today's "washington journal," a look at the situation between russia and ukraine with garry kasparov. later, dan bosch from the american action forum talks about the biden administration's regulatory agenda. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal." first day of february. a recent poll showed less than half of americans surveyed said they had a great deal of confidence in the scientific and medical communities. that survey during the covid-19 pandemic. skepticism or divided among republicans and democrats that took part. we will start off by asking you if your own personal views on science and medicine have changed during the pandemic. if you say yes, those views have

changed, call us at (202) 748-8000 and tell us how. if you say no, those views have not changed, call (202) 748-8001 . perhaps you are unsure, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can text your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. post on facebook at facebook.com/c-span and you can go to our twitter feed and posted there, too, at @cspanwj. the associated press teaming up with the center for research, taking a look at this idea of trust in the scientific and medical communities. when the general overall confidence in those communities was taken amongst those who participated, 48 percent of those saying they would say they have a great deal, and that is how the pole expresses it, in the scientific and medical

communities 40 5% saying they have only some confidence in that. very little saying they have hardly any. if you break it down by partisan views, 51% of democrats survey during that time, 40 2% of republicans, said they have a great deal of confidence in the scientific community in 2018. when you go to 2021, nearly two thirds of democrats expressing confidence in those scientific communities compared to one third of republicans. looking at medicine in that survey, only 37%, 38% saying they have a great deal of confidence, some saying only some confidence. those are some of the survey results. as far as trust in science and those issues, over the last few weeks, there has been talk over podcaster joe rogan.

a group of scientists and medical community people sent a letter to the company spotify about his podcast. they write, throughout the pandemic, joe rogan has spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine, discouraging vaccination in young people and children, claiming vaccines are gene therapy, promoted the off label use of ivermectin, and spread conspiracy theories. it goes on that mr. rogan hosted dr. robert malone, who was suspended from twitter for misinformation about covid. recently, mr. rogan apologized for some of that content, specifically looking at covid and issues related to covid, saying he would take a better approach as far as how he chooses his guests and topics.

we want to ask about that confidence that you might have in the science community and the medical community and if that has been influenced during the pandemic. let us know your thoughts. if you say yes, those views have changed, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are unsure about where you stand, (202) 748-8003. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003, as well. some people posting on our facebook page this morning on this topic, chris saying, yes, we need more education on science and medicine in schools because so many republicans doubt science and are a product of the lack of understanding in medicine in our schools. the education system, this one says, it has not changed my view of science and medicine, it is

the abysmal state of u.s. education, and then people who follow demagogues and irrational causes christina on facebook saying not when it comes to the true facts of science and medicine, i do not trust the world health organization, cdc, government, or anyone pretending to have a medical degree. on facebook, this says, i'm more skeptical of scientific inclusion that might have a financial, political, or otherwise objective motive. facebook is how you can post to share your thoughts, as well. on our yes line as far as views changing on the science of medical communities because of covid, leavenworth, kansas starting us off. tell us how those views have changed. caller: hi, good morning. i have 30 years as an rn in this country, and i think our education is so behind in

science, and it was very abysmal for me to see how dumb people are. you would think our country would be smarter than this. and how somebody politicized an epidemic, that is very dangerous. so i think science and medicine is good, but i think our country should be embarrassed. i think if you took a survey of people, you would find they are like fourth grade in their understanding of the human body and how you spread diseases. it is woeful. so a lot of the people need to get educated -- not the internet but real schools. thank you. host: also on our yes line, sang those views have changed of science and medical communities, this is paul and new albany, indiana.

caller: i think covid-19, i think things have changed for the positive. we are developing more vaccines, developing more awareness. i think we need to give a little more time, but it is better than it was two years ago. people are gradually getting better and the word is getting around that vaccines are the way to go. and i do believe in mandates. host: when it comes to those specific changes are the ones you are expressing, as far as the vaccine development process or are there other things involved, too? caller: i think it is vaccine development, but if you look, little children are becoming more aware of the disease than

their parents. i think that is where the future is, the youth. host: that is paul in day -- indiana with his thoughts on how views have changed. people were surveyed about their own risk of covid in the "new york times," 1500 adults, how worried are you about becoming seriously sick from the coronavirus, 14% of democrats saying very worried, 33% somewhat, not too worried. to republicans, 6% saying they are very worried about getting sick from coronavirus, 15% somewhat, not too worried at 24%. if you want to share your thoughts on your views of science and medicine and if they have changed due to the pandemic, you can call us.

jim from wisconsin on our yes line, you are next. caller: i should be on the no line. i told the telephone operator. but i was on the gas line. host: so you are saying your views have not changed? caller: they have changed. host: tell us how. caller: i don't like things being mandated from above, by the cdc and all that stuff. i think that everything should be done on a person to person basis with a doctor and that there should not be any -- often -- how can they have familiarity with what is going on with

individual people when they mandate and ivermectin and this other stuff cannot be used? it does not make sense when there are things like a remote control from an outside source. no medicine has ever been like that that i have ever heard of. doctors are supposed to have a high degree of discretion with each individual patient, and all of a sudden they get their hands tied behind their back. i do not understand this. host: if you look at the science and medical community, how much trust do you have in them as of today. caller: i do not have any trust in the mrna vaccines. dr. malone and all these people came up with these vaccines, he is one of the people that made it. he has a 55-year-old hold on

medical information, and we cannot look into it. those medical trials. it is an experimental vaccine that cannot understand any of it. host: on our yes line, this is cindy in norwalk, connecticut, asking about your views on science and medicine, if they have changed due to covid. you are next, hello. caller: good morning. i do not think it really helps when people try to say it is a republican thing, democrat thing, or you are stupid, not educated. i do nothing that helps at all. the reason why my views have changed, it is not so much the medicine per se, i feel like most of the medical community do honor the hippocratic oath, but there is just a lack of respect

for people questioning it, just like people question anything, religion, what have you. i think it is a lot of big pharma. joe rogan, i do not think he did anything wrong. i feel like the squashing of people questioning it makes people suspicious. host: you are saying specifically questioning doctors about covid or medical professionals about covid, that kind of thing? caller: i think it is more the institutions, the cdc. i think a lot of good doctors would like to use some of the medications, maybe not ivermectin, but there is also the monoclonal antibodies, which there is a shortage of. and there was the whole think

they are calling the horse dewormer, and it really wasn't. if you watch joe rogan interview sanjay gupta, it is not people that are called >>, dr. malone is not a quack. there are people that were formally respected in the medical community because i have a different opinion. the emails, people without she showed that they saw this was engineered when he talked to a bunch of scientists when it first came out, and he squashed it. they did not want people don't know -- people to know it is possibly an engineered virus. it will cause suspicion. you could be highly educated and still be a little suspicious. as far as polio vaccines, those actually -- host: i will stop you there because you have gone a little farther than what we are talking

about. margaret is in texas and says views have not changed. hello. caller: no, i have not changed. i am a critical thinker, which means i believe in science. all of these people around who have lived within the results of science, like driving their cars, they do not think critically about it. i may be highly educated, but a person does not have to be highly educated to be a critical thinker. you can learn it through life experience. like the first woman who was on, i am shocked by the people who cannot think critically, cannot think reasonably, one step at a time on what is going on and how medicine has evolved. host: when it comes to covid-

related issues, you said you think critically about the science. what science do you look at yourself? caller: i believe in the science behind the vaccines. i believe in the science behind dr. fauci. he has been in it for years and years, in this environment. i am sorry, i did not hear you. host: you answer the question. there is a bit of a delay when you watch on television. when it comes to vaccines themselves, news of yesterday saying it is the fda granting full approval of moderna's coronavirus vaccine. that vaccine was previously available under emergency use operation, second coronavirus vaccine for full fda approval. the pfizer product was approved in august. if views of the science and medical communities have changed due to covid -- alexander in

brooklyn says no. you are next. caller: good morning. it is pretty sad listening to some of the callers and their concerns. just thinking about this as i was reading, i think it is more about, what is the reflection of this country? this is a sick country. we have people with so many underlying conditions. and when you think about the way that we eat, the way we live our lives here, there would be hesitation to believe in science and say, well, this vaccine is good for me and will save my life. i spent two years in new york state in the middle of this and did not even get sick. and i went one week to arizona, one week, and i went to a bar for 10 minutes and there were no vaccine signs outside, they did

not need vaccine cards, nothing, people walked right in and the bartenders did not even have masks, and i got sick. i am literally in the last day of my quarantine in my studio in new york city. host: when you talk about your level of trust in science and medicine, what do you base that on? caller: basing it on prove myself. i got the vaccine, got the booster shot, and for me, my case was mild. and it was not that hard. and i understand if you have not gotten this, for a lot of the things people say out there, it can be too much and you can say i have not gotten it or i do not trust the science, and then you get it. and then you understand. then you are like, oh, my god, this is real. i trust the science, and i just hope that people do not realize too late that vaccines do work and hopefully you do not have to learn the hard way by somebody in your family passing away are

you getting a very bad case. host: so in the scientific and medical community, if your views have changed on those communities because of covid, that is what we are asking you to engage with us in. if you say yes, those views have changed, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, the views have not changed, (202) 748-8001. and perhaps you are unsure, call us at (202) 748-8003. much like michael is calling from washington, d.c., on our unsure line. caller: good morning, sir. a blessing to be here with everything going on. we got this disease going on. we got people scared, man. i am serious. i have been wanting to talk to a real political person for a long time. host: you say you are unsure of your views about the medical community. why do you say that? caller: i just believe that

science is going in a different direction depending where you get the information from, wherever you live, as far as where you're getting it from. where i am from, like in the city or the country or california or the east coast, it is real confusing. host: as far as information you see about covid, where do you look to for that? caller: i look to my own professionals around me. host: that is michael in washington, d.c. the annenberg public policy center did a survey on its own taking a look at dr. anthony fauci, the face of the pandemic, over these last couple of years and his work in the cdc, as well. it said americans have been battered by waves of covid-19 and confusion over shifting government messages about it, confidence in the cdc declined

in january, dropped among both democrats and democrat-leaning independents and republican and republican-leaning independents. confidence in the cdc providing trustworthy information about covid fell from 77% in november of 2021 to 72% in january of 2022. the survey found for the first time a sing drop in confidence and -- saw a significant drop in dr. fauci, and he has been the target of attacks from conservative media outlets throughout the pandemic. confidence in him dropped to 65% in january of 2022, a meaningful drop over nine months. speaking of dr. fauci, he was on msnbc last week and was asked about these questions about the lack of trust in science and public health. here is part of his response. [video clip] >> the issue of restoring trust

in the public health sector, we have discussed this, there are grifters, people intentionally trying to politicize you, politicize this, but obviously there is a collective disappointment in public health. how do you want to fix this going forward? what are some things you would recommend in improving, whether it is the cdc's a beautician, public health in general, i guess lessons learned in the communication part of things? >> i think you just said it, first of all, we have to stick with the science. and one of the treachery's of this, if you want to call it that, is this is a moving target. and the public understandably expects a very consistent message that does not change. in fact, the virus has changed.

