are changing the future of work mark mills, author of the cloud revolution and later, the campaign legal center talks about ongoing efforts to prohibit members of congress and their families from treating individual stocks while in office. >> for the first time since bob area conflict since the 1990's, nato faces a conflict close to home. as russian troops not only surround ukraine, now in della roos.

good morning. it is tuesday, january 25th, 2022. welcome to washington journal. this first hour we will continue our focus on the russia ukraine conflict and nato's role. the potential role if russia attacks ukraine. for republicans, call (202) 748-8001; independents and others, (202) 748-8002. send us your name and where you are texting from. we will look for your paste on -- we will look for your post on facebook, twitter and instagram at c-span wj. i will also hear from members of the biden administration, nato

secretary-general and also members of congress. comments and tweets of theirs as well as congress is out this week. we are hearing from -- members have asked for an all member briefing of the administration on the conflict between russia and the ukraine. here is a story from the wall street journal this morning. nato beefs up russian presence. the european union set out loans and grants worth more than 1.3 billion. and the pentagon ordered thousands of troops to prepare for possible deployment. washington journal writes the moves are part of efforts by the u.s. and its allies to guard for what they believe could be an imminent military invasion of ukraine, which russia denies it

is planning. a bit more from that wall street journal piece as well. they say russia has insisted that nato provide guarantees it won't give membership to ukraine, reversing a pledge the alliance made in 2008 that ukraine and the country of georgia would become members. moscow has also demanded nato curb military exercises in ukraine and other reformer soviet states and restrict military deployments on the territory of the alliances eastern european member. that is from the washington journal. just for some perspective -- that is forum -- that is from the wall street journal. this is from nato. a look at some of the 30 member countries, the yacht -- the largest being the united states,

not on this map. there is ukraine. we mentioned della roos. the borders lithuania, poland and slovakia as well. also perspective on the funding, a major part of the trump administration on getting nato, other nato countries to contribute to the alliance. this is a 2019 figure, in terms of the top contributors. percentage of gdp who contributes to nato. as a 2019, the united states contributed to .6% of our gdp to nato costs. greece, 2.4 percent. the united kingdom 2.1%. the top countries in overall spending on nato, the countries with the most nato spending, the united states, united kingdom, germany, france and italy. top five. in response to those nato moves as well, the u.s. making its own

moves in calling out and alerting, putting on higher alert u.s. troops. the headline here from u.s. military times. up to 8500 u.s. troops. they write that a handful of u.s.-based units have prepared themselves for possible deployment in response to russian incursion into ukraine. the pentagon announced on monday. the units have not been given orders to deploy but to shorten their recall timelines in case nato activates its response force, according to john kirby. "there is not a mission, per se, this is about the secretary wanting to get ahead of potential activation and making sure these units have time to prepare. " the units are being notified and the pentagon will have more

information on them following that process. stateside, the u.s. maintains an immediate response force which includes the 82nd airborne and supporting asked -- supporting assets. former veterans you can call (202) 748-8003. we will get to your calls momentarily. [video clip] >> nato is a defense alliance and has a responsibility to their members if they need them. that is the spirit in which secretary has made these early heightened alert decisions. >> clarification, if nato is the defensive alliance and these troops, if they are activated, are defensive, how does this

protect ukraine? how does this stop putin from going into ukraine? >> it is designed to reassure our nato allies, jan. -- jenna. >> how does it protect ukraine? >> it sends a very clear message to putin that we take our nato country seriously. we are working to implement severe consequences for mr. putin if you were to go, again into ukraine. largely economic consequences. i am trying to be very clear. about what success looks like, we obviously do not want to see another incursion in ukraine. we are using lots of leverage to try to communicate why that

would be a bad thing for russia to do. number two, it is not an insignificant number two, to make sure nato stays unified and our allies are able to defend themselves. that is what this decision is all about. it is about putting these forces on high alert. host: here on washington journal, we would like to hear from you on nato's potential role in incursion of russia into ukraine. for republicans and independents, and others, (202) 748-8002. the european union called on russia monday to defuse tensions that moscow would face consequences if it is -- if it attacked its neighbor.

calls on russia to de-escalate. "notions of spirit of influence have no place in the 21st century. any further military aggression by russia over ukraine will have massive consequences and severe costs p, -- costs." annie on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i am kind of blown away by the whole thing. i kind of want to get more information by listening to your show. i was thinking, it is tragic. i guess, putin, his whole personality is driving this.

biden does not seem to be very strong in terms of any kind of a response. i wondered what biden, what his role is in terms of nato. host: let me ask you, annie, do you think vladimir putin is pressuring joe biden in seizing opportunity to press her -- to pressure the u.s. president? caller: yes, i think that is highly likely. he is a strong arm type. he is definitely pressuring joe biden. host: let's hear from john, retired military. caller: my main problem is not

so much with the administration but constantly flexing all over the planet. we, as part of nato, need to step up and definitely help out countries that they will be free, want to have democracy, they will have a say. until we actually draw a line in the sand, and my 50 years plus of life, i do not think i have seen too many lines in the sand. the line in the sand, we told iraq, if you do not get out, this is what is going to happen. this is what we need to take against countries like north iran, china, russia. their goal is to take over the planet.

as a free nation, we must put the beacon of freedom up and say "no, we will not submit to communist dictator roles. " host: thanks john. vincent on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i would like to know, the 85 hundred troops, why do we have to impress nato about anything, number one, number two, i was on my way and they deployed us to vietnam. how is the same thing going to happen with these troops? why are they not deploying to our own border? that is my question. everyone else, have a great day.

host: free democrats, (202) 748-8000; for republicans, (202) 748-8001; for independents, and all others, (202) 748-8002. russia launched new military exercises in the west of the country, involving short range ballistic missile units. russia was closely watching u.s. moves, including the pentagon's decision to put 8500 troops on high alert monday for possible deployment to europe. observing these actions of the united states -- russia's military district announced tuesday, releasing video of

short range ballistic missile cruisers and field positions. the latest in a rapidfire series of drills that russia has run in recent weeks, increasing pressure on nato and the ukraine. the secretary-general spoke yesterday with reporters on the latest in nato's efforts. [video clip] >> more policing. there are currently five nato ships -- we are increasing our presence in the area. we are, for the first time a u.s. group. that is not in the baltic sea.

we have stepped up. nato is not freshening russia, it is proportionate. we have stepped up to invite to continue our dialogue. we are going to engage in good faith in the efforts to find a solution. whether to listen to their considered -- their security concerns. we will not compromise in the right of every nation to choose their own path. host: we are focusing this first hour on the potential involvement of nato's role on conflict if russia does attack ukraine. (202) 748-8000, for democrats.

(202) 748-8001, for republicans. (202) 748-8002, for independents, and all others. paul gosar saying "russia invading ukraine is not an immediate threat to the security of the american people, homeland, and way of life." ruben gill lego, "russia is mistaken if it believes the u.s. will stand by her cold -- standby. " caller: good morning, c-span.

what a mistake. we just got out of afghanistan, not even a year ago. this idea we care about the ukraine people to the extent we are going to further engage in military industrialization, i cannot believe we are even considering it. i hope we do not go much further with this. thanks for taking my call. host: to roberto in houston texas, good morning. caller: good morning. ukraine is self understands a very corrupt government. are we going to support a corrupt government in ukraine.

in vietnam, we held up a corrupt government. why? because it was not communist. big deal. i agree with the last caller, hey, folks we just got out of 20 years in afghanistan. do we ever learn anything? i thought nato should have been disbanded when the soviet union was dissolved. let europe take care of their own problems and let's stay out of it. that is my opinion. thank you. host: on the republican line, go ahead. caller: i do not think we should be over there. they too biden's son. we got run out of one country

and we are still trying to fight for another country. we shouldn't be over there, we should just stay at home. thank you. host: wall street journal, reporting on the ground, ukrainians are resigned and prepared. that is training colleagues to run his business so he can focus on fighting russians. ukraine has struggled to maintain a sense of stability since a fully established itself as a sovereign country in 1991, has been at war since 2014. when 100,000 russian troops gathered nearby, threatening europe's biggest land war since the 1940's, people there say something feels different this time. "it has been come kind of normal

to say, what again?" that is from the wall street journal. also from the washington times this morning on nato and may be behind some of vladimir putin's thinking, on the front page this morning, putin waits as nato unity weekends. foreign policy analysts say the russian policy gains a strategic edge driving off military standoff. he says the ultimate goal is to exacerbate the nato allies and cast down how effectively the west can respond. russian nato was showing division beneath the surface on monday, even as the pentagon confirmed it put 8500 troops on high alert status for deployment

to the region. president biden acknowledged last week minor incursion by russia forces into ukraine could spark a fight. that unity could crack as time passes. the white house press secretary jen psaki was asked about the heightened -- of u.s. troops and whether that added increased tension in the region. [video clip] >> the question is, you are sending some thousands of troops -- increase this more than reducing it? >> we have had troops -- for decades. >> we have a sacred obligation

to support our eastern countries. it is important to remember who the aggressor is here. it is not the united states, it is not these eastern flying states. it is russia who has tens of thousands of troops on the border of ukraine. they have the power to de-escalate. we would welcome that. >> none of the british have put out intelligence on a possible coup. how will the u.s. respond if that happens? >> i am not going to get into intelligence matters, of course. we have been warning about russian tactics like this for weeks. reports are deeply concerning. certainly, there would be consequences. host: back to your calls and comments. we will go to michelle on the independent line. michelle, go ahead, you are on

the air. arcade, new york, one more time. all right, too rich in springfield, missouri. rich on the republican line. caller: biden should get out of putting troops into ukraine. they are going to drag this into a war. our economy is shot. china is the one we should be worrying about. putin is just a little strongman. let's get out of ukraine before we even get in there. thanks. host: to betty next in south carolina. hello, betty. caller: hello, thank you. my opinion is, if they cannot

see it, you have got to be blind to not see what all is going on. he needs to change everything that donald trump doesn't. we did not have all these problems. i am 77 years old and i have never seen nothing like this in my lifetime. and when they get what they want , they are going to -- them people to the dogs. thank you and have a good day. host: all right, betty. this is from usa today, this morning. troops on alert as biden consults allies. we will look at the location of russian troops on this map. the economics of this. the economic issues involved in this, usa today writes diverse -- energy interest have long

divided. about 40% of the eu's national gas imports come from russia. pipelines across ukraine. gas prices have skyrocketed. head of the international energy agency said russian energy giant gas prom reduced its -- its exports to the eu in late 2021 despite high prices. thom tillis, senator thom tillis is the ranking republican member of the armed services committee, personnel subcommittee. he spoke about his views on how the administration is handling the crisis in ukraine. [video clip] >> vladimir putin is threatening a democratic nation and it is critical the united states and our nato allies stand up to its latest tyranny.

