elections it would improve the situation. they're more influenced by the polarization of the parties, the unhappiness of the american people at this point rather than the very specific collection issues. >> let's talk but the role of the federal government in these elections. article one section four. the time, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof but the congress may at any time by law or alter regulations paired what role does the federal government have? >> that clause expresses federalism we have in a lot of areas. it is primarily that the states have taken the lead in our system historically.

they are likely to be the ones closest to people deciding how to run elections. but federal legislation can be passed that would standardize things and put a law in place across the country that would be more general. as a rule we have a lot of variations the way we run elections. voting by mail, different times. different ways of voting and also local administration can be different. as a rule we are very centralized, but in the few times when the federal government, when congress has passed a law that had pretty broad support they waited on certain areas like voting rights and registration and after the 2000 elections, upgrading voting technologies. there are times when federal laws have taken place, but most of the differences out there persist today and where most of

these are coming on. >> he was on fox news this sunday and he disagreed with the idea conducting elections should be left to the states. here's what he had to say. >> i understand very well how elections are run. most people at the federal level have now at one time served in some capacity at the state and local levels as well. so they have an understanding. i would also refer him to federalist papers. they talk about this and he said that these federal elections cannot be left up to the states and should not be left up to the states. that's why states were not allowed to put term limits on federal officials. so the elections were not solely

conducted by the states, that's why the voting rights act was necessary. and that's why the 15th amendment was necessary. that's why the 18th amendment of the constitution was necessary. all because it has to go beyond the states to determine everything. >> your response. guest: represented clyburn points to one very important terrible part of our history, we had states very strongly discriminating against african-americans. low voter turnout, he references the passage of the voting rights act. there's been times where states, the federal government has said states are not following through with what would be a democratic

system in their state. there are times when both republicans and democrats of come together and said there are federal standards. it's probably not as much of an emergency but there certainly is the power of the federal government to step in and pass a law that has a federal component to it. the federal government could run the election directly adjusts historically hasn't and there's a good reason to have states think they can design a system that's best for their state. that's condemning some red states and blue states with differences of opinion. but that's what we have mostly. more than not state law but the federal government can step in when it feels there is a reason for it to say this is what needs to be done federally in election law. host: we want to invite our viewers to join us for this

conversation. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. you can also post on facebook .com/c-span or send us a tweet. your take on this election legislation being pushed by democrats. the freedom to vote act requires states to set 15 day minimum early voting window. they collection day federal -- a holiday. and each state to offer voter registration. bar states from drawing political boundaries that favor or disfavor any political party. your thoughts on this bill? >> what we have here it is still in a very large bill.

really was a statement a lot of democratic priorities on elections which have been done at this phase. i would say large and hard to imagine there would be a consensus around. there's been some trimming down of that bill because of joe manchin earlier where there was some negotiation between democrats and him to say what could he support. the difficulty here is because there is a filibuster in the senate and you need 60 votes to essentially pass something, that this is very unlikely to get done unless there is a break in senate rules. unless all the democrats including joe manchin and pearson cinema who said they will stand by the filibuster. which unless they change those rules, this is something that does not have support across the aisle. as to the specific provisions, some of them i would before and some i think would be something,

the subject is important or might be down to states. it's just that the answer isn't always the same in each state. many of these policies are in place, some of the red states have different sets of policies and provisions. we have some big agreement on some things which are a few things we can get some agreement on. i don't thing in the current form of getting this through congress will be an easy thing unless senators change their mind about the rules. >> reporting has the majority leader chuck schumer is talking with the minority leader about an agreement. they would allow a 50 vote threshold on several pieces of republican backed legislation in exchange for a 50 vote threshold on this legislation you were talking about as well as the

john lewis voting rights act. i want to get your perspective on that. it restores the full voting rights act of 1965. it expand the formula the doj can use to do -- define this, droid voting patterns and they would need doj approval. before making further changes to elections. guest: as we mentioned earlier one of the areas federal government has weighed in his strong protections for a long time. the supreme court has stepped in and couple of cases, especially one to limit some of the scope of some of those earlier pieces of legislation. in particular provisions that call for certain states and may be certain conditions to be under much greater federal supervision. to basically have to get permission to change where they would be polling places and laws. the argument against that is states have made great progress

in the original conditions where they had less than 50% voter turnout, that they had strong discriminatory laws against afghan americans and today we are arguing more about procedural things which people feel strongly about but are not at the same level as they were before. i think it will be hard to get republican support. i'm not even sure -- i know senator manchin supports but whether you can get it across the aisle. certainly democrats could pass this with their own votes if they so chose. one of the difficulties of this is it really relies on courts making some rulings that states have had some violations. i worry the way that is going forward is there will be a lot of suing of states that you want to have under this penalty regime. i think republicans are right to say that's probably not the best

trigger and a justification for putting certain states under special consideration is a lot harder to prove today than it was years ago. host: illinois, independent, you are up first. caller: good morning. georgia has more voting rights for like me a native american or black girl. , they have more voting rights for us than any state in the united states. all i can say about america is people should stand up because we are going to end up, our voting rights are going to end up like russia if we let the democrats have their way.

we had 86 whistleblowers on the last election. nancy pelosi let us hear from four of them. america is going down. host: how much fraud happened -- how much fraud happens in elections? guest: this is always a controversial question to ask and answer. i don't think there is any measurable amount of fraud in national elections, but there are certainly a lot of questions about voter integrity, of things we could improve in the system, improving the quality of voter lists can improve but still have a lot of errors on them. there are legitimate regulation of absentee ballots, they're all sorts of things you could put in the bucket of integrity. on the others we are worried

about people being prevented from voting. there are arguments about opening up voting to more mail-in voting or easier voter registration system. some of those we could find a good answer to. but it's not clear that any of those will make enormous changes in our voting turnout rates. voting turnout rates have gone up significantly. the last election was sky high. i don't agree arguing about the same sorts of things we were arguing in the 60's where there was states that had tremendously low voter turnout and overall we had some obstacles that were keeping people from voting. today it's more about what type of voter system we should have in each state, not so much will there be a genuine transformation of voter turnout because of policies. host: jack in california. caller: one comment.

i never heard or saw anything come out of when john mccain lost the election. whenever you enter a contest you're either going to win or lose. i didn't see the gop go crazy about voting rights when mitt romney lost. and this is not -- he lost to a black man and that should've really riled them up. all thing boils down to one man and thank god -- one man who can play by the rules. you don't -- you only get three strikes and if you don't like the way the game turned out don't fire the umpire and say everybody cheated. you don't go into an election saying if i win everything is cool and if i don't it is rigged. host: john fortier. guest: i do think it's an

important point about the finality of elections that there's a certain point in which we have to allow the process to proceed and then in the presidential election, that's earlier than even other elections. it's in december when states have to resolve their elections and appoint these electors to the electoral college. a lot of what we argued about in congress after the fact or in speech by the president and others, those really were past the time when we had those arguments. all those legal and other arguments asking for recounts are appropriate leading up to that december deadline. but after that we really want to talk about reforming our elections for the future and things that didn't go our way that should've been done better i think that's a very legitimate debate but i don't think we really should be talking about the outcome whether you liked it or not after that december 15