let's just look at the facts. we had the original wuhan strain, then alpha, beta, delta, omicron, each with a different bit of a characteristic to it. so things have changed. and with the change in the virus has come change in some of the scientific issues that have resulted in some change in some recommendations. that is the reality. could we have done better in communicating that? no doubt, i think we all need to admit and realize that. but the underlying reason for the change and some of the underlying reasons for some of the communication issues is the fact that people need to recognize we are not dealing with a static target, we are dealing with a moving target. i know that is so difficult for people to appreciate, but that is what the reality is. host: that was dr. fauci on

msnbc. of course, on this program and evens from the white house, plenty of dr. fauci and other medical officials talking about covid over the last couple of years. for the collective works, so to speak, you can go to our website, c-span.org. when the president of this administration and the previous one held forums and briefings with medical communities, we taped them and archived them, and they are all at c-span.org. talking about levels of trust in science and medicine, the ap and another research poll asking people about this idea of confidence in the scientific community, 48% of those saying overall showing a great deal of confidence, 64% of democrats and 34% republicans. a 30-point cap, up nine percentage points since 2018. chris in texas on our gas line,

hello. -- chris in texas on our yes line, hello. chris? we will go to max in maryland on our no line. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is a great question. you put out the split between the political parties in this country and what they feel about science, and the two topics have nothing to do with one another. nothing has changed about science without science, we would not have for analogy or eugenics, and we would not have the cure for the common cold or the cure for cancer. without science, you certainly would not have fit no -- fentanyl. what has changed is how scientists have viewed themselves. science has not viewed itself as infallible. science has flip-flopped with

the church. you cannot question the church or you will be excommunicated. i -- science is still the same flawed practice. they have experimentation. everything we believe about science today, by the time our kids have grandkids, it will all be laughed at. host: so you are saying your views have not changed, is that the case? caller: right, science is science. science has not changed. it is a method of finding out how the universe works. it is an enormous body of study. you cannot wrap it up into republican and democrat. what has changed our scientists and the way they view themselves in our society. we are elevating these people to something they do not deserve. host: do you think they should be listened to -- he is gone.

let's go to matthew in jeffersonville, indiana, on our yes line. caller: good morning, and thank you. host: go ahead. caller: my view has changed as being a type one diabetic. when the pandemic started, i was like everyone else, scared, because i have an autoimmune disease. then i caught it, was not vaccinated or nothing. i was in the hospital with diabetes issues when i caught it, and i did not have any symptoms, nothing, but i had no immune system so it should have devastated me. so after that, my views did change a little bit, so i started diving into it a little more. my big questions are, all of these political people invested in these companies, do they have hidden interests in these

pharmaceutical companies? so why aren't they being held accountable for stuff like that if they are made being -- making major decisions for all the population, when they have hidden interests? host: so you have focused specifically on the financial side, not necessarily the medical side of it, at least as far as treatments and why you get covid and how people experience covid, that kind of thing? caller: right, because after i caught covid, it should have killed me. i had no immune system. they said if i caught a common cold, it should have killed me, but i caught delta covid and did not even have a fever. host: you are looking at the medical background or financial background, so what have you found? caller: not very much because it of it -- because it is all hidden, hidden through shell companies. there is no accountability anymore. nobody is held responsible for their actions, seems like you

can go across the board with police and everybody across a bunch of endeavors, but now since we're dealing with the medical consequence in the public sector and it is affecting everybody in the world, it is a little bit more on tv now than most things. so the way i am looking at it, our country ordered 800 billion vaccines. if they charge one dollar, that is $800 billion, which we know they will not be one dollar, they will be a couple hundred dollars to read so you're talking trillions and trillions of dollars moving around. host: matthew in indiana giving us his thoughts on the financial background of it, said death tolls, wall street journal saying federal authorities estimate 980,056 were people have died in early 2020 then what would have been expected based on long-term trends.

thousands more died from derivative causes, like disruptions in health care and spikes in the overdoses covid-19 has that the same proportion of the population dead, about 0.3%, as did world war ii and in less time. that is in the "wall street journal." views of science and medicine, have they changed because of covid? lewis in new jersey says no. caller: hey, looks like you have lost some weight. no, science, nothing has changed my view on science. nothing has changed my view. as previous callers stated, this virus has been politicized, dr. fauci, the arrogance of that man

explaining how viruses change, everybody knows that. but according to him, we just cannot grasp that. that is all i have to say. host: lakeland, florida, on our unsure line. lynn, good morning. caller: i am unsure because certainly after i got the moderna shot, i noticed a huge lump on my neck. it turned out to be a lymphoma. since then, it has gradually decreased and is now showing very low active. however, i keep running into people who came out with a new case of having cancer, having cancer of the breast, and it does not seem like there is any place to report it, so i am reporting this now. the other thing is, when we see on television for drugs, they

evidently are required to report possible side effects, yet we hear nothing of any side effects having to do with any of these vaccines. and i am not going to get the booster because having been diagnosed with the lymphoma that is being fed by my carotid artery, i am certainly not going to take the chance of getting that cancer boosted and reactivated by the shot. but before i got the vaccine, i was worried about getting covid. i am 75. and after i got the two shots, i felt relieved. and then when i fed the cancer in my neck, i was not relieved. host: what convinced you to old

to millie get the vaccine? caller: because it was very simple to get it. in polk county, florida, we were having spikes. also, i am obese, so i didn't want to take the chance. and i had not run into anybody who got covid except my son's father-in-law, who is in his 80's, got it and was very sick. he was sent home from the hospital and seems to be getting sicker and sicker. so he went back to the emergency room and they said to him, well, are you taking your medicine for pneumonia? he said nobody ever told me i had pneumonia, i did not have pneumonia. they sent me home with no medication and said i was over moderna. so there are all kinds of side effects we are not hearing about from anybody, scientists or

medical people. host: there is reporting out that you would have to find online, search the side effects. about a half-hour in, the question on your views on science and medicine, if they have changed due to covid. we have three lines. if you say yes, your views have changed, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, views have not changed, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8003. text us at (202) 748-8003. rick in los angeles, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i had -- a friend of mine died from getting the booster shot at first time i ever heard of it.

there was a man who called on the no line when he was really a guess -- or he called on the yes line when he was really a no, that is what happened. when you make politics of science, you get political scientists. as far as dr. fauci, just follow his email. if you watch fox news, they was following this from day one. they got all his emails showing he knew this came from a lab as far back as march of 2020. he is a funder of many of these scientists that he got to corroborate to say this came from nature, not a lab, which is a lie. listen to the jim jordans -- host: there are several committee hearings you can watch on c-span. what views did you have about covid at the beginning of it, and how has that changed? caller: i believe it has gotten too political. you have political science. you cannot question it. you are on the side of the democrats, who do nothing but lying to us. they lie to us all the way from

obamacare to constantly lie, lie, lie, lie to your cameras and to you straight in the face. host: now to oak ridge, tennessee, a call on our no line. caller: i would like to say i have lived in the world of science for a long time, and the one thing that scientists love to do at meetings is prove each other wrong. that is how it eventually, little by little, they approximate the truth. the truth is out there. we do not know what it is. pascal said that the truth does not begin to exist the minute we discover it, it is always out there and we're always trying to find it. when i was a teacher, which was for 20 years, my students would interview me and say, what is your philosophy in life? so i decided i am going to say,

action causes reaction, and people should double check before they jump on the bandwagon of all these -- host: as far as your views of covid going into it at the beginning and why they have not changed, what were your views at the beginning? caller: i heard about it actually in the lancet, which i heard about on c-span, i think. little by little, i realized this is probably a very serious situation, because i listened to what the scientists or the biologists had to say about their findings. little by little, you find out this is really very lint -- really virulent. i just listens and double checked. host: how did you double check that? caller: i read and listen to c-span and listen to all the television stations i have time for. you listen to people like dr. fauci, who is a specialist, who

knows more about these things than we do. when people say he lie, i say it is anecdotal and tragic. people cannot double check because they have not been alerted to the facts that the scientific message is the only thing we really have hope in. host: ok, and name you heard connected with the joe rogan podcast was dr. robert malone. he spoke at a recent rally against vaccine mandates. that rally here in washington. you can still see it on our website at c-span.org. here is a portion of his presentation at the rally. [video clip] >> i come to you with an open heart, as a physician committed to healing, bringing three simple words, each of which ring like bells in the soul of honest

people. integrity, dignity, community. integrity is the commitment to truth in what you say, how you live, how you treat others. dignity flows from respect for ourselves, for each other, and for the world we live in. community is what binds us together, to each other, and gives us life's -- gives our lives purpose and meaning. st. nick austin, the doctor of the roman catholic church -- saint augustine, dr. of the roman catholic church, family sleep -- famously said the truth is like the lion, you do not have to defend it, let it loose, it will defend itself. [cheers and applause] harry truman, a war hero against

war profiteering, something we could use more of now, famously said, i just tell the truth, these are my truths, and i believe they are self-evident. we should not have politicized the public health response as far as covid-19. host: more of that event available at c-span.org. michael in seattle, washington, on our no line. caller: thanks very much for taking my call. can i say something about neil young, joe rogan? host: they are disconnected as far as trust and science inlet -- if it is connected as far as trust in science, sure. caller: i have something to say about that, too. host: let's start with that. caller: i would prefer to. the lady was talking about critical thinking. for me, that means questioning

everything. and then another lady was saying scientists challenging each other and trying to prove each other wrong, that again is what i am saying, question everything. for me, the american medical association and the u.s. government has been lying to me my entire life about the medical qualities of cannabis. they have been saying there is zero medical qualities to cannabis, and you have to ask why when it could have been helping hundreds of millions of people, children with epilepsy, on and on, cancer, so many different things. host: how does that relate to your views of covid? caller: they have lied to me my whole life, so why not now? they lied about cannabis so they can make a bigger profit off of it. that is the whole reason. so why wouldn't i question what they are doing now. host: the medicine and science

behind covid, what are you questioning? caller: i am questioning the entire medical -- host: i know you said that, but specifically with covid and the science behind it. caller: ok, my roommate of 20 years just tested positive for covid two weeks ago. and i sat in the same room with him. he was fully vaccinated, i am not vaccinated. i drove in the car with him. i ate my dinner's in the same room with him. and i am fine. so yes, i question all of the science, which is what the job of being a critical thinker is. host: and joe rogan and spotify? caller: and joe rogan and neil young, the thing about it is that neil young, he owes his entire career to freedom of speech here back in the 1970's when he wrote rocking in the

free world, he would not have wrote that if he was in china or russia, and now he wants to shut down other people's free speech, and that is just wrong. host: ok. michael in seattle, washington, talking about a views on covid, particularly science and medicine, and his views have not changed. a call from bridge court -- bridgeport, connecticut, on our yes line. caller: good morning. yes, my views have changed a lot, especially with the medical establishment we have now. dr. fauci has been caught lie after lie after lie, and we cannot trust this man to continue to lead us on this course. and i am just saying, we have no confidence in leadership now because of what dr. fauci has done to us. host: so is your concerned more with the cdc and government officials or with science and

medicine themselves? caller: i am concerned with the whole establishment, with the cdc, with fda. they have been flip-flopping ever since this pandemic started . and dr. fauci has been caught lie after lie after lie. and it is dr. malone, the inventor of mrna, saying it is dangerous, so why won't we listen to him? it does not make no sense. host: ok, that is edgar in connecticut. the "new york times" talked about international opinion of science and medicine, a recent poll taken. the results come from a report published by a foundation focused on health research in london. about 80% of people from 113 country said they trusted science either a lot or some. about three fourths of the 119,000 surveyed said they trust

scientists either a lot or some. i am not surprised by the results of the survey, said a geneticist and science communicator who was not involved with the poll. she suggested that interdisciplinary responses to the pandemic among scientists in different fields help people to understand the connections between science and their own well-being. general public may not know scientists in real life, but most people know a doctor or nurse, and everyone has at least heard of a scientist or read something by a scientist. an international perspective when it comes to trust in science and medicine since covid. we are asking you to share your thoughts on it as far as views are concerned. chris says his views have changed. he or she is in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: ok.