while there is bipartisan agreement on this in congress, unfortunately, it does not extend to the white house. i was shocked when president biden recently said he would accept a minor encouragement on the part of russia. the president of the united states, essentially gave putin a green light to --. those remarks came with a bipartisan measure to slap sanctions on the pipeline. the white house is sending the wrong message, which already feels and boded enough to invade ukraine because they think they can get away with it. history has repeatedly demonstrated that a smit never works. the biden administration needs to rethink their strategy and make it crystal clear that any russian aggression will be met with a strong response against putin and his regime. that must start with imposing

robust economic sanctions and casting russia as a pariah state. democracy democracy is in danger in europe. we must clarify our support for ukraine and do everything in our power to protect our allies. host: back to your calls. line for active military, michelle. caller: good morning. one of my question is, the fact that it is bipartisan to keep going into these wars. the same crew that was involved in the removal in afghanistan. what about our borders? we have an invasion on our borders. we had a synagogue that was just taken over by islamic terrorists. now whether that is related or

not, i do not know. i do not understand why we care about other countries. host: michael, scottsboro, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you to c-span. mr. tillis is wrong. everybody keeps thinking we are going to war with russia. we have troops in ukraine, that is wrong, we do not have troops in ukraine. they're planning on sending extra troops to nato countries, lithuania. just in case pool decides to make a push there as well. i am former military. i do not think we want to go to war with russia. i think this is a game that russia is playing and i think president biden was trying to make a point that russia's

incursion is not going to throw america into war. we do not have troops in ukraine. this is just another game that vladimir putin is playing. he misses his buddy, donald trump, being in washington. he wants desperately to have his puppet dictator back. host: michael, as you said, you are former military. you're probably aware of the u.s. has tens of thousands of troops in bases in europe. 8500 in high alert would be in addition to that. do you think part of this as the u.s. being the largest contributor to nato is just the administration saying, "we have your back", to those countries.

just support of those countries and the threat they may feel, potentially on the border, poland, lithuania, other immediate countries to that. the presence of russian troops, however small they may be on the border? caller: i think the additional troops he is planning on sending is to bolster these countries and to make them feel more secure. i think it is also just in case putin decides to make a push. putin, i think he is rational but he is trying to play a game. he thinks he can push and push and push and we will give and

give and give. -- let's give everything to russia because he was the former president. i am sick of hearing it from them. host: ok, michael, from alabama. representative jerry carl with a tweet on this. he says "when president biden says he's the only one who will go total with putin, he must have been talking about dan -- dancing with him because he certainly was not talking about applying military pressure." stephen duncan tweets "-- to

where they totally have nothing to live on." let's hear, also in alabama, former military, kurt, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a little nervous because i have not had a lot of experience speaking in public. i had three tours in germany. i have had several times being on the alert status. alert status means your unit is closed off from the world.

now, ukraine is corrupt. very corrupt. the only thing about protecting the ukraine is the other countries that are afraid of russia. poland, czech republic, all of those countries and so on. the ukraine is about to get hit in two directions, and russian style is a steamroller. if we send troops in, it would be light infantry troops. they would be steamroller. just like another cartoon. there is no way we could have any power. russia, in 10 days they could

take the country, even if ukraine resisted tremendously. the countries we need to protect our poland, so on. germany has no power. president trump was offended. they decided to spend money on other things the purpose of nato is to hold of the enemy until americans can get there. the times i was on alert in germany, we had real fine german troops that i would never have messed with. we had real fine american troops. weird -- we do not have anything there.

they need a percentage of their tanks and aircraft ready to go. they are helpless. when they are threatened, we say, we will cut off their energy supplies. you will see what happens. host: this half-hour on washington journal, we are discussing nato and what their response should be if russia invades or attacks ukraine. (202) 748-8000, the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001, the line for republicans. (202) 748-8002, the line for independents and all others.

(202) 748-8003, the line if you are former military or current military. the headline, playing the long game, putin has america where he wants it. this is bigger than closing nato's open door to ukraine and taking more territory. he wants to evict the united states from europe. as he might hit it, goodbye america, don't let the door hit you on the way out. as i have seen over two decades of observing mr. putin and analyzing his moods, his actions are purposeful and his choice of this moment to throw down the gauntlet in ukraine and europe is very intentional. december 2021 was the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the soviet union when russia lost its dominant position in europe. mr. putin wants to give the united states a taste of the same bitter medicine russia had to swallow in the 1990's.

he believes the united states is in the same predicament as russia was after the soviet collapse. he also thinks nato is nothing more than an extension of the united states. russian officials and commentators routinely deny any agency or independent strategic thought to other nato members. when it comes to the alliance, all moscow's moves are directed against washington. calls, let's hear from brian on the independent line. caller: good morning. i feel this is ultimately going to backfire against biden in a bad way. it is carrying the order. for reasons unknown to most people, the common sense for

most americans is why are we potentially going to deploy these groups as ukraine and so on but at the same time ignoring our own problems here at home. if it goes that way, we hope not, we do not want lives to be lost. host: carl is next on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: we as americans should support nato. if it wasn't for people like putin, he is nothing but a dictator and really a bully. if you let him get away with that, what makes you think he probably won't try to do it in america? also, you talking about ukraine is a corrupt government. you have got corrupt governments all over the world, even here in

the united states. my thing is, the -- you have people like putin who are going to believe lies when they know the truth but they accept lies over the truth. i am saying to all the leaders in office that are serving in the pulpit, serving in public office, very elect. we have to elect presidents and preachers, pastors over the churches. this is a spiritual warfare. god just wants -- if you are going to let people take over the world or are you going to let good take over the world? it is a battle between good and evil. if you don't know putin is evil, i do not care how corrupt

government is, no one should be able to be bullied to take over nobody else house or nobody else country. host: to check on our line, chuck for former military in michigan. go ahead, chuck. caller: thank you for taking my call. as a combat that was drafted and we had no choice but to go to vietnam, i think we are in up to our next. thank you. host: as we talk about potential military conflict and u.s. involvement in that conflict by nato, it is worth noting that u.s. military forces are active overseas. many of you are aware. engaged in military conflict. the u.s. joins and assaults in prison held by isis. american ground forces have joined the fight to retake

control of a prison in northeast syria where islamic state fighters are holding hundreds of boys hostage. after four days of american airstrikes, the fight has become the biggest known american engagement with isis since the fall of its so-called caliphate three years ago. hundreds of islamic state fighters attacked the makeshift prison on friday in an effort to free their detained in recent years. that is from the new york times. orchard park, new york. let's hear from her but the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the purpose of my call is to criticize c-span and frankly the entire media, national media for giving the american people incorrect information about crime many a. -- as we know was the southern

portion of ukraine and the information from the media, including c-span is that the russians invaded. absolutely nothing truthful about that. the people of the crimea decided they wanted to align themselves with russia. 95% of the people in crimea voted to realign themselves with russia. this was observed by international observers and found it was very fair and objective election. this business about russia invading the crimea is absolutely false. i am disappointed at c-span and the national media for allowing

a falsehood to go out over the airways. host: art is next in odessa, texas on the democrats line. caller: we were warned about all this. eisenhower said do not get mixed up in industrial military conflicts. secretary blinken said, if you put him in the house, he is going to stay. that is what the last president did. also, what the republicans are saying, they are running away. i guess they don't care. we are going to do a hell of a job. whatever it takes, we are going to do it. i believe in to. i believe in the allies to the united states.

we should go forward with this. host: the state department yesterday was asked if european allies were on the same page as far as a russian attack on the ukraine. [video clip] >> we have heard from european allies, nato, geo, the european union, european council, you have heard the same message. if any russian forces move across the border, it will be met with a swift, severe and united response. on the part of the united states and on the part of our allies. there is no ambiguity about that. there is no ambiguity, there is no daylight. we know that and the russian federation knows that. >> there is quite a bit of

daylight. i am not going to entertain that story too long. can you shed light on what you guys want to achieve with this particular meeting? and then i am going to go on to the on paper. >> let me come back to your flippant remark. >> the president said there are differences of opinion. this is the such thing we have been experiencing. >> what you have heard from the president, what you have heard from the secretary, what you have heard from the national security advisor is that in the event of russian aggression against ukraine, there will be a response. it will be swift, it will be severe, in the event, it will be unprecedented in terms of the steps we are prepared to take. you can say that there is daylight, but i hope you also

take a look and listen to the statements that have emanated from european capitals. the statements that have emanated from nato, the united states, our allies standing next to secretary blinken, whether that was foreign minister bear box, other allies who we have met in recent weeks and over the past two months. one can claim there is daylight but certainly if you take a look at the volume and material that is prominently within the public record, i think that would provide --. host: comments on twitter, does anyone think germany is going to alienate its primary supplier of heating fuel at this time of year? we missed the moment ukraine is lost. let's not start a war for a

bolstering filling president. mary owen says i wouldn't pretend to be an expert of military science or strategy. let's go to springfield, illinois. this is the independent line. caller: my question is this, why didn't putin announced all of these troops around ukraine when was the president? why did he wait until biden was in the white house? host: what is your thinking on that? caller: my thinking is this: putin is doing what trump wants him to do and vice versa. nothing will change my mind on this. host: to houston, texas on the republican line, charlotte, hello there. caller: good morning. first of all, thank god for the

gentleman from new york. crimea was not taken by russia, it was voted to russia. let's correct that. all these it is that our calling and saying because of trump, get off of it. get off of it. get your brains together. this is ridiculous. we do not need any of this as a distraction. that is what it is, it is a distraction. putin just wants to stay away from his borders. i do not think the man is going to go and invade the ukraine. they hyped this all up and get everybody all excited, only to leave the people, if there should be a problem.