because we have to reach a deadline. we have to reach in answer to have a winner and move on and then let's have those debates about what to do about elections as we are having now. host: sam in oklahoma, republican. caller: it was obviously voter fraud and the reason being is there's no way biden got more votes than any other president. the argument from the left is there should be voter -- there shouldn't be voter id because it's not fair to certain minorities and that's ridiculous because you need an idea for everything to collect food stamps or whatever you need to do. there's no reason that something like voting should be done to 6 -- through secured idea not mail-in voting and none of this other stuff. they all have ids to show when they vote. it's clearly nothing more than

the democrats breaking the elections to steal the election. host: let's take your point. voter id. guest: voter id has been a point that's divided the parties, one that they disagree on very strongly. we see it very different out there in the states. some states not having any and really just allowing you to show up in state your name or sign up. others having photo id. non-photo id. there are versions of what's appropriate. i think voter identification can work well. i don't think the idea of banning its nationwide or severely limiting it makes sense , but again consistent with the federalism we have in this country, a different state to wrestle with that question. i guess it rather see that done at the state level. i would point out that i think by itself it's not the most

important thing. it doesn't prevent all fraud and doesn't cause people not to vote. it's part of a bigger system, the system of listing things underneath that id is more important although more than could be done. >> richard in acosta -- in georgia. caller: good morning. it is a shame that we still are fighting over voting id cards and voting rights that the supreme court is guiding from us from section five and section two of the voting rights law. is that still under the constitution, one vote, one rule . it should still be counted and we should not have to keep on going through this over and over

again. when the republicans voted to approve the voting rights bill a few years ago, there was no complaints. just like the gentleman that called earlier. romney lost, mccain lost and they didn't complain. they are only complaining now because the demographics of the country are changing. host: let's hear the response to that. guest: the caller mentioned a couple of parts. section five is the part that defines a formula under certain states that would be under special restrictions to essentially have to get federal approval to pass changes in their voting systems paid to change polling places and voting laws. the question is whether that is still as urgent as it was in the

1960's when there were really great differences in the number of states with incredible vote -- low voter turnout, we have certainly come a long way. republicans are more and the court has been more in the camp of saying it has to be a very high standard so the federal government to come in and say only the states need special protection. i think that will be hard-sell across the aisle. i do think there are other protections. the court has been limiting that in section two a bit but there are still protections against discriminatory practices and you can go to federal court and win on those cases. there's a question of whether certain states will be under a special regime that watches over them and not other states, i think that will be harder to get through especially when most of the states are republican states

and democrats of the one pushing legislation. host: residence scholar at the american enterprise institute. talking about efforts to change federal and state voting laws. sam in california, republican. you are next. caller: nowadays you have to have an idea to go to a restaurant that your vaccinated. you have to prove the vide to get on a jet if you're discriminating for the vaccinated. you can show an identification. you have to have an identification for everything. you can show id to vote, give me a break? they want illegals, they want everybody to vote and that's a

bunch of garbage. host: how many illegal immigrants actually vote in our elections? guest: we don't know the answer to that. we expect the number is pretty small. the caller points a voter id which has some integrity protections pretty could prevent someone from showing up and impersonating another person. that's a pretty small area of concern. i think a bigger concern is the registration lists we made a lot of progress on that in the last 20 or 30 years. states have better lists or they are more accurate and more comprehensive but they are certainly not perfect. the caller is worried about illegals or other people from out of state or people on the list to shouldn't be. i think that's probably even more important than voter id.

i personally think the voter id system could work well but it has a limited set of circumstances where it can apply for the broader concern is making lists more accurate. and more comprehensive. that would be very helpful to build confidence in the system. as for actual knowledge we have of large numbers of people who are not citizens voting in the united states, we do not have lots of evidence. host: describe the efforts by states who implement voter id laws. guest: there are 50 different sets of laws out there where everything from states where you walk up to the polls and you state your name and address and others where you sign something, maybe you show a non-photo id and others where you show a photo identification. i think the court will have to

wait -- it has weighed in on this a lot. with certain standard saying you have to have the ability to make sure people who can afford an id have a way to get them. perhaps even show up at the polls and make one for you or some provisions. that's one consideration. the other difficulty is again our voter registration lists. people move around, they don't necessarily change their license. you have a list at the dmv, a list of the voting place. so it's difficult to implement, but i do think there are good provisions with what to do to make it work better. certainly providing access to those ids. but also working on voter registration lists. making it more comprehensive but

also making sure it's more accurate and up to date and checks for eligibility requirements we have. host: dennis in chicago, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. the federal government should actually have some broad guidelines for all states to follow. there is gerrymandering, ridiculous rules like you can give voters water if they are standing in line for hours. reducing locations. some of the callers talked about you need ids for food stamps, but that's ridiculous. not everybody is applying for food stamps. everybody was eligible to vote should be able to vote. everybody doesn't drive. everybody doesn't fly and take a plane. all of that is absurd reasons.

everybody doesn't have any idea. it is not necessary. you just have to be a citizen at the loss as per thank you. -- like the law says. thank you. guest: we have had a lot of calls but voter id. i don't think it's the most important issue whether it's pro or con. if you are worried about voter integrity, it is a tool and i think it can work well. but it really helps is the limited set of circuit -- in ace limited set of circumstances. i don't think there's evidence that voter ids preventing a large number of people from voting. you should make it available if you have a system to -- without cost if they can afford it.

-- cannot afford it. it's not a barrier you want to throw up unnecessarily. but it can be part of a system. we do have big differences between the parties on a lot of issues. on a couple of them the people are a bit less divided. voter id has pretty wide support and has pretty big -- pretty good democrat support in most polls. same with early voting and voting by mail. a couple of repugnance are more skeptical of. there's broader support on the republican side of that issue and people would think. on some of these voters are looking at more practical rather than thinking about party positions on the issue. host: president biden will travel to georgia today to push for federal voting rights legislation. his remarks it 3:50 p.m. eastern time. you can watch by downloading the

fruit -- free mobile app called c-span now. we will re-air those at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. senate democrats thinking about changing the rules to pass two pieces of voting rights legislation. listen to chuck schumer on the renewed push for legislation. [video clip] >> republican state legislatures are promoting to justify disenfranchising widget amid voters. the violence we saw on january 6 we are seeing throughout the country by the same types of people. local legislators, local election officials are being threatened. some have police guard simply because they stand for counting -- taking a legitimate count of

the vote. people want to threaten them away from doing that justice trump want to threaten people away from believing the election results. if we do not act now my belief is the big lie will threaten the future of our republic. if you have any doubt where donald trump wants this country to go a dictator who is infringing on democracy in hungary. that is where trump is headed. that is where this country will head if we don't take action and prevent what is happening throughout the legislatures. as i said to my dear colleague yesterday, if republicans continue to hijack the rules of the chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before martin luther king day.

host: john fortier, how do you respond to him saying if they don't act, then what he says quote, the big lie, threatens the future of our republic? guest: first, i think the earliest part of his remarks are important to highlight, that we do have growing threats against election officials. any threats of violence against election officials is completely unwarranted. this is something we could find more common ground. you may disagree very strongly with the way elections are run in your state. there is a process for trying to change that. the democratic process of changing the laws in your state or the federal level. it is not to threaten election officials. they are there to run elections and they are not there to make

policy. if you have a problem with the system, to threaten violence against those officials is very detrimental to our system. on the way in which the majority leader is presenting this, that there is a deadline, the way that is an intraparty question for him, are we going to see enough movement from senator manchin and others in the caucus to say we are willing to change the filibuster to allow voting rights legislation or some parts of it to go through. maybe there is a negotiation that could go on with the minority leader, about which pieces of legislation would go through on that basis. that is the key question. will you do some of this on a majority basis? most of these provisions and these laws are divided between the parties.