yes, the principles of science and medicine have not changed, but i think the profession has and the professionals. we now have a better idea of what providers are basically willing to accept wholesale, whatever medical authorities say , be at the truth. even before covid, i was concerned about the state of health care in our country. i think a lot of people would call our system, instead of health care, more the sick care industry. that has to do with pharmaceutical industries, the hospital systems, the insurance industry, etc. to me, it appears more so that the health care industry, there is a lot of parallels with the military-industrial complex as far as truthful information. i am most interested in those voices that are being censored by big tech and the media overlords. host: such as who?

caller: i really respect the opinions of dr. robert malone, another doctor from the houston area, affiliated with baylor. host: as far as the providers are concerned, how have your views changed because of covid? you talked on a broad sense, but specifically, how have those views changed? caller: well, the way i would choose providers now has changed . i am interested in knowing what my providers' opinions may be regarding covid. that is more of an individual point of view. on a broader sense, i am concerned about where covid came from, the origin of covid, why we are dealing with this in the first place, and what we are

going to do to prevent it from happening next time. parallels with 911, this being a massive event, a lot of questions surrounding it. a lot of people do not trust the official story. host: we will leave it there. we will hear next from kyle in south glen falls, new york, on our no line. caller: good morning. my opinion on this whole thing is this, we live in a small piece of history, every part of humanity. and we had this horrible pandemic that came down in our lifetime. so we put our best scientists, our best medical people, on finding us a vaccine. they did the best they can and in good faith. we lost 60,000 people a year to the flu, lost 900,000 people the covid. i lost two personal friends, friends that did not get vaccinated, even though we

pleaded with them. younger men, 60, 57 years old, healthy. people, listen to the scientists, listen to the doctors. these vaccinations are helping. they are saving lives. other countries are baking for the vaccine, begging to save their populace. host: which scientists or doctors are you listening to specifically? caller: i do trust the cdc and trust dr. fauci. i do trust my own physicians and the doctors in my health care system. i cannot find a doctor or anyone that tells me not to get vaccinated, sir. i do not listen to the guys on the street. i do not listen to construction workers. i do not listen to guys that search their cell phone on facebook to find medical advice. i listen to guys like pyeongchang who have spent their entire -- i listen to guys like dr. fauci who have spent their

entire careers studying these problems. these are not politicians. fauci is not a politician, he is a man who dedicated his life to saving lives. i hope everything is good, and thank you for letting me talk. host: that was kyle giving his opinion. if you look at the opinion pages of the "wall street journal" this morning, it talks about what is known as operation warp speed in the previous administration, this is by a member of the editorial board, headline operation warp speed slowly gets -- placing orders of vaccines and therapies, this encourage pharmaceutical companies to expand manufacturing capacity so vaccines and therapies were ready to be distributed once i got the green light from the fda, and it's as operation warp speed speed in july of 2020 came to an agreement for the

monoclonal antibody. it ordered a few hundred thousand doses of the eli lilly experimental antibody. those agreements were in november of 2020. supply of the monoclonal's exceeded demand last winter because many people were unaware of the treatments. during the final two months of the trump presidency, they ordered another one point to 5 million doses of regeneron and 650,000 at the eli lilly antibody treatment, leaving the biden administration well provided. that is on the opinion section of "the wall street journal." your views on covid, if your views of science and medicine have changed because of covid. joseph in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. my view of medicine has not changed, in the sense that if you go to your doctor, you listen to your doctor. but on the other hand, i have

two family members, both have cancer, one has -- i cannot even pronounce it, one has metastatic breast cancer. any cancer hospital that you go to will automatically have you vaccinated. they do not ask you. well, if these people are so ill and they think it is so important to be vaccinated, it has to be, for them, a good reason to protect their lives. it is just sad that we think today that we know more than they do. i know you are all talking about joe rogan, i think that this tattooed man, he is supposed to be the science? i don't know, i never heard of this individual. host: he is a podcaster host, no medical background as far as i know. caller: look, if he was on the street with all those tattoos, i would say, what, is he a

criminal? i mean, this is what you are listening to? as far as dr. fauci is concerned, the man was appointed in 1984 by ronald reagan. he has won so many awards for his contribution to science. he has never lied. does science evolve? of course, it does. anybody treated for cancer knows how well science has evolved. do we always trust the doctors? of course not you question when you go to the doctor. there is nothing wrong with that. but to say someone has lied, to say someone has gave money over -- look, you have to be an individual appeared you have got to act on your own. if you cannot think critically, and i did take science and trust science. host: ok. that is josephine in new jersey, giving her thoughts. let's hear from darrell in

colfax, washington state. caller: how is it going? host: it goes well. caller: i do -- i have changed my views considerably. early on in the pandemic, we knew that it was spread through aerosol. yet, have you ever seen an expert on aerosols talk about it? there are people who really do not know much about aerosols that you hear from. initially, now we are to the fact that we do need the proper mask to wear to prevent aerosols , from taking them in. and earlier, they were saying just wear anything you want over your face and you will be fine. and we found since then that actually people are contracting

the disease if they are not properly protected. there has been a lot of stuff that has been said that has changed in the last two years that was obvious initially when it came out. in 1918, we knew more about how to protect ourselves from that pandemic than we do today, knowing how to protect ourselves from this one. you know, all the stupid rules initially in our state, would cut off fishing. i mean, how stupid is that? no better place to be than out fishing, you know? you understand? host: yep, gotcha. that is darrell in washington state. larry from new jersey texting us, saying when it comes to views, it is giving me hope for future episodes of viruses yet to come. says more concerning are the

anti-vaxxers and the overwhelming of the health care system here you can text us at (202) 748-8003, your thoughts on your views and if they have changed, your views on science and medicine, if they have changed due to covid. from garland in texas, he says his views have not changed. hello. caller: my views have not changed. at first, when trump was in there, i felt he was doing that jonestown thing. so i changed when biden got in there, trying to get people help. i feel like science, you have to go with the science and the doctors. like they say, the coronaviruses change, so they got to change, too. they giving us the best information that they can.

like it was at about trump, once he was in there, it would be nothing but chaos, and it is still chaos today. host: dr. fauci was part of the trump administration and this administration. did you trust him now? caller: i trusted him but did not trust trump. he was trying to stand there and not disrespect trump. he was trying to go along with it, but it was too much for him to take with the lies. they took him off the tv for a while. host: in ohio, paul on our no line. caller: good morning. i had the covid back in august of 2020 when it was first coming out, and i had taken the vaccine and the booster since then. science and medicine, you have to have some faith in science and medicine. the medications you take

over-the-counter all go through some form of clinical trial of sorts to see if it is safe for the general population. the individuals who may not want to take the vaccines and the boosters, i am sure they are taking some type of medication, whether it is prescribed by a physician or it is over-the-counter. and if it is not going through is -- a regiment of testing, those medications, the antibiotics, the cancer treatment's, people that take insulin for diabetes, all of those medications -- with this particular vaccine, it certainly went through a speedy process for approval, but those medications that you and i take and everybody else takes to some degree, it goes through science and medicine. if you want to take the approach of if you come down to cancer, are you going to refuse chemo?

it runs in the same clinical trials. those individuals that decline to take chemo for a cancer treatment or to extend your life, if you take the opinion that science and medicine cannot be trusted, then don't take the chemo. and then you will die within the time that the physician will say that you would end up dying because you're not taking the chemo to save your life. host: ok. the senate panel today looks at the topic of covid, particularly dealing with mental health issues and substance abuse issues. it will feature experts. if you want to see that hearing, you can see it live at 2:00 today on c-span3, online at c-span.org, and full coverage on our new video app, c-span now. gregory in silver spring, maryland, on our yes line, views changed on science and medicine

due to covid. caller: good morning, pedro. this is a wonderful question. i think there is a distinction between the two as far as science and medicine and how it applies to where we are living today, and my opinion, science is proof. on the other hand, medicine is a way to believe any misconception . and that is the only thing that we have is medicine. we cannot save ourselves any other way by checking back, looking into our own misconception. host: can you give me an example? caller: ok, example of what? host: the second point you made about medicine. caller: so it is just a fancy

way of saying that medicine ultimately -- i think it is a way of finding out whether we are being misconstrued or correctly guided. we are being misconstrued or correctly guided and that is what the practice of medicine is all about. i want to add to it that faith is completely out of the picture. it is between science, whether it being proof substantiated or unsubstantiated, or medicine being a way to believe or prove or disprove any misconception. host: we will hear from john in north hollywood, california. hello. caller: and another criminal in

another government, -- host: we are about views and science because of medicine and if they have changed because of covid. what are your views? we are running out of time so if you could just tell us how those views have changed, i would appreciate it. caller: nothing has changed. the science says spreading coronavirus is wrong. it is because of criminal indulgence among the american government.

host: that is john in north hollywood, california finishing off this hour. appreciate those who have participated. coming up, a couple of guests to talk about various topics including conflicts as people are looking at what is happening with russia and ukraine. joining us, human rights activist garry kasparov of the renew democracy initiative will give his thoughts. later, a new report on the biden administration, the regulations it has put in place, and the cost of those regulations. dan bosch of the american action forum, the director of regulatory policy, will join us. that will take place when "washington journal" continues. announcer: this week on the c-span network, the house and senate are both on the. the senate will vote on

nominations including amy gottman to serve as u.s. ambassador to germany and read a joe lewis to be president of the export-import bank. two hearings for the nomination of shalonda young for white house budget director and deputy director. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. they will appear before the homeland security committee. live on c-span.org and the c-span now apps, they will testify before this and a budget committee on thursday on tonight like a.m. eastern on c-span3, former employees of the washington football team testify about reports of sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and discrimination. the hearing comes the day after the team is expected to announce its new name. watch this week live on c-span or on c-span now. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or stream video live or on-demand any

time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span offers a variety of podcasts that have something for every listener. weekdays, "washington today" gives you the latest from the capital. and "footnotes" has interviews with authors about their latest works. our occasional series features extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them now on the c-span now mobile app. "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest is garry kasparov, the chairman of the renew democracy initiative and the author of "winter is

coming: why vladimir putin must be stopped." thank you for giving us your time today. you said, stop seeing this as a ukraine problem. there will always be a belarus or syria or ukraine problem if the putin problem is not dealt with. guest: it is important to understand that we are talking about putin's problem and he is causing problems in belarus, venezuela, and many african countries. we do not have to look for more evidence but just listening to his own words. 15 years ago in munich at the security conference, he made a very clear statement about his intentions. he talked about a return to the time of the influence.

