on c-span.org or on the go with our free speech -- free c-span video app. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including media,. >> the world changed in an instant, but media, was ready. schools and businesses went virtual. we powered a new reality. because, at mediacom, we are built give -- keep you ahead. mediacom supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," we talk about russian threats to invade ukraine with retired general philip breedlove. then, roben farzad, host of

disclosure, discusses recent market fluctuations. join the conversation with your phone calls, facebook messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: supreme court justice stephen breyer yesterday made it official -- he will retire after 28 years on the bench. at the same announcement, president biden reiterated his pledge to nominate a black woman to the post, noting, "it is long overdue." "washington journal. welcome to" this first -- welcome to "washington journal." we would like to ask you what reforms are changes you would like to see at the supreme court. we will touch on a number of the findings of presidential commission of the supreme court that the president appointed

last year. we will hear from the president and from stephen breyer. we would like to hear from you on reforms you would like. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. from independents, (202) 748-8002. for texting, that line (202) 748-8003. we are on facebook, and of course, you can send your thoughts on twitter and instagram, @cspanwj. we will have comments from the event at the white house, justice stephen breyer making it official yesterday. we will show you that in a bit. the commission created by president biden last year finished the report. the commission on the supreme court of the united states. one of the things that had been out there, certainly early in the biden administration, was

the idea of adding justices to the supreme court. it has been called port packing -- courtpacking. the conclusion they found said that article three of the constitution requires that there be one supreme court but does not specify the number of justices that shall serve on the court. the historical practice supports the conclusion congress has broad authority to change the size. the commission takes no position on the validity or strength of arguments for expanding the supreme court. there is profound disagreement among the commissioners on this issue. we will discuss some of the findings on that supreme court commission. (202) 748-8000 the line to call for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002.

this is the washington post's front page -- biden pledges to pick historic candidate. the white house is planning a fast, aggressive effort to nominate the first black women to the supreme court by the end of february and confirm her swiftly thereafter, reflecting the high stakes of the campaign and the pressure to move quickly in today's polarized environment. president biden thursday renewed his pledge to put a black woman on the high court, saying it is long overdue and adding, "i will nominate a historic candidate, someone who is worthy of justice breyer's legacy." breyer's retirement was expected, though the timing was uncertain. biden has been reviewing the biographies of potential nominees for at least a month. aids have been in touch with outside groups that are assembling lists of respective

picks. -- perspective picks. jen psaki said -- a small group will also give the president and guidance. that is from the washington post. here is what -- some of what peter have to say yesterday at the announcement of justice breyer's announcement. [video clip] >> today, justice breyer announces his intention to retire after for decades on the federal bench and 28 years on the united states supreme court. his legacy includes a leading scholar on law. it includes his stature as a beacon of wisdom on our constitution and what it means. through it all, justice breyer has worked tirelessly to give faith to the notion that the law

exists to help the people. everyone knows that stephen breyer has been an exemplary justice. fair to the party before him, courteous to his colleagues, careful in his reasoning. he has written landmark opinions from reproductive rights to laws to protect our religious practices. his opinions are practical and nuanced. it reflects his belief that the job of a judge is not to lay down a rule but to get it right. justice breyer's law clerks and colleagues described him and his work ethic, his desire to learn more, his kindness to those around him, and his optimism for the promise of our country. he has patiently sought common ground, seeking to bring the court together. i think he is a model public servant in a time of great division in this country.

justice breyer has done everything this country has asked him. we all had high hopes for the mark he would leave on history of law and the constitution, and he has exceeded those hopes in every possible way. host: asking you about supreme court reforms you would support. justice breyer was asked at an event last fall, spoke about term limits. breyer says term limits would make life easier for me. supreme court breyer said that term limits would make life easier for me. during an appearance on fox news -- again, this was in the fall --breyer expressed an openness to term limits but said that they should be set up for a long term. the issue of the commission

found that the united states is the only major constitutional democracy in the world that has neither a retirement age nor a fixed term limit for its high court. currently, the number of apartments available to a president can vary greatly. proponents of term limits argue that regularizing the appointment process would address these life tenure by making judicial permits more predictable. staggered 18 year terms would insure all presidents have the opportunity to appoint two justices to the supreme court in each term they serve. let's get to your thoughts and calls. we will hear from caroline in alexandria, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i really admire justice breyer for stepping down to let joe biden pick his pick. not that i am glad as a black

person but i am glad he had a chance to pick somebody that he wanted. second of all, i think 20 years is good enough to be on the supreme court. 20 years and retire, like everybody else. host: we will hear from gordon on the republican line. your thoughts on the supreme court. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think it should be taken down to five justices, and we should use five conservatives. and joe biden is a racist for saying he was going to pick a black woman. that is racist care that is unconstitutional to say that. host: why is it racist to do that? caller: because the supreme court has said do not do things like that, according to race, color, or creed.

it's unconstitutional. where they should be doing is giving every senior an extra check to get through this damn inflation. biden is a moron. host: here is what the process looks like. here is a chart in the washington post with what is ahead for this nominee and in the past, the nomination process getting underway with vetting. the nominee has to be -- the nomination has to be made by the president. their first hearing in the senate judiciary committee. a look here on the right on the timeline for the current justices on the supreme court and the time it takes to get confirmed. the timeline, the shortest on that timeline, is the most recent justice, just as amy coney barrett, 20 seven days. she was confirmed 27 days after her nomination. the average days to confirm is 72. the longest of the current

sitting justices on the supreme court, justice clarence thomas. from the time of his nomination to his swearing in an appearance on the bench, 99 days. tom in west columbia, south carolina, democrats line, talking about reforms on the supreme court. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i watched you on tv yesterday, our esteemed representative jim clyburn. representative cliburn is supporting judge chiles from south carolina to be named the next supreme court justice. i would say judge chiles, because of jim clyburn's support, and i support him strongly -- i like jim clyburn. i like what he stands for and everything. but i would say judge tiles --

judge chiles, because of the support from jim clyburn, has a better than 50-50 chance that biden will nominate her for this open position. i do not know that much about her, but i do not have any problem whatsoever. --whatsoever. in having a female, black whatever, i think we miss out on a lot of talent when we say we have to have a certain demographic to fill a position. i just wanted to mention that. i hope you have a great day today. host: thanks. to stan on staten island, new york on the democrats line. caller: basically, i feel things should be kept the way they are. bottom line is this up in court justices should be able to serve forever. why?

because if you do term limits, the bottom line is it puts pressure on a judge to make decisions in a certain way. the second thing is breyer, i feel breyer was very good. i did not agree with everything, but basically, he served the courts, and it worked out well. one last thing -- the pandemic. i would love it if c-span could find someone who lived in the depression, to be able to share that experience with what it is like now with the pandemic. i love you folks, you excellent folks. thank you. host: this is the washington times this morning, mcconnell urges biden to avoid radical left in picking justice their headline. part of the statement from the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, says the american people elected a senate that is evenly split at 50-50 to the degree that president biden

received a mandate, was through -- it was to govern through the middle. if the american people deserve a nominee with a demonstrated reference for the written text of our laws and constitution. let's hear from maryland in columbus -- maryland -- marilyn in columbus, ohio. mute your volume and go ahead with your comments. caller: i am from columbus, ohio, and i think we should have age limits on the supreme court. in ohio, we have an age limit of, i believe, 72 for someone who runs for office. i think we should do the same thing for congress. host: this is a report from the hills, a poll they did last spring. most in a new poll want to end

justices' lifetime appointment. nearly two thirds of all u.s. adults surveyed in a new poll believe supreme court justices should face term limits and leave the court after a certain amount of time on the bench. the reuters-ipsos poll found just 22% of respondents supported lifetime appointments for the supreme court, while 63% supported term limits. the remainder of respondents had no opinion or were unsure. justice breyer serving, at the end of this term, will have served 28 years on the supreme court. here is some of what he had to say yesterday at the white house. [video clip] >> day one, almost, up to date i do not know how many. what i say to them is i sit there on the bench, and after we hear lots of cases, and after a while, the impression -- it takes a while, i have to admit. the impression you get, as you well know, this is a complicated

country. there are more than 33 million people. it is every race, every religion, and every point of view possible. it is a kind of miracle. when you sit there and see all those people in front of you, people that are so different in what they think, and yet they have decided to help solve their major differences under law. and when the students get too cynical, i say go look at what happens in countries that do not do that. people have come to accept this constitution and come to accept the importance of a rule of law. host: talking about the retirement of justice breyer, but in particular, we are focusing on reforms, changes you would like to see at the supreme court. lines are, for democrats, (202) 748-8000.

republicans, (202) 748-8001. all others, (202) 748-8002. we have been sharing some of the findings from the president's commission on the supreme court, which finished their work in december. let's get back to your calls and hear from tony in santa fe, new mexico, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to see it start in the senate, where if they do not have a majority of all senators, two thirds majority, the person does not get in. that way, we resolve what we got now with the radical right getting their way and getting these people in there that have basically changed it back to catechism -- host: one not on that, for the senate, for supreme court justices, they came to an agreement and that super

majority is not necessary. the supreme court justice has to be passed by a simple majority, so it is a 50-50 senate. if it is all democrats voting in favor, all republicans against, they would need the vice president with a tie-breaking vote in the senate to do that. so in the case of a supreme court justice, they do not need that super majority to move that justice through. caller: for a lifetime appointment, it should be required. because then we get people on there, we get one side has an advantage or whoever is in the simple majority has the advantage of getting somebody on there that is not agreeable to two thirds of the country. we should have at least a super -- a majority. to me, a simple majority is two thirds. i do not care what they call it now. the other thing i would like to

see is that these people on the court right now that cannot follow the rules of court, like thomas did not, would not recuse himself, and could not follow simple average judicial rules of conduct be kicked off. that would be a good reform to have, to where they remove certain of these people. these people are on there for a lifetime. they should have to pass a simple majority. because i think about 90% date. the last four did not -- or the last three didn't. host: keith on the democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i am all for term limits on the supreme court.