host: i want to show our viewers which mcconnell responding on the senate floor to the democrat push and potential rules change. [video clip] >> no party that would trash the senate's legislative traditions can be trusted to seize control over election policy across america. nobody who is this desperate to take over our democracy on a one-party basis can be allowed to do it. finally, it is beyond distasteful to some of our colleagues to ham-fisted lee invoke the january 6 anniversary to advance these aims. the question democrats have been trying to seize control of elections for years. their first draft of the legislation was introduced in january between 19. the fact that violent, knows broke the law does not entitle senate democrats to break the senate.

it is surreal to hear senators invoke january 6 two justify breaking rules for grand outcomes they have not earned. it is surreal to hear sitting senators invoke january the sixth justify breaking the rules to grab outcomes they have not earned. it is surreal to hear sitting senators invoke did a very sixth to argue that institutions can be trampled because they would like a different result. a year ago, the senate didn't bend and it did not break. we held strong. it is jaw-dropping for colleagues to propose to commemorate that by breaking the senate, themselves in a different way. host: minority leader mitch

mcconnell on the floor. john fortier, what do you make of what he had to say in those remarks? guest: i guess i would say -- it is difficult to pass legislation that has both sides behind it. that is what you would need to pass legislation through the normal process, to overcome the 60 vote threshold. i would look back to the 2000 election, one that was extremely contentious between the parties, and the bad feelings. it turns out we did have a process after that election, it involved both parties and it produced a piece of legislation and it did make some major changes to the way we ran elections. it was done not on a majority basis. it was done without having to go through change the rules in the senate. one of the reasons we have a

presumption against doing things at the federal level is because different states have lots of different reasons for doing different things. if we want to change that federally, we should have water support on that. the filibuster forces there to be both parties supporting this, with potentially a process. it would be a lot harder and it would take a long time but i think that is what the minority leader is calling for, having something done at a majority basis. 50 votes with the vice president breaking the tie to pass legislation on voting, that is not the way we have typically done this at the federal level. we've had more consensus when we want to put in national law. host: president biden will be pushing for this legislation. the two pieces of legislation in georgia today, that is around

three -- 3:15 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that on c-span.org or on your phone if you download the free c-span video app. that conversation will be taking place in georgia. our next caller from texas, republican. caller: good morning. i'm going to rapidfire some points and then a quick question. first of all, the goal and the standard for illegal aliens should be zero. i don't care what other kind of premise is being discussed, how many voted or did not vote. mcconnell, i'm glad you played that clip. i would like to hear what he said about the whole thing. i think he should say no to schumer's latest compromise on the 18 gop bills debate. if he gives on this, it is game set match, the whole ballgame.

the filibuster should hold. we don't need federal control of state election processes. last thing to mr. fortier. how do you know there was no widespread voter fraud or irregularities in 2020? i hear this all the time, people talking about the big lie. have you been curious about the evidence against all of the obvious evidence, like the sworn affidavits, courts summarily refusing to take cases, and lastly the arizona audit results? guest: on the question, i don't see evidence that there was national widespread voter fraud. sometimes that is used as a political statement. i think integrity issues are important.

i think there is a lot to be done, which would be to improve the way in which our systems are more accurate and have more integrity. if i wanted to tell you some broad things i think could be done, i think our voter registration system is one piece of that. the caller referenced illegal aliens voting. voter id, while potentially a tool for people, it is not the end-all be-all in terms of finding all problems in the election system. really working on the voter registration, making sure it is comprehensive, making sure people can get on that system if they are eligible and also making sure it is up-to-date and that people meet all of the requirements so that there are not people who are not citizens or people listed in two places or people who died at have not been taken off of the list.

that is a place where we should put our efforts more, that would help us more so than voter id, i think. i think it is something both sides could have some support of, making it more comprehensive, but also making sure that nobody on that list is not eligible. host: our next caller, democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm glad to support c-span as a charter communications customer. i agree with one thing mr. fortier said earlier, a lot of this is dependent upon which party is in power. that is why mitch mcconnell wants the states to control how voting is done because states control most of the legislatures and governors but when mitch

mcconnell was majority leader, he had no problem changing the filibuster rule when he wanted to get federal judges past, because there was a gridlock. he had no problem changing the filibuster rules, to get supreme court nominees passed, like amy coney barrett. it is totally disingenuous to say we are quote, breaking the senate. we're going to change the rules and the reason why is because we have gridlock in washington. whether you are a republican or democrat, you have to agree there is major gridlock in washington. for any of this legislation to move forward, if republicans will not negotiate in good faith, you have to change the rules to get business done. it doesn't mean there won't be a change in the bill, it just means to move things forward, we have to change the filibuster rule. i think it is disingenuous for mitch mcconnell to complain about changing the rules and the filibuster. host: according to the wall

street journal, the majority leader asked the minority leader to agree to a 50 vote threshold for these election bills and in exchange, 18 republican backed bills would also get a 50 vote threshold. cnn is reporting this morning as the president prepares to head to georgia, that voting rights groups plan to boycott his speech in atlanta, georgia. in las vegas, our next caller is a republican. caller: hi, my love. i came to this country in 1999. i am a foreigner. with that being said, i don't understand why you want to give these undocumented people the right to vote. first as a person who got dual citizenship and is about to get a citizenship for the united states, i don't understand what

the problem is, in regards to how do we -- the whole scenario as far as the people that actually went through the protocol, being hereby -- being here by priority versus being here illegally. i am here and i can't get the right to vote, so how does that work? guest: i don't think anybody across the political spectrum thinks we should be consciously allowing people who don't meet the requirements of voting to vote, one example being noncitizens of the united states. the question of how you determine whether people can vote or not or how good we are at keeping our lists up-to-date, i think no one is advocating that we should just allow people who are not eligible to vote, to vote. it is more a question of these

procedures that were put in place. are we going to be more strict? i think there was a consensus that there are some basic requirements of voting. that you are 18, that you are a citizen, that you live in the place where you live. this is why it is important to keep our voter registration active. that is the real challenge. i don't think anybody is advocating that people should have access to the vote. in federal elections, you may be referring to the debate about -- certainly in federal elections, there is none. host: our next caller in south carolina, independent. you have to turn down your television. just listen and talk through your phone.

we will move on to betty in texas, democrat caller. caller: hi. i am 91 years old, born and bred in texas. this is a republican state. they have passed a law that if you don't have id, you can't vote. it costs $25, first of all, to get id. you have to get your birth certificate. i was born in texas, but when i stopped driving, to get a voter id, i have to pay $25 to get my birth certificate.