we are going to leave them stranded just like we do everywhere else. to the guy in new york, thank you. there are people out there who really do know the industry. host: charlotte, you have a great day as well. from the military times, we read you part of a piece on the 8500 troops that have been put on high alert. they are a part of the immediate response. they write further in that article that the irs first deployed to the middle east in 2020 after the attack on the u.s. embassy in iraq. it also deployed to afghanistan in 20 -- in august 2021. roughly 8500 troops to be activated to support the nato response force, a multinational, 40 thousand troops contingent tasked with responding to aggressive actions against nato countries. u.s. will not deploy its forces on the u.s. -- deploy its unless

the nrf is activated. quote -- the marine corps recently sent an eight marine team. that team based out of marine corps base quantico, virginia was first created in the wake of the attack 2020 -- 2012 attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi. back to your calls, this is mary on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i am calling about the russia aggression. russia is on ukraine's border in

addition to that about the aggression. i remember when russia went into yugoslavia 20 years ago. then russia went into iraq and that was russia. i remember when libya went in and turned it from the most rushed -- the most wealthy country in africa and they have open slave markets. nobody talked about that. that was president joe biden -- that was president obama.

russia went in and destroy those countries. i am just appalled at the situation. i don't know why in the world we would be supporting a government like that. thank you for allowing me. host: ok, to donna in butler, missouri. donna, hello. caller: i have a question. my question is, if russia goes to war with ukraine, why are we there to start with? why don't we let them work it out? i am afraid a lot of americans might get left behind there,

again. joe biden is not going to get everybody out. he did not get all of our americans out of afghanistan. could you answer the question for me? host: thanks for your call. alex is in maryland. good morning, alex. caller: the question on everybody's mind ever since last fall has been this build up of forces, is russia going to invade the ukraine. for the record, russia is not going to invade the ukraine. very simple, the end. host: alex, what makes you so confident? caller: my parents lived during the summers there. they are american citizens.

they have been living there for several years. and we were in ukraine while everything was happening. i also visited around that time, briefly, and recall, at the time , media hysteria was focused on a certain event that happened. this was very early in that year. it had been a few months after things sort of or slightly getting out of hand. during the time when crimea left

the ukraine and the annex by russia. russian troops were there but nobody lost their lives. the ukrainian military surrendered and left. when people saw that putin has authority from the russian government to deploy troops to the ukraine, people were freaking out. but, in that same year, a couple months later, -- authorization. we have nothing going on right now. he hasn't even asked. if we are going by anything, i am going by what the russians are saying.

the russians are saying we are not going to invade the ukraine. why can't we just believe people when they say they are not going to do something? host: is it a negotiating tool of vladimir putin? caller: it is nothing. this is, again, another thing they have been saying since the get go. who has the authority to dictate where military troops are put in your own country? why do use the united states have -- russia, you are not allowed to dictate to nato who can or cannot join. why don't they have the same reciprocal standards to them? russia has its own economy.

we can dictate to them but they cannot dictate to us. it is very nonsensical. host: their headline and humanitarian -- "humanitarian crisis deepens". afghanistan is in the midst of a worsening humanitarian crisis. most international assistance was cut off after the taliban took over in august. hospitals and schools cannot afford to pay their staff and many people cannot avoid -- cannot afford to buy food. adding to more rate, hunger and crisis. the last couple of months, since october 20 21, the deeper red shows people in an emergency space with hunger after -- 55%

of afghanistan's are set to face hunger. democrats line, you are next. caller: high there, sir. i was calling in to make a comparison regarding the russian encouragement into the ukraine. to me, as a history teacher, this seems familiar to the of germany. there was a vote in ukraine. i don't see how when people claim to be students of history, they leave out this convenient comparison. i don't really have anything else to say about it.

host: thanks for pointing that out. naples, florida, joe on the independent line. good morning. caller: what people fail to realize is, vladimir putin is the richest man in the world. he makes his money off oil. by moving those troops who are camped out somewhere else and russia to the ukraine border, he raised the price of oil and he made a few billion more dollars. biden is not going to do a darn thing because they can use all the business that has been done between this family and the russians and the ukrainians. he is not going to go in there. why? he is going to go in there to fill his pockets. host:

and delaney marsco discusses efforts to prohibit members and their families from trading individual stocks while in office. that is ahead. ♪ [sound of fireworks exploding] ♪ announcer: the tv, every sunday

on c-span2. it features authors discussing their latest books. at 2:00 p.m., david johnson discusses his book "there's no free lunch," arguing that the free enterprise system is being threatened by progressives and socialists. then barbara walter with her book, "how civil wars start," examining the warning signs that often precede civil wars. and asks, can another happen in the u.s.? watch book tv, every sunday on c-span2. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online, anytime at booktv.org. ♪ announcer: get c-span on the go, watch the biggest political events live or on demand any

time, anywhere, on our new mobile app, c-span now. listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts, also free. download c-span now today. ♪ announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: mark mills is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute, the author of “the cloud revolution”, how the convergence of new technologies will unleash the next economic boom. welcome to "washington journal." first of all, tell us about your work at the manhattan institute. what does the manhattan institute do and what is your role? guest: that is a good question. [laughter] it's one of the right of center think tanks. there are think takes -- tanks

on both sides of the aisle. they are places for scholarship and public policy rather than scholarship taught in the public space, so to speak. i research, right, think about and talk about technology and energy policy. i've worked in both of those fields and still do, so i am very much focused not only on computing and automation, but on energy. and the intersection of the two, not something many people spend time on. how you power robots and computers. host: yet, your work has caused you to reflect in this book, to compare this period we are entering in the 20 20's, you see potential for a revolution, an economic boom similar to the boom of the 1920's. guest: yes, it seems like a clever and obvious roaring 20's

sort of subtitle, just because the century has passed, but there is far more to the historic parallels than i think people realize. the more research i did for writing the book about what was going on in the 1920's and what led up to the 1920's, the clearer the rhythm of history became. you know that added, history does not repeat, it rhymes. that means that there are patterns. the 1920's as someone of the biggest booms in economic growth because of the confluence of three classes of technologies. information, radio and telephone. in materials, the dawn of the chemical agent per pharmaceutical's. and the machines, it was the dawn of practical automobiles and airplanes. we have the same thing going on today, a confluence of revolutions in the exact same

three spaces, materials, machines and automation. and the effect of that is to always increase productivity in the economy, not incrementally but with great steps. as an economist said, it is a phase change. water is still the same, but frozen, but ice is very different from water. that is a phase change. and economies that go through that change are very different. host: in your book, the point you just made, in the book you write specifically one of the epic confluence is of radical advances in three domains that enable all products and services that constitute modern society, information, materials and machines. the political system that allowed for the blossoming of those innovations -- that long boom was not the result of one big invention or one person.

i want to focus on that cultural and political system that allowed for the blossoming of those ideas, are we in a similar setting now? guest: well, yes and no. the classic hedged answer. yes, in the sense i think that america's fundamental culture, there is always the nuances and changes around the edges, is very much the same. it is risk-taking, entrepreneurial, and has been for a long time. that is what historians have written about. and what we worry about being suppressed in the current enthusiasm for industrial policy or state policy. governments tend to want to tell us out to get to a better future, it is the nature of governance and what people in politics do. the the flourishing we had for the last couple centuries came from risk-taking and free

spirits. there's guardrails, obviously, but we are at risk of suppressing that with overcontrol and overregulation. the idea that we can get a bright future by cherry picking the exact technologies we would like is naive, but that is the instinct. i worry that -- so the drift towards more central planning threatens our boom. and eye right in my book that we have to get the politics right, that is the debate we are having now. it is centered on climate and covid because those have heavy government involvement. host: outside of that, our role, our lives as those who have occupations that are changing every day because of the things you are writing about, information in particular, how d.c. the advance of the field -- how do you see the advance of

the field of information changing the work life of all of us in the next decade? guest: of course our jobs change every day, it's the predicate to what has changed because there are always things that are different. the most dangerous phrase is "this time it is different." that is similar to, "i'm from the government and i am here to help you." 60% of the kinds of jobs that existed in the 1960's do not exist today because of the change of technology, not because of government policies. yet we have underemployment, not unemployment. we have four more jobs than people are willing to work. if we had economic growth, there is always more jobs, it's the way history has been and will be. but the central thing that is really different in our time is the cloud, which is a loose definition. but the cloud is as different

from the internet as and the internet was different from telephone networks. everybody knows why the internet was different. most people we are talking with now remember a time before the internet, and the younger generation, gen z's, did live in a time pre-internet. so it is the infrastructure of our time. the cloud, to say how the cloud is different is easier if you describe everything people do. if you use a cloud for a map, if you want to walk or ride a bicycle, the kind of thing the cloud does for you is connect all kinds of information, your location, where you want to go, the weather, maps, and gives you advice. this is not just a communications function. they are computers doing calculations, but the difference is it is giving advice, it is using the internet and computers, but doing much more. airbnb gets advice.

if you shop, you get advice. that advice giving, which is made possible in the cloud because of the nature of the structure of supercomputing, and using all of these, you know, related to of information. if you think of that in terms of a series of things, it is not just asking questions to get a simple answer, but asking questions for advice. put that on steroids and apply it to any profession. if you are looking at somebody who is ill, you look at a constellation of symptoms, it is very useful to have a computing function, which we have named artificial intelligence, to provide advice. do you think about this? when you look at an x-ray, computer vision, which is not calculation, can remotely analyze it and point to something that you might have missed. humans are involved with machines that are giving advice

through a network that is the cloud. it is unprecedented in human history to have something like that available to everybody, not just the powerful people, an d have it growing at a rate that is unprecedented in history. host: we are talking with mark mills. his book is called “the cloud revolution." it's about automation and in the future of work. we welcome your calls and comments. the line is 202-748-8000. in the central and eastern time zones, 202-748-8001. you can also send us a text message, 202-748-8003. you said artificial intelligence was misnamed? what do you mean? guest: engineers have to name things. it's what you do.

humans are categorize there's. artificial intelligence is like calling a car an artificial horse, an airplane and artificial bird. it's obvious function overlap but they are profoundly different. the institute of electronic engineers gather to five years ago to come up with a better name, and they came up with the obvious name. the proper phrase is intelligent automation, reversing the letters. computers do not think like humans, they are not thinking machines despite the temptation ever since the dawn of the first computer to talk about thinking machines. and the fun we have with them is science-fiction. it is spooky to see how powerful machines are for many people. we have been spooked by powerful machines of all kinds. but once you reverse the two words, it allows you to --

well, let me use an example. a washing machine is an automated machine. you can call it a robot, but all of us know what we mean when we say a robot. intelligent automation allows the machine to not only look at what it is doing and adjust its behavior, but look at the environment around and also be reactive to needs related to the machine's functions, looking upstream and downstream, as well as communicate with the operator and other machines. host: go ahead. guest: but one super all those things in, it is obvious it is different from something you turn on and it finishes what it is doing. host: it does often feel, though, that the cloud is thinking. we think about our mobile devices, our maps, siri, alexa, that those are -- that there is

thinking going on before our perception of what that information is going to deliver is. is there a downside for our reliance, either in the workplace or in our personal lives, on for the use of this it be good as technology? -- ubiquitous technology? guest: there is always downsides. but let me amplify a little bit on what you said. the appearance of intelligence is more than an and parents. there is intelligence -- appearance. there's intelligence in the machine. when we design a toll, -- tool, to make it optimal. a hammer to fit our hand, it's a static form of design. we invent and we embed our ideas with how you want something to work. we to do it when we write code in having a machine operate.