i am also for rotating justices. on the supreme court and expanding it -- host: did you say rotating justices? caller: yes. so they would rotate on and off. and also be expanded. there is an important point i need to make. i do not know why it is -- it seems to be part of the conservative worldview or mindset. but the word "black" offends them. that is kind of disturbing, because a lot of the conservative base is heavily concentrated in formerly jim crow states and confederate states. we know this, and if we think

all the segregation from the 1960's just died or change their mind, they did not. they evolved into modern republicans. right now, on the supreme court, since the death of thurgood marshall, there has been no black representation. there's a black man who is hostile to the interests to the vast majority of black americans. we do not have any presentation on the supreme court. so thank you, president biden, for saying i hear you, elections have concept tenses, i will fix this injustice. right now, as indicated by supreme court history -- what is

it, 99.5% white males? they are the most privileged among us. host: keith pointed out just two african-americans on the supreme court as supreme court justices, thurgood marshall and clarence thomas. just five women on the bench, the latest justice amy coney barrett of the 150 total justices. the remaining justices have all been white men throughout history. this is a look at scotus blog. they cover the supreme court on a daily basis. they are right that -- justice stephen breyer confirmed the news that he intends to retire from the supreme court. in a brief letter, the 83-year-old breyer indicates he intends to step down from the supreme court at the end of his

term. in a joint appearance with breyer that followed the release of his letter, biting reiterated -- biden reiterated his pledge to choose a black woman. some reaction to that on twitter. rebecca tweets about the president's decision, why not? djt just handed the list from the federalist society, totally handed control to others. people have been talking to others about term limits. the commission on the supreme court reported about that, looking up both sides, the views of people who support term limits and those against. here's what they found about the argument against term limits at the supreme court. they say opponents of term limits further believe that even long nonrenewable terms could undermine judicial independence

by virtue of the fact that at least some justices would have to consider what they would do after their terms expire. their plans for their future might affect either their performances as justices were public perception on that performance. let's hear from lisa on the democrats line in california. go ahead. caller: that was a great point you just made against term limits. i also think term limits or age limits for the supreme court, or even congress, is kind of ridiculous for that reason. also, when i get to be 80 years old, it would be nice to know there is someone out there representing me, thinking about who is living my reality also, so that is the main reason i am against term limits or age limits for any of those. host: republican line, next up, rory in california. caller: yes, term limits are ok,

i suppose, but they always represent past political parties that nominated the supreme court justices. i am not thrilled about that. if you take them apart, you have a political supreme court. if it is for lights -- life, they will not be influenced by all that. as for other things, there is one other thing coming up in california, mainly in orange county, and that -- they call it voter fraud or voter repression or whatever. right now, a lot of people hate the fact that you have the mail-in ballots, which they consider fraudulent care they want to take it to the supreme court. like in orange county, someone nailed in a ballot with my name in, i tore up my mail-in ballot and they mailed it anyway, then i voted and the computers

invalidated the biden ballot and supported the trump valley. host: we are talking about reforms on the supreme court in wake of the announcement of the retirement of justice breyer. the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. the line for republicans, (202) 748-8001. an independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. this is from the wall street journal this morning. breyer retirement could reshape court's liberal wing. over his 27 year tenure, justice breyer, the most moderate of the court's current three liberal justices has been a bridge builder who favored a pragmatic approach to the law. that judicial stance was reinforced by his years on the bench alongside justice sandra day o'connor, a pivotal moderate conservative who retired in 2006 and was one of his closest friends on the court. they also write in this article

this about justice breyer, who has been the de facto leader of the liberal wing since the death of ruth bader ginsburg will now yield that rule to justice sotomayor. after over more than a dozen years on the bench, she has taken more of a firebrand approach, choosing, at times, not to join some compromise outcomes alongside justices breyer and elena kagan, the other democratic appointee. at the announcement at the white house, the president talked about the type of justice he plans on appointing. [video clip] >> i will select a nominee worthy of justice breyer's legacy. while i have been studying candidates' backgrounds, i have made no decision except 1 -- the person i nominate will be up

extraordinary experience and integrity. and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the united states supreme court. it is long overdue, in my opinion. i made that commitment during my campaign for president, and i will keep that commitment. i will fully do what i said i would dupe you and i will fulfill my duty to select a justice, not only with the senate's consent but with its advice. you have heard me say in other nomination processes that the constitution seeks the advice and consent. i will invite senators from both parties to offer their ideas and points of view. i will also consult with leading scholars and lawyers. and i am fortunate to have advising me in this process of vice president kamala harris. she is an exceptional lawyer. i will listen carefully to all the advice i am given, and i will study the records and

former cases carefully. i will meet with potential nominees. it is my intention to announce my decision before the end of february. i've made no choices at this point. once i select a nominee, i will ask the senate to move promptly on my choice gate in the end, i will nominate a historic candidate, someone worthy of justice breyer's legacy, and someone who, like justice breyer, will provide incredible service on the united states supreme court. host: as you are probably aware, the u.s. house has no role in particular in approving a supreme court nominee, but they weigh in with opinions on who the president might select or will eventually select. hakeem jeffries, the conference chair of the democratic caucus tweeting that president biden will make history with his first supreme court nomination. the scales of justice will be stronger as a result. back to calls. we will go to john in new york

on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i just wish that president biden did not bring up race and gender. that kind of -- we cannot go down that road. if that becomes the norm, it is not going to be helpful for the american people, to cave into their prejudices of either party. the other thing is to reform the courts into weather call packing the court and stuff like that -- into what they call packing the court and stuff like that. they have bipartisan support to rejecting the filibuster, but if that ever went through, i am wondering if they would have a cause and saying there will be a republican committee set up in the congress or the senate or a democratic committee set up in the senate, and they would pick four -- submit 10 of their justices they would like to see

approved, picked four out of those, then the democrats would come up with 10 choices, and then they would vote, have a vote for those. because you just cannot have a democratic president getting elected and, all of a sudden, you will change the filibuster with no majority whatsoever, and then that president, biden, is going to get to pick -- if he had five or six, you will add them -- to have one party pick the six justices. if they ever did come up with summer form to that, they would have to come up and make it a fair process. one thing simple would be that the republican committee would come up and pick 10 choices and pick four of those, then democrats would pick for their choices and vote on those --

host: do you think that would really slow down the whole process? we talked about the average time between nomination and confirmation of a justice is 72 days, of the current justices, justice thomas being the longest at 99. caller: i am looking at the health of our nation. i hope the nation sticks around longer than one term. if you go down road, what kind of signal would you leave. why not postpone it to 2024 and let the american people digest that so that, when 2024 comes around, they would have time to think about it, then if they decide to vote for it, we will let the next president, and that will come into who we vote for

and have an impact of our country and that the country think about it and then present your candidates in 2024 so the american people have a chance to think about it, so when they vote, they take that into high consideration and vote either republican or democrat, then the american people, the choice will be in their hands so they can vote for a democrat say we want more democrats, not -- host: you put a lot of ideas out there. appreciate that. dan in new jersey, republican line. caller: as a republican or democrat, it does not matter. i heard the mayor of new york and the borough president of the bronx speaking, and they were amazing. in 60 years in the city, i had never heard such sound thinking.

i did not think of their race. but when biden stands up and says it will be a black woman, he is making a statement not about the physical characteristics but about the closed mind format in which these people are working. he is debasing the supreme court. since he has been president, joe biden has screwed up everything he has touched i am just hoping that, with the massive republican majority that he creates in reaction to his stumbling and bumbling that he will not run for a second term. host: as pointed out yesterday in an article that president reagan said he would appoint a woman to the supreme court, and his first chance to do that came in july of 1981, when he selected center day o'connor. this is a quote from president

reagan on that day. the president said, needless to say, most of the speculation has centered on the question over whether i would consider a woman to fulfill this first vacancy. as the press has accurately pointed out, during my campaign for presidency, i made a commitment that one of the most -- one of my first apartment's to a supreme court vacancy would be the most qualified woman i could possibly find. in this piece -- does justice clarence thomas have an asterisk to his name? the fact that he is black and a minority has nothing to do with this sense that he is the best qualified at the time.

thomas had a scant 15 months of experience on the d.c. circuit have -- when bush tapped him. it writes does just amy coney barrett have an asterisk attached because president trump clearly needed to pick a woman to replace ruth bader ginsburg? the truth is that politics, partisan, demographic, and regional, has long played a role in supreme court nominations. dwight eisenhower chose william brennan because he thought a catholic democrat from the northeast would play well with voters in the election just a few weeks away. reagan was so taken with the notion of naming his first italian american that he opted for scalia. louis on the republican line,

good morning. caller: my first thought is if we give to the whole concept of a need for reform, it would mean something is wrong. in general, there is nothing wrong with the supreme court. the supreme court is generational kid we have to learn to respect the decisions and the passage of time. but while i was waiting to be called on, there are two things i would consider that we take the responsibility of the politics out of it. one, there should be a cognitive test for judges at the age of 80 . i do not know what age, but there should be a test, because at some point in time, we just do not function. two, they should be a pause for a political perspective of appointing a judge six months before a presidential election. this way, we strip the politics out of it, because what we are doing is tearing down this critical institution in america, that one of the three branches

of government that should not be looked at from a political perspective, should be looked at for truth, upholding the constitution, because by the -- at the end of the day, we abide by the truths they uphold. these decisions and appointments are political on both sides of the aisle, and they are entitled to do that because they want to get reelected. but if you put a six-month probation in terms of replacing a supreme court justice before a presidential election, i think that will protect the court and protect our civics. thank you. host: next up louise, democrats line. caller: good morning. i just have a problem with the supreme court, especially now that people are complaining about putting a black justice up there. biden has the right to put someone up there.

i did not hear that complaint during the trump era, and i do not understand why they are complaining. it does not make any sense. and i see a lot of bias in the supreme court right now, which should not be done. they are interpreting by what they feel inside of what is actually there. host: since its inception, this network has argued for bringing cameras into the courtroom at the supreme court. we do bring you oral arguments, and it has obviously changed over the course of the covid-19 pandemic, with the oral arguments happening initially remotely. we cover them all. audi is a -- audio is available from the supreme court. you can find them at c-span.org /supremecourt.

cameras in the courtroom is one of the issues that the commission on the supreme court tackled, the commission appointed by president biden early in his term. the commission said that proponents of cameras in the courtroom emphasize the potential educational, historical, and civic benefits of being able to see justices at work. however, several justices have made clear that they disfavor video recording and streaming of the court's proceedings. given the long-standing opposition, a continuation of audio would be a step towards -- to better follow the work of the court. perhaps for experience with simultaneous audio will encourage the court to try cameras as well. back to your calls and comments on the supreme court and the reforms you would like to see. our next caller in washington, d.c. caller: how are you doing? i called because i've been

listening to the callers the last two days about the supreme court selection, and i just want to say republicans -- 192 federal judges were appointed by trump. not one black person in 192 appointed by trump. now, because biden wants to appoint a black woman, we hear all of the conversation about why use the term "black", why appoint a woman? the president has a right to appoint who he wishes to appoint . have the senate vote and confirm his appointment. i hope biden selects a good person with a heart for justice for all. host: next up, sandy, columbus,

ohio. caller: good morning. on the supreme court, the pick should be a presentation for the american people. to me, it is like taxation without representation, like d.c. we need representation or all people in the country, and biden , i applaud him for trying to make the court looked more like america than what it does at this point. we have got three supreme court judges that were just nominated that are clearly political. they are going on the stance of their constituents and the president that nominated them. now i do not want to go back to garland, because he was thrown

out because it was too soon before an election or them to nominate him, but yet still -- it has got to be across-the-board. we have got to do this right. term limits are exactly needed. i will not say 5 -- maybe 10 years. but term limits should be considered. host: this is a poll, gallup poll, one of the most recent on how people think of supreme court approval. this is last fall of the u.s. supreme court down to 40%, a new low. they write that americans' opinions of the supreme court have worsened, down to 40%, saying they approve of the job the high court is doing. this represents a new low in the trend, which dates back to 2000. the poll was conducted shortly after the supreme court declined to block a controversial texas

abortion law. the court similarly allowed college vaccine mandates to proceed and rejected an attempt to extend federal moratorium on evictions during the pandemic. talking about reforms you would like to see on the supreme court. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002. we have touched on the issue of expanding the court, what some people call packing the courts. senator deb fischer from nebraska spoke about that recently on the floor of the senate. [video clip] >> as the commission's report details, court packing is often used as a political weapon in authoritarian regimes, not in the united states of america. take venezuela, where hugo

chavez cemented support for his socialist policies by expanding the country's supreme tribunal of justice from 20 members to 32 members back in 2004. look at all the good that did for what was once the wealthiest country in south america. we need to leave this practice to dictatorship, where it belongs. republics like the united states simply do not engage in this kind of behavior. as the commission's report says, stable democracies, quote, "have retained a strong commitment to traditional independence." -- to judicial independence." packing the supreme court would take an ax to judicial independence.