i know many other people just like me, in their 80's and 90's. i am 91. i know a lot of people that have never driven, and when you get old and feeble and infirm, you have to find somebody to go get you or take you to a place so you can get your birth certificate. host: thank you for calling. john fortier, what do you say to betty and others who are in that situation? guest: i think what some court decisions have said is that you have to be able to provide id if you require it, to people who

can't afford it. i think directly that is the case. sometimes this raises other questions about documents behind that, what they cost money or not. i don't know the status of that texas law to that specific point, but i don't think we should ever make it a cost to people, to get an id. i do think there are a lot of ways -- often you can vote by mail without an id, or they will provide one at the polls in certain states if you don't have one. i guess i don't think it is a big obstacle for people, but i do think that on the specifics, that things could be better and we certainly want to hear these concerns but i don't think it is a big obstacle that people wouldn't be able to get an id

but we have talked a lot about this on this program and while i have some views on it, i don't think it is the most important thing, whether you are considering how to make elections have more integrity or if you're worried about it as a block to voting, other things are probably more important but i believe a system can be worked out that provides for many of these details and could be workable but i don't think it is the most important thing in our voting system. host: john fortier, thank you for having this conversation with our viewers this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take a short break. when we come back, we return to our conversation from earlier this morning. how should the u.s. respond to russia aggression on the ukraine border? there are the lines on your screen. start dialing and we will be right back. ♪

>> c-span is her unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connectivity program. it bridges the digital divide one connection at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat democracy. >> how exactly did america get up to its neck in debt? >> one of the greatest

characteristics of america is that we are striving to provide equal opportunity for all citizens. >> c-span's video documentary competition 2022. students across the country are giving us a behind the scenes look as they work on their entries. if you are a middle or high school student, you can join the conversation by entering the c-span studentcam competition. create a five to six minute documentary using c-span video clips that answers the question, how does the federal government impact your life? >> be passionate about what you are discussing, to express your view no matter how long -- how large or small the audience you perceive it to be. in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> remember the content is king. remember to be as neutral and impartial as possible in your portrayal of both sides of an issue. >> c-span awards $100,000 in total cash prizes and you have a shot at winning the grand prize

of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20. for more -- workup addition rules, the tory or how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org. >> tonight, federal reserve chair jerome powell testifying before the senate banking committee at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on our new video app, c-span now. >> get c-span on the go. watch the day biggest political events live or on-demand anywhere on our new mobile video app, c-span now. access highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts, all for free. download c-span now today.

♪ >> "washington journal" continued. host: yesterday in geneva, u.s. and russian officials talked for eight hours over russia's aggression at the ukraine border. the headline in the papers this morning, usa today, the two sides remain far apart on ukraine. russia's deputy foreign minister says no progress was made.

the ukraine is permanently barred from joining nato. antony blinken previewed the talks yesterday. >> it seems unlikely putin will withdraw troops or at least take some of them off of the border without some concessions by the u.s.. those two at the top were not on the table. what about moving heavy u.s. weaponry out of poland, moving it further west? what about limiting the scope of u.s. military exercise. are any of those on the table? >> i don't think we will see any breakthroughs in the coming week. we will be able to put things on the table. the russians will do the same, both directly with us at nato and we will see if they are our grounds removing folk -- if there are grounds for moving forward. any progress we are going to make is going to have to happen on a reciprocal basis.

if the united states and europe are taking steps to address some of russia's concerns, russia will have to do the same thing. nothing is happening without europe. it is hard to see making actual progress as opposed to talking in an atmosphere of escalation with a gun to ukraine's head. if we are going to make progress, we will have to see de-escalation, russia pulling back from the threat it currently poses to ukraine. host: the secretary of state saying no deal unless russia d escalates. how should the united states respond to russia? here is the line. democrats, (202)-748-8000. republicans, (202)-748-8001. independents, (202)-748-8002. text us with your first name, city and state at (202)-748-8003 . our first caller, democrat caller. caller: good morning. host: how should the u.s. respond to russia?

caller: i am a first time caller and what i wanted to say was i have two questions. i've been watching the news so much that it became a personal problem or psychological problem . i was on dialysis for 10 years so i didn't have much to do except look at -- look at tv and watch the news. what i have a question about is the republicans i am seeing on tv over and over -- host: i'm going to have to stick to the question this morning. the conversation is about russia putting 100,000 troops on the ukraine border and how the u.s. should respond. james in kentucky, democrat caller. caller: good morning. first of all, your question was about russian aggression. the united states has already

made the decision of what they're going to do by kicking thousands of people out of our military for no reason, just because they have a disagreement with congress on the -- on the hijab. also we go ahead and we will put sanctions on russia which means absolutely nothing, just like it did when trump put them on iran. i covered both democrats and republicans today. i hope you have a good day, nice to see you. host: martha in georgia, independent. caller: one main thing i have to say about it all is we need to sweep our own doorsteps before we start sweeping everybody else's. we have so many problems here in the united states that need to be taking care of.

people are hungry and sick and tired and so forth. we don't need to be worried about everybody else in the world that we don't have anything to do with. host: why ukraine's fate matters. the current u.s.-russia friction is focused on ukraine, which was part of the soviet union before collapsed in 1991 but has since developed close economic and military ties with the west. many american foreign policy experts say the u.s. has a vital interest in protecting ukraine from russian aggression. the u.s. at more than $400 million in military aid to ukraine and since 2014, the u.s. has provided about $2.5 billion in assistance to the country. ukraine and georgia have sought to join the nato alliance and were promised membership in 2008 although neither is poised to be admitted anytime soon. the prospect of a bigger stronger nato has put putin on edge, with ambitions of reviving

the soviet union and expanding russia's sphere of influence. -- to protect the country. here on "washington journal" yesterday, we spoke to a russia expert about the possibility of economic retaliation. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> i-70 weren't going to intervene militarily -- i said we weren't going to intervene militarily but as to what sort of sanctions the united states and europe will impose if russia invades ukraine, a lot of speculation has centered on the swift messaging banking system and that russia would be exiled from the international finance community, but there are also

various discussions about serious export controls of technology against russia and so the calamity is not just the military casualties but in fact economic isolation that will consume -- that will ensue if russia decides to invade ukraine. >> what sort of damage would that do to russia? >> russia is dependent on foreign technology, and terms of several of its industries including aerospace. and russia, one of the -- of the post-soviet world is that russia is integrated in the global economy, not just in finance. if we impose serious sanctions on russia, russian companies --

many companies will be hesitant to invest in russia or deal with russia, with the possibility of potential sanctions being invoked. it would just mean that there would be a serious reduction of investment and economic trade with russia. -- now, the question is, russia already survived a series of sanctions post-2014 imposed by europe and the united states during the annexation of crimea and russia has figured out ways by which to cope and survive. so, the question is, how devastating these sanctions are. sanctions experts like to think that they will be decisive, but over the past few years we have seen that russia can survive

sanctions and still have a secure economy. especially because so much of the revenue is related to oil and gas. host: william pomerantz, from yesterday's "washington journal." martha, independent line, we will go to you next. caller: ok, he just said the sanctions won't really do anything because russia lived through it before and did quite well. so what they are doing right now will more or less be useless according to what he just said. but i still agree that we should not be borrowing money and setting it to ukraine and all the other countries. it's not like we had it. instead of borrowing money and sending it to other countries to help them, we should be helping all these people in the united states that don't have hospital care, health care, they are hungry. one in six children don't have.

why are we not taking care of ourselves instead of trying to take care of everybody else. that is where i still stand. host: ron, monroe township, new jersey. caller: i also agree with the previous caller. nato nations have these nuclear cannons aimed at russia and they increase the chance of an accidental nuclear war. i recommend that people read a book called demand and control. the chances of an accidental war are very, very high. the atomic clock is one minute before 12:00. we cannot keep surrounding russia with nuclear bombs and expect to, expect nothing to happen.