so the perception that there is intelligence behind the machine, embedded in it, is absolutely true. what we think of as humans as intelligence is far more complex. but is there a downside? sure. i am not naive about what human beings do with machines and how they behave. human nature has not changed fundamentally through all of human history, because the same things we love, hate, care about, all the things related to beauty and temper, these are all human needs that have been the same since humans have been around that we know about, because the stories from 2000 years ago still resonate today because they are stories of how we feel and think. so, maybe the first machine, the sharpened stick to get food, they did bad things with. so there are downsides in the

sense of misuse of machines, specifically the debate we are having now about the dominance of the platforms of using cloud as a conduit, as a platform of news and free expression. to get that debate right is important, but it is getting the framework and agreement and obviously some forms of regulations right without stifling innovation. these are not easy things to do. it is the debate we are having now, obviously, about getting -- news. it is the debate we are having now, we have had for a long time , on whether machines help or hurt in education. most good teachers know that machines are amplifiers for teaching. every time there has been a new invention for recording, transmission, starting with the book or even the tablet, teachers have used them, but how humans teach others has been similar throughout history.

zooming for tutoring, that's something we are all familiar with now. bu the teacht -- but to teach children, not so good. so abusing it and overusing it, it is the same with all things. seemly the gaming. when people have free time and they play video games, it is no different than obsessing on anything. it creates a new form of potential addiction, yes. but it is not like these are not real risks in our civilization. but the nature of the news business, you know this better than i do, is -- and it is the nature of humanity, we often focus on the downsides because we worry about them. we write and argue about those things. host: let me ask about the changes we are seeing real-time. this headline is not unusual to

see, pandemic wave of automation may be bad news for workers. the need for social distancing has led restaurants an groceryd stores to seek technological help. it may improve productivity, but could also cost jobs. which industries are the most rapidly adapting to automation and the use of the cloud in the next five years or decade? guest: well, look at the headline. the advice giving industry, what we would call the pungent chrissy, has been -- pundi t-ocrisy has said that automation will people out of work. i disagree with the claims of that thesis. i think it is wrong. i think history shows it is wrong. we can already see it is wrong because where are we today? we are at a state of play where there are far more, millions

more jobs open than people able and willing to work. the gap is huge. and it is growing because we have demographics, the aging out -- we boomers are retiring. the retiring rate is accelerating. we have the great acceleration, if you like, of the covid lockdowns, where businesses are trying to figure out how to in the short-term stay open and function with fewer people, who are willing to show up and told they cannot show up. either social distance or they are afraid of being sick. that is temporary. the pandemic is passing. i will not render a medical judgment, except to say all pandemics pass, they do. the viruses -- we conquered them. it does not mean that there is no harm from them. i'm not began light of that. but we have an acceleration of

what was already happening, a movement towards underemployment. birthrates rates are down all over the world except in some emerging economies. they still have higher birth rates than developed economies. in short, we have a shortage of workers. and as the economy expands, we have a need for more products and services, which means we need more people or machines to perform the work. the bottom line is this -- the automation in the form that is useful, intelligent automation, and robots that are very useful are finally possible. and they could not come at a more important time. we really need them to fill the gap in the workforce. and this is the important point, they amplify, they do not just replace the labor force. they amplify functions of those who are willing to work. we probably have the most significant transformation now

starting with the entrance of far more robots, both virtual in the cloud, think automation, and physical, the hamburger flipping robot, cleaning robot or delivery robot. these technologies are not only theoretical, but they are emerging now after several decades of very difficult engineering work to make them good enough and cheap enough. we need them and they are arriving. this is a good thing. host: one follow-up. in the report that is 10 months old now, but relevant, they essay on the issue of job automation that blacks and hispanic workers account for 13% and 80% of the workforce, but are overrepresented -- 18% of the workforce, but are overrepresented in jobs with a high risk of being eliminated or

changed by automation. black workers are overrepresented in occupations a t risk. 11 of the 30 jobs that employ the most americans and are at high risk of being automated. guest: i would take that out of it. it's complicated. if you look at skill levels, and you ask, what do we automate first? this is been the troop that many have had, that the mechanical trades get automated first. and the people who have low skill levels lose their jobs first. there is some truth to that, but it actually has it backwards. what happens with intelligent automation is i make it possible for people with moderate skills to be upskilled. let me use siri and alexa. as these get better, these are called natural language

computing, it makes it possible for the average person to talk to the cloud, to talk to a computer to get advice, to have a skill they did not have before because most skills, other than mechanical skills, are knowledge related. if can get the knowledge, advice in real-time at the frontline of my job, i upskill my person in real time. if i have a shortage of people in the construction trade, which has low requirements for postsecondary education postsecondary education. those people who work there get paid more. and make them more productive by having robots work with them, collaborative robots. if automation allows me to pay more to these people who are willing to work in these trades that do not require a college degree, and make them more productive, which benefits the economy at large as people byproducts, cheaper products and cheaper services because they

are made more productively -- i think the trend that brookings is echoing, their general thesis i think has it upside down. host: we are talking with mark mills of the manhattan institute. his new book is “the cloud revolution” -- the convergence of new technologies will release an economic boom. welcome to those in the east and central time zone, 202-748-8000. and in the mountain and pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. roy in florida, you are on the air. caller: hello. i'd like to know what your guest thinks about the human creativity since the automation

is basically after the fact, after somebody thinks about something, desires something. maybe suggested to bloom and emily -- subliminally that they didn't have before from another human being. where does the information that the automation works with began? -- begin? guest: that is a good question interrelates t the point -- and it relates to the point i made earlier. it begins with humans. machines can look like they are being creative, sometimes. it's clever parlor tricks. the parlor tricks we used today are not much different from what we used in the middle ages to make automatons look real. there are good stories about robots an automatonsd and parlor

tricks. the point is an extremely important one. there's two aspects to it. humans are creative. creativity, we know, through the last 50 years of studying innovation and creativity is amplified by proximity. when humans work together in the same buildings, in offices, they are more creative on average. this does not knock on the solo genia smith, but on average -- solo genius myth. but on average, like the creative business of making machines and robots, inventing new drugs, people create when they are together. but machines allow the creativity to be amplified, because you can do the drudgery

faster and better. what you have, in effect, is instead of one assistant -- whatever the assistant is, whether it is a creative sculptor or a researcher in a lab, getting the drudgery done faster, better. obviously it accelerates and amplifies getting to your end point, but it trains creativity. television trains creativity. so does the internet. so did the advent of the radio, it changed that class of entertainment. this has been true with everything. machines are created by creative humans an amplify humansd in a virtual circle. not all humans. some do not choose to be creative because it is not in their dna, so to speak. but broadly speaking, uh, the magic that is hard -- this is

why artificial intelligence is a misnomer, the magic of how humans come to have a new idea is still poorly understood. host: you have defined the cloud. the book is “the cloud revolution” -- explain the metaverse. guest: it is hard to agree with the vision of renaming the company. what he's picking up on is a trend we already know israel. and -- is real. and the metaverse is using the cloud and the incredibly increasing power of the networks

to carry information into the devices at each end of the cloud, the devices we use and devices machines use, to do things in virtual or augmented reality. to define what we mean by the two things, obviously if you where these goggles that you have seen, you can immerse yourself in a virtual reality. if you go to a movie theater, watch in 3d, the movie is a virtual reality space, whether it is science fiction or just a drama. if we can make it even more immersive, that is virtual reality. augmented reality is, if you like information or something on top of what i am looking at. if i wear a pair of glasses and in the glasses, not goggles, but glasses at that people wear and

use microscopic projectors to overlay an image on my glasses or information. if i am a skier, you can tell me how fast i am going down the hill or my heart rate. if i am visiting the coliseum in rome, it can overlay a picture of what it looked like, that is augmented reality. it obviously affects gaming and shopping because you can shop in a virtual store. you can shop in games, which is a huge multibillion-dollar trend. but what is more interesting about it, i think, is what we are seeing going on in the big acquisition of microsoft of a gaming company, that they just had, yeah, they are already in gaming. what they buy are the technology skills to working augmented and virtual reality.

our ability to do artificial intelligence, or intelligent automation, was accelerated by the graphic processing. the gpu. it's a computer chip invented to help make games seem more realistic, how to render images more realistic. it turns out it is used for for automation, it does things that are visual. how is that relevant? ok, we already have all over the world several companies, a half-dozen now, that do what i would call both simulation on automation. if you are a pilot and you want to learn how to fly, you have to learn in a simulator. get you close to what a real airplane is like. when that was invented, it was invented 100 years ago in time for world war ii and it reduce

the fatality rate of those learning to fly by tenfold. that's difficult to do for daily life, but that is what virtual reality permits. and right now, you can take virtual reality or an augmented version of images or x-rays of view, and practice in advance of doing a surgery on you, surgery on your virtual being, so they can look at something complex and think about how to navigate a difficult surgery in a simulator, in virtual reality first. does that help? of course it is helpful and meaningful. it has to get cheap and easy to be useful, and we see that already happening. this is true in construction trades. if you are ability an airplane or -- if you are building an airplane or a car, many people in those trades, you get to a complicated point of where do i put x or y, you go back to

the blueprint. it can be projected in augmented reality on of the thing you are looking at to help advise you on how to build something better in the right way, so the blueprint comes to you in an augmented reality space. the advent of useful, delivered at the frontlines of of the employee, the worker and educator, virtual augmented reality, especially augmented reality, by the way, augmenting what i am seeing, this is as big of a shift in what is possible in sharing three dimensional visual information, it's as big a shift as what is possible in daily life as going from physical mail to email. it is a phase change of and that is consequential. and it is the beginning, because it is just now possible to make these things useful. and they are not that good yet.

think about the zoom everybody uses. it would be nicer if it was holographic, three dimensional, and it could be in a space with you like we were sitting across the table at each other. it's doable. we do not have to be science fiction to think about it. host: we have several calls for you. michael m baltimore, good morning. -- in baltimore, good morning. caller: i am a huge fan of the show. automated intelligence -- what i am seeing is supply chain disruptions as a consumer. i live in the city and i can tell you that it seems to be real, there's fewer items across the board. one, what do you see happening from a supply chain disruption standpoint and how does automated intelligence fix that?