he claims that russia would be entitled to control not only republics, but also a return to its dominant position in eastern europe. and since no one wanted to believe him, he followed up with his promise. in 2008, he attacked the republic of georgia. six years after that, eight years ago in 2014, he and next crimea -- he annexed crimea. also he appeared -- reappeared in many parts of the world. my doors arrived because of support from russia and we can

see putin's military and oligarchs boosting activities across the african continent. it is all about putin and we should recognize that putin is an existential threat not just for america or europe or ukraine, but to the very principle of the free world because he does not believe in self-determination and universal freedom. what he thinks should happen is division of the world between free and unfree and people like him are in their rights to exploit people they control and nobody should intervene with their criminal activities. host: you also wrote about what is going on. "sanctions must come now before putin invades again. if we do not call his bluff, it

is not a bluff at all." talk about his approach to dealing with russia and ukraine and how effective that might be. guest: when we hear the word sanctions, people get confused. sanctions have been implement it eight years ago and they never worked. there are sanctions that have been imposed on russia and crimea. they never touched the foundation of putin's power. if we look at the number of russian billionaires, it keeps increasing all the time. no matter what angela merkel told us about europe's united position against russian aggression, what matters to putin is the amount of russian

gas and it doubled in 2014. we have to make sure that putin recognizes that the price of further aggression, the cost could be too high for him. it is not just making threats. it is about making laws that will convince him that america and europe our series. even if we are not ready to implement sanctions against russia and his oligarchs and the russian financial system, it should be put in a bill that will trigger automatically if he does this or that. right now, there is a big talk but there is very little to convince putin that the cost of his aggression will be prohibited. host: democrats (202) 748-8000.

republicans (202) 748-8001. independent (202) 748-8002. it was yesterday that both the russian diplomat and ambassador and the american ambassador to the united nations, i want to play what she had to say about the situation and get your response to it. [video clip] >> in all of these talks, our messages have been clear and consistent. we seek the path of peace, we seek the path of dialogue. we do not want confrontation. but we will be decisive, swift, and united should russia further invade ukraine. we continue to believe there is a diplomatic path out of the crisis caused by russia's military buildup. we are working to pursue diplomacy in every possible venue. but we also know that diplomacy

will not succeed in an atmosphere of threat and military escalation. that is why we have brought this situation before the security council today. the united states has been clear , if this is truly about russia's security concerns, we are offering them an opportunity to address these concerns at the negotiating table. the test of russia's good faith in the coming days and weeks is whether they will come to that table and stay at that table until we reach an understanding. if they refuse to do so, the world will know why and who is responsible. host: that was the ambassador to the united nations talking about the u.s.'s approach. what do you think of that approach? guest: it is good to hear that now instead of saying if putin,

they say if he further invades because that is a correct statement. putin has invaded ukraine already. i am not sure that putin is impressed because the american administration is still talking about some mythical russian security concerns. no one is threatening russia. thinking that baltic states could represent any threats to russian security is nonsense. it is russia that is threatening all of these countries by invading the republic of georgia and ukraine. it proves that eastern european that have been suffering under occupation for more than four day kids -- four decades, they rushed to nato to have an umbrella. hearing these outcries in russian media, which is totally under government control and

listening just to get an idea of what is being told to people in russia, missiles from ukraine to russia could be a huge threat to russia's security is absolute nonsense.

if he crosses the demarcation line and pushes into ukraine, it will be major conventional war in europe since world war ii and it will lead to massive casualties on both sides. host: as far as the strongest hand that the u.s. could play, what would that look like? guest: you could look at great britain. the foreign minister, she made a very strong statement about going after russian oligarchs and their illicit wealth in the u.k. and it continues in moscow.

they are shouting, you hear outcries and threats to great britain and america has more leverage. if america decides to join great britain and push european allies to announce immediate sanctions, i am not saying do it now, but to make clear that any aggressive act from putin will immediately trigger sanctions, not new consultations, not debates on how we do that because the democratic process is long and putin knows that. they are not going to turn back because of sanctions. right now, it is time to announce a very clear package of sanctions that will help putin personally, his oligarchs, and the most vital part of putin's

economy. i say his economy because it is all about oil and gas and natural resources. it is unfortunate that russia, a country that is known for its brilliant, is reduced -- known for its brilliance is reduced to a petrol-dependent state. the new initiative is an -- the renew democracy initiative is an organization i founded in 2017 after very important elections in 2016 and donald trump and the election that brought two very unpopular candidates to contest the presidency. i joke that it was amazing that two candidates, hillary clinton and donald trump had a combined rating of 20%.

i thought that americans had to recognize the value of democracy because it seems to me that many things have been taken for granted and i wanted to share my experience with people like me to point out the danger of both sides. we see that this country is dealing with liberal trends. on the right, you have called to personality and on the left, you have call to ideology. these two trends are fighting each other and it leads to the decimation of the political center. the borderwall reflects the nonpartisan reproach -- nonpartisan approach. two members of the board are also -- and also michael field,

alexander wingman, and many other people who look at these issues from a global perspective. on trying to utilize my own experience as an decedent, bringing this indents from other places to tell young americans how to fight for democracy and recognize the threat to democracy, no matter where it comes from. host: our guest's claim to fame is the youngest world chess champion by 1985. we have a tweet from a viewer. mark stone says, "nato will do nothing because european countries need russian oil and natural gas and the u.s. might

because of the ukraine-biden relationship." guest: that was on tucker carlson, his point of view. let's start with russian oil and gas. it is more about gas. europe buys nearly one third of gas from russia but russia sells 80% of its gas to europe. russia could reverse the pipeline and sell it to china because there is no pipeline that could take this amount of gas and compensate russia. europe has leverage but over 60 years of angela merkel's leadership in germany, europe did absolutely nothing. there was a potential project that could replace russian gas. the german decision to end the

use of nuclear energy, nuclear plants in 2011 after the disaster in japan, increased this dependence. as for america and ukraine, there is a big talk about the biden-ukraine relations. it was trump-ukraine relations and trump's attempt to get some dirt on biden from ukraine in exchange for political support. what america is defending in ukraine, and we are not talking about on the ground, we are talking about military support, diplomatic support. it is the world order, that secures peace in europe since 1945. further violation of ukraine's

sovereignty, is not just about land. it is about global peace. thinking, who cares about ukraine? next, it will be taiwan. people will say, we can sacrifice taiwan. do not tell me they are not watching what is closely happening there and learning when he can take his chance and attack taiwan. it is about sending a message to all dictators and terrorists that they will be met with response from the free world led by the united states. it is very unfortunate that the american administration did not want to hear what putin said in 2007. they could have acted earlier and it would have been easier because what we know from history while dealing with dictators is that every day of us delaying decisions, not

demonstrating our readiness to fight puts the price up. the price goes up and if we lose this ukrainian battle today, next will be nato countries and we already hear noises from the border, why should we fight for countries we cannot find on the map? but the end of nato turns america into a paper title. america enjoys its global economic dominance because of policy. it is relatively strong and america's role in the road is recognized. if they can ignore his arms abilities to be part of a global solution around the planet, weakening america means you will

have problem politically and economically at home. host: what did you make of the ukranian president telling the west to calm down and that we are fanning the flames? guest: if you are the ukranian president, you do not want your people to panic and naturally he is trying to keep calm in the country because it is not clear whether putin will attack so we do not know. i wonder if putin knows himself. when we listen to the russian foreign minister and putin's henchmen, they also do not know. the russian propaganda machine, which is 24/7 for many years they have been attacking ukraine , denying ukraine's rights to be a sovereign state. that is why the idea of ruining ukraine's sovereignty was always in putin's mind because he knew that democratic prospers independent ukraine could be a

deadly threat to his fascist regime. ukraine is so close to russia, the ties, economic, political, cultural ties, it will definitely send a message. people can live in the free world without suffering from the iron fist. putin's goal was, is come and will be to remove this potential threat, sovereign ukraine and a democratic state, from the map. he has to make sure that his country keeps functioning and not living under hysteria all the time. at the same time, they are preparing for war and thanks to some of the native countries like great britain and poland

and baltic states and the united states, now ukraine is being armed and receives weapons that could put the cost of a russian invasion too high for putin. speaking about the ukranian president, it is quite amazing to hear the outcries of russian propaganda, calling ukraine a fascist state. it is also it is -- accusations about dictatorship. to have a jewish president and a jewish prime minister, it just the mistress that ukraine has dealt with this in the past and it is a democratic state that elect their leaders based on their merits and ability to lead the country rather than on race or nationality. host: garry kasparov joining us for this discussion. you can call and ask questions. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. we were talking about accusations from the russian ambassador yesterday during the security council meeting. i want to play what he had to say and get your response. [video clip] >> colleagues are talking that the need for de-escalation, however, they themselves are whipping up tensions and rhetoric in provoking escalation. the discussions about a threat of war is provocative in and of itself. you are almost calling for this. you want it to happen. you are waiting for it to happen. you want to make your words become a reality. this is despite the fact that we are constantly rejecting these allegations. host: mr. kasparov

his use of rhetoric in that situation, what did you think of it? guest: words are cheap. you need to look at actions. the whole conflict started with russia massing up troops along the ukrainian border. massing up east of ukraine and also in belarus, which is much closer to kiev. the troops are there. what are they doing their? they will not talk about it. they talk peace, but they are preparing for war and they are looking for opportunity to get further gains. putin never stopped thinking about invading ukraine. you have to listen not to this piece of propaganda, but listen to what russian propaganda is saying in russia.