with today's bombs, if 250 go off, the planet would be uninhabitable. russia has 6000 in we have 6000. there is way too many of these nuclear threats and we have to do something to diminish them. host: charles, new jersey, independent line, good morning. caller: how you doing? host: doing well. how should the u.s. respond? caller: sanctions, i think sanctions are the way to go. i know one thing that really worries me about russia is that oil pipeline. for them to have that pipeline, they are going to control the whole area over there. because people need gas and oil. that's what worries me more than anything else. we stop the pipeline here and it

makes sense. host: here's the headline from radio free europe. the north stream pipeline that you are talking about that goes around ukraine, it's ready according to operators to deliver gas. there is bipartisan support in the senate for sanctions against the pipeline. ted cruz is leading the effort. starting an agreement to stop holding up nominees of the biden administration in exchange for a vote, a sanction vote on the pipeline. which could happen this week. here he is on the floor last month talking about the sanctions. [video clip] >> hundreds of thousands of russian troops are massed on the border of ukraine waiting to invade. the reason for that is because joe biden surrendered to

vladimir putin on the nord stream 2 pipeline. that's the direct cause for the threat of military invasion that ukraine faces right now. vladimir putin didn't just wake up one day to decide to an rave ukraine. he has wanted to for years and he in fact did so in 2014 but he stopped short of a full invasion because he needed to use the ukrainian energy infrastructure to get russian natural gas to the european markets. because of that, that is why he launched nord stream 2. to have a pipeline directly from russia to germany going undersea to cut ukraine out of the transit loop so that the russian tanks could invade. this body right now should be talking about the crisis in ukraine and about how to counter vladimir putin's aggressive expansionism. the best way to do so would be

to immediately put sanctions on norton stream to, -- two, sanctions that i authored that both of the senators from delaware supported and that indeed had overwhelming bipartisan support from both houses of congress, passed into law and work. host: axios reports a consecutive presidents opposed the pipeline which the biden administration called a harmful geopolitical project that could allow russia to use energy as a weapon and report that a deal was struck with germany to waive sanctions on the company working to finish the sanctions contending that it was 98% done and it was important to repair relations with germany after years of strain under the trump administration. as we showed you, the pipeline according to the operator is ready to deliver gas.

let's go to bill in brockton, massachusetts. democratic caller. what should be done, bill? caller: democrats have change their perspectives a lot on what they used to do. i didn't know you had ted cruz on there. i was going to say that. i don't understand why we cut all of our, i grew up in the 70's. i remember pushing my father's car to the gas station when we ran out of gas. why did we ever go away from the main resource? does anybody know anything about anything? host: ricky, independent. caller: i think the pipeline the last guy was talking about, they need to let ukraine have access

to making money with the oil just like everybody else does. host: all right. greg, republican line, your thoughts. caller: i was going to say why should we protect ukrainian borders when we cannot protect our own? host: ok. here's a look at the ukrainian border. "the new york times" put together this map showing the 100,000 troops positioned around ukraine. they are on three sides of the country, positioned right at the border with ukraine. again, this is "the new york times co. -- times." betty? caller: i'm for sanctions.

it's interesting that rubio forgets that the last president was so in league with glenn amir putin. we need sanctions, we need strong sanctions and i think it will work. host: talking about ted cruz? caller: he talks out of both sides of his mouth. he forgets that he supported a president who is in bed with vladimir putin. host: ok, laughlin, las vegas. caller: good morning, how are you doing. on the topic of whether or not or have the u.s. should respond to russian aggression on the ukrainian border, they should respond with sanctions as previously discussed. sanctions might not work, but it will allow the u.s. to show that they will not be lenient on the issue of ukraine. especially with the flavors of this interaction regarding the

hollow dome or particularly. they should respond immediately. this is no small action. this is definitely an attempt to annex or takeover ukraine. ukrainians have been making a guerrilla army training with cardboard cutouts of kalashnikovs. that's a deference for it -- that's a desperate situation. the response needed should be immediate. host: all right, more of your calls, coming up. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. your thoughts on how the u.s. should respond to russian aggression. listen to what i norton leader mitch mcconnell had to say on the senate floor. [video clip] >> they should not be allowed to use force or the threat of force.

we should not forget the russian sphere of influence or be bullied into doing so. freight -- freedoms friends stand up to the bully well we have the chance or we will rue the day we did not. whether it is in europe, asia, or elsewhere. if vladimir putin walks away from this self-created crisis feeling emboldened, he and others will run the same play again, again, and again. it is appropriate for the administration and our allies to seek to de-escalate the situation. but not at the expense of deterrence and not by throwing the security of our friends under the bus. if we don't make sure our allies and partners have a seat at the table, they way -- they may well end up on the menu. for vladimir putin this is not just about ukraine. this is about breaking nato, europe, and restoring russian

domination of its neighbors. i support biden's stated desire to deter further russian aggression against ukraine. but, but his administration must move faster to provide emergency military capabilities to help ukrainians defend themselves and to deter attacks. time is of the essence. moving at the speed of bureaucracy is simply not going to cut it. neither will waiting until russia escalates, at which point it would be, of course, too late . this is not merely about ukraine . president biden must also work with nato allies to reinforce our collective military position on the continent. we have to reassure our eastern flank nato allies and deter threats to the alliance by demonstrating that nations are both willing and able to uphold

article five. the russians have to believe that. host: republican leader, mitch mcconnell. from ray, should battle come, it's time for the europeans to do their share. the u.s. people will not support a costly conflict. skippers, virginia -- the u.s. does not have interest in ukraine and should not allow military contractors to get us into another war. we can send them massive weapons for their use. john and michigan, we have politicians in this country who become multimillionaires under the guise of serving our country, let's clean up corruption here before we worry about russia. and then you have andy in

florida, turning a blind eye to aggression, classic chicken hawk style from the u.s.. steve, ft. pierce, ignorance, uninformed, blatant lies giving unequal footing that seems problematic at best. steve, oak ridge, tennessee, democratic caller. how do you respond to this question? caller: a couple of things here. in the history of ukraine, catherine the great drew ukraine under the back then russian empire. vladimir putin sees that as a part of russia. you've got to remember, he is old school soviet union. another thing i don't get about this deal is, you know, russia,

when the soviet union fell apart , they were bankrupt. so then europe starts buying all this gas from them and gives them the money that they need to build their military backup. that's pretty crazy if you ask me. one or two more quick points, i don't understand why ted cruz or anybody else has the right to tell germany or any other country what to do so far as their energy concerns. again, i think it is stupid for them to hook up to russia. and ted cruz? p obstructionism. if you don't do this, we are not going to do that. that's just my take. looking at what russia was, crimea was always a part of russia. kazakhstan was always a part of russia. vladimir putin is just trying to put back together the original

soviet union. hey, thank you so much, greta. have a wonderful day. host: same to you. dan, go ahead. caller: very interesting, crimea and kazakhstan. the big lie, but the big lie is, starting in 2016, the big lie is that russia is our enemy. russia is not our enemy. if we had any brains at all, we would take a look at the former soviet union and see that russia land lies was 90% or 75% of it. i don't know where in the heck we would expect president putin to put his troops other than in russia, which i think, unless people like to send some instructions on exactly how he should arrange his tanks in his own country, i'm sure he would

probably take the advice under, he would take that advice, but i think he wants to be and i think the russian people want to be part of nato. not an enemy of nato. i mean, nato is just a figment of our own imagination that expanded beyond its original authority back during the clinton administration and the expansion of nato from 1991, promising not an inch. the only thing left between nato and russia is the ukraine. how ridiculous can we get to sit here and discuss russian aggression? it's ridiculous. host: ok and we will leave it at

that. today we wrap up the program with a discussion on staff shortages in the nation's hospitals. we will talk with jean ross, the president of national nurses united. she is our guest, coming up after this break. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. >> broadband is a force for empowerment, which is why charter has empowered opportunities in communities big and small. >> charter is connecting us. charter communications supports c-span , giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> book tv features the latest office there's discussing their nonfiction books. chris christie provides his blueprint for how the republican party can win national elections in his book republican rescue. 10 p.m. eastern, david price shares his book, the congressional experience, giving his perspective on the rules and roles of congress, how it has changed over time and how the legislative body could function better. he's interviewed by gerald connolly. watch the every sunday on c-span two and find a full schedule in your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org.