my last question, i was reading an article about how some of the battle in ukraine and russia has to do with the disruption of their supply chain. that's my three-part question. thanks for taking my call. guest: a great example of where intelligent automation, as well as the metaverse or augmented reality, are going to be profoundly helpful. the logistics of supply chains have existed for all of supply chains' history. alexander the great was famous for his ability of have a supply chain for his armies. they are complex, extremely difficult to get visibility on, because of their complexity. and as soon as you describe how a product gets to a shelf and you go upstream on the modes of transportation involved, and all of the different ownerships, the

places and they have to be, and you keep going back up to the food processors, the farms for the food, the packaging companies, it is complex. that complexity is very difficult to deal with with computing, until now. it has been difficult to get visibility on without the kind of communication networks we have now that are robust and low cost. and without sensors you can put on things. you cannot put a $1000 sensor on a $500 product. you cannot put a $100 sensor on a $10 product. they have to get cheap, and they have. but we have the fastest growing place we are finding intelligent automation and robotics right now is in the logistics industry, the supply chain industry. it's a $10 billion revenue industry, the businesses that do intelligent automation, with physical robots and a.i., the

bad word, into warehouses and to supply chains -- it's a $10 billion business globally. it will be a $30 billion business in about four or five years. a $100 billion business in about 10 years. so, you are on the front lines, you want to know where your stuff is. you want advice about, what are my alternatives to get that stuff or something like it in real time now, much like a mapping, but doing that in the supply chain is self-evidently profoundly more complex. which is exactly what you conquer with supercomputing and the cloud. host: david in kentucky, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks you for taking my call. i just want to say, all the people who gathered up in these labs and everything, they have

to get their knowledge from god. that is what i believe in. and it is worldwide. and i do agree that automation has many jobs now. you go to walmart there and you see the self checkout there. and it takes the place of eight to 10 workers. you go to write a check, and we do checks, you have to wait in line and it will be backed up to the clothing department. the only point i wanted to make is all these, including yourself there, you had to get that knowledge from god. steve jobs, when he would come

up with something with apple, he went off to a place, you know, by himself. and no doubt that he tried to get in contact with a higher power to give him the knowledge to do these things. host: david from kentucky. any thoughts? guest: let mean pick up and amplify one thing, it gets us back to the creativity, what is intelligence, what are humans? one of the challenging parts about humanity is simplistically thinking that brains are like computers. how do we think? how do we create? what goes on in the brain, we know more than we used to know about it, but most computer scientists are honest about

this, and there's some terrific writing about this by the godfather of computer science, will tell you in no uncertain terms that we really have no idea how the brain works and how we create. we have better ideas, but we are ignorant about that. it's one of the fascinating things about studying computers is the desire to make neuro-more for computers that emulate how neurons function. we know a lot about it, but it is very much -- science. and there are a great deal of challenges trying to figure out what is consciousness, what are things like morality, and pretending we can and boom rowdy in a machine is sort of an audit thing because we make the machines, so the morality a machine will have is coming from us. we imbue them with their capabilities.

i get where he is coming from. the warmer example is a great one. walmart, like all of these businesses, are in a talent war for the same people that can drive trucks, work in warehouses, work at disney world. there is a shortage of people willing to do that, so you have to pay them more. it is a good thing. as the automation gets better, the lines will get shorter. and those people will be paid a lot more. that is already starting. wages are up this year and we have a lot more automation going into it. but it does not have been flipping a switch, like tomorrow the lines will be gone. it will feel like it happened overnight in the future, but right now it is frustrating. host: we are talking about the automation of the future with mark mills. his new book is “the cloud revolution” -- how a convergence of new technologies will unleash the next economic boom in a rory

and 2020's. -- roaring 20 20's. 20's. wilhelm in missouri, you are next. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i have an -- made in germany. i also have a bowl that says made in china. host: to rich in marion, ohio. you are on. caller: great questions. and great trying to understand this automation. one question, who gets paid when these great inventions are made? we know that the guy who invented the tv, he did a great job as we can tell where the invention was, but there is a

gap between who invented something and who gets paid. it gets to be a real question. who are the winners and losers as these things come along, which is also an important question. one of the current problems we have, not the top gun teams going after problems and using things to date. an example was that traffic jam 24 hours on the highway. someone had at the right idea on how to break it summer. we took snowmobilers and we went out to help people in the traffic jam with food. the important thing is not there, the important thing is getting the intelligence on the problem. like in a football play, how can we get firemen using their brains to give good suggestions that know how to handle that stuff. host: that is an excellent

point. we have not touched on that. guest: those are three great points. who makes money from a great idea is one of these classic challenges in business and in civil human rights. i will note the idea or intellectual property protection is in the constitution. this is unique in the world. our founding fathers thought about that point. and we have a lot of legal --. america is a unique place, and the world followed a lot of these patent provisions here. so, often the inventor benefits, but sometimes they don't. when i was in my early career, i assigned the rights to cottons over to the company i worked for. and the prophets went to the company -- profits went to the

company. an interesting question. your point about getting intelligence to the front lines, to rescue workers, to the firefighters, this is what is really interesting about the revolution. instead of, to put it is simplistically, assumed that a computer tells you something about a fire. it's not useful to have a computer tell me something about how the fire propagated leader, like 10 years later or five months later or even five minutes later, i do not want it in hindsight, i want it in real time. that is hard to do. i do not want to have to go to the computer room. remember, some of you remember that you got to a computer by going to its room. you had to go to the computer. and you had to bring it your questions and then go home with answers. we do not do that anymore, the computers come to us through the devices we carry and wear, and

they can do things in real time. a rescue worker or firefighter can get information about what is going on in real time from sensors, analysis by the cloud to predict where the fire might be going, give advice. the advice could be right or wrong, but at least it is telling the firefighter on the front lines in real time. so this change in the cloud structure that allows creativity -- connectivity from both ends of the network, the information gathered to the information they need now, to the person doing the rescue or the work, and not just connecting them but doing something analytic, like giving advice, looking at patterns and saying in the past, this is what happened. this is probably what will happen given the weather conditions today and given where you are, because i know where you are because you are julie katie -- geo-locating with the gps.

we take this for granted, but the question you would ask is how can i make that useful on the front lines. that is what we are starting to do. it has been extraordinarily difficult to make those things useful, the graphical user interface or the kinds of relationship we have with a machine and us, how it can tell me something useful so i can see it in real time. it is difficult engineering. it's largely conquered and now moving into real use for rescue workers and for everyday people. host: question from ross, he asks, is the cloud more or less like an extra brain, except you have allowed all others to see what you have been thinking about? guest: [laughter] allow all others to see some of the things i have been thinking about because human beings do

not have to choose to impart knowledge into the machine not have to choose to impart knowledge into the machine. -- h.g. wells wrote a book called world brain. he imagined a central system that could have knowledge that we could access anytime, anywhere on the planet in order to upskill everybody. he thought it would be great for humanity. he was a self-professed socialist and he thought it would be great for the common man. and he was right. like so many other things he imagined, he was far too early in his imagination for what was possible. it to this entry to get there, but that is where we are, a world brain. host: in connecticut, go i had. -- ahead. caller: thank you. i work at cvs, and i know that people have problems with the automated checkout.

it's automation, not quite sophisticated, but it is automation. for me, i like -- i like paper letters. is they're going to be a backlash to automation, some type of nostalgia for the past before automation, like having a person wait on you? do you see a backlash for that or how do you see that is going to affect future work? guest: that is a great question because you put your finger on two things that are very important about automation working with people. because like i said earlier, human beings are largely the same in what we like. we like to talk to people. sometimes we don't, but by and large human beings are very social, so your example about the automated checkout is a really good example of automation that is not good enough yet.

one thing we can complain about is how annoying it is to use the television remote. we want processing that we can talk to, advice, what it can tell me. technology has gone better, but it is not enough. when it is not enough, you do get backlash. the consumers do not like it, the employees do not like it and it makes working less productive, which means less profitable. as you introduce two things -- you introduce things to early, they are not good enough, and it causes a backlash. it causes people to be more reluctant. so the other point you are making is the application of automation in a way that is intelligent, we will call it the intelligent application of automation. there's a lot of places where it

is better done by a person, not just because they are better at the task than the robot could be. they really are better. if there are enough people, you sort of force. but you think about what is your customer wants. do they want to talk to people? one of the most frustrating things that shoppers have, if they want help with a product that does not work, is you cannot get a person to talk to. so the trick is to recognize when and where that person needs help to get to a human being. often the question can be answered quickly. so a lot of these so-called natural language bots, when you call and you get what is obviously a computer asking you a question to sort out what you need, that's still clunky. clunkier than the checkout at cvs. but it is getting better very

fast now. i think we will see is useful intelligent application of intelligent automation, which will make your life easier at cvs, because you will have fewer frustrated customers. and the productivity that it will bring will allow cvs to rai se the wages of employees. but these are tough transitions. it has always been tough, because it is not obvious in advance on how you should use a new tool. it might seem obvious, but it is not always obvious. host: john in illinois, good morning. caller: i'm a 72-year-old retired maintenance electrician. i started in basic steel on the south side of chicago and i ende

d my career with one of the big three automakers, so i saw automation come in from the cpu's in basic steel, developing, developing and developing. i laugh with my wife. i said we will have to become a country of leisure. can you comment on my view. i have a planning perspective on it because i worked my tail off for years and there are so many robots in the auto factories now it's not even funny. guest: john has lived through the two industries the automated earliest and first, steel and automobiles. the very first robot we would call the robot was a one armed robot for welding installed in a

gm factory in 1961, and in lordstown, ohio they had automated robots, the first, in 1967 and it doubled the product coming out of the factory. he is right, it is easier to automate car making because you are making an identical thing over and over. s automationo came there first and fastest. and steelmaking is the same thing. so what we had over history is the fight over who loses, who gets paid, they are nontrivial. and they get results over time in the free market, but the transitions are hard. it creates something very important, and john put his finger on it, the increase of leisure. there was a time in history where people had very little leisure. almost all human history has most people having most of their

time doing things to survive. 80% of economies were planned on getting food and fuel. leisure is not available to lots of people. that is a good thing. there it is far more leisure in the world, hence the huge entertainment industry. it is a , and travel industry. it is bigger. and even bigger than the industry that provides food.that is what you want to happen . does everybody use their leisure wisely? no. but i do not want my government to tell me how to use my leisure. and i do not want the government to tell me where i can work. so the expansion of leisure is one of the great benefits on the expansion of education. or one of the great benefits of increasing productivity from machines and automation. host: our caller from the auto

industry, one of the challenges is the shortage of microchips for the computers in the cars. i will play comments from president biden on the chip shortage and get your thoughts on his thoughts on the shortage and how they can handle it. [video clip] president biden: america invented these chips. and federal research and development lead to the creation of these chips. taxpayer dollars, these chips helped to power nasa. we brought down the cost of making chips in the entire industry. and as a result, over 30 years ago america had 40% of the global production. but since that time, something happened.american manufacturing , the backbone of our economy got hollowed out. companies moved to production overseas. decades ago, we used to invest