the united states is the greatest country on earth because of our respect for the rule of law, not in spite of it. and in light of this report, a resolution i cosponsored earlier this year that would fix the number of supreme court justices at 9 is even more important. host: senator fischer, republican senator from nebraska, reacting to some of the report from the presidential commit -- commission on the supreme court of the united states. we have been talking about some elements of that this morning. you can read all of the report at whitehouse.gov. some comments this morning both on the selection and reforms. lizzie tweets the supreme court is not there to be for any particular race or gender. that is not who they are. bobby says people who question the choice of a black woman are

not conscious of their racial leanings, just as they were not when barack obama ran for presidency. promises made, promises kept, it will be a black woman says mimi. juanita says a second reform i would make would be to ask all presidential nominees to stop making promises as to who they will nominee to the supreme court. from oregon, republican line. caller: can you hear me ok? host: sure can. go ahead. caller: i watched the show yesterday, and it sounded like a good idea that this dwyer guy --breyer got is out of there, because it sounded like he treated our constitution like an

alive, living document. that is a bunch of garbage. no! and what is joe biden doing appointing anything? there are lawsuits against him about him being a lawbreaker about our borders. all i am saying is that breyer guy, he treated our document like a living instrument, and that is not how you do it. so who knows how these other judges are doing the same thing? i just -- that is not how you treat the constitution. it is not a living document. host: next up, massachusetts, democrats line. caller: i think this a blessed

thing to do is, when you are a democrat in party, you have to put in a republican. if you're republican in party, you have to put in a democrat. that way you get the best of the best, not the worst of the worst. host: in minneapolis, tim on the independent line. caller: i like the idea of a direct vote. i do not think a president should be able to appoint any judge for a lifetime appointment. also, maybe it would be a good idea to have a layman in there, a regular citizen. host: a layman serve on the supreme court? caller: yeah. just a regular citizen. or some kind of rotational thing for lawyers. i just do not think they should be appointed for a lifetime

appointment. i just do not believe in that. host: certainly the political processes getting underway in terms of who the president will select as his nominee. he said yesterday the intention is to name that by the end of next month, that being february, which is almost upon us. and a group, liberal group supreme court reform has released this video about that. [video clip] >> as president, i would have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, i would appoint the first black woman to the court. >>after 115 justices, it's long past time for a black woman to sit on the highest court on the land. now is time to uplift one of the many qualified lack women who have spent their careers championing civil rights and equal justice for all of us, who are ready to answer the call to service and bring a more diverse set of experiences to our

highest court. but no matter who is nominated, we already know that bad-faith attacks are coming, to tear down her character or question her qualifications. so we have got to have her back. callout the lies for what they are and fight for justice who will uphold the rights of everyone. it is time for a black woman on the supreme court. host: back to your calls on changes ahead on the supreme court with a nominee in february. james up on the republican line. caller: i was going to comment first of all, the president has the right to choose who he wants. i have no problem with the president choosing a woman or an african-american woman. but they should be someone that is qualified and someone who is interested in the constitution,

because that is the supreme court's job. make incisions, whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional. as far as reforms go, we need to stop trying to reform things in this country. the more we reform, the more we mess things up. the supreme court has remained the only entity in all of this country that has not been taken over by politics. we see our politicians -- they are not interested in their constituents. they are interested in their ideology. you do not need supreme court justice who are ideological. they should do their job based on how they interpret the constitution, period. and let's just leave it alone. right now, a certain party -- the left -- pretty much controls every entity in our government. let's leave the supreme court the way it is. host: in philadelphia, franklin on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to point out that, with respect to diversity, on the

supreme court, every one of the six conservative justices currently serving our roman catholics. we have no protestants on the supreme court. this is probably a first in the history of the united states. the fact that the six conservative roman catholic justices all came down or are about to come down on outlawing abortion certainly has something to do with their education and background. i would like to see biden increase diversity on the court by appointing a protestant. and i do not mean a protestant from one of these weird denominations that has come to

the fore under trump but mainstream protestant, because that, at least, will bring some moderation to the court that is currently missing. that is all i have to say. host: here is usa today on the issue of abortion. breyer leaves abortion rights legacy. justice breyer wrote some of the supreme court's most important decisions on abortion over the course of his tenure, knocking down a series of barriers in conservative states that have limited access to the procedure. but as breyer prepares to step down, his legacy on abortion may go with him. this seniormost liberal has announced he will require nearly three decades after their president bill clinton nominated him. his reputation as a justice who could, at times, bridge the court's ideological divide led

him to write opinions that built on the roe v. wade decision. we go to jim in pittsburgh. caller: i am not that concerned about who was appointed to the united states supreme court. however, i am much concerned about whether the executive branch of our governments, the equal branches of government, enforce an unconstitutional opinion by the supreme court. host: ok. to elizabeth, democrats line. caller: yes, how are you? i would like to see a woman get nominated to the supreme court. we need more woman on the court so badly, so roe v. wade doesn't get overturned. there are so many woman -- i saw

the list on cnn online about the list of women biden is considering. any one of them will be perfect for the job. we need a woman on the courts. that is all i have to say. host: in alexandria, minnesota, marlene on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i believe we should have term limits on our supreme court. also, i wish all of the people on the supreme court would go by the constitution and not by the way that they feel personally. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: next is john in wilson, north carolina. caller: good morning. i think the worst thing about the supreme court is the ethics. i am surprised you have not had issue about prince thomas.

it is all over the news and very important. she is a supporter to the big lie, and that is his wife. clarence thomas is the only one who voted against hiving donald trump's records released. these things are very important. that is why i do not understand why c-span don't have these things. i wish, one time, we could that -- it seems c-span is not looking at the important things. the ethics of the supreme court is terrible. plus, and anita hill passed a lie detector when she talked about what clarence thomas did to her. she passed a lie detector test and clarence thomas would not even take one. the woman did not live. they got him on the court.

people need to listen to that man speak. it is terrible that democrats have not went after this guy. it was on the other, the republicans would. he does not need to be on the supreme court. the court is just getting corrupt. ever since clarence thomas, it has been that way. then you have got george bush, who nominated him in the place of thurgood marshall, it was terrible. it was a slap in the face to the black people -- to black people. i want everyone understand -- to understand that joe biden appointing a black woman is right. host: thanks. john referring to an article, the headline saying that jenny thomas a threat to the supreme court. chief justice john roberts

released a year and report on the judiciary. the supreme court has its lowest public approval rating in history, in part because it is being viewed as overly politicized. president joe biden recently established a bipartisan commission to consider reforms in the court, and members of congress have introduced legislation that would require justices to adhere to the same types of ethics standards as other justices. roberts' report defiantly want everyone to back off. the judiciary's power to manage its internal affairs insulate courts from it's an expense -- 'n extensive piece and you can read it at new yorker.com. we go to bethesda, maryland and tom on the democrats line. caller: i want to comment on a

few things from earlier, the republican representatives, you had on from the house talk about how adding seats to the supreme court was dead would interfere with the independence of the judiciary. i find that laughable considering the president they just had who had no regard for the rule of law or separation of justice from politics. he basically told the department of justice to go after anyone he wants and right after his administration, we learned he had the department of justice sees phone records of democratic representatives and s&l actors among other people. i find this rather laughable. i also want to comment on

another person on here who said the constitution is not a living document. it is a living document. that's constitution 101. it's a living document where amendments can be added. i am correct that it is a living document? host: you are right, the constitution obviously can be amended. caller: i'm curious what you didn't correct him. host: thanks for pointing that out. we would go to washington, d.c., independent line. caller: thank you for the opportunity. supreme court is no longer the supreme court. it's all political.

[indiscernible] the supreme court does not go by rule of law. that's all i can tell. host: thanks for your call. we appreciate all your calls this segment with more coming up. "washington journal" continues in a moment and we will be joined by the former nato supreme allied commander philip breedlove, to talk about the russian threats to ukraine and later, we will talk about the crazy roller coaster week on wall street we have had in this week's announcement from the fed that higher interest rates are on the way.

>> in 2019, a reporter discovered the remains of the slave ship in a swamp outside of mobile, alabama. sunday night on q and a, he talks about his book the last slave ship which details its history and how and why it transported 110 slaves to alabama in 1860, more than 50 years after the transatlantic slave trade was outlawed stop >> we have the whole story and its sort of a proxy for everyone in the united states and the world whose family derived in whatever country they are in in the hold of the ship and most of those people, millions of them we don't know anything about because their stories were recorded so this ship was the story for these people stolen from africa and that is what is so unique about it will stop it's a whole story of slavery all encapsulated in one piece.

we know everything about these people and what happened to them in their lives. >> the last slave ship, sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's q and a. you can listen on our new c-span now app. looking for c-span essentials that will keep you warm, go to c-span net -- c-span shop.org. you can look for all kinds of merchandise. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop tuesday-monday during the c-span shop form sale at c-span shop.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: philip breedlove served as

the supreme allied commander of nato from 2013-2016. he is currently with the middle east institute as their distinguished chair of their frontier europe initiative and he will talk about the increasing tensions between ukraine and russia. general breedlove, welcome to "washington journal." guest: thanks for having me. host: what does it mean to be the supreme allied commander? what does that role until militarily and politically? guest: militarily, you are a tentatively the commander of those nato forces that are operational, those that have been called to duty or those that are on day to day standing duty on land on air with our units in europe but there are other commanders between you and

the front-line troops so you are providing guidance, policy etc. as to how to carry the mission of nato in those -- and those military forces that are activated. it's more a representative of the military and for the military to the north atlantic council. when we need to do something militarily in nato, the decision to do it, to provide for it is made at thenac and one of the biggest jobs is to go to that governing body to get the support the troops need. host: it might be helpful to know the numbers we are talking about in terms of potential troops from nato, the overall number, the u.s. troops and the president putting 8500 additional troops on a higher alert. guest: as far as the u.s. goes,

there is about 65,000 or so u.s. troops assigned to u.s.-european command. it's a nato position but the u.s.-commander is the same individual. there is about 65,000 at any one time, it fluctuates because of all the temporary assigned troops, up to around 90,000 on a day-to-day basis and that number can go up and down as troops move in and out as have been suggested in these forces we have alerted most up host: what sort of things are the nato countries working through how to respond militarily in the event of some sort of military action by russia? what sort of exercises might baby -- might they be going through? guest: a lot of people forget

article three when it comes to nato. everybody remembers article five which says its collective defense, if one is attacked, always attacked. article three in a georgia boys vernacular is defense begins at home. every nation is responsible to aid in the defense of itself and create capacities and capabilities that it can lend to the alliance to help in the defense of others. right now, nations are focused on article three, what do they need to do to make sure their borders are secure. we have a few nations who border russia and are very close to russian forces. they are looking to those requirements. they are also looking at how they can contribute to the

larger mission. you have seen three or more in the next couple of days providing forces to go forward to respond to this provocation by mr. putin and russia. we have seen several nations providing fighter jets to go into the area and several nations alerting and moving and now exercising ships at sea, etc. already in this crisis, nato is beginning to respond. host: based on your arians as the supreme where there countries that were not really militarily ready to take on a role such as this? guest: every nation brings something. i always like to tell the story of the small baltic nations and the things we have asked them to do and they have done so well. one of the best tactical air

control parties, the young men and women on the ground who control airplanes in a conflict, one of the best training schools in the world is nato. we asked one of those countries that we know you cannot provide armored divisions but what we would like to have is you training them and they did a magnificent job will stop most of the nato tech teas who served in afghanistan were trained there. every nation give something and you are right, some of the nations don't have large standing forces they can send in but they contribute in their own way. nato has an office at the headquarters in brussels which helps these nations that have less capacity, to give them targets of things they can provide for the alliance. it works fairly well but not perfectly. in general, all contribute.