c-spanshop.org is the c-span online store. flip through our latest collection of products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps to support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. download the new c-span mobile app and stay up to date with live video coverage of the latest political events, from live streams of the house and senate floor to key congressional hearings and supreme court oral arguments and even our live interactive morning program "washington journal," where we hear your voices every day. we have you covered. download the app today. "washington journal" continues. host: jean ross, president of

the national nurses united group, here to talk about the omicron surge in the nation's hospitals. do we have enough nurses in this country? guest: we have plenty of nurses in this country but they are choosing not to work inside most of our facilities right now because of the poor working facilities and those unfortunately started well before the pandemic. host: why? guest: they shortstaffed us. people call it short staffing. everyone knows we have a profit driven health care system so instead of looking out for the well-being of the public health and health care workers, employers tend to look at the bottom line, keeping things moving so that profits continue to soar. that means that nurses are not treated well, along with other health care workers and that we are not safe during something like a pandemic. host: so, what was the situation

before the pandemic? what were the numbers, what did they look like? guest: i can't give you exact numbers but i know, i've been a nurse for 46 years and it's been a huge change since even i started. they use to at least account for our professional judgment when we set how many nurses we needed for a shift and that went by the wayside a long time before covid came along. covid has just exacerbated it and i think the public is starting to see just exactly what we have to put up with. host: according to "the wall street journal," 83 beds were empty on friday according to the university hospital system in ohio, where they have closed as many as 16% of intensive care beds recently. parkland in dallas has shut 30 of 900 beds. what is happening?

guest: well, employers tend to do what i call penny wise, pound full-ish. short staffing for example, that i spoke of, that will give you, if you don't have enough staff on to do a good job in a shift it means more money for them because it isn't expended on the people who do the work and certainly isn't spent on the patients. you can look to our problems with personal protective equipment. you saw what happened in the beginning. unfortunately we are afraid that is going to start happening again, since osha has taken on its emergency temporary standards saying it is trying to put forward a permanent one. host: so, what sort of protocols

are in place so that nurses don't catch the virus and can show up to work? guest: you can look at the emergency temporary standards where they talk about having a plan in place. you need to make sure that all covid positive patients are in one area, and others are in another in that nurses don't freely go between them. you have assignments that keep you with or without the covid patients, for example. the proper gear. head coverings, overalls and coveralls, foot coverings, some sort of a respirator mask. we know now as we heard from the beginning that it passes through the air. it is equally if not more important to have enough proper donning and doffing of equipment. rushing is when breaches occur and you are not as safe as you

should be. host: how much interaction designers have with a covid patient as opposed to a doctor? guest: o a nurses with that patient 20 47. many of the nurses i speak within the icu setting stay in the cubicle all shift. doctors might call in orders from home, but it is mostly the nurses with help from ancillary staff that are spending time with the patient. host: there are pieces in the paper today saying that the health care system is on the brink of collapse. do you agree? and if so, why should mark guest: we do. before pandemic said that this was going to happen. all it took was one bacteria,

one virus and here we are. it is because we haven't been listened to. we have petitioned, we have bagged. those of us with union contracts work very hard every shift, every day to enforce the contracts. but i really feel -- fear for those nurses and health care workers that don't have one because when it comes to money versus safety, money wins out in this country and that's sad but that's the way it is. host: i want to invite our viewers to join the conversation, calling with your questions or comments. eastern central, (202) 748-8000. mountain pacific, (202) 748-8001 . nurses, your line this morning, we want to hear from you, (202) 748-8002. you can text with your first name, city and state, (202) 748-8003. jean ross, give us an idea of what the typical contract for a union nurse is.

guest: standard things that you might imagine, wages, benefits. then we also have input as to how much staff we should have on versus what we have got, what we do when we don't. it's the kind of thing where we make sure that the right type of nurse is in the right setting so they don't force a nurse, for example, and i kid you not that this has happened, to be a labor delivery nurse one day and the next day they are short in the emergency room due to no fault of the nurse and she or he has been plugged in there and it's not safe, not safe for the patients and not safe for the nurse. host: do hospitals were queer nurses from other countries? guest: yes. other countries do, the united states does. from many countries. particularly the philippines.

other countries have asked us to please not deplete their supply of nurses. they need them. often more so than we do. if we look at our ratios of number of patients to nurses in this country, we consider it not good, but in other countries it's just horrid, horrible. we do talk about nurses -- take nurses from throughout the world. we have a group called global nurses united and we continue to communicate with each other and help each other so that the patients around the globe are cared for. host: what is the role of the traveling nurse in this health care system? guest: they come into help us out when we are short staffed or don't have the right kind of nurse. if there is a rise in intensive care needs, like now in the pandemic travelers being brought in, often we are begging for them to come in. they don't replace the regular

staff. or they shouldn't. unfortunately what has happened over decades now, employers have made it so unfriendly, not sustainable turn nurses, they are quitting the profession and then we have to bring in help from travelers and others. host: this text from california saying that she is dead on, both my son and daughter tell me how greedy and uncaring hospital owners are. casual dress replacing uniforms, watering down respect in the workplace and in the industry. guest: well, i'm glad that others see it. we get remarks like that all the time. i will say this, we, i would say it might seem like casual dress

is the culprit but i think the things i mentioned earlier are what is really killing us and right now literally. the fact that, you know, how many nurses we need for how many patients, and we are not being listened to. we know the kinds of protective equipment that we need in we were not listened to. not from the beginning and now the fear is that now that emergency temporary standards have been around -- allowed to lapse, we will go back to that. host: what about the recent guidance on quarantining and isolation? 10 days going to five days? guest: we think it is penny wise and pound foolish. if it looks like something is going to hurt you, to say that it appears that most of the

chances of infecting yourself and others are in the first five days, it doesn't matter what it appears like. these are tried and true policies and we believe they should not have been shortened. otherwise we will get infected and we will keep infecting others. host: catherine, wisconsin. good morning to you. question or comment? caller: she is right on, i worked at a hospital for 24 years and from day one when i started there has always been a shortage of nurses and it's not just the nurses, but throughout the whole hospital. everybody is just run ragged. right from the beginning. the nurses are just, my gosh, they are just overworked horribly. i just never could understand why they were so shortstaffed.