2% of our gross domestic product in research and development. we invested 2%, decades ago, of our gross domestic product in pure research and development. today, it is down to 1%. we were ranked number one in the world on research and development, but guess what? now we rank number nine. china was number eight in the world three decades ago, now they are at number two. host: the relationship of government research and a moment and at the chip shortage, your thoughts? guest: i have some of that in my book. this is a big area of debate that we are in. and and has been for a long time. people through most of history did not think science was useful. so why does that exist as oppose how do i build an airplane?

i would say that first, the president is right, america did an event the microprocessor. the government did not invent it, but the government had a role. the nature of that role is what the debate is about. so it was not a politician who said let's invent the transistor or microprocessor. let's invent until. -- intel. but the government had a role, especially with the science and education. so i do have respect for the president's implication that the government created the industry. we, so far as the manufacturing of microprocessors moving offshore, two things -- first, this is normal because it becomes easier for others to do the hard thing, it starts blooming. it's become easier to do the difficult thing of manufacturing

other countries got good at it, started to do it as well. that is normal. and it expands the pool of creativity, doing that thing. the bad part is the artificial loss of jobs due to this thing here. i have written about this frequently at the institute. eileen in the camp that points out that the government has played the dominant role of driving a lot of manufacturing out of america. by that, i mean the kinds of excessive regulation, punitive taxes we impose on industries from mining to manufacturing, have forced businesses to open elsewhere where they have had more friendly environments or, frankly when it comes to mining, environments where there

are virtually no regulations, which is not good, like mines in siberia and russia. we have lost some of our manufacturing capacity because governments have been overenthusiastic about telling businesses how to operate, we have become punitive in our regulatory and tax behaviors. also, because of natural erosion. i cover in my book what i think the next revolution is. we do not want to lose sight of the fact that the microprocessors that exist today that the chinese are manufacturing our yesterdays inventions. today's inventions, here, we are starting to currently manufacture here, and we should put in place policies to ensure expansions of new technologies, from robotics to biocompatible sensors that health health care -- help health care, are here. the metaverse, if you like. host: mark mills, and his newest book, how the convergence of new technologies will release the latest economic boom and the roaring 20 20's. mark mills, thank you for being

here today. coming up, we will be joined by campaign legal center's delaney marsco, who will talk about efforts to prohibit members of congress and their families from trading in individual stocks while they are in office. your calls ahead as well. ♪ >> recorded conversations while in office. here many of these conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries new, because they were tasked with

transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they made sure many of the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and bears. >> -- his office and t heirs. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i will not go anywhere, i will just stay right here. >> presidential recordings, on the c-span now mobile app and wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ >> sunday, february 6, georgetown university law professor cheryl gatz will be our guest. -- cheryl cashin will be

our guest. join in for sheryll cashin on book tv, on c-span two. washington journal continues. host: delaney marsco joins us, senior legal counsel with the campaign legal center, here with us this morning on washington journal to talk about the trading of stocks by congress and their families, and also the effort to update the stock act. delaney marsco, welcome to the program. guest: it's nice to be here. host: let's take a look at this, the bill that was passed, the original stock act was passed in 2012 and signed by president obama. this bill as stands would outlaw insider trading by members of congress and their staff. it would mandate increased

levels -- it does mandate increased levels of transparency and reporting, and would ban officials from are dissipating an initial public offerings, those ipos. what's behind the efforts to update these laws? is the law not currently working? guest: the major high point of the stock act right now, we have a system with the stock act and members from insider trading that require them to disclose periodic transaction reports, that they have to disclose their stock trades within 45 days of making a transaction. what we have seen over the past 10 years as far as what has been on the books, not only is that not really being enforced, but it is not enough. on the enforcement side, insider trading has a very high bar.

there has to be material, nonpublic information, and there has to be a stock trade that has a nexus to that material nonpublic information. that's very hard to prove and it's especially hard with members of congress, because they have constitutional protections surrounding their communications. so it makes it challenging for investigators to find instances of insider trading. that's one enforcement problem. and members of congress are not always filing those disclosures on time or completely, which is a huge problem because the reason we have those disclosures is because the public has a right to know, that members of congress are acting in the public's interest and not their own personal finances. delays in that reporting or incomplete reporting mean the public does not have the information they have a right to. host: so is there a specific

committee in the house and senate that focuses on making sure that members financial trades and financial interests are in order and in line with what the stock act and other congressional, other laws stipulate? guest: in the house we have the office of congressional ethics, an independent, investigatory body, and they have an authority to investigate violations. as long as it is not a criminal violation that would be taken over by the department of justice, violations go to the house committee on ethics for final resolution. there is an element of self policing in the house. in the senate, there is no independent investigatory body. it is totally self policed. we have really seen that it is not a system that works, we do not have a ton of enforcement, and we do not have a way to

prevent other types of conflict of interest that fall short of insider trading. there is no other law on the books that will prevent members from congress -- members of congress from having other types of relationships with interest to their stock trading. host: does the current stock act apply to the families of members? guest: yes. it does apply to spouses and dependent children. for purposes of financial interests, we think of members as the same household -- of the same household as having the same financial interests. host: was it known early on after the passage of the 2012 bill, the signing of that bill that there was still sort of a gaping flaw in terms of its enforcement? guest: no, i think it is something we have seen a lot more recently. we have witnessed disclosure, which is so important, the stock

act disclosure. we have had more information about member of congress -- members of congress' financial interests. but with that increased disclosure and public scrutiny on what congress members are trading and win, we realize the stock act is not enough to prevent the other conflicts of interests. think about the member of the energy committee as being able to buy and sell stocks in electric vehicles or coal, oil and gas. that's currently allowed under current law. that's something that's really coming to the forefront in recent years and is front of mind in the public view. it is not a good way to secure the public's trust. host: delaney marsco is our guest, with the campaign legal

center. she is senior legal counsel. we are looking at the effort to update the stock act. we welcome your comments and calls at (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans, it's (202) 748-8001. for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. tell us about your organization, the campaign legal center. what is your organization's mission. guest: we are a nonprofit that works to advance democracy through law, and we are nonpartisan. our commitment is to the voters, protecting their voice in the democratic process, regardless of political party. we work across core issue areas, including campaign finance and government ethics, which is what i do. guest: i want to play the comments of speaker of the house nancy pelosi, who came out in support of revising the stock act, after initially resisting

some change to it. here are her comments and what do you have to say about the speakers thoughts? [video clip] >> i do come down always in favor of trusting our members. if the impression is given that someone is doing insider trading, that is a justice department issue. that is a justice department issue and has no place in any of this. but to give a blanket attitude of, we can't do this and we can't do that because we can't be trusted, i don't buy into that. if members want to do that, i am ok with it. i would add -- and this is the last thing i am going to say on this at this meeting -- i would add, do you know that the supreme court -- we in the house have disclosures and in congress we have disclosures, and we have the stock act, which says, if you sell a stock, you have to report it within next number of

days. if not, there is a penalty. should those penalties be greater subject to review? whatever it is, if there is a penalty, there should be -- it should be more severe. but the united states supreme court, where decisions are made all the time that affect our environment, our workforce, our personal freedoms, every subject you can name at the mercy of the court, economic issues and the rest, no disclosure whatsoever and certainly no stock act. host: delaney marsco, does it sound to you like fixing the stock act is a priority of speaker pelosi? guest: well, it sounds like -- there are some issues with the

courts not having enough disclosure, that is a sound point there. there has been bipartisan support for reforming the way members of congress trade individual stocks. we have people as liberal as senator jon ossoff and as conservative as senator hawley on board with restricting members of congress from trading stock. it's a very popular type of reform and the fact that people are worried about corruption in government surrounding stock trading is a huge problem, and it is not just a problem for the department of justice. it is critical that we have trust in our government. we should not be left to wonder if members of congress who have a lot of power and a lot of influence and a lot of access to sensitive information are using that power and that access for

their own personal bottom-line. we should be trusting that they are acting in the public's best interest. voters have a right to know that. the fact that people on tiktok are following members of congress' trades for their own portfolios, because they think lawmakers have inside information that the rest of us stones, that is a huge problem. that is a problem of public trust. a really good way to fix that is to restrict members from being able to trade individual stocks and play the stock market while they pick winners and losers in the market legislation and all the other work that they do. i think there is a crucial need for reform right now, and it has bipartisan support. host: on that bipartisan support, the headline from axios, they call -- lawmakers

call on the debate on stock trading to be brought to the floor. that included representative to leav -- representative talib from michigan and representative gaetz from florida. our first caller, go ahead. caller: trump and his body got away with it, so what do we expect? governors of the federal reserve have been accused of profiting from insider-trading. what we see, when subpoenas are handed out in an attempt at oversight, they are just given the finger and ignored. so really, it is a downward spiral in our present situation. host: ok, addressing the broader

issues of conflict of interest in government. guest: i think that is a good way to look at the current problem, and a good way to see why reform right now is so necessary. during the trump administration, there were a lot of conflict of interest -- conflicts of interest from cabinet level officials on down for political appointees. we did see the tone from the very top, president trump not being very respectful of ethics laws, like the hatch act, not divesting his financial interests for entering office, which was customary. i think what you see with that is a degradation of public trust. that is why this reform is so necessary. it has bipartisan support, it is very popular, and would do a lot

to us weighed some of those -- to assuade those concerns that people in government are not acting in our best interests. there are simple and very popular fixes, and this is one of them. host: let's go to raymond in burlington, vermont. welcome. caller: hello, i have a question here. a lot of these congressmen have portfolio managers that make decisions in the best interest of the congressman or whoever is holding that account. how do you enforce it when the congressman will say, i did not make this decision? this hedge fund made the decision or the portfolio manager made the decision? a lot of these people are too busy to do individual trading on their own. my second question i have, how do you avoid having this used as

a political weapon by one party against another party? my third question, how is this different from what happens to martha stewart a few years ago? guest: so i think the first question was about how we enforce it when members of congress have portfolio managers, people who do the actual stock trading for them. it's a good question. we see that excuse a lot come up when members of congress are late to file their reports, they do not file within the 45 day window of the stock trade, and there is a 30 day window of getting notified of a trade. that part of the law contemplates that members of congress might have financial advisors who would tell them oh, in your portfolio i sold x stock, you have to report that.