host: you been keeping an eye how the biden administration is interacting with nato and watching this crisis and late last year, you signed onto a letter on how to deal with the kremlin created crisis in europe . in that letter, you and your colleagues wrote that the most important thing the west can do now is to enhance the deterrent strength of ukraine's armed forces by providing with terry assistance and equipment on expedited basis. do you believe nato should act now to bolster its military presence on its eastern flank and communicating to moscow that rushes escalation would bring a substantial number of u.s. and allied forces and a permanent presence in the baltic states and black sea region. what progress do you think the administration has made on those points? guest: we may have to go back

and remind. let me start at the top stop if you read the whole letter, you would see that one of the things we say is that the first and one of the most important things the nato alliance does is not a military thing. it is to show solidarity, to make sure that mr. putin sees a solid green nato alliance that is on point that what he is doing is not acceptable. that's important today. we need to make sure mr. putin cannot look at nato or the you and see that he can pick us apart and pit us against each other. the first a foremost thing is to work in our solidarity and our alliance, solidarity of mission and solidarity of the purpose of what we are doing. then we begin to look at the military options that we can do. mr. putin and the two documents which you may not have read that he sent to the west, to nato and

focusing on america, he said these are the things you have to do. it's all or nothing and if you don't read, we will invade. of course, that started a dialogue which has gone forth today. two of the things that he was worried about her forces forward and weapons forward in the bordering nations. one of the things that various authors of that document that we worked on together, one of the things we said as we need to show him that if he continues with his lycos path and invades that he will get what he didn't want and that is more forces and more weapons. you raise children or you help raise your grandchildren now, you know with a two-year-old that if you reward bad behavior or allow bad behavior to stand,

you will get more bad behavior. we need to now take a stand in the west that sends a message to mr. putin that he obviously didn't get into thousand eight when he invaded georgia and he didn't get the message in 2013 and 14 the first two times he invaded ukraine. our letter speaks to beginning to show mr. putin that there are costs to these actions. host: our guest is retired general philip breedlove, supreme allied commander of make -- of nato. we are taking your questions and comments on the situation. we will open up our phone lines to hear from you.

you mentioned the forces forward and the map published from the new york times on russian forces around ukraine. those forces forward include forces that have moved into belarus. guest: that's particularly concerning because forces in ella roos can move very far west without having to fight. let's think back to 2014 and what was one of the major problems that mr. putin faced. they were given many names and i called them moms in moscow. people took to the street about their son's coming home in body bags. in this instance, mr. putin is concerned with how that might play out. he can advance their belarus and lose almost none of his soldiers. that route, that approach takes

him very near with very little loss of life possibly. that is one of the options there. it's almost the same option going through dombas. he's already there and that's not talked about well. his proxy forces are already there and he could march in there again with armored columns and not lose a lot of life. those are options for him. host: let me ask you about the military's first response as far as the 8500 troops. what was that intended to show to the russians? guest: as i understand it, the troops are our part of contributions to thenrf in nato, the nato response forces.

the idea is that we are per hearing the troops that we would send should nato call up portions of the nrf. theoretically, we could send them in up bilateral or unilateral contribution. as i understand it today, this is really the art that we would want to attach to other nato troops to show the resolve of the alliance in europe. host: you were supreme allied commander during the time when the russians came intodombas and took over crimea so this is a bit of deja vu for you. guest: that's why i ring up the discussion that if we were reward bad behavior or allow it to stan, we will see it again. history will tell us when we look back that the west, in its response to georgia, was not

enough, was not adequate to task. i think history will look back at what we did in 13 and 14 and say much the same. we allowed bad behavior to stand. russia still occupying crimea in russia is still in thedomabs and supporting their proxy troops there. we are looking at it again so deja vu again, if we allow that behavior to stand, we will see the yen. mr. putin knows the tool that agitates us the most. host: you were the 17th supreme allied commander of nato forces in a legacy that goes back to general dwight david eisenhower. has it been totally u.s. generals to head nato and how much of the legacy of ike continues in position? guest: it is always a u.s.

general. there have been conversations about that changing or possibly adjusting that will stop there are some mechanical and structural issues have nuclear forces are handled, but i don't preclude the opportunity that in the future we might see a non-american. to this point, the united states has led nato in every case and it's about the u.s.-european command commander who was then selected. it's an interesting dance how these two entities work through the congress and thenac to get the same person approved but it is an amazing legacy and when you sit at his desk, the same desk he sat at in the office, it's impressive. i am a rather told guys a rather told guys so when i got in there , general eisenhower was rather short so i had to have several inches of leg at it to the desk.

behind you is a bust of the general, to the left of you is his weapon which is enshrined there. there is a great legacy of leadership that started with the tough decisions that were made at d-day and after that by the man who was number one. host: let's get to our calls. let's go to syracuse, new york emma good morning. caller: i have a son deployed in south korea right now and i don't leave that every man and woman, not one american boot should touch that soil. nobody does anything for us except steel our economy and defraud our country with beggars. let the eu defend themselves. enough is enough, 20 years and

have dennis down to walk away trillions of dollars in debt? sorry, not worth it. guest: first of all, let me thank you for your sons service or your family members service in south korea. i served there three times, my third child was born inseoul so i understand the sacrifice and the things he is doing over there and it's a working. we've got issues in that part of the world as well. i understand your position. many americans feel that way. i don't share your position having served in europe eight times and having two daughters that were born there, i understand the importance of what europe means to us. half of our economy is still connected to europe and what goes on there reflects in america. i would add, i'm not denigrating your position.

i just have a different position in america has very much your opinion before world war i and world war ii. those were incredibly costly to us. i think they were incredibly important in shaping the world you and i now enjoy. host: let's hear from mike in philadelphia, good morning. guest: good morning, general. basically, i want to make a comment and ask a question. the comment is that this seems to be a return to the old cold war paradigm where we are preventing the increase of influence of russia into democracies. the problem is the expansion of nato. where as the ukraine was part of the soviet union before and was in our business, we've been in

two wars, that required nato involvement, kuwait and a rack. we are perceived to be weak in afghanistan. the question is, how do you find -- how do you define nato now? is it unwieldy? host: thanks for your call, mike . guest: sorry to keep interrupting you, i'm ready with answers. i see some drift to a return to the cold war. let me assure you, that is not our decision. mr. putin is trying to return to the cold war in this part of the reason he is here with over 109,000 troops along the border

because he wants to refashion the security architecture of europe in his favor and regain all of those border nations and regain his sphere of influence. we don't want that stuff since the fall of the wall, we've been trying to embrace russia, inviting them into a more western orientation, a more western style democracy. today, we don't want a cold war but mr. putin is on the border. if you read the two documents he gave us, it describes the cold war and the security architecture of the cold war. we don't want to go there, he wants to go there, we are trying to prevent it. i think the question about the expansion of nato, i understand your position but i have a different position. having sat in the meetings in russells and the north atlantic

council and more importantly, the large dinners where topics are talked about more frequently, what comes up is what is called the open-door policy. and how nato believes in its open-door policy. having watched it for three years myself intimately, to get into nato is extremely hard. the hoops that nations have to jump through rx relate tough, the programs they have to go through and the votes they have to make. there are nations that have wanted in four decades that are not in stop montenegro waited forever and was finally voted in. this notion in the world that nato is expanding and it's reaching and grabbing nations and pulling them in to thwart russia is really bunk.

nations fight to get in. what i believe is that nations have their own sovereign right to choose of the affiliate in this world and that no nation, that includes russia, have a veto over what sovereign nations want to do. i hope that helps. host: what about the nation of moldova between romania and ukraine? is it part of nato? guest: no, it is not. moldova is another one of those countries that has an unwanted russian garrison in it. it's on the east side of the country. host: let's hear from chris in north waltham massachusetts. caller: your guest is in correct about russia invading georgia. georgia invaded the northern

provinces. independent protestants from georgia and the soviets merely pushed the georgians back. your guest seems to be reciting nato propaganda, have a nice day. guest: he and i obviously see what happened in georgia very differently. host: let me ask you about crimea. people of made several points about how the changing crimea came up out. this is from twitter -- guest: what was her name again? host: sheila asked what to the people of crimea want. guest: sheila has a good point that is well-made and understood

that there were people in crimea who very much wanted to go back to the soviet days because of socialism and communism afforded them during that time. let's not argue the point that there were people in crimea that wanted to go there. the invasion of crimea is an interesting thing. if you were to go out and do some googling of the documents that mr. garasimov talks about, i don't think it was a doctrine but his writings and things and what you saw in crimea is the way that mr. garasimov talks about taking over nation you almost see a script that is done over the years, going in and

buying out the people in charge of utilities, buying out the lease, buying out the people who are running, getting puppets installed, all the things that happened in crimea are pretty well detailed in the plans that russian leaders write about how to do this business. at the very and, it was a pretty bloodless thing stop it was almost a flip of a switch because russia had accomplished all of those objectives inside of crimea that you see them write about and all of that's -- all that was standing against russia was the military garrisons. i think at its root, this is more a conversation about how it happened. in world war i, we said that was the war to end all wars. it didn't, we have world war ii and after world war ii, nader will -- nato was ensconced and

it's not perfect and there have been some school -- some small wars. pretty much for 70 plus years, there have been relative peace on the level of world wars in europe also part of that because we believe in the sovereignty of nations and we believe that the border of a nation is not to be overrun by other nations. in georgia and 13 and 14 in ukraine, we saw a large world power uses land forces to change internationally recognized borders on the european landmass and we find that unacceptable. let's go back to sheila's supposition, yes, there are a lot of people in crimea that wanted to be a part of russia again stop there are a lot of people in crimea that still don't want to be a part of russia. i would point to the crimean

tartar's who are repressed under the russian regime. host: gerd, florida. caller: in listening to you, one of the issues that i have with nato is that all of these countries are spending less than 1% of their gdp on defense. then we find that germany hasn't been supportive of what's been going on as far as any kind of interdiction or any kind of trade restrictions. they are very dependent on russian oil -- russian gas. as a result, i'm wondering, maybe we should take up the post and move the bases out of there and go to poland. they have been much more supportive. what are your thoughts on that? guest: once again, let me say i

understand your concern and i know there are many americans that have the same concern you have. once again, let me be honest and say i have different views. let's talk a little about what you said. you said all of these nato countries are spending less than 1%. that is factually not correct. your point is good which is they are not spending 2% which is the goal we have given them. about 10 of the nations now are spending 2% whether you agree or disagree with former administrations, i disagreed with her tactics, techniques and procedures but some of our former administrations rekindled the thought that you have to give your part. now we have about 10 nations that are contributing their part according to the agreements, about 2%.