24/7, you can hear the same story that ukraine is a failed state. this is a state that should be divided between russia and poland. this state is a threat to russia while ukraine suffers from russian aggression. so did crimea. something that people should recognize, ukraine in 1994 signed, under american pressure, a so-called budapest memorandum, which is a very important document that cause the collapse of the soviet union, nuclear warheads that had been spread across the soviet union. most of them were in russia and a little bit of them in belarus. i understand by the american administration wanted this nuclear arsenal to be brought only to one country to prevent nuclear proliferation. but ukraine had the third

largest nuclear arsenal in the world. they had more warheads than china, france, and britain combined. this nuclear arsenal had been given to russia under conditions that ukraine territory would be protected. that was a guarantee signed by americans, brits, russians, and eventually france and china joint and the problem of nuclear proliferation was solved. since 1991 and the collapse of the soviet union, russia and ukraine signed numerous treaties. boris sighed, then vladimir putin. ratified by many russian parliaments and never in 23 years russia made a single territorial claim to ukraine. crimean annexation had no backup.

they just decided it was time to grab this territory. it is important to remember that it was the first change of orders in europe since 1945 and since putin saw no real actions from the free world, he paid no price for his aggression. he decided he could go further. dictators never ask why. they always ask why not. host: we have some calls windup. you are on with our guest garry kasparov. go ahead. caller: hi. i saw a member of the russian government come here as an ambassador and fill out their case. i was wondering what percentage of the people who immigrated to the united states are from the russian sector as compared to the ukrainian sector and wasn't ukraine part of russia? didn't russia have our backs in

world war ii and fight with us against what was going on at the concentration camps? we left, they came. they drove their tanks and told the people, according to schindler's list and american history, that they told people that the war was over and we just cut and run. how many american lives have to be lost in order to bring some kind of control, not peace, into an area of the world that constantly wants to be in battled? how many american lives are going to be lost? how many widows? how many orphans? how many american graves we will not even see because we cannot even bury our dead from covid? when is this insanity going to stop? host: thank you. guest: again, a very emotional speech.

it is wrong on every historical account. ukraine was part of the russian empire. they can point you out too many points in ukrainian history were at least 3 million gradient -- ukrainians were stopped by policy to push for ukrainian independence. there was the ongoing history. a long period of time when ukrainians fought for independence and they got it in 1991. i grew up in the former soviet union. i was born in the ussr and moved to moscow after the collapse of the soviet union. i had to stay in the russian capital after the collapse of the soviet empire. i was confused by hearing the

saying, the proper -- propaganda point, from tucker carlson. america is not sending troops to ukraine. there are no boots on the ground. all that is being asked is for america to support ukraine military, sending lethal weapons and other forms of help. no boots on the ground. no americans going to die in ukraine or eastern europe. if you do not defend ukraine, then you may actually see native countries having an obligation to defend them. you do not want to have this crisis. native countries where america has two choices. either you defend them or you walk away. taiwan is the next one. i already pointed out. please listen to that. you want to get taiwan to china? find. -- fine. this was based on its global

role. people like me and millions and millions of people today look to america as a beacon of hope and a country that emphasized freedom and opportunities and it is pretending that americans could become great and stay great without global leadership, it is wrong. it is naive. stop talking about a loss of american lives. do not mention covid to me. my mother died of covid christmas night in moscow and i cannot even be with her when it happened. i understand your frustration. but speaking about covid makes me cry. host: steve in baltimore, maryland. democrats line. caller: how do we lobbed the heads off of dictators -- how do

we lob the heads off of dictators? if we could win by lobbing the head off the snake, the wake -- that would go against everything in the geneva convention. how do we get rid of dictators who want to expand? i could not more with you that i think russia and china are actually in coherts working together. while we are getting pulled this direction, we are also getting pulled into china. that spreads the united states out awfully thin and then where will we be? how do we lob the head and why do russians -- why don't russians lob the head off of putin? they are toothless organizations. the united nations and the geneva convention are toothless

organizations and if they were not toothless organizations, then we should be able to come to an agreement, this s.o.b. has to go. host: thanks. guest: thank you very much. that is a very important reminder about toothless organizations. they have been built for a different purpose. united nations was the brainchild of fdr and the idea was to prevent another world war. and it did work. at the end of the day, it was built to freeze conflict because everybody knew after 1945 that the next war could be a conflict between american and soviet blocks and compromise had to be found to avoid a nuclear armageddon. in 1952, we were close. -- in 1962, we were close.

the united nations became obsolete because the organization all of a sudden turned into something that it was not supposed to be. they tried to solve problems, but you cannot solve problems within an organization where everybody has one voice and you have dictators getting together every week in september in pre-covid times. we had one week of united nations general assembly. i called it a catwalk for dictators. you have all dictators all over the world gathering here to boast about their achievements. when you look at the united nations commission's, it is just a start. you have the commission of human rights that spends most of the time criticizing israel and you have saudi arabia talking about women's rights and just to make a mockery of the united nations, the country that is appointed as

chairman of the commission of -- about weapons. how do we use a number of weapons in the world, it is north korea. it is mind-boggling. north korea, the country that has been using rushing technology to build -- russian technology to build nuclear missiles. now it is the chair of the u.n. commission to prevent the further spread of these weapons around the world. i agree with you and i could always say that the late senator john mccain was right talking about democracy. it is important that america

builds an entity that brings countries, not only paying service to democratic principles, but acting upon the. -- acting upon them. relying upon these agencies does not make any sense. russia and other dictators know how to use them and warp these agencies in their favor. the majority of the countries in the world, they follow russia or china because for dictators, there are no rules. they can bribe their way in. they can buy favors and twist hands, something that america, because of the laws of the land, cannot afford. host: also from baltimore, this is milton, democrats line. caller: good morning. mr. kasparov, first of all you

have been a hero of mine for many years. i have three questions i would like to ask you. i would like to respond to that first caller because i want to say that if it were not for the ukranian president, we might not even have a democracy right now. anything that we can do to support him, i am in favor for. people like him and tucker carlson, we can push them aside. my three questions are this, first of all, i believe i invented two chess openings that help right out the gate to take the initiative to the opponent. i wonder if you have any ideas of how i can get that further looked into. my third question is this, being a chess player and considering

my opponent's options and next moves, are you taking preventive measures to make sure that you stay safe? god forbid we lose you and we lose a very important voice. host: thank you very much. guest: let's start with your third question. we do what we can. i emigrated from russia nine years ago in 2013. i live in new york with my family. that is the best i can do. the rest is beyond my power. i can worry about all of the threats to my physical security, but would it help? i do not travel to countries where i think my safety would be in jeopardy, countries that have close relations to russian dictators or could be influenced

to extradite me. i do not drink tea with strangers. otherwise, there is nothing else i can do. as for the game of chess, it is statistically if you play white, you make the first move. it is about 50% chance of winning if you look at the grand master games. i am also reluctant to use chess parallels to analyze the international situation because i always say that putin and dictators do not play chess because chess has ruled. it is 100% open information game so you know exactly what your opponent has. dictators play poker and they know how to bluff because they do not care about public opinion, about compromise in parliament, congress.

they are immune from criticisms of the press. they can move on instantly, throwing bargaining chips on the table and raising the stakes. it is fortunate that the free world fold their cards before too long. host: cleo in california. . caller: i want to talk about trade routes. ukraine is surrounded by the baltic sea, richard russia controls -- which russia controls. they also have bases in syria. my concern is the arctic circle and the ceilings of the south china sea. the arctic circle, russia has troops stationed there. they have icebreakers where they are setting up camps. they are literally surrounding the north. the south china sea, china controls the south china sea. they are putting on the pressure

in the philippines to take over that area. they also have bases in africa. they also have control in the canals. i am wondering how long it takes before the access of -- axis of evil surrounds the united states and puts pressure on the dollar. guest: that is a great question and brings us back to geopolitics. every country is important and it is a part of a plan. dictators act so evil to end america's role as a global leader. attacking the american dollar and the american economy is one of their top priorities. and recognizing these dangers is very important. ukraine does not have access to the baltic sea. i think the swedes and poles might be frightened by the

statement that russia controls the baltic sea. it has a pretty strong influence of countries like poland or lot via -- latvia. destroying ukraine would be a strong statement of putin's intentions. you pointed out correctly that russia has a massive buildup in the arctic circle. it is overdue for canadians to recognize the danger because the trudeau administration is slow in responding. china is considering the south china sea and the military buildup there. keeping taiwan in mind, it is all about reunification of china.

the people who built the most successful economy and democracy in the region, in south america -- south korea. thanks to america, these two nations are very prosperous, they are democratic, and play a part in supporting high-tech industries. china looks at taiwan as a tom price for its expansion policies. -- as a top price for its expansion policies. you can see russians now, the military and russian oligarchs making deals with african dictators. in burkina faso there was a coup d'etat. in mozambique, zimbabwe, they are trying to plunder the riches of africa. you may call from the competition with china.

-- you may call it a friendly competition with china. it is about pushing america away from the global stage and nothing has been done. if america has no long-term strategy, strategic vision, how we stop the expansion of dictators, we all suffer consequences. in 1946, the administration came up with a plan to stop the spread of communism and it took more than four decades to win this war. what we knew, every administration follows this, there could be some minor differences in the plan was there. i think america has been missing this vision. what is america's role in the 21st century? we still have a big role to play. for those who say china will be dominant, i will say china gave us covid and america brought the

vaccine that saved the world. host: democrats line. caller: thank you very much, mr. kasparov, for bringing your vision and initiative to light. i am very disappointed with american military planners, our american vision for the future. they seem to have their heads buried deeply in the sand. i agree that we must come to the aid of the ukrainians and thwart the russian aggression. i believe that we also have a chinese threat at our northern border with the chinese pilots that are training allegedly in unused canadian bases, but that is another issue. we must come immediately to ukrainian aid and shake hands with the ukrainian people and tell them that we are their

cohorts for the future. i was thinking 2000 warheads that made the entire russian forced to scrap body parts and that would send a strong message to mr. putin and the chinese. host: we got your point, dennis in wisconsin. mr. kasparov? guest: again, no boots on the ground. all america has to do is supply ukraine with weapons. it has been happening as we speak. again, it is probably less than ukraine has wanted, but it sends a message. it is late. i wish ukraine had these weapons earlier. now these missiles and aircraft, ukrainians are in the position

to complete massive damage to russian troops. russia has 100,000 troops around ukraine. but ukraine can mobilize 300,000 to 400,000 men who have military training. that will cause tremendous damage to putin's army. with america, this administration demonstrating readiness to support ukraine, that is what caused putin's hesitation. that is why the russian and banister -- the russian ambassador talks about peace and about russian intentions to find of the medic solution -- to find diplomatic solutions. here is a solution, remove troops from the border. you do not have to concentrate

hundreds of thousands of troops. if you look at the chinese maps, they put nearly half of my country as future china. we have a situation in russia from west siberia to far east where about 20 million or less russians and more than 120 million chinese on the border and chinese keep crossing the border and they already economically subdued china and they are working to support chinese economy. i hope that one day russia will join the europeans and americans to fight against the chinese threat because that is the threat. host: the website for the renew democracy initiative is rdi.org. garry kasparov serves as their

chairman. mr. kasparov, thanks for your time today. guest: thank you very much. host: we will go back to the question we started this morning as far as the world of science and medicine, have your views of those changed because of the covid vaccine? called to let us know if you say yes, those views have changed, (202) 748-8000. no, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are unsure. (202) 748-8002 is the number to call. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. announcer: sunday, georgetown university law professor cheryl will be our guest to talk about race relations. her books include "the failures of integration," "place, not

race." join us with your facebook comments, text, and tweets. before the program, visit (202) 748-8001 -- visit c-span.org to get your copy of her book. >> get c-span on the go. watch the biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our new mobile app c-span now. access highlights, listen to c-span radio, and discover new podcasts for free. download c-span now today. weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday, events that explore our nation's past. on sundays, but tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors.