the law does contemplate that numbers of congress have financial advisors, but the law applies regardless of whether or not you have a financial advisor. you are still required to know what is in your portfolio, if you have a brokerage account, you are required as a member of congress because you have that duty to the public, you have a responsibility to know when stocks are being traded and what those stocks are. if we can't trust that members of congress are going to know that or report their trades on time, it seems most prudent to take that out of the equation, take the individual stocks, trading out of the equation and require those stocks to be in some other financial vehicle that doesn't give them or their financial advisors, who you are right, are acting in the

members' best interest, not the public best interest, take it out of their hands entirely. i do not know if i remember the second and third question -- host: he asked about the act being used as a political tool, one candidate against another, if the stock act is upgraded or revised. is that a potential downside to this? guest: i don't think so. at campaign legal center last year, we filed 13 complaints against members of congress for violations of the stock act. we filed complaints against seven republicans and five democrats. folks from all political strikes are violating -- political stripes are violating the stock act, so this does not target any political party, any member of congress. it is trying to tackle a big problem that is happening across

the board by members of congress from all political stripes. i don't think anyone would accuse folks trying to pass these bills as political targeting. host: and there was a third point of martha stewart, she was convicted of insider trading if teen or more years ago and served -- 15 or more years ago and serve some time in jail for that. guest: i am not super familiar with that case, so i don't think i should comment. host: how does the campaign legal center decide to take an action against a member of congress for insider-trading? how do you find out about it, first of all, then what do you do? guest: we haven't identified any instances of insider trading, but -- host: yeah, i understand. guest: that's one of the good

things about these disclosures, we have the information. we understand when members of congress are filing late or have egregious late filings that it looks like that late filing was intentional. that's really where the problems come in, where it's really hard to tell if this was simply an oversight, oh, i missed this date for filing for some reason, but otherwise, i always file my periodic transactions for some time, or maybe there was something going on under the surface, they did not want to report this transaction for some reason. but the fact that we have to ask those questions and wonder about that and piece together what the motive of the trades might be really hits home the necessity for reform. we should not have to be trying to wonder what the intentions were behind the specific stock

trade, whether they were tied to a committee hearing or something else. we would really love to see some restrictions on individual stock trading, so we do not have to file as many complaints. host: let's hear from michael in plainfield, illinois, independent line. caller: hi, good morning. first of all, i think the young lady here, your organization is closing the barn door after the horse has run out. reporting on their spac trades is not a problem, as far as i am concerned, because they are all, every member of congress, they are guilty. they are criminals. how is it that joe biden spent his whole life in congress and when he was running for president, he said oh, i was a poor person from whatever, philadelphia, or wherever he came from. now he is a multimillionaire.

i voted for trump in 2016. i knew after he was in that he was a crook, but all of these people are crooks and they steal from us. it's all insider trading. what we have to have is term limits -- they serve one term and then they should be let out and they should be held criminally liable for the rest of their lives for anything they ever did wrong while they were in office. that's the only way to cure this, because the country is already gone. host: delaney marsco, the similar view in this tweet says this -- if we pass this law, we won't need term limits. they won't hang around washington if they couldn't get rich. your thoughts on the call and comment? guest: i would like to say members of congress aren't criminals, i'm not saying that

at all -- but there is a perception in washington that there is little public trust. we need the public trust that the government is working in the people's best interests and not the end of -- not the interests of the lawmakers' bottom line, their wallets. we should be able to trust as voters, members of the public, that there is not corruption going on, that however that influences being used -- influence is being used makes our lives better. the problems with individual stock trading with members of congress, we are seeing those conflicts of interest, but again and again and the members of congress not following the laws.

it's a critical time to secure the public's trust. host: let's go to gordon, georgia. tell us your name? go ahead. caller: darrell here. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: when they come to congress, they get above inflation, stockpicking issues, can plane financing issue -- campaign financing issues. we need to put some kind of term limits on to clear out the whole congress and get better ideals with young people, better ideals. i am young myself. this has been an issue my whole life with politics. i am only 38 years old. guest: you know, i think we as voters should trust ourselves to elect the leaders that we want

to elect, and make sure our voices are heard in the democratic process. once those folks get elected, we need to hold them accountable, their promise that they will use their power for the public good. i think there is a problem right now where members of the public are very skeptical of their leaders, and that doesn't have to be that way. there are reforms we can implement that will help some of this trust that has been eroded be restored. i think congressional stock trading is a huge gap we need to fill, and one way we can do that is by restricting members of congress from trading individual stocks so members of the public

don't have to think there is corruption going on, they are lining their own pockets and they are stealing from us. there are simple reforms that can go a long way. host: the caller from georgia mentioned campaign finance. have you seen egregious cases where members have traded stocks of companies that have supported their campaigns? guest: we haven't looked into that specific issue, but we have certainly seen members of congress buying and selling stocks in industries that they oversee. there was a lot of high-profile coverage of senator manchin's trades or assets in fossil fuels while he is kind of overseeing climate change policy.

it's one of those things we see very often and conflict of interest is a huge problem. host: let's go to david in gaithersburg, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think you mentioned your legal center where you are at, earlier, and it made me wonder -- sorry if you said this at the top, but the scope of your work? c-span had a guest on recently that kind of explained that the house stopped expanding at one point, and it made me wonder about the scope of action that people can bring in courts against members of congress? i hear a lot of people calling about term limits. if it is not at your legal center, can you talk about resources for people who are interested in learning more about those kinds of actions broadly? guest: sure. so in terms of bringing a case against a member of congress, i am not entirely sure what that might look like.

at campaign legal center, we are a congressional watchdog. we gather as much information as we can about the finances of members of congress, the stock trades they are making, and we determine whether or not there might be illegal violation there. then, we file complaints with the house, the office of congressional ethics, and with the senate ethics committee and try and get a resolution through those channels. i do not know if there is a way to bring an action against a member of congress or what that might look like, but that's how we approach it. host: in the stock act itself would be enforced by the justice department, in the legal sense? guest: yes, insider trading violations would be enforced by the department of justice. host: one more caller, jeff.

caller: i wanted to comment on the previous caller, and the caller before him. i definitely believe that term limits are one solution. another thing, i want the american people to know collectively that no matter what it looks like, we as a country, as a people, can change things. we are the final voice in all of this and we know there is corruption going on. we know there are things happening that are happening without our knowledge, because we are not that close. but we know things are happening. what disturbs me is when somebody is caught doing something, how long the legal process happens in order to get them convicted or whatever it is

-- it seems like it is a long, drawn out process. that is the part that disturbs me, one of the parts that disturbs me in all of this. host: thanks, jeff. delaney marsco? guest: yeah, you really hit on something that is super important there, the voters do have the power. this is a really popular reform, it's something voters are concerned about, corruption in congress, and voters have a right to know that members of congress are using their power and influence for the public interest, not their own personal financial interest. in order to kind of protect that trust, we need to restrict members of congress from trading individual stocks. simple reform could go a very long way. host: and focusing on congress,

are there similar restrictions in place for the executive branch, members of the administration? guest: yep. members of the executive branch are bound by the stock act, they cannot trade using public information they get during the course of their duties, and they have to disclose their stock trades. they also have more robust conflicts of interest laws and rules than the legislative branch, so members of the executive branch are required to recuse from any particular matter that would affect their financial interests. there is a much stronger conflict of interest protection there. host: delaney marsco, senior legal counsel with the campaign legal center. thank you for joining us on washington journal. guest: thanks so much for having me. host: it will be open forum, coming up next on the program. your chance to weigh in on public policy or political news of the day you are following.

the lines to use are (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and for independence and all others, (202) 748-8002. start dialing in and we will speak to you in a moment. ♪ >> weekends on c-span two are an intellectual feast. every saturday, you will find events and people that explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sundays, but tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors, television for serious readers. learn, explore, discover, every weekend on c-span two.

c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest from the nation's capital. every week, book notes plus has in death interviews with writers -- in-depth interviews with writers. and our occasional series, talking with, it features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them on the c-span now mobile app or rubber you get your podcasts. -- wherever you get your podcasts. washington journal continues. host: it's open forum until 10:00 eastern, the u.s. house coming in briefly for a pro forma session at 10:00. we welcome your calls on political, foreign, public policy issues of the day. the line for democrats, (202)

748-8000. (202) 748-8001, the line for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. it was a hot mike moment, or a kerfuffle, they might call it. biden has harsh words for fox news reporters. this might not have been what they meant -- in a hot mic moment that may enter the annals of presidential insults, president biden directed an under the breath expletive on monday towards peter doocy, the white house correspondent for fox news, that was amplified by a live microphone. mr. ducey called out a question

-- do you think inflation is a political liability and the midterms? mr. biden's patience was low and the volume was up, and you can see for yourself. [video clip] >> we will talk about it later. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> that's a great asset. more inflation. what a stupid son of a bitch. host: the president at the white house. later, the president called peter doocy to apologize. he was on fox news last night. here is a look at that. [video clip] >> within about an hour of that

exchange, he called my cell phone and said, it's nothing personal, pal. we went back and forth and were talking about -- just moving forward -- and i made sure to tell him, i am always going to make sure to try to ask something different than what everybody else is asking. he said, you've got to. that's a quote for the president, so i will keep doing it. >> i want to be your negotiator here, and i want to negotiate a 20 minute sit down with you and biden one-on-one. i am a christian, i believe in forgiveness -- ok, did he apologize? >> he cleared the air. i appreciate it. we had a nice talk. >> he -- that doesn't sound like an apology -- >> he cleared the air.