yes, there are some countries who have distinct dependencies on russian oil and gas. this is a tool that mr. putin uses well stop i think nord stream 2 will make that worse. nations will get more dependent on russian gas rather than last. as far as moving forces out of one or the other, i think we have to be careful to understand what nations give who are not accounted for in that 1%. it's easy and heartfelt answer but some of the things that germany does give us, our biggest bases, are most technically advanced command and control over cajuns and it's important because i commanded in germany. i served in germany five times

and i commanded therefore times. over the years, i went and visited dozens and dozens of our soldiers coming back out of afghanistan, being cared for their at their medical center which is the place my second daughter was born. these intangibles, the fact that this saved hundreds if not thousands of lives because of the care that facility gave. i am not trying to argue with your concern about the actual money but i think we also need to think about the intangibles these countries give. yes, we need to keep working on what i said earlier, the solidarity of message. it will be good for germany to be firmly in the message of nato , opposing what's going on in the ukraine. host: another skeptic of supporting ukraine, jeff on

twitter guest: once again, a lot of people agree with you. in some respects, i agree with you as well. i am a supporter of ukraine because i see the people of ukraine, i've been there many times, east and west and we have a lot of men and women and families in ukraine who want to be a part of the west. i believe they deserve the right to be a part of the west. as i described earlier, for a nation to become a art of nato, it is a tough road. you are given things you have to do to come aboard. ukraine still has things they

need to do. the most famous is the whole discussion of corruption. are they done with it? no. do we have a corruption in america? yes, maybe not the -- not to the degree of ukraine but we all have as we have to work on when it comes to these matters so let me agree with you that ukraine has things that are still in front of it if it wants to become a nato member. right now, that is not really the issue in ukraine. the larger issue is about mr. putin wanting to rewrite the security infrastructure of europe back to a mode closer to the warsaw pact days. host: walid is on the line from pennsylvania. caller: i hope you can answer this question. i just read an article talking

something about russian artillery and heather military has gotten a lot better and better than ours. is there a legitimate threat to americans if we engage? host: he is breaking up there a little bit but thank you. guest: if you read into that article, you'll probably see my words in there as well. i don't remember the heart about their artillery being better than ours, i don't remember that in the article but the rest of what you were talking about is certainly there. the important thing to think about the russian military, they are a learning and adaptive force. they get better every time they fight. if you go back and read about the invasion of georgia and their occupation, when that

happens, russia won that war. they invaded and took land from georgia and they still hold it. when they first went in there, they got there knows bloody pretty badly by a small nation will stop i'm not here to criticize. i'm here to tell you that they learned a lot. as they have fought skirmishes and fought bigger battles since that time, they have gotten better and better. they learned an awful lot in syria stop they started employing some pretty sophisticated weapons. they learned a lot in ukraine. if you look at the salient in the dombas, the used a toolchain comprised of unmanned aerial vehicles that some people called drones and a smart rocket

system. they tour up ukrainian forces in the battle. they almost eliminated an entire battalion in one of the attacks. they are learning and adaptive and have come a long way. they are not 10 feet tall stuff they might be six feet one but they are not 10 feet tall. they still have problems we will have to deal with and they will get better every time they do. i hope that answers your question. host: a follow-up article on his comment. what is your assessment of the ukraine military? guest: remind me of the second

part but i want to talk to the first part. host: the beefed up military still out gunned? guest: i tend to forget questions in the middle of others. let's look at the medical part. when this contrived and manufactured crisis first popped out, it was overhead photos of what was going on in ukraine. we had these large groups of forces parked in very non-technical ways to make them easy to see. i think it was high-level messaging. what we have seen across the last few days is concerning because two things are happening. these forces are moving out and

doing exercises and moving into more tactical formation. what we call the enablers, the enabling capabilities, hospitals , intelligence units, jamming units. all the enablers which give the more potent forces the capability to invade, those are now showing up in the near area and that's concerning. please, tell me the second half of the westin. host: it says the beefed-up ukraine military is still out gunned. guest: it is but let me assure you this, the military ukraine of today is very different than the ukraine military of 13 and 14. they have spent this time getting better. they have spent this time investing. they have spent this time growing and what i have seen when i am there, what i hear

from those on the ground now is that they have the will and the spirit to fight if they have to. it's a different situation than in 2013. your premise is right. ukraine military will not be able to stand in the long term against an ever-growing russian force. it will fight valiantly and bloody and cost mr. putin a lot and hopefully that will change his mind stop what i am worried about is that the land forces of ukraine have come a long way. the air forces and naval forces of ukraine are very much overmatched by russia. they probably will not be able to defend the sovereign airspace or the sovereign see space of ukraine and these are the places where the west should look at

the possibility of help. host: we will hear from brian in michigan, go ahead. caller: i worked with a guided missile flagship and i worked with nato and they do pretty well on the sea. there is no problem there. the problem i have is this -- since world war ii which you cited, nato has grown exponentially in number. the european union which is mainly nato, let's get clear on this. the european union's gdp is that of the united states. let's start there. breaking red with russia in marseille after we had been

chasing and dogging them down for many days. naval ships come together rarely. as far as u.s. and navy imports but this one did stop it was a beautiful time. i've got no problem with russians. i broke bread with russians, drank your with russians. the problem is with putin. i have a problem with the leaders. they can't figure out how to do things other than war. i believe war is the most sickening thing on earth. host: i will let you go there. guest: i have had similar experiences. after the wall came down come we started training with the former east german air force. it was amazing. we joke off and that after we got to know them come we didn't know whether who's side they would have fought on stop among

sailors, there is a brother and sisterhood. there is a brother and sisterhood with aviators. the land forces have a little trouble making afterwards -- making afterwards but it all occurred in the end. i don't argue about the people. i absolutely agree about putin and the leaders. people call russia and autocracy because it's led by a small group that russia likes to call itself a democracy. they don't have a real democratic election. clearly, i believe is what we call a kleptocracy which means not only are they autocratic in the way they lead but they are there to extract wealth from the country and the wealth of those few people around mr. putin is staggering as we saw.

yes, we have a problem with the approach the leaders have. i think esther putin has a problem with his own internal message and his own internal people and that's why you see him taking the actions he is taken who are raising options inside that country. host: retired general philip breedlove served as supreme allied commander from 20 routine-2016 and thank you for being with us this morning. guest: thank you and i love the bastions, these are important things we need to talk about in our country. host: take care. more of the program is coming up. a bit later,roben farzad the host of the full disclosure podcast will be with us. first up, we will take calls

from our open forum. here are the lines to use. we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors disgusting their latest nonfiction books. at 2 p.m. eastern, the book there is no free lunch, 250 economic truths which he argues that the free enterprise system is being threatened by socialist

and progressives. at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwards, barbara walter with her book on how civil wars start and how to stop them which examines the warning signs which often proceed civil wars and asks if another one can happen in the u.s.. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. >> c-span offers a variety of podcast that of something for every listener. weekdays, washington today gives you the latest on the nations capital and every week, but notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest work while the weekly uses audio from our immense archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years and our series talking red

features conversations with historians about their lives and work stop many of our television programs are also available as part cason you can find them all on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your outcasts. -- podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have about half an hour of open forum, chance for you to weigh in on your use of issues in the news, political or public policy issues. we talked about the russia and ukraine situation. the appointment coming up of a new supreme court justice. this is politico reporting on the road ahead for naming a new supreme court justice.

let's hear from you and let's go to ed in lawrenceville, georgia, republican line. caller: what i'd like to say is

the democrats keep worrying about their democracy but i want young people to know that the word democracy is not in the constitution or the bill of rights. there is nothing in our constitution that has anything to do with democracy. host: ok john from temple hills, maryland, independent line. caller: hi, when it comes to descendants of slavery, i'm talking about the people who are the descendants of slavery. the agenda does not include a black female justice. we want reduction of qualified immunity for police. these other issues like a female justice, clarence thomas has

been on the court for years, how is that beneficial? the issues are white people bringing issues to black people. clarence thomas doesn't have any credibility with the black population and how willie black justice help with qualified immunity? white people present this to black people. they listen to the other groups and what they have to say for when it comes to black people, they talk down to us and they present the issues to us and we just want them to stop and consider the black agenda. host: have you brought the issue of reparations up to one of your representatives, a congressman or local representative and what's the reaction been? caller: we see the reaction. there is a study. with any other group like asians, they didn't have to do a study, they just came right out

and gave them money in support and they passed the anti-hate crime bill against asians. they didn't have to do a study. when it came to latinos, they didn't have to do a study, only when it comes to us, then there has to be a study, then they have to mull over things. it's the same thing over and over. they have the money to give us reparations and they can stop qualified immunity for white cops. there is a big issue with racism in the police force around the united states. they can address that issue but they don't want to. the black caucus as a gimmick. they don't represent lack people. i'm talking about the sins of slavery, not lgbtq or people of color or marginalized groups.

i'm talking about descendants of american slavery. host: we were a few minutes away from the u.s. house who will come in briefly in one of their pro forma sessions straight up at 9:00 a.m. eastern but we will continue on "washington journal" once that wraps up with the open form and we will let you know about some of our coverage later to day. at one p.m. eastern from the last three administrations and we will talk about their experiences and discuss the insight and lessons on national security processes and the challenges facing the u.s. today on c-span2 at 1 p.m. eastern and you can follow our mobile app on c-span now. we will go to danbury, connecticut and hear from andrew, republican line. my fault, go ahead. caller: hello and thank you for having me.

one thing that concerns me is the national debt but we don't talk about it too much. is there any way we can work on trying to cut that down sir generation doesn't have to pay so much for it? increasing taxes is not a popular brooch -- approach. maybe we can cut some of the social spending? it's not fun to talk about paying debts but it is accruing and i think something needs to be addressed. host: cindy on the line from springfield, illinois, democrats line. caller: hi there, i just have to respond to the previous caller. why do we have to immediately cut social spending?

why can't we look upward to the people that have all the money who are literally putting themselves in rockets and shooting themselves into space? if they could just contribute the tiny little portion, the debt would be erased. they could erase it by themselves. what i'm calling about is i am really concerned about the fact that we are trying to take away books. everybody on the republican side talks about slippery slopes and that's as bad as it gets. it broke my heart to hear a 16-year-old got up on stage into fence and said that one of the books -- he was a senior and one of the books they were taking way was 16 and pregnant. she was pointing out the fact that they are not allowed to have sex ed in school. now they are taking away a book

that can give them a clue. when you start taking away books, well were -- where will they turn but the internet which is full of lies. you have a book that has fact right in front of you and you will take that away and send them off to the internet and the minute they type in the word sex, there is all kinds of bells and whistles that will go off. host: the story this week about a tennessee school board's action on banning a book on the holocaust. john is in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania, republican line, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking the call. i find a lot of what's going on in our country these days comical.

we have half the country listening to the government and the media and loving everything they hear and i think you will have another half going to alternative media on the web in the future web block chain communication channels. i see a country that completely doesn't agree with anything the other side is saying. everything from politics to wars , it's kind of sad. i served in the military in korea. i am 62 and will be 63 and getting ready for retirement. i'm fine but the next generation is in big trouble. they will not have the opportunities i had growing up stop they will have a split nation right down the center. it's kind of sad to see. it's clear to see our politicians in d.c. really don't care about us, they care about operations and it's sad for the next generations will stop+ i'm

not worried about myself stop the next generation is in deep trouble. host: james in san diego on the republican line. caller: good morning, i would like to talk about two issues not related stuff one is "washington journal", it cites many poles but you never say how many people were actually pulled and how many were citizens and were not citizens. and how many democrats and how many republicans and independents were involved in that whole step poles are easy to slant. it slants what you actually want to hear. my second point is c-span and accepting calls. i very rarely hear calls from vermont, new hampshire, maine, north dakota, south dakota idaho, nebraska or iowa.

i would like to know how calls are screened and i understand they are first come first serve i find it interesting as to how many states are not calling in. i hear a lot of calls from new york, florida and california which is interesting stuff i would like to know the number of democrats and independents that have been accepted in each segment and how many minutes of each segment democrats and republicans and independents get. i appreciate your response. host: that's a lot to ask for in terms of folks calling in. we do take calls from those states you mentioned. they may not be calling in today but folks are watching. the house is coming in from -- for a pro forma session and it should be brief and we would be back here shortly after the house gavels in an gavels back

out. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 1004-b-2-c of the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2002 public

law 117-81, and the order of the house of january 4, 2021 of the following individual on the part of the house to the commission on planning, programming, budgeting, and execution reform. the clerk: ms. suzan davis, san diego, california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 12 is-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on tuesday, february 1, 2002. 2022 the house when they return on c-span. he will go back here to open forum, hearing from you on news items you are following. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. and others, (202) 748-8002.