it is television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. host: the associated press did a survey taking people's opinions on the world of science and medicine and how much faith they had and trust they had in those and opinions of it due to the pandemic and here are some of the results. when they were asked, 48% of those surveyed said they had what was called a great deal of confidence in the scientific community. that brought down to 64% of democrats, 34% of republicans. that showed a 30 point gap come up from nine percentage points, since 2018. we will show you more of that but we are asking you if when it comes to the worlds of science and medicine have your opinions

changed due to covid and here is how you can let us know. if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you are unsure, call us at (202) 748-8002. you can also text us your thoughts at (202) 748-8003. some people posting on our facebook page and you can still comment there. this is jay saying, "covid has made me more grateful for science." donald saying, "i know more about mrna and the process of developing moderna vaccines but my views did not change. covid changed my view of my fellow man and brainwashing techniques." allen saying, "money drives everything. no government-run system is acceptable.

it is time to decouple the politicians and bureaucrats from our doctors and hospitals." a couple of pieces over the last couple of weeks taking a look at this topic. the translational research institute wrote this, "the concept of science misuse and abuse, science is not owned by one political side and it is not a talking point. it is a careful study of the natural world, asking questions about why things are the way they are and sometimes correcting our previous knowledge. science is not just a set of facts. it is a continuum of learning. it should be used as neither a punchline or a weapon, rather it should be used to understand the world and eliminate -- illumina

te the best way to serve humanity." another viewpoint from daniel and "the wall street journal." "political leaders try to convey control over events and most are on thin ice with the public. the most visible faces across the last three years, caricatures of a figure, at the center of this collapse, sit science which has a lot to answer for. the problem is science, a politicized podem used to challenge science regarding what happened in wuhan. a significant portion of the u.s. population has come to believe that science is mostly disinformation."

your thoughts on science and medicine. john says those views have changed. go ahead. caller: my name is john. i am amazed at how fast the vaccine was developed. i do not think it has anything to do with trump, but better living through chemistry. host: let's hear from josh in illinois. he says when it comes to his views, they have not changed. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to make a few comments as far as the doctors people keep referring to as the mrna vaccine and the ones that keep saying they are finding out the johnson second opinion panel.

say you have 10,000 doctors. you can always find a group that are always going to say no, this is wrong, and want their voices heard over everybody else. imagine when the aids pandemic started if we had social media back then and how it was portrayed back then, if you could get aids by kissing someone. host: specifically on the science of medical communities, you say your views have not changed. is that the case? caller:

caller: no. you are not say, though, we don't want your help, knowing that they are there and have the treatment to help you, even though you don't know what it is. if you don't know what ingredients of the drugs are helping you with the treatment. host: that is josh and illinois. it's here from joe in ohio. hello. ohio, hello. sorry, this is joe. go ahead. you are on. caller: hi, how are you doing today? host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i would say i have very little faith in the cdc or nih anymore. my feelings are that as long as the scientists work for the

government, they will do whatever the government tells them to do. this is how they get paid, this is how they get promoted. having spent 30 years with the government, i know that anybody that does not follow the lines has no future in the government. it is that simple. also the fact that we have dr. fauci in dozens of lies, emails where he has off people that have disagreed with him. how can you trust any of these people? host: ok. that is joe in ohio. usa today, when it comes to testing, has a story that you can find on your page, saying that in a few short month, they have gone from giving out at-home reppo test to hoarding them. north dakota had amassed 2.7

billion reppo tests from the federal government, roughly 3.5 tests for each person in the state. the state had 70 tests that it donated one million to pennsylvania and other states. the covid-19 outbreaks reported across the nation, the entire nation has been driven into a hotspot with demand everywhere. that system has upended. some states are holding onto expired tests as a last resort. north dakota had a stockpile of expired reppo tests. we have someone from west virginia, chuck. caller: the morning. i have always been very scientifically-minded. this past july, i retired after

working for over 28 years for the west virginia peer for public health. public health is very important to me. it's interesting that one of your previous colors was talking about what it will be like -- collars -- one of your previous collars --callers was talking about what it would be like if we had social media back then. they were talking about whether or not they should have a tattoo on their forehead to they could be easily identified. they were talking about cracking down on people with hiv because those were other kinds of people, not "regular folks" like us. nobody was screaming about their personal freedoms back then. now i look at what is happening today and, like i said, i am a very scientifically-minded

person. i have seen dr. anthony fauci speak. i was in atlanta a few years ago for a national hiv conference and i listened to anthony fauci speak. that man has impeccable credentials. the people that are calling in to turn him into some kind of monster, they don't know what they're talking about. in the age of social media, i will tell you what, pedro, i am really starting to lose hope in the future of this country because we used to be on the forefront of the advancing modern world and now we are devolving into a nation of narcissistic conspiracy theorists, people who think that evolution is a hoax, people think climate change is a hoax, people who actually believe the earth is flat. host: thank you, and west virginia. let's talk to someone on our yes line. caller: hi.

i do believe that this has changed my view. i don't disagree with the science itself, but to me, science has changed what we believed two years ago and has changed and evolved over time. what i do believe is how people use science. science can be used now it necessarily by the doctors in the scientists who are actually setting it, but the people who take that information and use it to their advantage. that is how it has really kind of changed my view. what can be done and what can be pulled out to meet somebody's needs, some politicians needs, not denying science there, but what we got was true last year has changed in many ways. how that is used against us or being used to advance us is

where my viewpoint has changed. host: that is someone from tampa, florida. we have someone saying that his views have changed, saying that "yes, i found out that when you question science, you are literally attacking science." another person says, "not at all, but it has changed my view of people entirely. it's hard to think of anyone but yourselves." the "washington post" took a look at one man's role during covid with a story saying that there are questions about it coming from inside the white house. part of the story reads that becerra lacks a defined role. it is unfair to blame him for his stumbles. his low-profile has become more

confounding as the pandemic has worn on and have officials have made statements that have some town -- that of sometimes blinded the president and bewildered the public. they also say the health secretary has a course possibility of the job, which is to court and eight the nation's health bureaucracy. they cite officials airing on booster shots. the pandemic response is at a time that americans are already exhausted and there are still ever-changing deadlines. let's hear from alabama on our no line. caller: thank you for taking michael, pedro. -- taking my call, pedro. my wife works for the system. here in alabama, without the

mandate, people are not vaccinated. recently, about two days ago, he and my wife were diagnosed with covid. then god we are how to percent vaccinated and have had our booster shots. she has borne the brunt of it. her body is hurting her. she is getting the brunt of it. i'm not feeling too many of the symptoms. the doctors told her that if she did not have her vaccines, she would not have made it. she has pressure in her chest, she could not read, she was having aches all over her body. it was bad. i applaud people. this thing is picking and choosing who wants to take out of here and you cannot play with your lives, america. you really cannot. take this seriously. thank you for taking my call. host: let's hear from. in massachusetts on our yes line. caller: my views have changed on

science because they say the science changes, but then i keep hearing some different things. i heard dr. robert malone talking on joe rogan's podcast about how it hurts your immunity to get to many shots and now i'm hearing it again that it can hurt your immunity to get to many shots in such a short period of time. on one website, they were talking about how you can't listen to the science because if you want to listen to science, there are only two genders and abortion is murder. host: as far as those sources, why do you trust them fundamentally? caller: it's not that i trust the sources, but 17,000 people just marched on washington. 17,000 doctors. they will not believe them with what they're saying about the shots. there are many different opinions. to say something is

misinformation or that the science is wrong or the want people to have monetary issues, like faucher making money on these different things, then their views are clouded and not impartial. it is ridiculous. i want all the different views and to make my own decision. host: dr. malone was part of that event that the color talked about, that rally that took place here in washington, d.c. this was about vaccine mandates as part of his presentation talk about. here is part of that event from last week. we will go to less. in indiana, hello. caller: how are you doing? host: hello in indiana. caller: i'm doing great. host: you are on, go ahead.

caller: i was going to say that it has changed my mind because he had these people out there who did not have their stuff are so many years and then come to find out because cancer, then johnson & johnson got approved by the fda, then come to find out it cause cancer. what good is the fda and dr. fauci to guide who is lifting him up. why don't you realize something? he helped create this little virus. he helped give the money that created this little virus. i don't know why we would want to lift him up on a pedestal and i don't know why we trust the fda anymore because if somebody pays them off, they will just turn around and approve the drug. if you are one of the people who got sick from it. host: here's dr. malone from last week. [video clip] >> i come to you from an open heart, as a physician committed to healing, bringing three

simple words, each of which ringlike bells and the soul of honest people. "integrity, dignity, community." integrity is a commitment to truth, and what you say, how you live, how you treat others. dignity flows from respect, for ourselves, each other, and the world we live in. community is what binds us together, to each other, and gives our lives purpose and meaning. saint augustine, the doctor of the roman catholic church, famously said "the truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it, let it loose and it will defend itself." [applause]

>> harry truman, a warrior against war profiteering, something we could use more of now, famously said, "i just tell the truth and they think it tells." this is my treat. i believe they are self-evident. we should not have politicized the public health response to covid-19. host: we will hear from richard in west virginia on our yes line. hello. caller: good morning. my view of public health has changed, especially because of the organizations of public health. there are two things they don't care about, the public or the public health. this is being used as a cudgel

for a power grab by the government and vaccination manufacturers. i did not come to this decision right away. i thought, let's wait a while because it is brand-new and let's see what will happen with it. as i watched what happened, i see that they are creating religions that i call backs and is him -- that i call "v accinism." they are trying to sell it to us. the vaccine manufacturers are making big money on this thing because according to their very own reports, the vaccine does not prevent you from getting covid, it does not prevent you from spreading covid, so there should be no mandate.

the whole scientific establishment is being used as a cudgel, cutting up the bait part of the cancel culture, the whole science of medical profession. i am not a scientist. host: ok. caller: they tried to censor him too. host: let's go to john in missouri. caller: when i grew up, we did not have an edict come down from washington, d.c. to missouri. we went to a family doctor, a guy who had an office on the corner upstairs. what made american medicine greatest in the world is the freedom of choice, but buyer beware. you don't get an edict down from washington, d.c. telling you what attorney to hire, you go to

who you think is right, who you hear from word-of-mouth is good. this edict is coming down, these mandates coming come from washington, d.c. is ridiculous. it is totally ridiculous. host: that is don in a missouri. we have a few more minutes of this question, but then we will let you hear from acre felty -- dr. fauci himself about this idea of trust and public confidence in science. here are some of his perspective. [video clip] >> the issue of restoring trust in the public health sector, we have discussed this, you and i have. there are grifters, people trying to intentionally politicize you, politicize this, but obviously there is a collective disappointment in public health. how do you want to fix this going forward? what are some things that you recommend in improving, whether it is the cdc's reputation,

public health in general? what are lessons learned in the communication part of things? >> i think you just said it. first of all, we have to stick with the science. one of the treasuries of this, if you want to call it that, is that this is a moving target. the public understandably expects a very consistent message that does not change. in fact, with the virus, which has changed -- i mean, let's just look at the facts, chuck. we had the original wuhan strain, then we had alpha, beta, delta, omicron, each with a different bit of characteristic to it. things have changed. but the change in the virus has come to change in some of the scientific issues that have resulted in change in recommendations. that is the reality. we have done better in communicating that?