but i guess that it's the money situation. thank you. host: jean ross? guest: well, she's accurate of course. it is the money situation, as she put it. you can't have -- the only way, the hospitals have tried every other way over my years of nursing to decrease costs for them and we are to the point where the only way to make more money for them is to actually deny care, deny wages, deny staff for those who are still working. it has led us to where we are and here we are in the middle of a pandemic and it shows how uncaring and not compassionate, unfeeling this so-called health system that we have is. host: let's go to michelle, a

nurse in longwood, florida. caller: i've been a nurse for 50 years and a practitioner for more years in that. i agree with what miss ross has to say for a practice and administrative interview. as long as nurses continue to be seen as part of the nonbillable services, we have no calculable value in the system. when i did some work with the belo or scheduling system back in the 80's when we converted from eight hour shifts to 12 hour shifts, there was some improvement in terms of being able to separate out 24 hour shifts on the weekend and 40 hour shifts during the week. moving to complete 12 hour

shifts is killer and is really completely unworkable. basically, we never figured out how to make nursing services billable and as soon as we can be shown to provide a real numeric value, then all we are to the organization is a costs to the organization, as she points out. that's all front facing personnel throughout the country . you know, we don't really have a labor shortage. we have a job problem in this country where how people work, particularly female employees, know there are a lot of men in nursing now, but it is, we are just front facing and we have no calculable value until we figure out a way to construe our job in

terms of a calculable value that we can get the organization to bill for, you know, we will continue to have this problem. host: ok, michelle. i want jean to respond to that point. guest: she's right. a patient would not be able to tell you what he paid for a nurse based on his bill. probably not a band-aid, either. charging in hospitals is another thing that my union has worked on for sometime now. there's nothing transparent about it and in many ways it amounts to price gouging. but i would say that we have been asked over and over, not just by employers who seem to care, but also by the president and others what they could do to encourage nurses to stay in the field, to come into the field. well, treat us better.

then he could have incentives. if you say that you believe you are really short of nurses, pay for their education. get people in there. say that you can expect this if you get a nursing degree. no loans left over. more on your shift, hours of working, as she mentioned. certainly pay those of us with union contracts, we do try hard to keep our wages up where they should be but across the country it's not a highly valued profession when you look at pay. there are many things that would show us that what you say when you say we are heroes and are such a necessity, we need you, would show if you did some of those things. right now as much as employers cry that they don't have enough of us, they are not doing things to attract and keep nurses. they continue to do things that shove us away. host: on average how much are

nurses making? guest: i know that those of us with union contracts can have quite a lucrative profession. it's very hard work. it's not just mentally demanding. we know a lot. but it's also physically demanding. it has always been a physical type of work and when there are not enough of you, that is compounded. you do more with less and that's where we have another one of our problems. nurses with muscular skeletal injuries. host: here's a headline that we were facing this morning. that is from "the daily beast." it broke last night that he last was on the verge of breaking last winter's hospitalization records. breaking that record from last january. what do you think happens next.

guest: if things don't change, if we don't keep enough nurses and health care workers in the system, if we can't get a hold on the virus from people doing what they know they are supposed to do at this point, which is please vaccinate. whether you do or not, mask. and right now you should be wearing some type of respirator mask or at the very least a surgical mask. double and triple. wash your hands. do the distancing you are supposed to. i'm afraid that we have relied way too much on vaccines. if you do those things you won't overwhelm us and we can continue to take care of you but it has been touch and go and if things continue to go badly, you will see the system overrun.

host: david, los angeles. good morning. caller: happy new year to another year of the american people. i'm listening to this about compensation with the nurse in the nurses union and i can really identify with some of her concerns. i was, you know, undergoing some treatment and what i have been observing here is exactly what she is talking about. i would like to suggest that as a country, our national health care model in which we have been doing this fee-for-service nonsense is at the brink of collapse. there are nations throughout the world that we can take lessons from, you know, that do what we call, totally crazy when we even

mentioned medicare for all or a national health care single-payer system. taking the profit motive out of a health care system. which on the face of it is insane, right? so, we are not going to make any correction, i don't believe, and i was sharing this with the person with whom i was waiting to be seen yesterday, until the system actually collapses. are you still with me? host: yes, we are. what do you think? he's absolutely correct which is why we have been advocating for a single-payer health care system and we will continue to do so. there's a lot of public support helping us in that and if people are interested, they should be going to our website and here's our link to the medicare for all campaign where we have had many

where you don't have to pay a nurse or a health care worker to help and people have seen the wisdom in this kind of system. what we have now is repugnant, it's repulsive. you don't, you don't decide how to treat and whether to treat a person due to how much money they have how much money you can get out of them. but that is what we are faced with here and it compounds are problems with pandemic. host: a viewer on twitter once no, some states used field hospitals during the first wave of covid. why are they not used in the current wave? guest: i don't know, we are not in charge of that. but that has been one way we have been able to weather the storm. i would tell you this, though, even during pandemic we have had hospitals shutting down units and shutting down hospitals that are not "profitable" enough for

them. that is what these executives do. they buy up large numbers of hospitals, called a chain. then they want to keep open the services that give them money, that would be some cardiac services, that kind of thing. labor and delivery is not profitable. that's like whatever we have left of the mental health care system is badly strained if not defunct. they closed down those units because they are a costly and not a benefit. those of the kinds of things i'm talking about when i say penny wise, pound foolish. host: aisha, tampa, florida, good morning to you. question or comment? host: this is my first -- caller: i wanted to thank you so much, this is my first time seeing this program and i will

definitely tune in again but what this nurse is saying is so honest and i'm so glad to see someone representing nurses from within the medical industry because the problem has existed for a very long time. when you have a medical industry that is profit driven like this, then of course, taking care of the people is not the main issue into if you allow that to continue to happen, for in the care of the patient is not the main issue, you will find eventually the care of the nurses are not going to be a concern either because human life is not being valued here. it's money. that's the problem with the whole country. we have become a corporation and a business. the whole country is a business. it's really greed, greed that is pushing. that's what happened in california. the fires, we traced it back to

the corporation responsible. people are cutting everywhere for-profits. it's who is at the top in where the money is going. that's the problem. host: roger wants to know if the shortage is due to the vaccine mandate put out by the government. that those health care workers have to vaccinate. is that causing workers to leave their jobs? guest: no. most of our nurses believe in vaccinations for themselves and for the general public. you will find very few. there are exemptions. if your doctor has told you that you are immunocompromised and i don't want you to get the vaccine, if that's what happened. you wear masks. double masks, whatever. most of our nurses choose to get

vaccinated. that's the truth. it's true during flu season and true with this, also. host: susan, huntsville, a nurse. good morning. caller: i have been elite -- a nurse for many years and until nurse executives really understand that they are the only reason that patients are admitted to the hospital, admitted for nursing care, the source of every profit department in the hospital, nurses are. the other departments make money because patients come in for nursing care. until nurses grab onto that, they will continue to move through this perception model that they are just room and board, the quality problem can be solved with nurses that are working in the quality system.