let's go to charlie in dover, arkansas. democrats line. caller: thanks for allowing me to speak. feel free to interrupt me at any time. i want to speak about the fact that the government keeps saying they are spending this tax money. these trillions of dollars they are spending is not tax money. this is american wealth that has been accumulated over the centuries. since george washington laid his hand on the bible. and they are depleted $100 trillion. they have already spent $30 trillion of it. they are trying to say they are doing it at zero interest, which is a lie. it won't last. and we are being ripped off as the american people. this money belongs to our grandkids and the future of

america. no one has a right to run for president and say, i'm going to have a balanced budget, with the intention of spending $3 trillion more than they bring in every year. host: thanks for that, charlie. walter is next up in meridian, mississippi. republican line. caller: hello. host: go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i would like to ask c-span a question. have you all ever had a talk show about the border? host: oh yeah. caller: i might have missed it, but you all need to have a form on the border. you know, where people can ask questions about what is going on and what is happening. host: we did a whole series last year on the border. a story about that, a related story in the new york times,

vice president harris in central america, hoping to deter migration. vice president kamala harris visited honduras on thursday to attend the presidential inauguration of the country's first female head of state, the white house hopes will become a crucial ally in addressing the corruption and immigration that have challenged central america. wright, ms. harris' trip to central america was more than a show of support. it also a sign of the biden administration's eagerness to pursue a fresh start, tackling the poverty and graft that have pushed thousands of vulnerable families to the u.s. southern border in recent years. the biden administration's aggressive pursuit of a fresh partnership with honduras also highlighted the complexity of ms. harris' task. days before ms. castro's inauguration, her own party rebelled over her effort to install a centrist as

congressional speaker. the rebellion threatens her agenda, aimed at tackling crime and corruption that have generated mass migration from honduras in recent years. let's hear from jackie in fort lauderdale, florida on the democrats line. caller: i would like to just make a quick statement on why you guys have military leaders come in and give their expert opinion, when in korea we left with our tail between our legs. in vietnam we left with our tail between our legs. in afghanistan the same way, and then iraq. the military has spent all taxpayers' money unnecessarily, and baseball, if you go 0-3, you are betting zero. these people giving expert advice have been batting zero prior to that, so that is just my opinion, that the military

has really let the united states down, really, financially and it is just a terrible situation we are in, and the country is practically bankrupt because of all of these wars. that is just my opinion, and think you very much for listening. host: this is ron calling from new hampshire. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a comment about the white house press briefing. before i make my comment, can i make a comment on c-span programming? host: sure. caller: i think you folks need to have somebody come on the show who is an expert on respirators, n95 respirators. you know, the respirators? it was a lot of technical information that is not getting out there that needs to get out there, like how to wear them properly and how to do a seal

check, and lots of things not only people need to know, but policymakers need to understand that. they finally released all of these masks from the stockpile, but you guys need to have an expert on there, and i continue an email with some ideas. somebody from the industry or, you know, in the government that does testing, or somebody that has expertise on that. host: i think the mill address is a journal@cspan.org. go ahead with your next comment. caller: the white house press briefing is related to that. i noticed a lot of correspondence, they started wearing the respirators now, most of them. but i noticed they are wearing ones that are not approved and they are not fitting property and things like that, and they are putting themselves at risk. i'm sure they think they are

doing the right thing by wearing the respirator, most of them -- almost all of them -- are wearing them incorrectly, and it is allowing air to get in and putting themselves at risk. i think jen psaki should have an extra come in two brief the reporters about respirators, so they can wear it themselves and that they can report through their channels also how to do that. it is my comment. host: thanks, ron. the fda stop the use of monoclonal antibodies. this is from usa today. the food and drug administration pulled its authorization of two of the most used monoclonal antibodies to treat covid-19 this week, leaving doctors with fewer options to help patients. why the fda shut them down? because the two do not work against the omicron variant that now causes more than 99% of

coronavirus infections in the united states. all of the data show these older antibodies are ineffective against omicron, said the division of infectious diseases at brigham young women's in boston. the monoclonal's were doing nothing, said dr. eric topol. there is overpowering data that these monoclonals are unable to bind to omicron, he said. you can read the full story at usatoday.com. joe is in alabama on the republican line. morning. caller: good money. just calling about the guy who wanted reparations for slaves. he needs to look at the news and see how any people are coming across that border. the democrats don't need the blocks and them -- blacks

anymore. they've got everybody they need. as far as what happens when the white people become minority, the spanish people do not owe the blacks anything, so you can forget about reparations. thank you. host: jeffrey is in new york. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was calling to ask a question. could you have a dialogue on abraham lincoln's will, which includes the 13th amendment? the record shows something different. that is all, thank you. host: i suggest you also check our video library at c-span.org. we have touched on many areas related to lincoln. we are a week away from the start of the olympics in china, and this is a full-page ad showing the political angles will certainly hear more about. nbc, how silent will you be when

the 2022 olympics host country "destroys basic freedoms, imprisons young women without fail on security charges, shuts down an independent free press, bans peaceful remembrance of the tiananmen square massacre, commits crimes against humanity, this is from the committee for freedom in hong kong. a full-page ad today. calling from georgia, donald is up next on the democrats line. we had. caller: i just heard the comment toward the guy that felt like blacks do not need anything else. my concern is this. america has always looked over blacks. our constitution is designed -- it has been designed to continually allow for racism to

always exist. and it was created so that racism would always exist. and it has never been ratified, and we are still dealing with the -- those implications, and we are still dealing with that constitution, and the state's constitution, and this is why we see laws like georgia yesterday implemented the crt not to be taught in schools, which is truth concerning black history. we are more than slavery. no, we still deal with the fact that president hansen still is not given credit for building this country. we talk about george washington, when he was given the job by hansen, because he was living down the street from hansen and given a job in the senate.

and when george washington came on the scene we already had a developed country with states, and new york was called in amsterdam, each was the money center of the world. in this country was already financed by king james. you know, we don't look at the real history of blacks, we only look at what is going on in today's society. and that really needs to be discussed, because america could be so much greater if blacks are given a chance to be who we truly are. and i think it does us a great injustice to only see blacks as common in the criminal justice system. i think it does us great harm when we look at blacks as being less than who we are and treated as such. we have, with so many inventions and can continue to make society

change in today's world. i think given -- giving blacks a chance to be equal in society on all levels, from social, economic, or graphic -- demographic, would not only do america a great justice, but also the world. i think that our laws need to change and this fear of, you know, black power, success, or, you know, what we can offer really needs to go away. we need to be accepted, finally, once and for all, it and the sins of this nation need to be paid for. host: i'm going to let you go there. appreciate you calling in this morning. ahead, we will be joined by roben farzad, the host of "full disclosure" podcast. we will be talking about this week's announcement from the fed that higher interest rates are on the way. that is ahead here on

"washington journal." ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, we look back on the scandal that led up to president richard nixon's resignation with jeff sheppard, who was at the time the youngest lawyer on president nixon's white house staff. he is also the author of "the nixon conspiracy." then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, university professor catherine lansdowne teaches a class on politics and culture in the united states in 1800 through the 1830's. she describes how the country changed between the presidencies

of thomas jefferson and andrew jackson. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online at c-span.org/history. ♪ >> sunday, february 6 on in-depth, georgetown law professor cheryl cassian will be our guest to talk about race relations and inequality in america. her books include "the failures of integration," and "white space, black hood." join in live sunday, february 6 at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: it has been some week on wall street.

lots of economic news to talk about, and who better than roben farzad. roben farzad, welcome to washington journal. guest: thank you for having me. host: for those who do not know what your program is about, tell us more. "full disclosure." guest: it is an omnivorous program about the business of culture, the culture of business. we have creative's, policymakers, you name it. it is potluck. host: it has been quite a week on wall street, but the week ending with some pretty decent cannot -- decent economic news. i want to show you the headline, the gdp grew 6.9% last year, closing 2021 out stronger than expected. it is 5.7% growth for the year. what did you think when you saw those numbers? guest: that is great if you took it in isolation, but we are coming out of this crater of a pandemic, where everything shut

down globally, economically, within a matter of 48 hours. there are enormous difficulties coming out of it. people have been saving cash and want goods and/or ordering things on amazon and online left and right. supermarket shelves are bare and people are feeling inflation we have not seen in 40 years. it is kind of this race, get the best gdp number posted since 1984, when ronald reagan was in office, but we are seeing some of the worst inflationary pressure since the early 1980's. host: more is reflected in this headline from the washington times. u.s. economy grew in 2021 at fastest pace since 1984. the sub headline says, increase came after massive government spending, and much of that teetering out or has gone away for 2022. guest: that's right. people forget -- i did an episode this week on what business interruption insurance

is going to look like coming out of covid. if capitol hill did not step up with ppp and cares, he would have seen such rampant bankruptcy, such rampant business closures. really a situation i cannot imagine would have been a depression. on top of that you have this other wing of government in the central bank coming out and saying, we are good for free money for as long as possible. not only did the powell fed take rates to zero, it did monetary stimulus, it did quantitative easing, it did asset purchases -- it is still doing asset purchases for another few weeks. what is going to be difficult is getting a sense for this economy's, kind of, organic strength, nothing else added to it. what are we good for without extraordinary government intervention? that is a multi dollar question. host: do you think the fed and the administration should have acted earlier when inflation

started to rear its ugly head last year? guest: it is so difficult, because you can still say that, look, we are 3 million to 4 million jobs short of what we were before the pandemic. we are not at full employment, and yet you have seen such a risk of asset bubbles if you look at the stock market. if you look at non-fungible tokens and bitcoin. arguably this is one of the biggest -- if you believe in bubbles that could be one of the biggest bubbles we have ever had. the fed would say that we do not necessarily target bubbles, we look at full employment and price stability. others are arguing that that is why optic -- myopic, that you kept it at zero for too long. that you risk runaway inflation, and now the fed is going to have to be more aggressive in hiking, and that could hurt the entire economy. it is so difficult.

it is so non-scientific. if you look at the nets of the open market committee before the crisis -- look and -- in 2007. it is not like anybody saw this pandemic coming. on balance you try to over stimulate and deal with the consequences later. host: looking at the gdp number that was up for the quarter and year, pretty good blunt question from the new york times this morning -- the challenge facing biden. if gdp is up, why do voters feel down? your thoughts on that question, roben farzad? guest: omicron, inflation, bare shelves, annoyed parents that we are on the brink of having to mark the tube -- the two-year anniversary of this. we were going to be back to work and back to play that summer of 2020, and it is so sobering for

people that another school year might have to be not. you see the battle over mask mandates in various school districts. it is just so sobering that this many people have died and have suffered, and that the pandemic is not under control two years into this. host: our guest is roben farzad. he is host of public radio's "full disclosure." the lines are, for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. four independents and others, (202) 748-8002. let me ask you about the stock market. it has been a bright area. that has been up, but axios has the headline, it is official, stock market having its worst start ever. guest: that is a pinprick compared to how much it has gone

up since march of 2020. if you remember we had something like a 30% decline in a few days, and then when the fed signaled -- there were convulsions in the bond market. nobody knew. oil, you can give it away. the oil prices nominally hit 04 a moment, and now you are talking about oil in the triple digits. it was one of those moments of weightlessness, like, what are we supposed to do? are we supposed to consult the 1919 playbook? the stock market has been up enormously since. if you told me on the eve of the pandemic to snap up technology shares and netflix and tesla and used cars -- that they would have their biggest price event in history -- i would have said, what are you talking about? real estate prices are at record levels. nobody can seem to buy a starter home. so, yeah, the market is up, i don't know, much more than the 10% it has been down, she's a

garden-variety correction. i think people have forgotten that markets can and do fall apart. and that is the price of admission. they cannot just return a guaranteed 30% annually. host: you mention the price of oil, which we see as our home heating oil costs or at the pump. you see any indication that that inflation pressure point is going to ease anytime soon? guest: i am worried that what happened in 2008 was, the price went up to $140 a barrel, and that is a big factor in knocking the global economy over. it seems like this economy, people who have not been spending on vacations, commuting and everything, are still flush with cash as we see people bid for two few products and the oil market seems to be absorbing the quite well, thank you. he saw the numbers from chevron.