no doubt. i think we all need to admit that and realize that. but the underlying reason for the change, and some of the underlying reason for some of the communication issues, is the fact that people need to recognize that we are not dealing with the static target. we are dealing with a moving target. i know that is so difficult for people to appreciate, but that is just what the reality is. host: let's hear from patty in new york on our yes line. hello. caller: good morning. thank you to c-span and think you for taking my call. it is interesting. for me, the way that science and medicine has changed in my view is not a sincerely that medicine has changed, it is just astonishing how i never would have expected people, especially so many people, to question

those that we look to for years for advice who use it as their living and study it. i was really quite upset to see dr. malone come and aired on your program this morning, pedro. this is dangerous, the kind of rhetoric that they are putting out there. once there is a certain lot of credibility that i don't think there is helpful. host: that was petty in new york. a couple of stories otherwise of topics of science and medicine, this one dealing with former president trump. the "new york's time" says that president trump wants to seize the voting machine. president trump directed his

lawyer to make an incredible call. he asked the department of homeland security if they could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states. they said he liked the authority to impound the machines. mr. trump asked his lawyer to make that attempt after a separate effort was rejected to have advisors have the pentagon to control the machines. a former aide to form vice president mike pence is testifying in front of the generous six panel and close session, saying he appeared in response to subpoena from the committee. he is the most senior person around mr. pentz who was known to have cooperated in the inquiry. overall, the story saying that mr. short was with mr. pentz. he tried to persuade the former vice president at the legitimate

electoral vote in favor of pro-trump electors. their records of him going to generous his committee sang the national archive took the unusual step saying that former records were ripped up, records turnover from the trump white house had included papers torn up by the former president. there is a question whether some of those reports had been ripped up and take back together -- taped back together. one more call, john from tampa, florida. caller: i am unsure more or less about everything with regards to science and the politics of it.

america has got to remember that when this virus hit the world, we did not even have a case here in america, we were all watching it ravage places like italy and spain. prior to that, it was in china. we did not advocate here in america and our president at the time, president trump, was saying that this was a democratic hoax. donald trump thought that he was so important that the democrats had the power to release a virus in china to destroy him. he is not that important. this thing is affecting the whole world. for me, i just realized that the science part, i understand.

what makes me unsure is how easily it can be politicized. caller: that is drawn in to become a florida, finishing off this round. for those of you, thank you for participating. our last segment of the day takes a look at regulations put in place by the biden administration, not only the number of regulations, but the financial impact of those regulations. running is for that discussion is dan bosch. we will have that colorization when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. he will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's

secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure that the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you also hear some blunt talk. >> yes sir? >> i want a report of the number of people who assigned to kennedy on the day he died and the numbers that were assigned to me now. i want them quick. i promise you, i won't go anywhere, i will stay right behind these black gates. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now overlap or wherever you get a podcast. ♪

announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we have dan bosch here to talk about the regulations of the new administration. you for joining us, sir. guest: thank you for having me. host: remind people particularly about the view you take and how you view these regulations. guest: i think i can actually talk about the think tank dedicated to free market vote. when we do regulation, we like to look at -- look at it through

the lens of how it imposes upon the economy and how agencies do a better job of making sure these are efficient, if they need to impose those laws. host: a four-part that your organization just put out on the topic of regulation and it is probably something that not everybody dives into everyday. what he think it is a board for people to understand the conduct of this administration? guest: it really gives a sense of the economic impact being had and it -- being handed down by the administration. in the report, we looked at the first chair of the wyden administration and found they imposed $201 billion of economic impositions. the biden administration is by far the biggest first year of an administration in that timeframe. when you consider the fact that typically what happens during the first chair of administration is that they are laying the groundwork for more

substantive rule to come in the future, i think is a clear indication of the future where we are headed that there will be more economic costs coming. host: you mentioned the $201 billion number found in your report. you also mention a number of executive orders being signed and the topics of vehicle admissions and covid-19 safety measures. can you elaborate on what those things? guest: the vehicle admissions rule is probably about 90% of the net total. that is probably about $180 billion. that sets miles per gallon standards per year from 2023 to 2026. most people are familiar with the mandate from osha on employers of more than 100 employees to either vaccinate or provide testing for them. that was about $4 billion. that one was recently swept down by the supreme court. host: as far as the paperwork

involved, talk a little bit about that. you talk about financial facts, but what does this paperwork have to do with it overall? guest: paperwork is put a simple. time is money. when you look at the amount of paperwork hours that were issued last year, 131 million hours of paperwork were added. if you figure out that hourly cost for each person that is doing that work, there is significant economic costs involving that. host: before we go too far, as far as the regulation is concerned, this is the technical definition. i will ask you to expand on it. it says the regulation is a border commission with the force and effect of law. congress and other authorities can sometimes require agencies to issue regulation. they had the discretion to do so. many passed by congress give

them the chance to decide how best ample metals laws. the regulations specify the -- is that me as far as folks like you tracking these things, not only for its economic impact, but overall impact on america? guest: i think what it means is that ultimately, if the look at where these come from. as you mentioned, congress does give agencies the permission to do certain things. there's also authority decades ago that was given to agencies. what we're saying now is that with congress doing less in terms of actual legislating, agencies are being forced to try to address the issues that are topical today and they are trying to shoehorn in these regulations into authorities that are decades old that were not actually designed to allow these regulations to be well

implement it. i think the impact that folks feel is that you end up with a sufficient regulation as a result of it. one unique thing about regulation is that it does take time for these things to actually be dealt in the future. is not like in agency issues a roll today and your viewers will feel the impact tomorrow. it is typically years down the road, like higher prices of goods and services. host: give us an example, say on the previous administration on that front. guest: i think the most per gallon rule that i mentioned is something the biden administration put out, that affects 2023 to 2026. obviously, the vehicles are not out yet. if your viewers were to go purchase a vehicle over that timeframe, my fine costs are low bit higher than they are expecting to pay. host: our guest is with us from

the american action forum, talking about the topic of regulation. if you want to ask him questions about the findings and reports, you can call (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 (202) 748-8000 --(202) 748-8002 for independents. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. guest: the philosophy is that there are number of things that need to be addressed, eggs from the covered pandemic to climate change, to certain labor issues. they believe that the government can do that job by issuing regulations to accomplish that. their approach is to use the existing authority that we have

under law to try to issue solutions to these problems and then to take those solutions and provide -- i guess the best way to put it is to use the government to provide the best solution possible that they are able to do. often what happens, and i sort of mentioned this earlier, the efficiency of regulation is not there compared to some of the different policy approaches that they could use. what you end up with is inefficient, costly regulation that really does not actually address the problem at the end of the day. host: as far as the process itself, just for folks to understand at home, what is the process of putting a regulation into effect? guest: i think that is part of why relation is so inefficient and ineffective. what happens is the agency has to propose the rule. they will publish that and allow

the public to comment on it. then, they have to take those comments and reconsider the rule that the issued in light of those comments, address those comments and a final rule. that process can take years because there is also, even before rule is approach, there is a lot of economic that has be done to figure out if we are even coming close to regulating this in the right way. it is a very time-consuming process. one thing to keep in mind, and something we just all with the supreme court recently striking down the osha vaccine mandate, is that it can be challenged in court. even if a rule is issued, it can be several years before it actually goes into effect and clears the court and is felt by folks. host: the story just took place yesterday. it is about the biden administration saying that there will be mercury pollution rules

reinstated that were weakened under trump. guest: it is a good illustration of another unique feature of regulatory possible -- regulatory legislation. the biden administration is proposing to rollback a trump rule. it is a problem for a certainty standpoint for businesses and everybody, really. i think everybody should be concerned about that. because these things are not being done through congress, they are sort of help to the whims of whoever is in the white house at the time. host: the report that is available online, there are several charts to take a look at it. there is a total cost by month. we are showing folks the chart,

but it is showing a spike in month 11 of mr. biden's first european can you describe that and the impact? guest: that is the motor vehicle ruled dimension. that is $180 billion. $201 billion is showing that that is 90% of it. we did not expect that rule to come out in the first year. usually the first year is when the administration is laying the groundwork for more substantive relate run. it was sort of a surprise to see that come out when it did. we will probably -- it will probably be one of the most excessive regulations will see during his entire time and it is by far the most expensive individual rule that we have tracked going all the way back to 2005. host: basic flatline in the trump administration, the obama ministration -- administration

showing a late a small spike. guest: like i say, it is the ramping up sort of phase. it was unique with the biden administration that they put out this role. they published it on the last day of 2021. within the last few weeks of the first year in office, they put this rule out. host: here is evan in maryland, and independent line. you are on with our guest, stan bosch -- dan bosch. caller: i just went to make a quick comment and i'm kind of disappointed in this administration for seeming to push the effort of emissions control onto citizens we don't seem to have any sort of strict admissions -- emissions when it comes to shipping low-end consumer goods from china on ships with bunker oil. is that seem appropriate -- does that seem appropriate? guest: i think the problem with

regulating these emissions is that they have to be done as a sort of one-off basis. to be done by industry, by source. as i mentioned earlier, it takes forever to regulate all the things you need to regulate, then it an efficient way to do it. something that would be better something that prices carbon into the market, something like a carbon tax or some other kind of pricing mechanism would be better and more evenly distribute the cost. i realize you mentioned things related to what china might be doing. it is to that she is difficult for the u.s. government to regulate anything that has to do with what another country might be doing. host: from christian in organ, democrat line, good morning. you are next. caller: the morning. dan bosch, correct? guest: yes. caller: i have a couple

questions for you. i am looking at the tag at the bottom, american action forum. out of curiosity, i'm not very sure about the american action forum. i'm assuming they pay your salary, is that correct? guest: yes, i am an employee there. caller: that's right. in regards to regulation, hello? there is a reason the epa has set standards for drinking water, pollution that gets pumped out in the sky, right? it is regulated, right? guest: sure. caller: wouldn't that be a problem? there is a reason they have relations, right? guest: i'm not advocating for getting rid of regulations, especially like the safety of drinking water. the only point that i'm trying

to raise through this research and other research that we do here is that it is a trade-off. we need to consider the economic impacts the risks to health and public safety. it is all about finding the right balance to have regulations. it is not that all regulations are bad or things like that, it is just that we need to find the right balance. host: how is that balance achieved and what is it look like? guest: specifically when indices -- industries try to find that balance, they look at the cost indexes and they consider what the benefits will be. that is a fair approach to doing it. but one interesting aspect of it is that since agencies are doing that, they are sort of incentivized to maybe underreport the cost and then they are sort of incentivized to not necessarily inflate benefits, but find as many as possible, even if they are not directly related to the

regulation. it is kind of a tricky balance. they try to do the best they can with the resources they have, but it is all about finding that right benefit -- right balance of cost and benefits. host: melissa in iowa, independent line. caller: hi, things for taking my call. i guess i have a really funny regulation question to dan brashear. explain to us why the biden administration put in a regulation that you can be an illegal alien, kill people, are suppose to be deported for that, and they give them leniency to be able to stay here. that is totally, totally wrong. guest: i appreciate the question. i'm not sure i'm familiar with that specific regulation that they put forward that allows that to happen, but certainly the agencies have to do what they think is best for the

country. they are trying to find the right balance of what is an appropriate level of immigration and why it is important for our economy. they need to work on those kinds of issues. host: we have a question of twitter. there were so many regulations strip roi by the previous administration that nothing is safe, from our wallets to our drinking water to our politicians. president biden is trying to bring some security and our lives by controlling the predators the right protects. as far as the previous administration, is that accurate? guest: he certainly put an emphasis on direct elation, but i don't think it's fair to say that's entirely the case. if you look at their final numbers, they actually invoked for the billion dollars in cost throughout their four years. it's not like they were cutting away everything. they were so regulating as well. host: the second point, as far as mr. biden and the idea of

security and protection, the new regulations set that you talk about, what about that prospect? guest: i would just caution folks to think that often people say that we need galatian for this. they think this will be the ideal solution. oftentimes, regulation is not the ideal solution. it could be part of the solution, specifically because people tend to think regulation is a utopian decision and it is really a compromise, like any other policy, about finding the right balance. host: if not regulation, what other ways could you achieve the same results? guest: congress could step in. one thing they could do to help these agencies is given the authorities they need to regulate things in a better way. a good example is the epa uses the clean air act to regulate climate emissions.