but the world is on the brink of world war iii right now with other stuff going on. i appreciate the president took a couple of minutes out of his evening while he was going a -- going to bed to call me. you know what? i don't need anybody to apologize to me. he can call me whatever he wants as long as it gets him talking. host: peter doocy last night with sean hannity, after the insult aired yesterday by president biden. your comments, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002. first up is gary, in east brunswick, new jersey. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span, for what you do for the american people. you are giving me a birthday present. i am going to be 84 years old. host: great. caller: my concern is that the

democrats, democratic leaders have promised medicare [inaudible] the president gave an address to the american public that the manufacturers should ring down the prices and medicare should cover hearing aids. i got one from embrace hearing, with a dr. of audiology. it's an online program, i don't have a computer, so i went to the library. i got one for $2800. the western economies of europe provide help for people with social medicine. there was an editorial in the wall street journal -- biden hears people's concerns. i'm getting this for $2600 on care credit from embrace hearing

in new jersey. host: ok, gary, and happy birthday next week. wichita, kansas, next up is lynn on the republican line. caller: good morning. back to doocy -- if trump said that about a reporter, can you imagine how the liberals would be over that? every media would be covering that. we barely heard about it. also, for biden to go off and say nothing personal, powell? -- nothing personal, pal? that's kind of demeaning. i have something to say to biden -- it is personal, pal. host: the democrat line -- mary, welcome. caller: yes, thank you. i'm calling in reference to term limits. biden made a lot of money -- well, our senator, roy blunt, started out as a high school teacher.

now he has a couple million dollar homes and he is ready to leave, -- leave congress. term limits might help, but another thing that has increased in the 20, past 20 years since george bush, lobbyists. take a look at the congressmen and women whose families are lobbyists. that's another huge problem in this country. the amount of lobbyists and the amount of congressional people, their wives, their children, they are all lobbying for places. along with watching how they inside trade, people should watch how they respond to lobbyists. host: politico writing this morning about the amount of money in the 2020 two congressional campaign. senate map is awash in cash for millionaires.

there is a spending spree unrivaled by any election cycle in history. in ohio, where a handful of millionaires are chasing the gop nomination, two senate hope both have plowed 10 million dollars into their campaigns in the primary is not until may. in pennsylvania, anticipating $110 million to 130 million dollars in spending in the republican primary alone for spending on tv ads -- nearly as much as both parties combined during the 2016 senate election. -- more than double spent on senate races in 2020, according to a politico analysis. next up is kansas city, missouri, paul on the independent line. caller: good morning.

host: morning. caller: good morning to all my brothers and sisters across america, whether you agree with me or not, we are all brothers and sisters here. joe biden said a totally reasonable answer to a moronic question. the president can't be that honest. the president can't engage in sarcasm, but think of the question -- is inflation going to be a liability in the election? he answered it perfectly. two points i would like to make quickly this morning, one, members of congress -- this is just my opinion, but personal beliefs are acceptable for every american to have. but you have to think of the big picture. if you are in congress and you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, you've got no

business voting on anything involving global warming. if you believe that the laying on hands is a healing power, you have no business voting on anything that involves a vaccine. i mean, it just -- you have to do deal in the reality -- deal -- you have to deal in the reality of us all, what the people on earth believe. instead of going to people who have those extreme views. host: candy in new hampshire -- thomas in kandy, new hampshire. caller: hello, my name is thomas .

since president biden has taken office, we have seen gas prices go up to three dollars and now we are seeing a powerful leader in the west start his advances on europe. if we are asked to fight and conflicts get worse and worse, than how are the american people going to live with 6, 7, 8, 9, $10 a gallon once we start this war that we are going to go in? i am just very wareful of the war that is about to start. hopefully it does not escalate to that, but i think with a weak president, there are other powerful leaders that will take advantage of that. i just want to let the american people know that, and thank you. host: thanks, thomas, on the independent line.

gene is next up in newark, new jersey. caller: yes, good morning. good morning to all of my fellow brothers and sisters of america, like the last caller had said, yes we are, brothers and sisters. but what brings me to calling is a curiosity of a question. basically, i was receiving unemployment and it's like, they put a freeze on it and then all of a sudden, now i can't seem to talk to no one in person and it's like i am getting the runaround, and i am listening to the news that is going on with the ukrainian issue, and i just heard them say that the united states gave six something million dollars in aid to the ukrainians. i want to know, there is a lot of homelessness going on where i

am from. i want to know, what's going on? host: i appreciate that, gene. david is next in youngstown, ohio. open forum, democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: ok, thank you. my comment is, first of all, joe biden and i think that the, he made a mistake when he first took office by not going after trump. now, since he did not go after trump, we have a problem. there is no reason why trump should be in the politics right now, because of his background and his crookedness.

so someone has to go after him instead of just letting him blunder and make more of a mess in our system. the other thing is our representatives, who we elect to office. number one, i don't think they even know what the hell their job is. once they are elected, once they get in office, they seem to forget all about what their oath of office was and what their job should be. instead, it is private. the other thing is, is that i think we have too many committees. this sets up a situation to where all of these people in office, our representatives, they can go for i don't know how

long and hide whatever they want to do. there is no need for all those committees. when we go back and look at how the job is supposed to be ran, how people are supposed to -- that we put in office, how they are supposed to carry out their job and who they are supposed to represent, i think things will be a hell of a lot different. but right now, it's everybody for themselves. find a committee to hide your [inaudible] that's exactly what they are doing. thank you. host: on the issue of former president trump and his issue -- his attempt to change the vote in georgia during the 2020 election. a green light special grand jury for the trump probe, is there headline. fulton county courts

superior bench -- investigation of former president donald trump and his efforts to overturn george's 2020 election results. chief judge christopher brasher wrote that a majority of the judges agreed to the request late last week. the special grand jury will be impaneled may 2 and can continue for a period "not to exceed 12 months," they wrote in an order. john is next in missouri valley, iowa, on the republican line. john, good morning. caller: yeah, i was just wondering -- on my social security, i got a 5.9% raise. on television, you are telling us the cost of living went up 7%. i think it is higher by a lot more than 7%. i had another comment on social security -- people that make a

certain amount of money, the cap keeps moving, i think it's 250,000 dollars a year, they stop taking social security out of your check. the company and you are supposed to pay 6.5% each for a total of 13%, but why don't they take the cap off? it seems like people that make more money should pay more money. and i've got one more thing. i don't know if you would know this, but i was wondering what kind of a gun that woman was shot within the capitol building? do you have any idea? host: no i don't, but to your two previous comments, it sounds like it may be time for a segment on social security. thanks for that call, john. let's go to frank in michigan. are you on the line? let's try that -- let's see --

frank in michigan -- i am sorry about that. caller: [inaudible] host: i think i lost him. frank, if you can call back in, we will try to get you one. gulf breeze, florida is up next. rick on the democrat line. caller: yes, i just want to know, where is the $500 billion president donald trump took with no oversight when he was still president? it was $500 billion of borrowed money. where did it go? how much of that money is being used to restore democracy? we will never get rid of trump because of that money. there is not an industry in the world that he cannot disrupt with that kind of money. i want you to think about that. $500 billion -- that's 1000 millions to make $1 billion. these tossing around millions of dollars at a time to get

influence and get things done. it's over. we can't stop it. before we know, we are going to have people like matt gaetz and marjorie taylor greene in charge. why did we let him have $500 billion? can anyone tell me? host: to frank in big spring, texas on the independent line. caller: hello, yes? host: can you do us a favor and mute your volume on the television? you can go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. i'm calling about the peter doocy guy. i think he was being a bully and somebody needs to -- i am glad he got called out, because he is always kind of rude. it's about time somebody put him in his place. that's all i have to say. host: the lead opinion piece

from the washington post on the conflict in ukraine -- keep all options open is there headline. president zelensky is calling for top economic sanctions as punishment for the moves mr. putin has already made. some republican lawmakers echo him. his argument is understandable, politically and emotionally, but is not strategically optimal for the reason mr. blinken gave on sunday on "face the nation." once sanctions are triggered, you lose the deterrent effect. unstated by mr. blinken, but also relevant, is the likelihood that sanctions would now divide the alliance, because european allies would be unlikely to join in. it's better to keep the west's powder drywall broadcasting to moscow just how potent the sanctions bomb could be if russia chooses to detonate it by invading. we've got the house coming in in about five minutes or so for a

pro forma session at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will continue with julio in palmdale, california, on our democrat line. caller: good morning, good morning, sir. what a pleasure. beautiful show. i have a question, number one, thanks, america, for giving everybody a chance. i know this is strange -- democrats call, republicans call, democrats call, they are always complaining about each other. when are we going to get together? there are other political parties in the united states. the trend has been for 200 some years republican, democrat, republican, democrat -- i understand that. but when are we going to get together? we've got covid going on, we've got war going on, people dying all over the world -- god bless them.

when are we going to get together? host: let's hear nancy, next up in new york on the republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: everybody is questioning why about inflation, about everything that's going on, about the borders and everything. when biden ran on his ticket, we were all told what he was running on. i don't understand why everybody is so, don't understand what's going on now. he did exactly what he said he was going to do on the very first day. look at the stack of stuff that he signed. it did bring us into quite a mess. our gas, the price of gas, the ships getting in, the truckers

-- we have no truckers. the people working, being on unemployment. the jobs, no jobs. there are jobs, but the whole country has been changed and we all knew this was going to happen. it's like with this border situation, it has to be taken care of. one time i lived down there -- i know what it is like. i seen them come across. it was years ago, but i seen them come across then, and i can't imagine living there now and watching how they are coming across, and letting them come with covid, and how many of our people are passing away or becoming very ill? these people, they are bringing them across and giving them all kinds of money to live on,

taking them places during the night, dropping them off for them to live -- i really think that. as for him, speaking like that to peter doocy was very uncalled for and i am so proud of peter doocy for being the way that he was, because i would have spoke back and said, right back at you, pal. host: from virginia to -- to virginia in georgetown, indiana. democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i have been a registered democrat longer than nancy pelosi. my party has gone off the rails, and that's why we are in the mess we are in. host: i am a little confused

there in terms of your television, virginia. mute the volume and go along with the rest of your comment. caller: [inaudible] should someone be on the supreme court who says 100,000 children are in the hospital dying of covid and they are on ventilators when the total was 3000? she was totally unprepared for what she was doing. host: to bill, albany, new york. one quick comment here, we are about to wrap up with the house coming in. go ahead. caller: yep. your listeners are so hung up on president trump. he is not the president anymore. with president biden acting the way he did with peter doocy was out of line.

also, him with the keystone pipeline, way back, our prices would not have been up if he just tried to go after trump then and turn that around by executive order. host: we will let you go there, the house coming in for a brief pro forma session. that will do it for the day. here comes the house. >> the chairman for the house of communication for the speaker. >> the speakers room, washington, d.c., january 20 fifth, 2022. i hereby appoint the honorable gk -- to act as contemporary on this day. signed nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. >> the prayer will be offered. >> when you pray with me -- would you pray with me?