i think it posted its best numbers since 2014. this is kind of not too hot, not too cold. a the world at or near triple-digit oil. host: you mentioned empty shelves and supply chain issues. what about on that front in terms of both inflation -- although yesterday armor foods announced price increases for the much of -- month of march. many of the products that people use. is there any relief ahead in terms of that? guest: some supply chains take so long to get back to some sort of equilibrium. for example, who would have thought that this global chip shortage would have hit the car industry? apparently break sensors, you know, you cannot bake to get a toyota rav4 right now, and that has spilled over into a market for used car prices. slightly used cars are being bid up. i think people would entertain

these offers if there were newer cars to buy. we have seen this across-the-board. everybody remembers the first shock as toilet paper. there were chicken wings, pickles, and orange juice, various parts of the supply chain. do people realize it is not florida the -- that provides oranges for us, it is brazil? do we realize that taiwan and korea provide us semiconductors? do we realize that other countries that have been off-line for various products are not getting back on very easily? it is very different in the developing world. it is very different even in europe, south america. when you enjoy, literally, the fruits of globalization -- take the haas avocado. it has become ubiquitous. we dip them in guacamole, but you have to depend on mexico and south america and other parts for a continuous year-long

supply. when there is an interruption to that, people are mad at their grocers, they are mad at the entire system. if you are a consumer, you do have pricing power, because there is so much money chasing too few goods. moreover, you are rethinking what your supply chain is going to look like out of this. used to be just-in-time, super-lean inventory. now everybody is subtly putting up the price of warehouses and having backup inventory in case you see some other shock to the system. it has really prompted a broad re-think across-the-board. host: if you have a comment for roben farzad or question, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. we have plenty of calls, though. let's get to them first ends -- first and hear how people are doing in the economy. deborah, first up in haleyville, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning.

mr. farzad, my question for you is, have you done any research on people that go into different states to represent us in the house, in the senate? in the state of alabama you are allowed to stay one night in that state and you can be a representative in the house or senate. it is said to me because we have several representatives -- one who lives in florida, one who lives in virginia -- they don't understand what is going on in our state, but they are able to get elected and vote on our economic problems. have you done any research on that? i don't know if other states are the same as alabama, but one night, they can be in the house, one night out of the year, and become our state representative. guest: ma'am, i'm not familiar with that, and i'm actually overdue to visit alabama. i don't think i will be running

for office, but i should research that. host: let's hear from mike in new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. farzad. i have a question. this relates to jerome powell and his nomination. the argument that the fed is independent, i know that argument, but the reality is he watches the political tea leaves and sees where it is going. with that in mind, jerome powell held office essentially not raising interest rates, which was, essentially, a bonus to the biden administration not to address the existing inflation until after he was renominated as federal reserve chairman. question. how much politics do you think were involved in essentially the

timing of interest rates increasing right now, after he has been selected for another term? thank you. guest: i think it is brutally difficult and you have many recent examples. if you look at ronald ragan -- ronald reagan versus paul volker, you have to break inflation on my watch? i'm dealing with the 1982 midterms and the 1984 election. or you look at the bond market shock in 1994 when bill clinton got bludgeoned in the midterms and the fed had to hike rates to stave off potentially runaway inflation. it is never easy, and i have to say, chairman powell was appointed by donald trump. even after that, as much as donald trump would try to jawbone the purportedly-independent central bank, he wasn't exactly blowing kisses at him behavior -- at him. you are kind of in a damned if

you do, damned if you don't position. there are several federal reserve presidents that chime in on this. the policy is done through a vote and to some sort of consensus. it is not a perfect science, and it is never easy. do you want to hike rates and not kill the entire economy and not have it be on a contentious election year? of course, but if the data is not there to support that, you can't get ahead of it. host: let's hear from alan, east chicago, indiana, on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for accepting my call. huge fan of the "washington journal." i have a question, and i guess i'm throwing out my little conspiracy theory. is this really inflation, or is it a little bit of price gouging thrown in their? -- there?

i remember inflation in the 70's. i don't know if the dollar has lost value overseas or elsewhere. people had overextended their credit and buying more than they could pay back. i don't know if that is a problem now, but looking at just before the holidays how the price of gas went up, i said, why? there is no interruption in and supply chain, the holidays were coming and the people were going to hit the highways, and schools had opened up, people were going to work. i think all companies raised up their gas prices around the holidays and summer because they know people are traveling. i was just wondering, is that simply the oil companies trying to make up for the profits they did not get in 2020 by jacking up the gas prices, because they knew people were going to travel , regardless of how much gas was

going to cost? it shut up after new year's. the price of gas in this area dropped by $.40. host: thank you. guest: opec colludes. opec is not a beacon of supply and demand. it doesn't will -- it doesn't like what happened to it in the spring of 2020, when oil cannot be given away. these countries had to scramble to/production. then that sowed the seeds of its own demise. when demand does snap back and you have a better-than-expected summer last year and a much better than expected winter travel season and a jet fuel is back in demand, you are looking great because you/capacity, you slashed the likes of --the likes of exxon did everything. now they are enjoying profits when oil is hitting triple

digits. it is not like the gas station operator is up there jacking prices. you have seen examples during hurricanes and others of price gouging, and regulators were on that almost instantly, but when the price of a fungible commodity like oil is so linked to what these cartels are doing, you know, the united states has wrested some self-determination from this. in everything that has been going on here since 2008 and 2009 with fracking, in this shoot up to near-triple digit oil, you have seen these drillers managed to bring down their break-even price. even though they have done all this the price of gasoline has spiked and, yeah, clearly if you are the oil companies and an oil-producing nation you do not want to see a repeat of that

crisis in early 2020, that i believe you also do not want to see prices jacked up in a certain way. and maybe accelerating the demise of the global autonomy. that too sows the seeds of its demise. host: a question on twitter from mark who says, the biden administration released some oil from the reserve and gas prices dropped for three weeks. they are back up here. there were $1.50 a gallon just a year and half ago. his question, why is oil production down in this country? guest: you cannot just switch it on overnight. it is incredibly controversial. right now with the debate over carbonization, he saw a judge come in and cancel out this massive gulf of mexico drilling operation. they had been contentious battles over pipelines. you have broader issues about, do we want a green light, fossil

fuel based projects that could have useful lives of 30, 40 years if we want to approach a net zero environment in 30 or 40 years? that is a whole new equation we have to deal with, that, you know, natural gas. natural gas is often a byproduct of oil drilling. that market, if it is a colder than expected winter, that can affect petroleum prices overall. there are so many moving parts in it. in the past one of the silver linings of high oil prices has been that has induced alternative energies. a lot of these things are more feasible if you think about i/o fuels, solar, the comparative price per breakeven in gasoline prices are higher is much more comfortable for investors to come in a lot of that has

decoupled over the years, where technology has done so well it has this escape yellow city -- escape velocity. i'm interested to see how much triple digit oil induces, kind of, this next level energy spending, the likes that takes the united states from the layoff certain fossil fuel dependencies. host: next we will hear from billy in texas on the independent line. caller: good morning, thank you. i want to say good things about c-span. it is a great station. as far as industry, i think we need to come in with these electric vehicles, because people are using these oil and gas things to exploit people, to take advantage of people. we've got to work together as a people with these eight billion people on this earth and the 320 million we have in america, we must work together.

with joe biden i see we will be able to do that, but there was a lot of opposition coming from some republicans and people like trump, where we are not working together. on this one planet, we see all of these worlds out here millions of miles away, we know we must stay together and we can do that. thank you, c-span. host: i wonder if you would follow up on his point about electric vehicles. what you see here -- what you see that trend going and the transition to electric vehicles in any of the fleets across the country? guest: it is so exciting. i stay up at night thinking about it. look at tesla. by far the most valuable carmaker on the planet. it broke $1 trillion market valuation. it sold far fewer cars than general motors or toyota, or the big three, the big 2.5. the fact is this train has left the station. everybody has got the message.

if you are gm, chrysler, you realize the future is electric. if you are going back to a car lot in four years, you are going to be like, do i really want to take another flyer on an internal combustion engine? technology is so exciting, if they can break the 500-mile range threshold and get the price down and get the battery technology right, and if you can be assuaged of your range anxiety, that super-fast chargers are going to be as ubiquitous as gas stations right now, this entire sector is poised to lift off. having said that, useful thought exercise is, what if right now you switched off every internal combustion engine in the united states and switched it to an electric vehicle, dna tesla, -- be it a tesla, a chevy? you are still reliant on fossil

fuel. in some areas like indiana and west virginia it is still overwhelmingly cold. you do have swaths of the country that have been able to straddle solar and wind, so that pushes the bottleneck of carbon to the power plant, and these companies -- similarly, the power-generators have to decide whether they want to sign off on projects that are going to be fossil fuel-based if what the demand is going to be for the end user? i live in virginia. it has been a great value proposition for some people to switch to solar panels and opt out of the grid. to what extent is that going to jeopardize the utilities? we have some exciting disruption ahead with a -- with respect to electric vehicles. host: you introduced a new phrase to my vocabulary. range anxiety, in terms of driving an electric vehicle and how far you will go. guest: i have a camry hybrid, a

2012. look, it is not a perfect technology, but i can get me 550 miles a tank. if i were to buy a similar tesla, and model three, optimistically i could get 350 miles. the value proposition is not there for me. sure, i'm driving most days no more than 20 or 30 miles, but what if i want to take it on a long trip? do i really want to plan that 30 minute stop to charge it back up to 80%, and have to worry about where i'm going to charge and on the way down? these are enormous questions the industry needs to answer. host: a quick investment question from greg in nashville. he says, should i continue putting money into my ira at this time? what are your thoughts? please give details. guest: i always wondered, i said this a few days ago, you walk into a macy's one-day sale and a sweater is marked down 20%, you would be excited.