it was designed for those kind of things. it is not a sort of one-off industry regulation, whereas a broader authority that might limit the epa to the emissions they are allowed to regulate put some guardrails route how they identify costs and benefits elated to that would be a better solution. host: in massachusetts, democrat line. caller: good morning. i love the fact that you folks have these think tank folks come on. one thing i do when i see a name come up as i pull up on the internet and look at their funding. our friends there at the american action forum get their money from insurance companies, the american petroleum institute, pharmaceutical companies, quality nursing home care, americans for job security. so, dan, how much of a balance

can you offer on regulations when you in fact are paid by big business? thanks for letting me share that. guest: i prescient that. it's a good question. we are a private organization. people are allowed to donate to us if they feel that we reflect the principles that they support and they think we develop a work. for me personally, what funding comes and has no effect on the work i do in the research i do. i get that you can look at an organization and your own conclusion, but i just caution jumping the gun and thinking that someone is totally biased or unreasonable just based on where they get their funding from. host: we talked about this earlier about the paperwork hours involved, the chart reflected in the report that you put out, with spikes in months six and 10. can you elaborate on? guest: those were couple of the

osha mandates that i mentioned earlier, with the covid vaccine. one was for health care workers that went into effect -- or was issued in the summer. the second one was the osha mandate on employers and centers that use medicare funding that required employees be vaccinated. that was all in november. there was a lot of paperwork costs involved in making sure the records on employees are up-to-date and that kind of thing. host: dan bosch of the american action forum. he is the regulatory policy director. in delaware, independent line. caller: mike, is about biden thing out the -- my comment is about biden king out the solar panels many fractured in india. i think it is totally asinine

and they should be stopped. guest: i appreciate that view. i'm not familiar with that. it sounds more like a trade issue, which is a little bit outside of my wheelhouse. i think that you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that. host: from early on, the administration, elaborate on how they approached it. they call it modernization on how they approached it. talk about the memo and how it impacts what they do as far as regulation. guest: this is exciting for me because it is getting into the weeds of rulemaking. this prescribes how the white house will review regulations. i don't know if a lot of folks know, but for executive agencies, which are specifically cap agencies that we all know, those rules are sent to the white house to be reviewed before they are published. there is an office at the white

house that reviews those rules to make sure the analyses have been done correctly and that what the agency is proposing or finalizing actually meets the objectives that the administration wants to achieve. what this memo did is that it discussed shifting how reviews across our cash costs and benefits and how agencies review those. it talks about disadvantaged communities and things like climate change. at the end of the day, what effects they will have practically is that it will allow agencies to claim even more benefits for the regulations, as opposed to cost. i think the goal of the biden administration in doing that is that the rules will look more beneficial than they may be actually are and that will help them succeed in courts when they are challenged. host: two extent tenant

regulations take the legal challenge and order the steps for regular and sting in place? guest: i don't have specifics on that. i note that one of the major rules, those often end up getting challenged, because there is some industry -- the agency has overstepped its bounds or has not considered the cost of the rule vis-a-vis the benefits. we often see these challenges in court. we are seeing with this current supreme court that we have that they seem to have a lot more interest in the kind of rules that i mentioned. just a couple weeks ago, they block the osha met -- the osha vaccine mandate. they're going to review the definition of water in the united states. they're going to hear a case about the epa wanting to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. i think that is going to be a pretty active area for them. host: california, democrats

line. caller: the morning and thinks for taking my call. -- thanks for taking my call. my question to him is whether he understands that regulations are key part to capitalism working? you sign-up, you go and sell an item. people who come have to be protected. that is where regulations are there. when you start talking about reducing regulations, you're talking about not protecting the people. the other part i want to mention is when urinalysis comes out, you mention people with money. to me, when you goad to those types of questioning, questioning whether there is cause benefits, people do not equate to money.

[indiscernible] that doesn't happen anymore. lobbyists will pay our congressman, puts money in his pocket so he will vote in favor of that company and not the people. host: jerome in california. guest: just back to the point i made earlier, i'm certainly saying that relation has a vital role in our society. i don't think anyone wants to be rid of all regulation. regulation has proven to be effective. but i do think a good example is with the covered mandates. have been trying to figure out what is the right balance, should people be masking all the time, masking when --where other protocols we should be putting in place? in the future, we don't how these things are going to play out. it is important that agencies take a position that they are willing to learn from as they go and adjust the balance of regulation as they need to to

more benefit society. i've -- we also need to have a strong economy. host: washington, d.c., democrats line. hello. caller: we want to have a balance with regulation. we are finding that this can be difficult. in the meantime, i'm going to give you a for instance. when there was emissions control in california, they have some very strict rules because they dealt with a lot of smog. i was in california back in the 70's when they actually had to close down the government buildings because of the smog on a workday. the carmakers, as you know, have agreed to the california rules and did not even when it struck down. the last administration struck those rules down. he also talked about the

process, the elongated process for roofing rules. if you don't has tickled her input, then you are ignoring the people who are making the goods and services, and they may have valid points. congress cannot do all of that, all of the research that it takes to get into the details. you have to have a process. maybe you can shorten the stakeholder process, but then does that give them enough time to put in their rules and do what they need to do? you haven't yet explained how you are going to try to achieve that process and give everybody the input, protect the public, and you have one that is effective and efficient and preserves free enterprise. host: thank you for the call. guest: that's a really good question. he certainly raise a great point. it takes a long time to go through the rulemaking process. that is by design. it is supposed to take a long

time. agencies are supposed to be doing the and implementation of the laws congress passes. what has happened is that congress passing fewer laws, the agency has lost direction. they feel like they need to address certain problems to an extent. certainly, they do. they don't have the right tools because they're using authorizations that are decades-old and were designed -- were not designed for the problems they need to be today. i'm still not advocating for getting rid of public input in the rogatory process. i think it is incredibly valuable and that is probably one of the best features of the rulemaking process. i think what would help agencies is of congress gave them a little bit more specific direction on how they are supposed to do some of these things. host: to that point that is reflected as far as the viewer, this is susie saying that somewhere there is a good argument for congress to be more proactive, but where? guest: i think climate change is certainly a prime example.

the fear i have about some of the regulations being issued by this administration around climate change is that people will then shrug and say, ok, we have done all we can do on climate change. if you look at how effective regulations are on reducing emissions because they are going on a one-off industry basis, they are not nearly as effective as a broader solution that could be implement it more immediately. i would point to that as an example of where congress could step in and really help make a difference. host: from nick in virginia, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was thinking that reducing some of these regulations on oil and gas industry might be a good tool, as a weapon against russia and their aggressions in the ukraine. i was wondering if you could balance that against the climate, if it is worse,

increasing supply of oil and gas in order to drop the price, using that as a sector weapon. that is something they were doing about 18 months ago. i know that russia's economy took a huge hit from that. if we removed some of those regulations, maybe that could be used as an effective weapon gets the ukraine -- or against russia. guest: i'm certainly not a foreign policy expert. i don't know to what extent removing a regulation today would have an immediate impact on russia's decision with what they're doing in the ukraine and what they're looking to do over the next several months, just because regular often take a while. the impact of removing or adding a regulation takes a while to be felt. maybe it is something the administration is considering. i think if they felt the payoff was worth it, they may consider it it may also be a case that it

would do to little impact than when it's necessary. host: from ryan in iowa, independent line. you are a. caller: the question i have is about when you're talking about balancing cost of benefits. do you mean with cost? is it all financial? perhaps you think about humane concerns and what are the criteria for what your costs are? is all based on economic concerns? guest: not necessarily. sometimes there costs considered by agencies that are not monetized, so sometimes they put a value on lives and safety and that kind of thing, but often what they will do is talk about the obvious benefits that comes from making sure the people are safe or preventing moral hazards from being introduced into the market.

agencies certainly try to take those into account. when it comes to benefits as well, they certainly also look at -- one of the reasons why we track cost so closely is that agencies don't often provide a similar estimate in the same qualifiable way of the benefits. that is often because benefits are less based on economics and more based on values. host: one more call. this is dustin from wisconsin. caller: hi. we have lost 850,000 people in america to covid. you are talking about less regulations around covid. i would like to know what those are and at what point do we need more people debt? -- did -- it'sdead? guest: didn't say less circulation's around covid. one of the unique things is being done is being dictated by

local organizations. i'm certainly not advocating for allowing people to be more subject to covid, but a lot of those decisions don't actually fall to the federal government. host: dan bosch with the american action forum. thank you for a time. guest: thank you for having me. host: several events free to keep your eye on for the c-span network today. today at 10:00, a senate panel taking a look at covid issues and mental health and substance abuse. you can see that on c-span3 or watch our full coverage on our c-span now app. there will be nominations for the director of the budget. you can see that on c-span, online, and on our app.

2:30, the senate hearing on broadband internet access, a hearing on funding and expanding that funding to the bipartisan infrastructure bill. he will hear from the congress or terry testifying before the senate appropriations subcommittee. that will be at 2:30. if you want to watch it, that will be on c-span3, as well as the other platforms. it is it for our program today. another edition of "washington journal" comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we are funded by these television companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed.

the vast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability and choice. it all starts with great internet. >> while supports c-span as a public service along with these television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the senate committee holds a hearing on the nominations to be director of office of management and budget and deputy director. watch live studding it 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or watch coverage on c-span now, our new video app. host: our first guest is gary kasparov. of "winter is coming: why vladimir putin must be stopped."