turnover would go down, that's like 25%. satisfaction would go up. the parameters around quality care that hospitals say they need would be met. everyone would be happy. the executives would make decisions that nurses could be paid and have reasonable staffing where they are in charge of patient care. instead there is this pennypinching mindset that executives have that is a poor management style. they don't see the forest for the trees. nurses are the reason people go to the hospital and until we start saying that all the time, we are the source of income for the entire system. host: jean ross? guest: she's correct. nurses have been recognizing that for decades. the only reason for going into a hospital, she is right, is for

nursing care. there are many other avenues to get to care for a clinic, but when you need to have a nurse watch over you for a time, that is what brings patients into the hospital. we know that. the employers know it, too. they won't admit it, but they know it. we have had nurses over the years saying i don't understand why the public would put up with this, for example. and we would say because the public doesn't know. we have done such a good job of trying to make ends meet where the employers fail us, perhaps we have done too good of a job. but now with this pandemic it has brought light to what's actually going on in these hospitals. there are many, many ways we could "fix" what's going on here and we intend to keep pushing. we do need that standard to be made permanent.

we are going to have a national day of action thursday the 13th with a virtual press conference that will be at 1 p.m. eastern at lafayette square and then at 6 p.m. that same night, the 13th, there will be a panel like this, a vigil for all the nurses who have expired and died from this awful covid pandemic. host: tiffany is a nurse and bradley, florida. tell us about your hours and what the working environment is for you? caller: i'm a fairly new nurse. i have heard nurses say that they have been here for this many years, this many years. as a fairly new nurse, my hours have been standard. when i started over the summer, there were bonuses offered to work extra shifts and at that

time i just wasn't comfortable doing it yet. even now they are still asking for bonuses, you know, to work extra shifts, asking for extra nurses. my situation, i tested positive last week and have been home since then. at the 10 day mark that will be thursday. i had to retest with the five to nine and then i got a message saying can you come into work for a bonus and i'm like i can't even come in because as far as like patient care, i can't even give it. but i am do to return back to work on the 15th and as far as like our hours go, it's pretty standard still at the moment. i work at a fairly small hospital, but as a new graduate nurses seeing the acuity of patients coming in with the admissions that we have, it's unreal in the reason i became a nurse is because my mom, i lost my mom to congestion of heart failure and i wanted to work to

help take care of patients but as far as the money goes, a lot of people say i came in for the wrong reason and she's asking how much they make. i started out at $29 per hour and i'm looking at travel nurses coming in to make $40 per hour. when i give reports to the next nurse i'm like she's making double what i'm making for the same work. and i'm working by bought off. i mean, but as far as the acuity of patient care, i mean it's been really, really tough on all nurses. patient care texts, i see them working hard. as far as the income goes, i have four children and i'm making it, but i feel like the money is the number one reason why health care is still wanted and it has become a business and nobody is really doing patient care. host: of everything she said,

what sticks out to you? guest: first of all i hope you are healing and get better soon but it is what we have been talking about, the profit motive . as far as the shift towards what we can expect in a contract, my example, i live out of -- live and work out of minnesota and our contract or a basic shift is eight hours. there are others available to people want them, but the basic shift is eight hours and that is one of the things that, for some nurses coming into the profession, the ones not leaving and coming in, recruiting and retaining, it's as i said earlier, back can work. to expect nurses as we age to continue to do the type of nursing that we did when we were 20 is unbelievable. especially for 12 hours at a time. that should be a choice, not a

mandate. the money that she's talking about, i will tell you with a union contract you would make far more than a traveling nurse. those of us who have those opportunities know that, but there are still so many of us to be organized and beyond that, you do need the help of the public to look at exactly what's going on in those hospitals and help us say this can't continue. we need to be able to have enough nurses, and enough equipment, and enough of the things that we say are necessary to keep us and our patients safe. not with the hospital says they can afford. host: illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment and a question, if the lady could help. explain that. first is, is there a shortage of nurses?

is there an increase in the labor costs? she's talking about economics as well. hospitals, administrative issues. i would suggest and i want her to explain this, they really need to restructure the nurse education program. there are so many clinical nurses, specialists, and others that they are not working in clinical care. they are not working inside the patient care that is nate -- needed on a day to day basis. too many administrators in nursing, in the hospital, are not working in clinical care. then why do we have to have this higher degree in nurse education when an associate degree is sufficient to practice clinical nursing?

that's my question and comment. guest: well, he's right about several things. one of them being this, we have a variety of degrees. two years, four years. there are hospitals being very foolish and not hiring anything less than a four year degree and that is counterproductive. and then they say they have a nurse shortage. so, employers do do things that are foolish. i wouldn't agree that it's often . depending on the facility that you work in, there are more management type nurses and others that are bedside nurses and i agree that's the wrong place to put your money. we clearly have different priorities than the employer's. i will tell you that he asked if there is a nurse shortage. there is none. there's a shortage of nurses

willing to work under the conditions we are forced to work in. especially right now. but that has been for a long, long time. the shortage has been the -- has been manufactured by the employer's and if they wanted to they would be doing the things that recruit and retain us. host: deborah, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. jean ross just said exactly what i called to say. i've been a nurse for 43 years. there is no nursing shortage. i'm so tired of hearing that there is a nursing shortage. there is a shortage of nurses willing to tolerate and be treated under the conditions of nurses in this country. it started back in the 80's, i can tell you a -- couldn't tell you exactly when, but as for picking up momentum it is to the point where any nurse that can get out reduces their hours or

any nurse that stays in nursing really should report to the house facility for abused women. that's how i feel. i no longer work in nursing. i finally hit that brick wall. i should be working, i'm an experienced and good nurse. i do have hiv, i don't know that i could work in these conditions now, but my final position as an rn, i went to work one weekend, we had 25% of the staff we should have had. even at 100% staff, the numbers are way too low. they are manufactured low and it's all about greed. but to go into work to be the supervisor on duty responsible for 100 residents and have 25% of the staff that we should have

had when i called management, i was told work it out, get creative. every nurse knows what i'm talking about. the result would have been management at some point would have sent pizza in. every nurse is groaning and rolling because that is how we are treated. mistreated. then when you hit a brick wall, they will send in pizza as though you are a kindergartner. i have had jobs where a clinical educator came around because the staff morale was sold out -- solo and handed everyone a few m&ms and say this will brighten your day. no, what will brighten our day is to be able to do the job that we are educated to do and want to do. i want to look the patients and

the families in the eyes and say i'm doing what i'm supposed to do and i do but the condition -- conditions will not allow a really good nurse to stay working in the field. we all get out when we can. host: when you left, what did you do instead? caller: i'm basically retired. i can't, i won't go back to that. i will go to the abused housing forum first. that's how bad the conditions are. you can go into any facility in this country and i have to be delicate here, but when you look around the nurses station at the chairs, you will see chairs that have pillowcases covering the seat or you will see spots with stains on the chairs and i'm sorry, those stains are there because these nurses could not get to the bathroom on days when they really needed to change

something because of the time of the month. these are all facts. . -- facts. open your eyes when you are in these facilities. no sit -- nurses don't get breaks. i'm certain osha says we should get breaks. it's very rare. nurses can go 12 hours without getting to use the facilities and that's regular and it shouldn't be. host: i have to jump in, we are going to have to wrap here as the house comes into session. jean ross, your final thoughts before we say goodbye? guest: well, we appreciate the help from the public, keep it up, sign our petitions, push your administrators to do what the bite and administration said they would do, protect the public and us nurses. with this latest action of not having a permanent osha standard, decreasing cdc guidelines is not helping. they need to go back and do the

things they promised because they work. host: jean ross, thank you for your time. president of national nurses united. guest: thank you for having us. host: bringing you into the house live coverage on c-span. [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] the house will come to order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 11, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable jay luis correa to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the clerk: pursuant to the order of the house of january 10, 2022, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. with t