you would not be panicking and running out of the store in indignation. you know, what kind of place brings its prices down 50 percent? but there is something peculiar about the stock market. the best time to buy is when you don't want to. when people are selling. time and again corrections and bear markets have shown themselves to be incredible times, especially for people who are exhausting about it. have a plan in place to put in however much amount quarterly, regardless of where the market is, so they get an average cost basis exposure. that is not fun. fun is talking about amc and gamestop, and crypto being up 30,000%. if we were doing cocktail parties, animal spirits again, and the possibility of going into a 100-backer stock -- bagger stop. compounding and getting market

returns and watching your cost and mining inflation, that is what builds wealth over time. host: let's go to maryland. joe is on the line. good morning. caller: good morning. nice to listen to you guys. i used to be a stockbroker. my cryptocurrencies are down by half, which means i have lost from $600 down to $300. i got in last year at the end of the year. what a dummy. i have been such a great stockbroker, right? all the things said, oil prices are through the roof, it is really hard on poor people. the ones in the middle who don't have businesses and the ones who pay for gas. us gas-buyers, it is really hard. it seems to me, man, it is very politically motivated. i would like to say i am a father, i am a home inspector. some people think i am a stay-at-home dad, but i work, actually. it is hard for us, and this $100

a barrel oil is, honestly -- i would like you to comment and i have one more question. i have been following for two years. i grew up in washington, d.c. my whole life. even involved in politics. that all said, all of these people in my dad's house -- i've been following this since i was 14 -- host: did you have one more question you wanted to ask? caller: i do. it is off subject, but important to me. we turned over one of our fleets to nato, and they are going to be doing tests. do we have a stop time on the turnover, and i would love to plug a very important thing for me and the state of maryland, if you don't mind? host: what is that? caller: oh, i am trying to stop this ignorance. having grown up in this

political madness my entire life, i am running as an independent. host: we will let you go there. we do not do political plugs, but good luck on your campaign. roben farzad, any comments on his previous comments? guest: i don't know what his question is. if you are talking about oil hitting poorer people disproportionately, look, especially those who, if you were a white-collar worker right now you disproportionately have the privilege of working remotely and putting gas in your tank maybe once a month. a lot of people are telling me they are not using their cars as much. auto insurers send out peace dividends back in 2020, because they are driving less. so, burning less gasoline. service workers, people who have to be in grocery stores and restaurants who have cars or hit disproportionately, and they are also hit having to be on mass transit, and potential exposure on buses or subways.

it is an attack on the system the united states does not control. it is really cartel and bizarre things outside the white house's power. host: let's go to chicago, hear from derek on the democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. yes, a few callers ago a guy asked if there was some price gouging. now, pretty close to 20 years now i have been watching -- i love -- i live in illinois, i live close to the indiana border, which is where i get my feel from, because -- fuel from because it is cheaper. for the last 20 years around 11:00 at night prices go up. ok, monday they go down. to me that is price gouging. you know, this is been going on for close to 20 years. host: roben farzad, the

president hinted at some allegations of price gouging -- wasn't necessarily referring to the -- guest: there were meatpackers, for example. host: what can the government do, not necessarily in the area of strategic petroleum reserve, but for prices of consumer goods. what does the federal government half there? guest: the ftc can break up companies. it is not a sexy thing to talk about, but there is price gouging right now in internet advertising, and what google and facebook do. there is a legend price gouging by meatpackers, which have consolidated enormously. the brazilians have been consolidating meatpackers left and right. how much of the pork industry in the united states is controlled by china? the airlines. there used to be how many majors? eight or nine? now there are four or five? uncle sam has allowed for unlike -- unregulated mega mergers. the used to be airlines that cap

united honest. -- cap united honest. you know, more competition has kept prices down. when you have mega-mergers like these you certain abuses. when you have -- you know, look at facebook buying what's up, facebook -- whatsapp. abuses in terms of its effect on adolescents and teens. it is not just in pure prices, it is companies that are a little unabashedly in what they are doing. yes, we saw at&t broken up into the baby belt 40 years ago, very rarely does the government break up these companies that have accumulated so much pricing power over the years. then banks. look at too big to fail banks. look at how many regionals used to have and look at how many we

have coming out of the financial crisis. that doesn't allow for a lot of competition if you want to have a walk up bank, if you want to compare terms of a quick, easy checking account at one walk-up bank to another one. it is a very different world. host: let's hear from dave in mckinley ville, california. independent line. caller: good morning see spend is a great service. quick, and the electric cars. no, as micro of "dirty jobs" pointed out, was a 90% chance that the electricity is being generated by fossil fuels. either natural gas, oil, or coal. as far as inflation is concerned, inflation essentially is caused when the government over spends and pays for its overspending by printing money. we know, in the old days people

earned money by doing something productive that contributed to supply of goods and services that could be purchased with that money, so that the money they got was offset by additional goods and services. but when the government simply hands out money without a work requirement, that dilutes the value of our money, in the form of higher inflation. this is not rocket science. this is simple law of supply and demand, which is the very first principle i learned in econ 101 when i was a college freshman. it is kind of ironic when i hear the biden administration claiming that this build back better programs would reduce inflation, because essentially what it does is pays more people more -- pays people more money not to work. there are no work requirements to any of these new entitlements being proposed, it is just more money to be handed out by the government. you would never know that we have added $6 trillion to our national debt over the past year

, and that both social security and medicare are facing insolvency in the near future. when this build back better program proposes that we expand medicare coverage and create a bunch of new entitlements, so, you know, it is important that people understand what causes inflation. host: thanks, dave. we will get a response from roben farzad and show the current u.s. national debt at nearly $30 trillion. go ahead. guest: there is a tremendous amount of criticism last fall when the last of the enhanced unemployment benefits was expiring in certain states that when restaurant owners and small businesses left and right were complaining that they could not even get people to short interviews, much less sign up for, let's say, $15 an hour jobs with special bonuses, the argument out there was that because you have been giving

money away that people have lost their incentive to work. fine, but that money has now been gone for a while, and there is still slack of 4 million people. there is this question of the great resignation, and why's it so difficult to hire a worker, even at $15 an hour? there is something else at play here. there is a broad reconsideration. i'm not convinced it was government spending that kept people on the sidelines. this is a real, seismic event. especially if you were a front-line worker. burnout, the lack of child care. if your child was on zoom school and that was unsatisfactory. if you are one of the many parents dealing with aging parents or a child mental health crisis. this is kind of a cataclysmic event that makes you rethink your course, broadly. maybe you want to change where you live.

maybe you want to go back for continuing education. maybe want to be a gig workers or do something creative. we still have a 4 million-job shortage versus where we were two years ago before the onset of the pandemic. and is that going to spill over into vicious wage-price spiral inflation we people can demand big raises and businesses can pass on the costs to customers and customers can then demand big wages, and the economy feels something it has not felt since the early 80's? that is the big, scary question. host: let's hear from christian in woodbridge, connecticut. good morning. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i appreciate the work to c-span does. i would like to make a point on stock valuations. i would like to make one point on inflation. and maybe, perhaps, another one if i have time. currently the stock market is the most overvalued, possibly,

in history. price-to-earnings, despite this correction we have had, makes it one of the most expensive -- and that is going back to data from 1929, folks. the most expensive stock market, ever. we talk about companies like tesla with 1000 p/e ratios, and apple with p/e ratios. these stocks could be cut in half and they would not break a sweat. now, if i could talk about inflation. the great milton freeman said, inflation is always -- and i mean always -- a monetary phenomenon. monetary phenomenon translated to the policy coming out of the federal reserve. now, we have had a federal reserve that has catered to the stock or get since the days of alan greenspan. it is the creation of too big to

fail, it is quantitative easing, it allows companies to borrow money at 0% interest and buy back their own shares, making their stocks higher than ever, and enriching their management. i was wondering if the guest, who is obviously very knowledgeable, could at least acknowledge this to the people who are calling in wondering what the heck to do about their iras, and, you know, the federal reserve has just decided to stop quantitative easing. they have decided to raise interest rates. it would be great to get, like, a decent interest rate on a c/d again, instead of having to invest in apple at 30 times earnings. host: thank you. we will hear from roben farzad. guest: when you take rates to zero, you have real negative

returns on certain fixed income instruments, savings accounts and the like, it forces you into uncomfortable traits. you have to take on risk in bonds, in high-dividend yielding stocks. some people look at apple stock as just as good as a government bond. the company has how much cash? it controls the planet. until it doesn't. this is a problem, as i have said. if you go back to the caller's question, look at this century and go back and look at every year in this century. how many years have we had that have entailed emergency interest-rate policy? i understand there were enormous shocks -- especially 9/11, the bursting of the internet bubble, 2008 financial crisis, then covid. every time the fed has taken rates to emergency levels, and arguably taken way too long to get us out of emergency

interest-rate policy. the fed would say, it is not in our mandate to manage bubbles, but bursting bubbles hurt people. they feel the wealth effect going up, and they will feel the wealth drain when you see cryptocurrencies shaved by 50%, or stocks fall by 60%. people who had to chase risk because, you know, the riskless securities, treasuries and savings bonds, offer them nothing, you're in for a really cold realization. having said that, if you look back at history, 25 years ago alan greenspan invoked irrational exuberance, and the market did not peak until 2000. host: we will go to ray from napa, california. good morning. caller: you know, this oil thing going on, this started in 1972 when they had a big oil embargo and double the price of gas overnight. i think the industry learned, we

have to create a shortage and we can double our price of everything. i bought an electric car over a year and half ago. you get anxiety at first, but you get used to how far it will go. the best part is not looking at the gas prices anymore. i don't care. when i see five dollars a gallon, it is ridiculous. if you take a map of the united states and look at blue versus red states, you will see that the red states are paying one dollar less a gallon than the blue states. i don't know if it is political, coincidental, i don't know, but they pay cheaper for oil out in the middle of minnesota and we do in california. host: do you think some of that is political? guest: what's important to note is that the economy is actually far less energy intensive than was in the early 1970's. it brought us to our knees in a

different way into thousand eight but financial consideration and subprime is what did the number on us. it's exciting opting out of the gas station infrastructure thing. interesting disruption is ahead stuff we are of not a subsidiary of opec anymore. gaskin -- gas production in the united states has liberated so many people over the last few years. it has liberated us from opec control. there is much more work to do. you are talking about decarbonization which is a more ambitious undertaking. host: you talk about the range of the battery to at least 500 miles. patrick in michigan says how will the shift to electric vehicles affect people who cannot afford to buy a car that costs thousands of dollars. guest: if you look at elon musk,

look at the model x and y, he's trying to bring it down to $35,000 or lower. the battery should improve and that's why you see this arms race into batteries right now and ship technology. is tesla truly a car company as much as a technology or software integration company? you are looking at a true arms race in the beneficiary will be consumers. an electric car is just a air car and has fewer parts. you don't have to get an oil change. in many places, it's safer and smarter and it can take software updates over the year and i think that is forcing innovation much more than the oil price if you will. host: las vegas calling on her democrats line, go ahead. caller: i feel like it's the

wealthy controlling too much. they've gotten too big and too powerful and at least over the last 20 years, i would like to see every bill proposed by the ministration brought to the floor for an up-and-down vote. that way we know what the hell they are for. in answer to the rescue plan, i think president biden did a big favor for the american people. we have people in mile-long food lines and people were hurting so he had to do something to help people. not one republican voted for it but when they got the money, they told their people to come and get it. host: we will let you go there as we wrap up, any final thoughts? guest: this has been such a case shaped recovery. whether it's stocks or real estate, used cars, property, you've done so well and you've

gotten this in norma's gift from the federal reserve and the peculiarities of this economy. if you are wage dependent, maybe you got some minimum wage creeping up but one of these crises happened again. i fear that inequality has just worsened on balance coming out of it will stop host: the program's full disclosure, great to have you back on the program this morning . guest: my pleasure. host: that will do it for our show and we hope your back tomorrow and stay live for c-span it would take you next to the commonsense society holding an all-day conference in palm beach, florida. later today, we will hear from florida governor ron desantis. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this is the two minute warning. ♪ ♪

>> good morning. i am the vice president of education for common sense society. happy that you are all here. i would like you to please join me in welcoming the founder, president and ceo of common sense society, mr. marion smith. [applause] >>